When the ILECs use the Stall-Delay, "there's still a problem tactic", when giving up copper, it only enflames Chairman Kennard>"On its face, this proposal is a sham. On legal grounds, this proposal blatantly violates the Act.
USISPA, Major Communications Companies & Trade Associations Urge FCC to Reject ILEC and Computer Companies Proposal
December 11, 1998
HERNDON, Va., Dec. 10 /PRNewswire/This ex parte on behalf of the US Internet Service Providers Alliance and major communications companies and trade associations was filed today at the Federal Communications
Commission:
The Honorable William E. Kennard
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, N.W., Room 814
Washington, DC 20554
Re: CC Docket No. 98-147
Dear Mr. Kennard:
This ex parte letter is submitted by the undersigned competitive
telecommunications and information service companies and
associations in response to the joint filing submitted in the
above-referenced proceeding on December 7, 1998 by the
largest incumbent local exchange carriers (four of the five
Regional Bell Operating Companies ("RBOCs") and GTE), and
certain computer companies. We urge the Commission to reject
this proposal as the latest attempt to undermine the statutory
mandates and pro-competitive promise of The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"), and extend the
RBOCs and GTE's local bottleneck to Internet services.
In essence, the proponents' ex parte letter argues that the
largest ILECs require a wholesale waiver of key elements of the
1996 Act in order to have the necessary economic incentives to
deploy high-speed broadband Internet access technologies such
as Digital Subscriber Line ("DSL"). The largest ILECs offer four
"concessions," each subject to various technical, economic, and
timing limitations: (1) CLECs can utilize collocation for advanced
services (common cage, virtual, physical, or cageless, of the
ILEC's choosing); (2) CLECs can utilize DSL-capable loops as
unbundled network element ("UNEs"); (3) the ILECs' integrated
provision of DSL services are subject to existing nonstructural
safeguards; and (4) the ILECs' advanced services offerings will
not discriminate against unaffiliated ISPs.
In exchange for these "concessions," the RBOCs and GTE would
receive significant relief from applicable legal requirements,
including: (1) no provision of DSL electronics as UNEs; (2) no
resale of DSL services at any discount; (3) unlimited transfer of
ILEC assets, employees, and services accounts to separate
affiliates for up to 12 months; (4) no significant separation
requirements; (5) deregulation and detariffing of advanced
services rates once half of residential lines have access to DSL
services; and (6) granting the RBOCs liberal waivers of
interLATA boundaries for data services.
On its face, this proposal is a sham. On legal grounds, this
proposal blatantly violates the Act. By "promising" to abide by
existing nonstructural safeguards and Computer III
nondiscrimination requirements, and to grant competitors
access to unbundled loops and collocation rights already
required by the 1996 Act, the RBOCs and GTE give up nothing.
Instead, however, the largest ILECs gain a "get out of jail free"
card from the most critical pro- competitive mandates of the
Act. This hardly seems like a fair bargain, especially for
consumers, who will be denied choice, innovation, reasonable
prices, and the other tangible benefits of competition.
Furthermore, the large ILECs' "lack of incentives" argument is
baseless. The Commission itself has assembled an ample public
record proving the futility of these claims. First, the supposed
difficulties of providing advanced services such as DSL do not
involve building brand-new data networks; instead, existing
copper loops and telephone plant are being utilized along with
DSLAMs and end user modems. This new equipment is relatively
inexpensive and certainly can be deployed by the RBOCs and
GTE on a timely basis to most ILEC central offices under existing
rules. The competitive deployment of DSL service is not
hindered by equipment costs or network upgrades, but rather
the fundamental inability of CLECs to obtain reasonable
cost-based access to the ILECs' equipment and facilities. The
large ILECs also ignore the fact that CLECs must fully
compensate the ILECs for the right to utilize DSL-equipped
loops, DSL electronics, collocation space, and interoffice
facilities. Moreover, contrary to their rhetoric, the RBOCs and
GTE already are deploying DSL in response to the perceived
competitive threat from cable modems.
More importantly, the proposal clearly violates the 1996 Act. As
the FCC has already correctly concluded this past August:
Section 251(c)(3) requires these ILECs to provide CLECs with
unbundled network elements, including DSL-capable loops and
accompanying operational support systems ("OSS"), as well as
all facilities and equipment used to provide advanced services
(such as DSLAMs);
Section 251(c)(4) requires these ILECs to offer advanced
services such as DSL for resale at wholesale rates;
Section 251(c)(6) requires these ILECs to provide competitors
with just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory access to
collocation space in order to provide advanced services.
Section 271 prohibits the RBOCs from providing
telecommunications or information services across LATA
boundaries without meeting the requirements of Sections 271
and 272 of the Act.
Private parties cannot overturn these provisions of the law.
