Fixing distortions in phone rates will boost choice
Published March 11, 2004
Re: Competition? Sounds phony now, March 7.
A recent Times editorial suggested that Verizon has been inconsistent in supporting rate rebalancing at the state level and seeking to reduce wholesale price controls at the federal level. Not true.
Correcting pricing distortions in both the wholesale and retail markets for telecommunications will end the tortured economics used to gin up arbitrage competition and establish long-lasting conditions for real choice.
Florida's Legislature addressed the problem of subsidized retail pricing in the consumer market last year. That system made sense in the monopoly era. Now, rebalancing will stimulate the market for residential competition. But it is important not only where new companies compete but also how they compete. We need policies that encourage companies to invest in their own facilities, not just resell the incumbent's services.
Since 1996, competitors have been steadily investing in their own equipment. Today, there are eight competitive switches capable of serving the mass market in the six-county Tampa Bay region. These competitors do not need Verizon's equipment to complete their customer's calls. They are poised and ready to consider residential customers once the measures created by the Legislature and passed by the Florida Public Service Commission take effect.
Meanwhile, the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., told the Federal Communications Commission last week - for the third time - that the strategy it has been pursuing to encourage competition is not lawful and should be repealed. If the FCC finally listens to the court, it will mean that competitors like those mentioned above will experience little change in their daily business. However, those competitors who have chosen not to invest in their own equipment will face a choice: make capital investments in their business or negotiate with the incumbent companies on a market price for the use of the network.
Regardless, no competitors will be denied access to Verizon's equipment. Competitors that have already made network investments will enjoy greater options for their business plans. Meanwhile, cable companies, wireless providers and voice over Internet protocol services will progress unimpeded by the Washington decision while being enhanced by the Florida decision.
Correcting both the retail and the wholesale mechanics in Florida is entirely consistent with free market economics. It will put the state at the leading edge of telecommunications competition, investment and jobs, and will end the reckless scheme that has created disingenuous, unsustainable competitors.
-- Alan Ciamporcero, president, public policy and external affairs, Southeast region, Verizon, Tampa
Court ruling puts competition at risk
Re: Competition? Sounds phony now, editorial.
Floridians are now saving as much as $450-million every year thanks to competition for local phone service. But all that could end soon if an appeals court decision is left to stand. The Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. recently overturned a Federal Communications Commission decision that enabled competitors to access the facilities still controlled by the Bell monopolies at a reasonable and fair price.
This decision will put at risk all the progress telecommunications competition has seen since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and all the savings customers have received. The court's decision effectively pulls the plug on competition - and on all the consumers who have chosen a competitive alternative.
This is the legacy being left by the Bush administration. Thanks to the anticonsumer, proderegulation policies fostered by President Bush, consumers will soon be paying billions more on their phone bills, competition will take a skydive, and network investment and technological advancement will decrease.
Without competitive market pressures, where are the incentives for the Bell monopolies to move forward with new technologies? And all this from an administration that is obsessed with free markets and small business creation. It seems all these guys care about are granting favors to their rich buddies.
Thanks to the Florida Public Service Commission's procompetition rules currently in place, as of June 2003 (the most recent period for which data is available) competitors served 13 percent of the local phone market in Florida - up from 6 percent in June 2000. As a result of this increase in competition, Floridians now save about $450-million a year, according to a recent study by the Consumer Federation of America. These savings will go down the drain if the FCC's rules requiring the Bell monopolies to open their voice networks to competition are eliminated.
Not only did the court stop competition dead in its tracks, but it also found that the FCC acted unlawfully when it delegated a large decisionmaking role to state regulators. Who else is in the best position to determine what is best for competition state-by-state? Florida, for example, has a different telephone market than Nebraska. How can one national rule suffice? The FCC was right to give state regulators the power and flexibility to make these decisions.
It is vital that Florida's PSC joins the fight to overturn the court's decision and uphold the FCC's order. We urge it to do so.
-- Bill Newton, executive director, Florida Consumer Action Network, Tampa
Get the full story on church abuse
On Feb. 27, the Catholic Church publicized the National Review Board Report and the John Jay Study on Sexual Abuse that took place during the past 50 years in the Catholic Church.
Both reports were commissioned by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. I was really surprised that it took the St. Petersburg Times five days to fire another salvo at the church for not acting quickly enough and not doing enough to correct the abuse (A "terrible history," March 3.).
