Hi lml,
"Is the following hypothesis consistent with the 1996 Act & Congressional & FCC policy regarding encouraging competition along the loop? I would venture far enough to say yes."
I'd venture to say that when 1996 was written it only took into account palpable network elements, i.e., things that you could touch and weigh on a scale like so many oranges, and overlooked the virtual ones. Lambdas come to mind, specifically. And it wasn't until four years later that the upper spectrum of the twisted pair was settled upon for piggybackers. I wont dwell on these points here, but it points out the lag in thinking and the lack of foresight that often accompanies laws and regs when they are passed.
Getting to the points you raised, however, and not knowing all of the details, I'd agree with you that it sounds very much like ASI is the "structurally separated" (regulatory loophole mumbo jumbo) part of SBC. This certainly is cause to raise some interesting questions at such a late date in SBC's Pronto doings.
On the blind, I'd say that this opens the door to several possibilities if the other purveyors have the deep pockets and chutzpah to pursue them, as opposed to closing the door on them. Sure what you've suggested is feasible, but I think what we have here is not only supportive of your hypothesis, but goes beyond it, as well.
Hypothetically at least, SBC could be petitioned and forced, to eventually, IMO,
allow equal access to other similarly inclined organizations seeking to use those monopoly-sanctioned (by the regs) facilities on a comparably efficient basis, or
[ii], agree to build comparably efficient and accessible networks for others who meet the profile of their new entrant. This is not exactly coherent with the argument that you cite, but it demonstrates that there are more ways to skin this cat than simply following the lead of the incumbent. Two can play the same game, in other words. And here I'm referring to the buildout of an entire other ASI by others who would contract the ILEC to do so. Why? Becuase of ROWs, for one thing.
[[BEGIN SIDEBAR: I once tested something similar to this
option of attack a while ago. About fourteen years ago,
when my time was being spent on fiber-based MAN designs
almost exclusively, NYNEX built a private fiber backbone
for DEC in New England. When I asked them to bid on a
similar architecture which I'd designed for a large Wall
Street firm, they balked, citing to me that they don't do
that sort of thing.
When I issued them a veiled threat (really, I was nice
about it) citing what they'd done for DEC, they agreed to
provide a bid.
Interestingly, it was the best response out of a field of a
half dozen that I'd received, and it projected costs that
were the lowest of the bunch. In it, they even agreed to
creating a mini-pop in a skyscraper basement that would
serve as a colo for other carriers, as well.
I later found out, however, that once the door was opened
to this opportunity it was actually a maverick faction
within the telco's "unregulated subsidiary, a part of NYNEX
BIS (if memory serves me correctly), who saw this as their
opportunity to cut their teeth in such a bold venture.
After all, this network would have competed nose to nose
with their regular offerings. But it was the motivation in
the unregulated part that accounted for why they were so
accommodating to me on my client's behalf. Oh, and the
threat of a law suit for preferential and discriminatory
treatment. END SIDEBAR]]
Getting back to today's issue, here's where having Tim (WTC) around would help an holy bunch. I have no precedent to cite at the tip of my fingers that addresses these circumstances "exactly" (only the sidebar above), but this is what it appears to be from my perspective. If not immediately, then stay tuned for the litigation, IMO, if your account of what you learned today is accurate.
Speaking of WTC, he once posted a message to me --about four months ago-- an absolutely outstanding account of an RBOC's strategies and constraints in their last mile plans, one of the best I've ever seen on SI on this topic from the perspective of an ILEC-knowledgeable poster. In trying to do it justice, I ruminated on how to reply until I found myself putting it off indefinitely. Sorry about that Tim. You can read WTC's account at message #6257.
Message 12561661
Perhaps he will step in here and lend us a hand with this development.
FAC |
