One of the basic tenets of government since the early 20th century, both nationally and locally, has been to protect. Protect consumers, employees, employers, and many more stratifications. Sometimes protection was warranted; and other times government regulators made mountains out of molehills.

Back when there was only one way to make a phone call, and really only one company, AT&T, to do it for you, the federal government stepped in to ensure that that company did not take advantage of its monopoly position. Everyone, from free-marketers to consumer advocates, agreed that monopolies were bad for business, bad for citizens and bad for the economy, but until advances in technology allowed for more competition to establish itself, the government felt the need to protect consumers through regulations.

Regulations such as "rate-of-return" policies were implemented. Rate-of-return regulation is a system for setting prices charged by regulated monopolies - which is what the phone company was for decades. The idea behind rate-of-return is that monopolies should be required to charge the price the government thinks it would have been if the market were truly competitive. A decent idea - make the monopoly charge customers what they would if there were competing services available.

But times have changed. Technology has evolved. No longer do you only have one option to make a phone call. You can make a call using your landline, a cell phone, or Voice Over Internet Protocol, which makes calls over your broadband Internet connection. In fact, every one of the major telephone companies has lost a tremendous amount of landline users the last few years as more people switch to using only their cell phones or a Voice Over Internet Protocol service.

The cellular telephone industry provides a good example of how to go about removing many of the archaic regulations that still govern traditional wired telephone services. According to the cellular industry association, since a national regulatory framework was introduced for cellular services, subscribership has grown by more than 679%. They also point out that it took 16 years for cellular consumers to reach 100 million, whereas it took 90 years for landline telephone users to reach 100 million. Today there are 230 million cellular subscribers in the United States.

The barriers facing our traditional telephone companies today mean consumers are often left out of a competitive marketplace. Regulatory reform of our state's telecommunications rules would help bring a new interest in expanding our state's technological infrastructure. Emerging technology means capital investment by companies into neighborhoods. It means high-wage jobs for skilled technicians. It means new products and lower prices as the supply of services increase.

Opponents of rolling back some of the old rules are afraid of the mythical curse of "deregulation." Any time an industry suffers a setback, deregulation is often blamed. But the truth is that regulation in the telecom industry is the obstruction blocking innovation and flexibility to offer customers products they want. Instead, consumers end up flocking to services and industries that are much more lightly regulated - like cellular.

The problem with most regulatory bodies is that they assume a right to exist. In our state, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission governs the entry or exit of landline telephone services, the transmission of said service, as well as the distribution and pricing of communication products. But the need for the (commission) to play such a large role in the operation of private enterprise is outdated.

The time has come - indeed it came a while ago - to modernize much of the landline telephone industry. Consumer advocates worry that rural and lower-economic neighborhoods will be left out of the loop by regulatory reform. Examining other states that modernized their regulations shows that their worries are unfounded. As a safety measure, leave in many of the consumer protection clauses for areas that might not see as much competition because of their isolated geography. But rural areas could actually expect to see more services as telephone companies could better justify building out to outlying areas.

Regulators should act as a referee - make sure the telecom players don't step out of bounds. Currently however, they act more like a micromanaging coach-telling the players exactly how to run their companies. Businesses should be free to make those decisions for themselves inside a relatively free marketplace. Cellular, satellite and Voice Over Internet Protocol communication companies enjoy this freedom. Wired telephone companies do not.

The bottom line is that consumers instinctively choose lower regulated service providers because they can get more bang for their buck. Simply looking at the proliferation of satellite television and cellular communication proves it. Our state's telecommunication regulations are leftover from the Ma Bell days and, like Ma Bell, should be modernized.

Carl Gipson is director of the Center for Small Business & Entrepreneurship at Washington Policy Center. Nothing in this document should be construed as any attempt to aid or hinder any legislation before any legislative body. Contact him at 937-9691 or online at washingtonpolicy.org.