Re: Details of FCC 99-238
Thread- I actually thought SBC's strategy was important to enough to torture myself and read the entire FCC 99-238 ruling. Of course it's very hard to decipher because it's totally nebulous and open to interpretation. But what government ruling isn't? I tried to pull out the parts I thought were significant and relate to SBC's Project Pronto game plan.
This kind of reminds me of what AT&T did in their bid to by-pass the RBOCs(same as incumbent LEC) by purchasing coaxial cable plants. It was very complicated at first, but ultimately appears to be working see this link for details:
Message 12929942
IMO, the FCC should allow SBC to go ahead with their plan but with the caveat of a time frame constraint. I think that is just what San Francisco did with AT&T. They said they would approve T's move to upgrade the HFC plant and not force the open access issue on them. In return, I believe T has to complete the project in three years.
If SBC's plan works, then it will be very interesting to see if other RBOCs follow suit. After all, it's probably the only way they can ultimately compete with the cablecos HFC plant. So sounds like a win-win(for SBC only) to me.
Ouch! 262 Pages long. But here it is for anyone else that wants to review: fcc.gov
-MikeM(From Florida)
***************************
FCC 99-238 SELECT EXCERPTS
Page 14 Packet Switching. Incumbent LECs are not required to unbundle packet switching, except in a limited circumstance. Competitive LECs are actively deploying packet switches to serve high-volume customers, and are not impaired in their ability to offer service to such customers, without access to the incumbent LEC's facilities. Competitive LECs are impaired, however, in their ability to provide services to small-volume users without access to unbundled packet switching. Nonetheless, we consider the other goals of the Act in making our unbundling determination, and conclude that given the nascent nature of the advanced services market and the Act's goal to provide incentives to all carrier to invest and innovate, incumbent LECs are generally not requited to unbundle packet switching.
205. We find that lack of access to unbundled subloops materially diminishes a requesting carrier's ability to provide services that it seeks to offer. We also conclude that access to subloop elements is likely to be the catalyst that will allow competitors, over time, to deploy their own complementary subloop facilities, and eventually to develop competitive loops. Lack of access to subloops discourages competitive LECs from attempting to combine their own feeder plant with the incumbent?s distribution plant to minimize their reliance on the incumbent's facilities. We also find that lack of unbundled access to the incumbent's subloops would preclude competitors from offering some broadband services. Accordingly, we conclude that incumbent LECs must provide unbundled access to subloops nationwide, where technically feasible.
218. Third, competitors seeking to offer services using xDSL technology need to access the copper wire portion of the loop. In cases where the incumbent multiplexes its copper loops at a remote terminal to transport the traffic to the central office over fiber DLC facilities, a requesting carrier's ability to offer xDSL service to customers served over those facilities will be precluded, unless the competitor can gain access to the customer's copper loop before the traffic on that loop is multiplexed. Thus, we note that the remote terminal has, to a substantial degree, assumed the role and significance traditionally associated with the central office. In addition, in order to use its own facilities to provide xDSL service to a customer, a carrier must locate its DSLAM within a reasonable distance of the customer premises, usually less than 18,000 feet. In both of these situations, a requesting carrier needs access to copper wire relatively close to the subscriber in order to serve the incumbent's customer.
306. We decline at this time to unbundle the packet switching functionality, except in limited circumstances. Among other potential factors, we recognize that the presence of multiple requesting carriers providing service with their own packet switches is probative of whether they are impaired without access to unbundled packet switching. The record demonstrates that competitors are actively deploying facilities used to provide advanced services to serve certain segments of the market - namely, medium and large business - and hence they cannot be said to be impaired in their ability to offer service, at least to these segments without access to the incumbent's facilities. In other segments of the market, namely, residential and small business, we conclude that competitors may be impaired in their ability to offer service without access to incumbent LEC facilities due, in part, to the cost and delay of obtaining collocation in every central office where the requesting carrier provides service using unbundled loops. We conclude, however, that given the nascent nature of the advanced services marketplace, we will not order unbundling of the packet switching functionality as a general matter. |
