It’s one of those issues that, like a telemarketer, just doesn’t seem to go away.
Many say Missouri needs to revamp telephone access fees, but no one can come up with a plan that will appease everyone.
On one side are large companies such as AT&T and CenturyTel. On the other are small firms such as Northeast Missouri Rural Telephone Co. and Mark Twain Rural Telephone Co.
No matter their size, the companies charge Missouri customers who are calling long distance to another Missouri number an “access fee” to use each other’s lines.
Rates range from three cents to 21 cents a minute, and can be higher than long distance fees charged for calling outside the state.
So, depending upon the length of the conversation, it could cost a Hannibal caller more to reach someone in the city of Nevada, Mo., than the state of Nevada.
The big companies want the access rates slashed. The smaller carriers want a plan that will allow them to continue serving rural areas. At least five bills have been introduced in Jefferson City.
State Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-6, of Palmyra, is adamant about protecting the viability of rural providers.
“I think the rural areas are doing a good job of explaining why these access fee proposals could be dangerous,” Bringer said. “I’m very hopeful we can all work together so that we don’t have fees that would be unfair to rural Missouri.”
“I’m hoping there can be some compromise and a bill will get passed, but it’s got to be something that’s fair,” said Gary Godfrey of the Northeast Missouri Rural Telephone Co. “We can’t pass all of that cost on to our rural customers.”
“Everyone wants to see access rate reform, it’s just how we get to it?” said Craig Felzien, AT&T Regional Director. “AT&T just wants to see some movement.”
Many bigger providers say they’re tired of having to pass on to customers the high access fees of their smaller cousins. They say reform will lead to rate reductions and improved technology.
Many rural providers say the higher rates allow them to provide service in places that the big shots wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot telephone pole. They say that if rates are cut too much, they won’t be able to stay in business.
One solution that both sides are studying is something that’s already done by the federal government. The feds charge a fee of $6 a month for a single line and $9.20 for a multiple line.
Another proposal that’s getting a serious look is the so-called “Fair Access Plan.” It would impose a $1 per line per year charge for five years to create the State of Missouri Access Reduction Transition (SMART) fund.
The fund would charge no more than 30 cents a month for each working telephone, and the money would be administered by an independent panel appointed by the governor.
Lawmakers have disconnected previous efforts at reform and other topics are taking up legislators’ time again this session. Still, those involved are hopeful an agreement that pleases providers and doesn’t gouge the public will be worked out.
“We want to have some fair funding mechanism to make it work,” Godfrey said.
“Sometimes, it takes a while for everyone to work to together on things,” Felzien added.
|
|
|
It’s one of those issues that, like a telemarketer, just doesn’t seem to go away.
Many say Missouri needs to revamp telephone access fees, but no one can come up with a plan that will appease everyone.
On one side are large companies such as AT&T and CenturyTel. On the other are small firms such as Northeast Missouri Rural Telephone Co. and Mark Twain Rural Telephone Co.
No matter their size, the companies charge Missouri customers who are calling long distance to another Missouri number an “access fee” to use each other’s lines.
Rates range from three cents to 21 cents a minute, and can be higher than long distance fees charged for calling outside the state.
So, depending upon the length of the conversation, it could cost a Hannibal caller more to reach someone in the city of Nevada, Mo., than the state of Nevada.
The big companies want the access rates slashed. The smaller carriers want a plan that will allow them to continue serving rural areas. At least five bills have been introduced in Jefferson City.
State Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-6, of Palmyra, is adamant about protecting the viability of rural providers.
“I think the rural areas are doing a good job of explaining why these access fee proposals could be dangerous,” Bringer said. “I’m very hopeful we can all work together so that we don’t have fees that would be unfair to rural Missouri.”
“I’m hoping there can be some compromise and a bill will get passed, but it’s got to be something that’s fair,” said Gary Godfrey of the Northeast Missouri Rural Telephone Co. “We can’t pass all of that cost on to our rural customers.”
“Everyone wants to see access rate reform, it’s just how we get to it?” said Craig Felzien, AT&T Regional Director. “AT&T just wants to see some movement.”
Many bigger providers say they’re tired of having to pass on to customers the high access fees of their smaller cousins. They say reform will lead to rate reductions and improved technology.
Many rural providers say the higher rates allow them to provide service in places that the big shots wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot telephone pole. They say that if rates are cut too much, they won’t be able to stay in business.
One solution that both sides are studying is something that’s already done by the federal government. The feds charge a fee of $6 a month for a single line and $9.20 for a multiple line.
Another proposal that’s getting a serious look is the so-called “Fair Access Plan.” It would impose a $1 per line per year charge for five years to create the State of Missouri Access Reduction Transition (SMART) fund.
The fund would charge no more than 30 cents a month for each working telephone, and the money would be administered by an independent panel appointed by the governor.
Lawmakers have disconnected previous efforts at reform and other topics are taking up legislators’ time again this session. Still, those involved are hopeful an agreement that pleases providers and doesn’t gouge the public will be worked out.
“We want to have some fair funding mechanism to make it work,” Godfrey said.
“Sometimes, it takes a while for everyone to work to together on things,” Felzien added.
