ILEC would have to cross connect their subscriber loop to the one that the customer requested the service from. I don't think that entire neighborhoods will be pre-subscribed, or pre-wired, to a single CLEC's DSL access muxes.
That isn't what it says. It either says only one and in the CO too, or it is purposely ambiguous in order to avoid a ruling inconsistency with respect to the cable OA controversy. The FCC seems to be using this DSL sharing rule as another way to break up the RBOC monopolies, but at the same time the converse is being plied to them through cable, i.e. Att is exempted from an equivalent status. If these technologies are substantially the same, both BB, then the FCC can't have it both ways. So DSL BB and cable BB must be separate and distinct if this ruling will hold under court examination.
But what if, as in my case, there are multiple users in a household using different services? My job related VPN may be aligned with a Covad strain of service, while my daughter's job related link to Bloomberg (the one that allows fast motion multimedia, not the slow V.34 one) may require that of Northpoint, or Red.
By that ruling one CLEC, the ILEC Chosen One, must gear up to be able to supply all of these servcies. Sounds like they're reincarnating CATV. But if I've misinterpreted the ruling, how can the ILEC afford to stick all this service supporting junk from 20 CLECs in the CO? Forget afford, how is it physically possible? Bigger building, paid by the unknown financier.
And then, the ISPs could also conceivably be the CLECs in this case. One or more of them will be forced to acquire an entirely separate copper loop for resale to the subscriber at the much higher price from the incumbent, while the first CLEC gets away with the lower tariff, if the following is true:
And again, this is from the reference you cited: "Carriers may not request access to just the high frequency portion of a loop if the incumbent is not presently using that loop to provide analog voice service."
Wow, that's rather arbitrary, wouldn't you say?
At least you apparently understand what it means. I get confused when double negatives are used. You never know what is being negated.
The fortunes of the CLEC are tied to the phone subcription habits of the population of a given locale, which habits are obviously not under the control of either the CLEC or the ILEC. This presents a weird set of factors for planning purposes. And sooner or later voice over IP, or VoIP, will kick in over the DSL link portion, which will serve to further mitigate the need for switched POTS lines. Hmm...
That proves that the only purpose for the ruling is that it is another attack on local RBOC monopoly. The data band supersedes the voice band and neutralizes any ruling created to fool the ILEC into believing that their interests are being protected while tossing the ILEC a data participation peanut.
We are backwardly mobile.
And the CLECs will become ISPs where they are not already, and the ISPs will become CLECs [not to mention Internet Telephony Serivce Providers, or ITSPs, as well] wherever possible, due to the attractiveness of bundling all of these services under one umbrella as the world moves closer to an all-IP framework.
That's why I asked
"What is the definition of carrier? What is the definition of incumbent? Are they disjoint entities?"
Good point. The reference material is guilty of not being specific enough when using these terms. And the terms themselves are nothing if not industry specific in their connotations. The reference you cited referred to the term "carrier" when alluding not only to the ILEC but the CLEC as well. The incumbent is the one who has been there for a thousand years, and the "carrier" (as in the term that your release used) was really referring to the newly arrived competitor, or the CLEC, as I read it. Are they disjoint? That makes me put on a grin, like this: -g-
Maybe they are disjoint if the FCC isn't paid enough to cooperate. |
