Opinion: FCC is right to review phone price policies

It is right for the Federal Communications Commission and its chairman, Michael Powell, to review current wholesale pricing policies to ensure they're still appropriate as the marketplace changes.

To cling to a nostalgic view of telephony in today's marketplace is a recipe for even greater turmoil in the telecommunications industry. The editorial writers at the St. Petersburg Times need to realize that consumers are adopting alternative technologies like cable and wireless at a rapid rate. Further, in the Tampa Bay region competitors have done exactly what the 1996 Telecommunications Act envisioned -- they have built their own networks and used Verizon's network only as a transitional device. The loop rates first established by the Florida Public Service Commission had the desired effect.

After spending more than $4-billion to open our network to competitors, the last thing Verizon wants to do is disconnect them. We want competitors to use our network because it helps recover our enormous investment, but we expect them to pay a fair price for doing so. Today's federal rules force Verizon and other local companies to provide access at rates that are well below the cost of providing the service.

The world Russell Frisby and CompTel envision is not sustainable. Competitors getting a cheap ride on our network have no incentive to invest. And it doesn't even make sense for Verizon to invest if we can't get a fair return. This false competitive scenario discounts the innovation that investment brings. Under the CompTel business model, the economy weakens, our telecommunications system withers and the country stays mired in one place.

Frisby works diligently for AT&T, MCI and his other members, but he needs a strong cup of coffee. Verizon has done nothing to keep its "local-service competitors at bay... ." The local market has been opened up but, unlike the long-distance market, unreasonable pricing of our network has been the lever. Long-distance companies can and do charge companies like Verizon to use their long-haul networks, and no one tells them what they should charge. They let the market determine that for them.

It would be wise to ask Russell Frisby just exactly what the endgame is. The truth is that members of CompTel think something for nothing is a pretty good deal indeed. We believe the FCC knows better and is right to consider returning pricing sanity to one of this country's most important industries. Only then will competition be fair and square -- for customers, competitors and Verizon.
-- Alan F. Ciamporcero, president, Verizon, Southeast Region, Tampa

Here's a deal for you

Re: Hold the phone, Jan. 19.

I have a great idea and I wanted your opinion. I think that the St. Petersburg Times has a local monopoly and uses this monopoly position to charge excessive prices for the daily newspaper, similar to what Verizon does with local phone service. Since there is effectively only one local newspaper in Pinellas County, you must be a monopoly. I think we need another local paper, not one from Tampa, but one from right here in Pinellas County. I would like to start that paper, and I demand your help. I plan to only write and edit articles and sell some advertisements. That's the extent of the investment that I am willing to make.

Here's my offer. I would like the Times to print and distribute my paper. I am willing to pay you for this service, but you can't make a profit on this and you can only charge me enough to recover some of your costs. You see, as a monopoly, federal and state regulators must force you to allow me unfettered access to your investment. Those are the rules. And don't worry about the real cost you will incur. You will not be allowed to recover those costs.

It sounds like a fair way to do business, doesn't it? This may be the only chance most Pinellas County citizens have of seeing competition for their local newspaper. May I hear from you?
-- Kevin McGonigle, Palm Harbor

A compromise on abortion issue

Re: New trends in abortion, old debate, Jan. 21.

Science has not been able to objectively refute that life begins at conception and that the embryo is a living person with a soul. This fundamental moral law, the "right to life," has existed for thousands of years. The Supreme Court concerns itself with constitutional laws, depends on fallible human judges and is not supreme to God's laws.

Of course all women (and men) have a right to vote, a right to equal justice and a right to control their bodies, which God created and gave them as a special gift. Adults must also take ethical and legal responsibility for all their acts. "Rights" for rights' sake, is foolish without moral responsibility.

If consenting adults claim a right to have unprotected sex, they must also take responsibility for any sexual disease they may pass on to others. And if, by this procreative act, a human offspring happens to result, they should be morally responsible for its care and welfare. "Rights" are not one-way or one-sided privileges. It's not about your right to choose -- it's about what is chosen.

We are stewards, not owners, of the gift of life that God has entrusted to us. The gift of life is not ours to dispose of, to terminate, as if it were merely some kind of disposable commodity.

In order to establish scientific consensus as to when a human life actually exists, I propose that we first consider when life ends. When a person is brain-dead -- that is, when no brain waves exist -- he is declared legally dead, even if the heart is still pumping blood. Therefore, in order to untangle this issue, we should -- at a minimum -- accept this definition for the life of the human fetus. Scientists generally agree that the fetus does not have a functioning brain until the first four weeks of development. If we can agree on this definition, then laws could be established to restrict abortions to prior to the first full month, if the life of the mother is not at risk. (While I am clearly against all abortions, this reasonable compromise may, at least, save millions of humans who cannot defend themselves.)
-- R.T. Fertig, Largo

Society's strange value system

Re: Would-be turtle savior faces felony, Jan. 18.

