The recent passage of Senate Bill 88 by the Kentucky State Senate has alarmed some with concerns they may soon find land line telephone service a thing of the past.
Senate Bill 88 is directed at deregulating certain aspects of communication services.
Lourdes Baez, communications director for the Senate Majority, said this bill will not leave rural homes without access to land lines.
“There has been an immense amount of misinformation,” said Baez.
According to Baez, there are protections in the bill which will not allow land lines in rural areas to be discontinued.
“Senator Paul Hornback-R made sure there were protections in the bill so that would not occur,” said Baez.
Baez said these protections would apply to rural areas where cell service is unreliable.
“The protection is with exchanges that have less than 5,000 houses in it that the Kentucky Public Service commission is obligating the companies to keep their minimum voice service,” said Baez. “So there is no danger of anyone losing their service. It’s for those exchanges with more than 5,000 houses, so it would ensure competition.”
Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) Director of Communications Andrew Melnykovych said the size of an exchange varies.
“You can have exchanges that are extremely large,” said Melnykovych. “It’s not what people think of as a phone exchange, which is the first three numbers of the seven digit number. An exchange can have more than one of those dialing groups in it… How large they are is determined mainly by engineering constraints, population density and geography.”
According to Baez, fears that people in rural areas could lose land line service have been unfounded.
Melnykovych said the PSC has not taken a position on the legislation.
“Our understanding of the legislation is there would be a process if a utility wanted to move away from land line service… There would have to be some demonstration that there was an adequate alternative to the traditional phone service,” said Melnykovych.
Melnykovych explained each specific situation would be considered on its own.
“It’s going to be very case specific, — I think it’s safe to say — in terms of how any given geographic area might be impacted,” said Melnykovych. “As I understand the legislation — I have not looked at what the final version of it is right now — but if I understand the legislation there is some oversight responsibility that’s left with the PSC in terms of making a determination as to whether or not there’s adequacy of service.”
Melnykovych pointed out it will take some time to know the full ramifications of the legislation.
“Should the legislation pass, it’s going to be a process that will play out and it’s going to take awhile to do so,” said Melnykovych.
The next step for the bill is the Kentucky House of Representatives.
Reach Joe P. Asher at 606-573-4510 or jasher@civitasmedia.com
Despite what they say, phone companies' bill still adversely impacts Kentucky's poorest rural counties
February 14, 2013
Last year Frankfort politicians and the phone companies tried to pass a bill that would have terminated Kentuckians' access to basic home telephone service.
But that hasn't stopped them from trying again this year.
This time they say they've come up with a way to protect Kentuckians that live in rural and economically disadvantaged communities from losing their home phone. They claim that they've written a limit into their bill that will exempt these areas.
That claim couldn't be further from the truth.
An intensive geographic analysis of the new language that the phone companies and their Frankfort politicians have written reveals that of the 12 poorest rural counties in Kentucky served by the phone companies promoting this bill, 9 will automatically be subject to their citizens losing basic home phone service.
The phone companies say that by limiting the bill to local telephone exchanges with greater than 5,000 homes, rural areas won't affected. But that's just not true.
According to 2010 data from the United States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, Kentucky contains 18 of the 100 poorest counties in the nation by median household income. Of those 18 counties, 12 are served by AT&T and Windstream Communications, two of the phone companies pushing the bill.
In those 12 counties served by AT&T and Windstream, 9 contain telephone exchanges with more than 5,000 homes. Which means they would be automatically subject to the changes the bill makes, including the possible loss of home telephone service.
The phone companies new language simply doesn't protect the people they claim that it does.
While the following table outlines the 9 counties among the most economically disadvantaged to be affected by the telephone companies attempt to end home phone service, they are by no means the only ones.
County Telephone Exchange Telephone Company Median Household Income (2010)
Clay County Manchester Windstream $24,081
Knox County Barbourville Windstream $25,965
Knox County Corbin AT&T $25,965
Casey County Liberty Windstream $26,612
Wayne County Monticello Windstream $26,683
Bell County Middlesboro AT&T $26,911
Bell County Pineville AT&T $26,911
Clinton County Albany Windstream $27,133
Breathitt County Jackson AT&T $28,045
Harlan County Harlan AT&T $28,503
Floyd County Prestonsburg AT&T $28,589
The geographic analysis of the bill found telephone exchanges in rural areas across the Commonwealth would be impacted by the very language the phone companies disingenuously say protects them from the bill's effects.
From the Purchase to the Buffalo Trace, the Eastern Coalfields through the Cumberland Plateau and across the Pennyrile to the cornfields along the banks of the Ohio in Henderson County, the phone companies' bill provides no protection for rural and economically disadvantaged Kentuckians who will face the prospect losing their home phone in favor of spotty and expensive mobile service should this bill pass the General Assembly.