Many have begun to discover the value of using the Internet as a low-cost alternative to regular phone service. And as such, the State Senate in California is taking a very close look at whether or not to deregulate the Internet phone services in their jurisdiction, taking a matter of generally accepted policy and giving it the force of law.
The bill in question would remove the authority of state agencies to regulate voice and data transmissions on Internet-enabled connections. The bill is drawing both support and criticism alike, with the state's response to both being that they're not actually planning to do anything all that much different from what they're doing right now, and that they plan to essentially make it clear that the current "hands-off" approach is the same approach they'll take in regard to future development.
Major names like AT&T, Verizon, and Cisco (News - Alert) are all behind the bill for much the same reasons that California's state senate appears to be – specifically, that it codifies what is essentially the normal standard of operations. This allows the major technology firms to better plan for the future by ensuring that no changes of regulations are likely to appear in the immediate future.
Consumer advocacy groups, meanwhile, believe this is essentially an abdication of the authority of the California Public Utilities Commissions, and would remove the requirements to provide basic land-line service to customers. This would affect low-income residents and people with hearing disabilities, neither of whom would have a force-of-law accommodation behind them.
Some have noted that the state senator involved in this particular venture, Alex Padilla, received no small amount of campaign contributions from AT&T (News - Alert). More specifically, AT&T was reportedly Padilla's fifth largest donor, with Padilla receiving $69,644 in total from telecommunications firms and relevant equipment suppliers in that time frame. Padilla was reportedly displeased with any connection between the two concepts, and in turn announced plans to amend the bill so as to "make it abundantly clear" that no existing regulations would be removed, but rather that the current, unofficial, playing field is to be the official one used in the future.
While there should always be some provision for those who want telecommunications service to have access to it, such a move needs to be balanced against the interests of those who provide such services. If they remain consistently unprofitable for too long, the point of providing such services--or the ability to provide them--is removed to match conditions. Hopefully, the deregulation will allow for rapid expansion and improved competition, which generally improves services to match. But the effects of this deregulation will bear careful watching over the next several months.
Edited by Carrie Schmelkin