Since 8/1/1999

Revised: June 03, 2001

For problems or questions regarding this website contact jneedham@geneonet.com

Modified by Jim Needham Since 3/21/98, Copyright © 1998 - 2004 [Vector Graphics] All rights reserved.

Best if viewed with:

This site was originally  created by Joshua J. Lifrak &  Jason Reynolds and  previously updated by John  Bacon

Qwest has not opened its services to local competitors and so we don't have local phone service competition.  They are also withholding millions is fees from the City of Portland, triggering a budget shortfall and a cut in services. This editorial from the January 24, 2002 New York Times says the rest.


January 24, 2002


Fair Local Phone Rates


The New York Public Service Commission helped jump-start competition for local phone service yesterday when it ordered Verizon to further discount the wholesale rate at which it leases its lines to competing companies trying to enter the New York market. The move is not only beneficial to state consumers; it could be of vital importance to the nation's overall economy.
In recent years, healthy competition has revolutionized the market for many telecommunications products, from long distance to cellphone services. Local service, however, remains a near-monopoly, firmly in the hands of the Baby Bells, including Verizon, that were created by the breakup of AT&T in 1984 and control the "last mile" of wire into consumers' homes and offices. Nationwide, competitors to the Baby Bells provide local service to less than 10 percent of all phone lines, and only 5 percent of all residential lines.

It was not supposed to end up that way. One of the goals of the landmark 1996 Telecommunications Act was to unleash the same competitive forces on the $110 billion market for local phone service that had previously transformed the long-distance market. The Baby Bells were meant to lease parts of their networks to competitors for a "reasonable and just" wholesale rate. In return, the legislation allowed the Baby Bells to enter the long-distance market.

The danger now is that the bargain at the heart of the law will be betrayed ‹ that the Baby Bells will be able to provide long-distance service without honoring their obligation to open their home markets to real competition. Last month, however, proponents of competition finally had reason to cheer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asked the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider its decision to allow SBC, a local phone company, to provide long-distance service in Oklahoma and Kansas. The court found that SBC was not keeping its side of the bargain imposed by the Telecommunications Act, since the wholesale prices it charged new entrants in the local market were too high to allow effective competition.