In 2002 a charter was established by the National Conference of Bishops for the protection of our young people, and it was intended for all dioceses in the United States. Among other measures it includes:
1. Acting on allegations of abuse immediately, including reporting allegations of abuse of a minor to the appropriate public authorities.
2. Putting in place programs to make church institutions safe environments for children and young people.
3. Reaching out to victims and having victim advocates to present their case.
4. Removing from ministry anyone proven to have harmed the young.
5. Careful screening of candidates for Holy Orders and all employees and volunteers who may have contact with youth.
Long before the charter was established, the Diocese of St. Petersburg and other dioceses have implemented procedures and guidelines to deal with allegations of sexual conduct by church personnel and volunteers, be they clergy, religious or lay persons. These guidelines of the Diocese of St. Petersburg comply with the reporting laws of the state of Florida and with the provisions of the charter established by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops for all dioceses in the United States. You will find the guidelines for our diocese on our Web site: www.dioceseofstpete.org
The press accounts of sexual abuse among clergy miss half the story. The impression usually left by the media account is that the sexual abuse of minors is a recent or ongoing scourge in the Catholic Church. By nearly all accounts, most of the known cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests occurred well before the 1990s. Most occurred some 20 or 30 years ago although just coming to light now. There have been far fewer cases since 1990 due to most dioceses implementing special procedures and guidelines. As a result, sexual abuse by clergy has declined significantly in the past decade and a half.
Before 1985, society in general, as well as the Catholic Church, did not understand that sexual abuse is a pathology. It affects every area of our society, including married people and all the various professions - teachers, journalists, athletic coaches and so forth. The clergy are highlighted, however, because people rightly expect a higher standard of conduct from us. Sexual abuse is not only a pathology, it is a sin, a serious sin and a crime.
Before 1985, bishops would refer clergy accused of sexual abuse to a psychologist who would give his opinion whether such a person should be returned to ministry. Of course, if he was a serial abuser, it would not take a psychologist to tell us he should be removed from ministry. Unfortunately, some bishops mismanaged this situation and even transferred abusers from one parish to another. Once the psychological community realized the seriousness of the problem, most bishops began to draw up policies and guidelines to meet this challenge.
The Catholic Church is the only institution that has ever commissioned such a complete report of sexual abuse as the National Review Board Report and the John Jay Study. The church wants people to know that it is trying to be as open as possible about this problem and has put in place a comprehensive response of abuse of minors by clergy.
-- W. Thomas Larkin, bishop emeritus, Diocese of St. Petersburg
Stewart is a government scapegoat
I'm sorry, but I think that Martha Stewart was targeted by the government and used as a scapegoat in its belated investigation into stock market fraud.
No people I know, in their right mind, would fail to sell their shares if they knew they were going to tank. No one I know would not lie to stay out of jail.
So many people are walking the streets of our country who have done far worse than lie to a so-called "government agent." If they put "government agents" in jail for lying, we could put a lot of Americans back to work building jails.
I really feel sorry for this lady. Her case should never have come to court.
-- Guy Nash, St. Petersburg
Where's the justice?
I must say I was shocked when the government brought charges against Martha Stewart, who sold stock on the advice of her broker. Now I am doubly shocked that she was found guilty, while Ken Lay of Enron has not faced prosecution, even though he made off with billions and devastated the savings of thousand of Enron investors and employees. It seems that because Ms. Stewart advocates a lifestyle few can emulate, she's become a subject for vilification.
One juror stated that perhaps it's a "victory for the little people." Do I detect a little prejudice? In the stock sale, Ms. Stewart made less than $50,000 in profit. Did the government decide to prosecute her because she's a powerful, wealthy woman? And a Democrat? Hers is a victimless crime, while others who apparently are getting off "scot free" have completely ruined the lives of many people.
Justice is lacking in this country these days.
-- Molly McGuire, St. Petersburg
On Martha's side
It is disgusting the way the media are having a feeding frenzy over Martha Stewart's conviction. They are playing it for all it's worth. Granted, she was convicted, but the television news is putting it all in the worst possible light.
When I first discovered her TV spots, I was delighted at all of the information she made available to women. I just wish she had been there for me when I was raising my family and doing a lot of entertaining.
I just hope Martha wins her appeal. Hang in there, Martha!
-- Shirley M. Day, St. Petersburg
Her critical error
Re: Martha Stewart.
One of the most critical mistakes highly intelligent people make is underestimating thebasic common sense of ordinary people.
-- Amy Dillon, Palm Harbor
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. 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 through our Web site at:
http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
