Times Change For U S West

The stereotyped image of legislative Republicans is that they’ve never met a business bill they didn’t love.

While there are plentiful instances this session that prove that adage, there’s at least one that disproves it. That it does says more about the business than it does about the Legislature.

The business is U S West - the 14-state company that emerged from the divestiture of AT&T in the early 1980s. It provides local phone service to the vast majority of Washington residents and businesses. And its network is used by the rest of the companies - both local service companies and long distance companies.

In addition, U S West is the most convenient provider of so-called short-haul long distance - that is, calls within Western Washington or within Eastern Washington as opposed to calls that cross the Cascades or cross the nation.

Because of its long history in Washington (previously as Pacific Northwest Bell), U S West is a powerful and influential figure in state and local affairs. It is well entrenched in Washington as a corporate citizen and a political player. Its managers are active in chambers of commerce and service clubs throughout the state. And its lobbyists have gotten involved in political campaigns for decades.

So when it comes to the Legislature with a problem, U S West tends to capture the attention of the elected officials.

A case in point came in 1995.

As stated, the company dominates the short-haul long distance market - a $350 million line of business. But competitors wanted access to that market, too. And to compete on an equal basis, those competitors wanted what is known as Dial-1 access.

With Dial-1 access, these competitors could offer the same convenience as US West. AT&T had already asked the state Utilities and Transportation Commission to grant such access.

To head off a UTC decision to open up the market, US West asked legislators to put a moratorium on Dial-1 access.

The bill was a juggernaut. Partly because the company was so well entrenched, and partly because the 1995 Legislature was disinclined to leave such big decisions to appointed bureaucrats, the bill passed easily.

It was later vetoed by Gov. Mike Lowry. And the 1996 federal telephone deregulation act made it mostly moot anyway. But the success of U S West’s lobbying effort was impressive nonetheless.

This year is quite a different story.

U S West believes state regulators are kneeling at the altar of lower rates, at the expense of allowing the company adequate profits. The denial of its last request for a rate increase was cited as evidence of that. The company claimed customers would suffer if it was denied enough money to improve and update the state phone network.

It wanted the Legislature to change state law so that it would likely prevail the next time it asked for a rate hike.

As in 1995, US West brought its own staff to town and even hired several big-time Olympia contract lobbyists to help out. Also as in 1995, the competitors responded lobbyist-for-lobbyist.

But the 1997 bills were met with fear and suspicion. For instance, the company’s lobbyists were unable to even find a senator to sponsor its bills. And only after some struggle did it find House sponsors.

While the bills got hearings in both houses, the measures never really had a chance of moving. They died officially at Wednesday’s deadline for committee action.

What was the difference between 1995 and 1997? It’s not that US West’s influence has waned so dramatically. Instead, several circumstances changed.

First, the current Legislature is more likely than the last to defer to the expertise of state regulators. No longer are all bureaucrats considered enemies of the revolution.

In addition, U S West’s rate case is before the state Supreme Court. Several legislators thought it was better to wait until the court took a look at the case before they weighed in to decide who was right - U S West or the state Utilities and Transportation Commission.

Finally, there was that little thing called rates. In 1995, AT&T and MCI said more competition would likely have brought lower rates. But it was all rather unspecific. This year, U S West had to acknowledge that the legislation would likely result in sizable hikes in local service charges. A doubling, tripling or even quadrupling of rates was not exactly something legislators wanted on their consciences - or their voting records.

Company officials didn’t help their case when they told one committee that shareholders would be ahead of investment in the network when those higher profits were doled out.

It became easier - and politically healthier - to let things simmer for a time. Even if it did mean saying no to an old and influential friend.

xxxx

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Peter Callaghan McClatchy News Service