It is the free market, and not government, that creates
incentives for companies to invest in and deploy new
technologies and services. It is the market, and not
government, that rewards risk. But where there is not a free
market, and instead only a monopoly market like the large ILECs
have today, government must do what it can to curb that
monopoly and maximize the conditions for competition.
In many respects, this proposal is the complete opposite of
what the Internet itself represents: openness, innovation,
competition, and freedom of choice. Perhaps this explains why,
even though these RBOCs and GTE and their allies claim to
speak on behalf of Internet providers and Internet users,
neither of these constituencies is present at the signature line.
It is disappointing that these computer companies have joined
the RBOCs and GTE in their proposal. How ironic it is that their
proposal to "solve" this "problem " does not even include those
it purports to serve -- there are no consumer groups, no user
groups, no competitive local exchange carriers, and no Internet
service providers.
In the view of the undersigned, the key problem facing
American consumers is not, as these companies claim, the
pro-competitive mandates of the 1996 Act, but rather their
continuing refusal to abide by those mandates. The only
problem here is the large ILECs' local loop bottleneck, and no
amount of deal- making, no matter how big the players, can
change that reality. The only way to rid American consumers of
that bottleneck and offer all the benefits and services backed
up and waiting behind that last mile, is, plain and simple, to
enforce the 1996 Act.
In accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules, two copies
of this letter will be submitted today to the Commission's
Secretary's office.
Sincerely,
UNITED STATES INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ALLIANCE
Barbara A. Dooley David Jemmett
President Chairman
Commercial Internet eXchange Arizona Internet Access Association
Association
Michael Eggley Joseph Marion
President Executive Director
Internet Providers Association of Florida Internet Service
Iowa Providers Association
Chad Kissinger Dax Kelson
President President
Texas Internet Service Providers Coalition of Utah Internet Service
Association Providers
Gary Gardner
Executive Director
Washington Association of Internet
Service Providers
and the following Companies and Associations:
Cronan O'Connell James W. Cicconi
Acting President Senior Vice President
Association for Local Government Affairs and Federal
Telecommunications Services Policy, AT&T
Rachel Rothstein Genevieve Morelli
Vice President Executive Vice President &
General
Government Affairs Regulatory and Counsel
Cable & Wireless Competitive Telecommunications
Association
Dhruv Khanna Scott Purcell
General Counsel and Vice President President & Chief Executive
Covad Communications Officer
Epoch Networks
Riley Murphy Jonathan E. Canis
General Counsel Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
e.spire Communications Counsel to Intermedia
Communications
Jonathan B. Sallet Deborah Howard
Chief Policy Counsel Executive Director
MCI WorldCom Internet Service Providers'
Consortium
William L. Schrader Eric W. Spivey
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chairman and Chief Executive
PSINet Inc. Officer
Netcom
Carla Hamre Donelson Richard J. Devlin
Vice President & General Counsel Executive Vice President
Verio General Counsel & External
Affairs
Sprint
cc: Commissioner Susan P. Ness
Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth
Commissioner Michael K. Powell
Commissioner Gloria Tristani
Katherine Brown, Chief of Staff, Chairman Kennard
Larry Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau
Dr. Robert Pepper, Chief, Office of Plans and Policy
The US Internet Service Providers Alliance (
usispa.org) is a coalition of ISP trade associations
and independent service providers working to encourage state
and federal regulators to demand ILEC compliance with existing
regulations and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
SOURCE Commercial Internet eXchange
/CONTACT: USISPA: Barbara A. Dooley of the Commercial
Internet eXchange Association, 703-709-8200; David Jemmett
of the Arizona Internet Access Association, 602-303-9500, ext.
3224; Michael Eggley of the Internet Providers Association of
Iowa, 515-830-4034; Joseph Marion of the Florida Internet
Service Providers Association, 561-226-9016; Rich Cardenas of
the Texas Internet Service Providers Association,
512-322-9200; Sue Ashdown of the Coalition of Utah Internet
Service Providers, 801-539-0852; Gary Gardner of the
Washington Association of Internet Service Providers,
800-399-2354; Jim Crawford of ALTS, 703-715-0844; Jim
McGann of AT&T, 202-457-3930; Katie O'Keefe of Cable &
Wireless, 703-734-4474; Kathleen Franklin of the Competitive
Telecommunications Association, 202-296-6650; Tom Koutsky
of Covad Communications, 793-734-3870; Nancy McHugh of
Epoch Networks, 949-862-8383; Peggy Disney of e.spire
Communications, 301-361-4259; John Strickling of Intermedia
Communications, Inc., 813-829-2864; Deborah Howard of the
Internet Service Providers' Consortium, 310-827-8466; Claire
Hassett or Peter Lucht of MCI WorldCom, 202-887-2229; Glee
Cady of Netcom, 408-881-3227; Michael P. Binko of PSINet,
703-904-4285; James Fisher of Sprint, 202-828-7406; or Steve
Silvers of Verio, ssilver@claruspr.com/
[Copyright 1998, PR Newswire] |
