ATT is pushing a bill that could sharply reduce funding for E911 services in Mississippi. HB# 825 seeks to transfer most regulation of "landline" telephone services from the PSC to the federal government. The tax collected on landlines is the sole source of revenue for the E911 fund. E911 fund is nothing important- its just used by counties and cities to purchase radios and other telecommunications equipment for law enforcement and first responders. Copy of bill
ATT launched a strong offensive to pass this bill, arguing deregulation is needed to create a level playing field with cellphone and internet-based phone service companies. The bill is part of an overall strategy by ATT to pass similar legislation in other states such as Alabama, Kentucky, and Florida. The bill is assigned to the House Public Utilities Committee. HB# 825 states:
"A public utility of the type defined in Section 77-3-3 (d) (iii) which is regulated under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not be subject to any rule, regulation, or order promulgated by the commission, except for the provision of intrastate switched access service. The provisions of Section 77-3-23 shall not apply to such public utility regulated under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this sub- section." (Note: (d)(iii) is regulation of telecommunications services.).
This section (lines 337-344) thus ends most regulation of landline service by the Public Service Commission. While everyone is applauding the triumph of free-markets, deregulation, and other typical conservative principles (which I usually promote) there is one small question that needs to be asked: How will this affect E911 funding?
Landlines are taxed to support E911 services and equipment.* The Mississippi Wireless Communication Commission collects the tax and distributes the money to the E911 Council in each county. The council then provides funding to municipal and county agencies in that county to purchase 911-related equipment such as computers, dispatch consoles, and radios. E911 funding is a very important matter for law enforcement and county governments in Mississippi. Without it, there would be no money for 911 services and communication equipment.
However, the question must be asked: will this bill affect E911 funding? Section 77-3-35 of the Mississippi Code requires phone companies to provide telephone service to rural areas:
(4)(c)(i) An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide, upon reasonable request, primary single-line flat rate voice communication service to the premises of a permanent residence or business within its franchised service territory, if the costs, including, but not limited to, the costs of facilities, rights-of-way and equipment, of providing such service to the requesting party do not exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00)....
(ii) If the costs exceeds Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), as provided in and subject to subparagraph (i) of this paragraph (c), an incumbent local exchange carrier may not deny service on the basis of costs so long as sufficient funds to provide that services are available from contributions to aid in construction or the Mississippi portion of the applicable federal universal service fund program as administered by the commission...."
Does HB# 825 affect this part of the law? Does it repeal the universal service requirement or does it merely remove any means of enforcing it? It is estimated there are 30,000 rural landlines in Mississippi thanks to the universal service requirement. The lines carry higher costs but ATT did enjoy a decades-long monopoly in Mississippi. If such changes take place, taxes used to support the E911 fund will decrease. The federal government also pays a subsidy to Mississippi for rural phone service through the universal service fund. The fund paid Mississippi $260,533,000 in 2010, the most for any state. 2011 FCC Monitoring Report However, the FCC is making changes to the fund and it unclear what Mississippi's future funding will be. <"a href="http://www.usac.org/hc/">USAC website
If such is indeed the case, counties will face yet another wave of expenses when their budgets are already taking on water. It is no secret the E911 funds are shrinking due to the falling use of landlines as the Hinds County Board of Supervisors recently discovered. Removing the universal service requirement will only make the problem worse as more E911 revenue disappears. If the legislature passes this bill, it better be ready to provide another source of money for local governments. 911 isn't that big of a deal- until you need it.
*Monthly cellphone bills are taxed as well but the money is supposed to go towards Phase II E911 (GPS-tracking of cellphone when 911 call is made.).
28 comments:
I note there have been no links posted regarding the LSU basketball game yesterday? I'm just sayin'.
Powerful ATT lobby infamous for sugarcoating the agenda and leaving out consequence of their legislative actions.
AT&T is still pissed about the PSA denying their requested rate increase awhile back.
This is retaliation. Threaten 911 service and they have created thedrama needed to upset the customers.
I hope Kingfish stays on this like
a bit bull on Bert Case.
Since any tax is passed to the subscriber, the only thing AT&T would gain is revenge against the state. Stay on this KF.
The tax collected on landlines is the sole source of revenue for the E911 fund.
Not true. Some prepaid wireless phone service provders in Mississippi are now charging $1 in a separate line item for E911 each time $$$ are added to the account. It is only a matter of time before all wireless consumers are also charged via line item.
Furthermore USF and FUSF charges on the federal level are a major scam. Those funds are being spent by the FCC and other quasi-governmental bodies on a long list of bullshit that has nothing to do with extending tele-, wireless and data communication services into rural America.
The Mississippi E911 fund was not established to handle recurring expenses. It is a problem in Hinds, for example, because the Hinds Sups have completely screwed the poodle but, in theory, the funds are there to cover big picture system expansions, changes and upgrades.
