Editorials
Monday, April 9, 2001
COMPETITION that was to have been created by deregulation of the nation's telecommunications industry was supposed to reduce consumer prices or at least keep them in check. While vigorous competition has caused long-distance phone charges to plummet, other aspects of the 1996 Telecommunications Act have done little to reduce monopolistic practices. Cable costs will rise
until there’s real
market competitionThe issue: The 1996 Telecommunications
Act was intended to create competition
and reduce consumer costs -- but
prices continue to rise.As a result, Hawaii's telephone service remains the domain of one company and the cable television system is dominated by another. Congress needs to consider changes to create the intended competition.
Oceanic Cable, part of the empire that links Time Warner, AT&T, America Online and Tele-Communications Inc., has raised its monthly cable bills on Oahu by 5 percent a year for the past four years, while the island's inflation rate stayed below 2 percent. The latest increase, on Jan. 1, brought the monthly price of the 54-channel standard package to $31.99.
At the same time, Oceanic increased the monthly rental of its cable boxes from $2.91 to $3.70, a 27 percent increase.
Consumer advocate Gene Kimmelman told the U.S. Senate Judiciary's antitrust, business rights and competition subcommittee that he doesn't expect cable rates will subside until there is widespread, head-to-head competition. Only when a new cable company enters a market, Kimmelman said, will rates go down.
RCN Corp., created to take advantage of the 1996 law, has built cable systems along the Northeast but still faces competitive hurdles, says company official Bob Currey. For example, he says, the market's dominant cable company often strikes exclusive arrangements with building landlords that make it impossible for Currey's company to get in.
The law also gives cable companies an advantage over local telephone service providers at the dawn of the Internet age. While Verizon is required by law to lease its lines to any Internet service provider, Oceanic has the option of keeping some or all Internet providers off its lines.
Hawaii's telecommunications consumers will benefit only when Congress facilitates competition across the board. Until that happens, expect rates to rise even more.
ONE of the pesky scenarios constructed in relation to potential enactment of a Hawaiian sovereignty bill has been the entrance of gambling to the state via opportunities afforded on the mainland to American Indian tribes. Revised bill eliminates
gaming as an optionThe issue: A federal bill affecting
the rights of Hawaiians has been
revised to preclude gambling in Hawaii.Senators Akaka and Inouye gave assurance last year that such an occurrence was not plausible, but that did not end the concern. Finally, we can be relieved by Akaka's announcement that the bill has been rewritten to remove any possibility that it would result in the opening of gambling establishments.
The concerns regarded the potential effect of the 1988 federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, allowing Indian tribes to open gambling operations on their land in states in which gambling is legal. The theory was that any move by the Legislature to allow a single casino to open for business in Hawaii would be followed by the wholesale opening of other casinos by a sovereign Hawaiian government, mainland Indian tribes or a Hawaiian-Indian partnership of some kind.
Inouye assured fellow members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs last September that the bill would not bring Indian gambling casinos into Hawaii because "all forms of gaming are criminally prohibited in the state of Hawaiian, and, as we all know, under the (Indian Gaming) act, the only gaming that can be conducted on Indian lands is that which is not criminally prohibited under state law."
But the question would not go away: What if Hawaii were to allow, say, a single gambling casino to open in, say, Ko Olina?
In reintroducing the bill during this congressional session, Akaka said it "explicitly states that neither gaming in Hawaii, under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, nor eligibility for programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is authorized by the bill."
Therefore, the possibility of gambling can no longer be cited with legitimacy in opposing the Hawaiian sovereignty bill. The issues of sovereignty and legalized gambling should be argued on their merits without confusing the two. Under the revised Akaka bill, one will not necessarily lead to the other.
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, President
John Flanagan, publisher and editor in chief 529-4748; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Frank Bridgewater, managing editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, assistant managing editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, assistant managing editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.com The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
