Woman talking on the phone (photo from Congress Library/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images)
The simple old telephone service (Pots) dies slow death in the United States since the end of the century. The number of pots of pots culminated in 192.5 million in 2000; with June 2024Only 7.6 million lines of houses remained. For much of the 20th Century, almost every American household used only pots to make a phone call. Now, only 1.3% of households are based on pots to do so.
What happened? Consumers flock to the mobile and express the VOIP protocol – advanced platforms that did not exist during the edge of the monopoly kingdom of POTS. The total number of mobile lines in the US flooded Drinkers in 2004. Today, there are more than 388 million mobile lines in service. The number of VOIP lines passed pots 2013. There are now more than 64 million VOIP lines in the service.
This is not news for the tens of millions of Americans who cut their phone cable years ago and embraced mobile telephony or VoIP and all the advanced features they offer, such as Nationwide Calling and Go-Onerwhere Resencience of a Mell Phroow. Unfortunately, for some state -owned politics, a horse and the pots that are pots continue to relax, shaping the misinformation of the advanced communications sector. Worryingly, some states not only resisted the removal of outdated laws from their books. They are actively seeking to extend these rules to new communications technologies, which have been developed in a competitive market governed by a liberation framework. In this way, states will undermine investment in new networks, increase prices and eventually harm consumers. None of them is good for America. The heavy, heavy hands have never existed.
Go in your own way … or maybe not?
When it comes to the application of old rules to new communications technologies, California is at the forefront. Has refusal Requests for launching the rules of the time pots. pursue Set Voip as pots; and is finalized rule This will hold competitive bids such as Mobile and VoIP in a more punitive version of the quality of services originally designed for Ma Bell. At the same time, however, the Federal Committee on Communications (FCC), along with dozens of other states, have been actively involved in regulatory modernization It aims to abolish the rules to provide incentives and accelerate the development of modern networks. California’s approach is incorrect and fails to put customers first.
States sometimes choose to forge their own course on certain issues. This seems to be the most common in California than elsewhere. Indeed, the state has a history of choosing an alternative route on topics such as emissions and confidentiality. In many of these cases, however, California framed its actions as necessary to cover a perceived gap left by the federal inactivity, as it did when it passed the law on privacy after years of failure from Congress to do so, or go beyond and beyond the federals. California’s exemption allowing him to introduce Stricter Storss at risk of being revoked).
In terms of national importance, outrageous approaches create Collective action problemswhich stifles progress towards achieving a common federal goal. Securing a smooth and timely transition from pots was National check since early 2010When the FCC of Obama era started taking steps to relieve monopoly liabilities so that they can invest in modern networks and improve the services used by consumers. Each later FCC, under democratic and democratic leadership, has taken additional steps below this path. This reflects and promotes the country’s bilateral light approach to regulate advanced communications platforms at national level. Consistency and predictability are critical for maximizing investment, innovation and total profits for consumer welfare.
California has lost its way. Of Suggested Rules of Service Quality Explain how far the state is on these issues and how the ongoing pursuit of unique and extremely regulatory – agenda of communication services could prevent national transition efforts.
Welcome to California Hotel
The concept of quality quality rules may sound harmless, but the rules proposed in California are incredibly demanding and could end up hurting consumers rather than protecting them.
In short, California seeks to regulate the quality of the vocal services by applying patterns that govern how the providers of all ILK – Pots, Mobile and Voip – treat almost every aspect of the service, including how quickly they act in response to an installation request. Reporting and setting up holidays; crediting customers for service disorders; and how long does a customer service representative take the phone. In many cases, the proposed rules are stricterAnd the penalties more punitive than the rules designed only for pots, the outdated technology was developed and governed as a natural monopoly service.
Where is the beef? Numerous interested of all sizes They are infected by regulators because they do not provide urgent data that prove the real negative tendencies in the service holidays or the degradation of the quality of services. For example, many have supported that the interruption data listed by the regulators to support their rules generally fail to calculate the underlying cause of the disorder. Many times, a mobile or VOIP stop is due to loss of electricity, a common phenomenon In California, beyond the control of communications providers. For these reasons, the FCC has rightly forged a different approach, which supports investment in the credibility of the network and encourages cooperation between communications and electrical services to restore services.
At the same time, it seems that there has been little effort by the regulators in California to weigh the compliance costs for providers to the benefits that the proposed quality quality rules prefer to hand over to customers. This is especially important in the pots, the basis of which is rapidly shrinking. According to the latest data FCC, there are Less than 600,000 houses Subscriptions in California (population: 39.4 million). Prices will inevitably increase as service providers pass some of their highest cost of compliance in a smaller number of customers. Meanwhile, the cost of compliance for recent imposing standards on mobile and voip providers will also be partially transferred to customers, resulting in higher prices for them.
To the extent that some of these costs cannot be restored, there will be fewer funds available to service providers to invest in next -generation networks or invest in the same customer service tools required by the rules for motivation. This ultimately harm consumers and disappoints the early awareness of a primary goal to go ahead of pots so that new platforms are not burdened, directly or indirectly, by monopoly rules.
What will follow
California is not alone in arresting its feet in the transition away from pots. Numerous states There are still rules for pots. Some, after California’s lead, are also investigating whether they will regulate broadband, voip and mobile, such as the traditional telephone service.
Inevitably, these actions will cause lawsuits, with service providers sponsor This federal law restricts the state authority for regulating services they do not have. Even in the context of pots, arguments could be made that state efforts that prevent the fulfillment of national pots could also be prone to their preference.
A rich approach would be for state -owned politics to hear what consumers tell them about their communication preferences and react accordingly. In the case of vocal communications, consumers have voted on their feet for years. Unlike 50 or 100 years ago, when the pots ruled the world, there is no lack of choices for people to communicate with each other. And now with a satellite “directly to the cell“The technology released alongside the grant program through the broadband, access and development program (BEAD), which will facilitate the universal availability of broadband connections, there are few parts of the country where some form of communication platform is not available.
In this new environment, providers are aggressively competing with the quality of services, speed, delay, price and a number of other service parameters. The regulation is not a bad word, but in the advanced communications arena, the type of adjustment examined by California and others is not just necessary. If a customer feels frustrated by one voice or no voice, it can easily go to another. And that’s exactly what they do. Any action that prevents this dynamic should be categorically rejected because the unnecessary regulation of a competitive market will only harm consumers.
States may also receive a page from FCC and adopt a ”Delete, delete, delete“The mentality and start reviewing and actively abolishing regulations.
Finally, the appearance of recent regulatory actions in California only adds the urgent need for Congress to inform the federal communications law. This is delayed and critical now that the Supreme Court has made it clear that administrative services such as FCC can only act in accordance with specific delegations of the Congress of Power. An update that authorizes FCC to facilitate a smooth transition from the pots allowing it to prevent it also intensifies back regulatory actions such as those of California.