Abuse of the E911 fund as a cheap backdoor check cashing equivalent for reckless out-of-control overspending county Supervisors doesn't bolster the argument for maintaining the status quo.
You've got to be kidding.
Dare I say that the Hinds County BOS would be involved in such.
What are the details between Graham and Tracfone ?
Not all counties treat their E911 funds as Hinds does either. Madison has not borrowed against it. I don't think Rankin has either after reviewing the minutes.
Goodbye slush fund.
Anyone that believes AT&T wants a " more level playing field" is a fool.
This is how we have come to have to pay for television and soon for radio . This is why we can't own our own satellite dishes or have antenna as we once did.
There is no such thing as " public service" or " a public service" anymore. Everything is about profit.
Once upon a time, we understood that not everything can be about money.
Anybody with the sufficiend capital and engineering expertise can have their own satellite system. Who says you can put up your own antenna?
Sorry ~ Who says you can NOT put up your own antenna?
Sorry ~ Who says you can NOT put up your own antenna?
This is how we have come to have to pay for television and soon for radio.
You pay for television because you choose to pay for television.
Seek professional help for your handout mentality.
If you believe that people can get relevant content (video, news, music) OTA for just the cost of an antenna in 2012, you're delusional and your time is better spent getting back to your Lawrence Welk reruns on PBS, OTA "snow" and all.
The battleground today is how you access content now and in the future. What is your mode of connectivity to the content that you want? OTA? We covered that -- enjoy your 4 channels and I wish you continued continence.
If you're using anything other than an antenna, this is a problem you need to start thinking about. Are you connected wirelessly or wired? Is your wireless connection satellite or cellular? Is your wired connection copper, fiber or cable? Does your connection allow you to access the content you want and, if so, for how much longer? Is a larger connectivity provider trying to have exclusive content access to something that matters to you so that you will then be forced to take their connectivity to access the content you want? It's happening today and consumers better wake up and figure it out before it's too late.
The biggest connectivity providers (Comcast, DirecTV, Dish, Time Warner, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, AT&T w/ UVerse, Verizon w/ FIOS) are scrambling to lock down content and force you to subscribe to their mode of connectivity. For you sports fans, think about the recent (and continuing) issues with the availability of the NFL Network, MLB Extra Innings, WatchESPN, or any number of other exclusive carriage arrangements.
Content is moving to IP-based transmission. It is a faster and more efficient way to provide content. Your satellite, cellular, copper, fiber or coax connection is becoming - to the extent it isn't already - simply an Internet connection. Content is available to you at the other end of that connection. Are we going to allow connectivity providers to determine the content available to subscribers? And if so, why?
Here's where this ties back to E911 and HB 825. Are we going to have a state-level regulatory backstop for consumer complaints and oversight of these providers once everything is IP-based? In HB 825, AT&T says "No." But maybe that's okay. When you have a problem with AT&T in the future, you can just call them right up and they'll snap to attention to fix whatever issue you have. And if they don't, why you can show them. You can change connectivity providers and learn to like whatever exclusive content they offer. That'll learn 'em real good.
As for E911, KF is right. Although landline fees aren't the sole source of E911 funding, they provide many of those dollars. And if AT&T is allowed to disconnect 30,000 "high cost" customers directly or constructively (likely in rural or remote areas), that means 30,000 fewer lines to contribute to E911 each month. Furthermore, I'd be surprised if the number is actually that low. A lot of Mississippians live in rural communities that are a long way from their nearest CO.
BTW, in case it isn't clear I'm not asking for a handout for content. I'm willing to pay for it, but cannot stand having my connectivity provider tell me what content I can access or having someone else's provider tell me what I cannot access.
Chicken Little where does it say anywhere that AT&T is going to "disconnect" 30,000 high cost customers?
@11:39 - Oh, you're right. AT&T wants to end the universal service requirement, but the warm & fuzzy AT&T execs in Dallas intend to keep providing service to customers in high-cost areas of Mississippi on the same terms simply out of the goodness of their hearts. Actions mean more when you aren't required to take them, after all. (AT&T has a history of this sort of thing, you know.) In fact, they could have served even more of those customers if the bad old state hadn't been forcing them to do it all this time. They're just a bunch of swell guys, really, and meanies like Kingfish have spoiled what was going to be a great surprise for their customers.
Wake up! That's not rain on your leg, and he's not going to stop with just the tip.
You know NOTHING about telco economics. Phone companies like AT&T don't disconnect their already connected landline cash cows. I'd mention sunk cost and other facts of the business but you are such a fucking idiot it isn't worth it. Toodles.