As many individuals recognize this as "Sanctity of Life" week, perhaps we should interject the words "Especially Human Life." As a pet owner, Humane Society supporter, and amateur wildlife photographer, I am still amazed at society's value system that would seek to impose a five-year federal prison sentence on Peter Daniel Alberdi for possible harm to a loggerhead turtle hatchling, while at the same time allow the deaths of unborn human babies to occur without a hint of wrongdoing. Albeit the potential loss of an endangered species such as the loggerhead is never applauded, likewise the loss of millions of unborn babies should not go unacknowledged.

If I may paraphrase what Jesus said in Luke 12:6-7: "Are not five sparrows (loggerheads) sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten by God? . . . Fear not therefore: You (humans) are of more value than many sparrows (loggerheads)."
-- Ken R. Hall, Largo

Roberts is a day-brightener

Re: If columnist intended to provoke, she did.

The Jan. 16 letters reviling Diane Roberts' Floridian commentary about the Jeb Bush inauguration were, unintentionally, almost as amusing as her column. The main difference is that she is witty in getting her opinion across and these letter writers are practically foaming at the mouth in self-righteous indignation. It's the usual "best defense is an offense," hurling abusive comments about her mental health, flinging the typical "if you don't like it here, go somewhere else" and sniping that "Democrats are a bunch of losers, we won, you lost, so nyah, nyah, nyah." And as always happens, they resurrected references to Clinton's bad behavior to shore up their comments. I'll bet they didn't even get the "good Republican mink coats" reference.

Thank you, St. Petersburg Times, for printing both liberal and conservative opinions and thank you, Diane Roberts, for brightening my day whenever I see your byline on a commentary.
-- Nancy Frioud, Tarpon Springs

One-way thinkers

Re: If columnist intended to provoke, she did.

I might as well say upfront, so the pundits can prepare their venomous darts for me, that Diane Roberts wrote a great article. What seems to escape the critics is that her article was satire.

After reading the letters, I have revised my theory that the art of satire is dead in America. What appears to be dead are the brains of many of your readers. Sadly, they are apparently so overwhelmed by sound bites and gory, violent in-your-face movies and TV, that innuendo escapes them.

One of the letter writers requested no more of this kind of tripe. May I ask, therefore, just what kind of tripe he prefers? Ironically, it is this kind of logic and mind-set that horrifies most people who see the decline of America not with the liberals or free-thinkers but with those among us who think only one way is the right way -- their way.
-- Terry Neal, Tampa

Disturbing density

Re: Philadelphia, N.J.: Iggles, cheese steaks and cheese steak eaters, Jan. 17 and Future columns will come with subtitles for the humor-impaired, Jan. 20, columns by Howard Troxler.

We are in deep "do-do" when even a professed "college professor/writer" and an "ad executive" among others, are too obtuse to get the drift of Troxler's absolutely hilarious column on Philly and New Jersey. It's a sad commentary on the intelligence of the general populace and more evidence of the "dumbing down" of America!
-- G. Williams, St. Petersburg

The 'duh' factor

Re: Howard Troxler.

I thought the Jan. 17 column was hilarious. Good clean media fun. Even more hilarious were the followup letters he received from readers criticizing his tongue-in-cheek poke at Philadelphia, that is, the reference to the city being in the state of New Jersey. Are all of these "duh" readers from the state of New Jersey or from Philadelphia?
-- Jerry DeClercq, Largo

Going overboard on the Bucs

Watching TV and reading the paper, I couldn't help but notice the incredible Bucs coverage. Is there nothing else happening in Tampa/St. Petersburg?

Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for the Bucs, but I think we have officially gone into overdrive on Bucs media coverage. Monday evening I turned on the news to see at least 20 minutes of Buc's stories. Even the lead story was Bucs related.

It especially bothered me that the Bucs' victory took precedence over Martin Luther King Jr. Day. It made it very clear just how the media views "important" events in the community. With the United States on the brink of war, I can only hope that we remember men such as Martin Luther King Jr., who wanted so much for this country and the world.
-- James Zervios, Clearwater

Solving that twin trouble

Re: Bucs' win.

Now the next time the Barber twins are buying flowers, the clerk in the TV commercial will be able to tell them apart. How? When the girl says, "But this could be him," all Ronde has to do is put on his championship hat and say, "But I'm not, and I'm going to the Super Bowl."
-- Casey Krajza, Largo

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page