Stephen,
The individual case basis or ICB criterion for
determining telco classification could turn out to
be quite arbitrary, or it could be as simple as
determining on the basis of who uses an established
central office subscriber data base lookup and an end
office ILEC/CLEC switch or access to SS7. Gradients
in between exist also, and no one knows what lurks in
the minds of the powers that be at this time. Least of
all, I suspect, the powers that be. The one major
difference is that the driving forces are now coming
from the other direction, i.e., the startups, and it's
going to be the role of the incumbents to catch up, and
very likely, surpass.
There's a lot of fear among legislators in Washington
and the state capitals of saying or doing the wrong thing
at this time, as public sentiment is largely behind a hands
off policy re anything that has to do with the Internet.
But there is no guarantee that this will last forever, given
the power of lobbying and the inevitable, over time, changing
power structures in DC.
I don't think it's sufficient to pigeon hole a service
provider as an enhanced service provider simply because
they support PC-to-'net information services, because
anyone can do that, and these could easily be separated
along functional lines of business from voice services,
much the same way that the FCC Computer Inquiries I and II
caused there to be structural separations between incumbent
monopoly players and their startup subsidiary lines of
business in the 80s. We've been to this place before,
with a slightly different seating arrangement, but it's
beginning to look pretty much like the same church.
What is considered traditional carrier infrastructure today,
whether it be a switch or a black telephone, could turn out
to be an historical reference only, within the next several years,
as ILECs and other emerging classes of SPs decide to adopt
non-traditional access and termination methods to replace what
has been traditionally thought of as POTS.
I think its useful to remember that the enhanced service
provider exemption that was declared in the Eighties itself
was initially intended to be a temporary measure to ensure that
nascent service providers had some breathing room to expand.
There is nothing etched in stone that says that this sort of
relief will last forever, other than the growing sentiments
of the public, and the fear of losing votes by congressional
representatives. And if it does last forever, it will mean re-
defining what POTS and ESP services are in the
constantly changing attributes of both.
I'd like to hear other opinions on this, and thanks for sparking
the discussion.
Regards, Frank Coluccio <Sp chk broke> |