AT&T=mafia
Perhaps these Commissioners need to attend some of their industry conferences. They don't know what they regulate. Bentz told people on the coast that he regulates the phone service provided by Cable One. I think these PSCs need a training class like Justice Court Judges have. Let them learn what VoIP is. Then they need to actually read the bill before they comment on it.
Gorsh @12:30, you sure are a smart one, aren't you? Dumb ole me thought that there were ongoing expenses after the initial capital costs of installing the network. I'm such an idiot that I thought telcos routinely upgraded their switches and facilities and had begun retiring copper and replacing it with fiber. That's capex, of course, but maybe in your world it's all done for free.
Dumber still was my thinking that AT&T's attempted rate increases (one reason for their attempt to neuter the PSC here) showed that there were ongoing costs for telcos even after the initial captial spend. Seems like the PSC's order denying AT&T's attempted rate increase in 2008 (and the subsequent appeal) discussed ways that AT&T could have supported the request with cost data. But I was probably just too ignorant to understand them big wurds. After all, you tell us that there are no costs because the "cash cow" customers are already connected and the "sunk cost" is a one-shot deal.
Since I'm so stupid here, you tell me. Was AT&T attempting a rate increase to offset rising costs, or was it just to increase their profits? Is AT&T not the benevolent monopolist you pretend that they are, or are you maybe not as smart as you want us to believe?
My apologies for being so dumb. It must be very difficult for an expert like you to be so smart in a world full of "fucking idiot(s)."
Sorry, KF - but it looks to me that you (and your buddy Cottenchicken) have both sided up against moving our laws into the technology age of this century. Actually, of the end of the last century. What this bill seems to do is allow AT&T to be treated as their actual competitors are treated. Cellular services, and the even more 'modern' internet protocal services are all exempted from PSC regulation. AT&T - while still providing the telephone poles, lines, and services that allow for landline telephone, and the switches that they use as do their competitors - also provide the same services via the technology that exists today.
The PSC was formed decades ago when all telephone was provided by two carriers - one that provided local service and one that provided long distance. All went across telephone lines. Because there was no competition, regulation was required.
Today, you can get telephone service from dozens, if not hundreds, of providers. The only one that is regulated is AT&T.
The fact that the TAXING process that the state has established that you are bitching about in this blog affects AT&T and evidently nobody else is not a reason to keep in place a creation of the 1930's.
IF - and I am not sure that your hypothesis is correct - this bill would eliminate E911 funding, then there are other avenues to keep this TAX in place. Frankly, I would be glad to see it gone. It came about a couple of decades ago as a way to give the state and counties more of our money, and funnel it through our telephone bills so that we wouldn't notice it.
As has been noted above, it is not anything that matters to AT&T. Certainly not a reason that they want this bill passed. The E911 fund that you cry about is nothing but a passthru for AT&T. Eliminating it (if in fact this bill does that) won't mean a penny to AT&T's bottom line. But it will save many Mississippians some dollars to their bottom line. And poor supervisors will have to admit that their spending habits (on friendly contracts like Airwaves in Hinds County) might have to be curtailed.
Oh, dang!
AT&T is no different than when they were back in the late 90's. They are preying on a new community that is the last of those left.
I'm curious to watch.
Thank you 10:51am. You saved me quite a bit of time.
Once upon a time, the public airways were understood to be an important vehicle of public information, culture, and education in a free society. It was thought that everyone should have access to information from the new mediums. The opportunity to expand our society's level of understanding about the world around was seen as key to our becoming one of the more advanced countries.
It was 1959 when I first heard of the goal some had to turn what was free into a profit opportunity. I remember how everyone in the room dismissed the " silly" notion that the public would EVER be willing to pay to watch TV much less listen to the radio. How very naive all but two of us in that room were! And, I was among the naive.
Our freedom won't be taken by force. That is a clear threat we can see. We will ( and in my opinion are) give it away one sentence in a bill at a time and with being sold the " snake oil" of those who do not have the best interest of our Nation as their primary objective.
*** YAWN ***
For those that think antenna's no longer work YOU are wrong. All you need is about a 2'piece of a 2x4, 3 or 4 coat hangers, a handful of screws and a cable to connect to your TV. About a $5.00 cost. You can pick up 7 stations (at least) and 17 different channels. The weather stations are on when you lose your DISH or Cable. One who has tried this and it works.
100am
bet your neighbors love looking at homemade antenna it too--
Nope, don't bother the neighbors, its so small it sits in the closet and no one sees it.
For those who have complained about the 911 tax. Remember this was voted on by you the people. In order to have E-911 a local election has to be held. This money pays for your 911 service.
And think about this, everyone pays, not just the property owner. It is charged on Cell phones also. So lets raise our property taxes some more, do away with the 911 tax and again it's a few paying for everyone.
Leave it like it is.
Post a Comment