SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: djane who wrote (51842)8/9/1998 12:05:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 61433
 
FCC loosens Bell reins Feds hope move will spark massive broadband deployment

nwfusion.com


By David Rohde
Network World Fusion, 8/7/98

The Federal Communications Commission on
Thursday proposed a partial deregulation of Bell
companies' data services in hopes of getting
them to speed up deployment of digital access
lines.

As expected, the FCC offered
regional Bell operating companies
the option of setting up
"advanced-network subsidiaries"
for the provision of digital
subscriber lines (DSL) and other
high-speed data-transport technologies.

Under the proposal, RBOCs would be able to
move equipment such as DSL Access
Multiplexers (DSLAM) and other high-speed
electronics into the subsidiary. This subsidiary
would not be regulated like other RBOC
business units, which generally must offer ports
on its switches and other network gear to
competitors. The DSLAMs would not have to
be offered to competitors, and the subsidiary
would not have to offer DSL lines with a
wholesale discount to resellers.

Four of the five RBOCs - all but BellSouth -
had petitioned the FCC for this kind of move
under Section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. Section 706 obligates the FCC to
begin knocking down regulatory barriers to
broadband deployment within 30 months of the
telecom act's enactment - a deadline that fell
due this week. The RBOCs had complained
that imposing resale and interconnection
requirements on DSL and other new services
discouraged them from rolling them out broadly.

But the FCC also piled numerous qualifications
and exceptions into its proposal, most based on
lobbying from long-distance carriers and
competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC):

1.The RBOCs would still have to offer
copper loops - the "last mile" to the home
or business - at a wholesale discount to
competitors.

2.Although competitors could no longer
gain access to the RBOCs' DSLAMs,
they would still be allowed to install their
own DSLAMs and other line-termination
equipment in the RBOCs' central offices.

3.The advanced-network subsidiary would
not be allowed to carry voice traffic,
answering objections from long-distance
carriers that RBOCs could use the
subsidiaries as a back-door way to avoid
existing tight regulation on so-called "plain
old telephone service."

4.All bets would be off if the RBOC does
not choose the separate subsidiary - DSL
and other advanced services would still
be subject to all of the FCC's resale and
interconnection rules with competitors.

FCC Chairman William Kennard promised to
turn the proposal into a final rule by February
1999 - a quick turnaround by FCC standards.
"We should have a sense of urgency about this,"
he said. Pleading with carrier lobbyists not to
nit-pick the proposal to death, Kennard added:
"What the American consumer wants is more
bandwidth from multiple providers. We really
don't care who gets there first."

Unfortunately for Kennard, the nit-picking
began almost immediately after the proposal
was issued Thursday morning. "This action falls
far short of the giant leap required to deploy
advanced telecommunications services to all
Americans," said Tom Tauke, senior vice
president for government relations at Bell
Atlantic. None of the five RBOCs immediately
said they would take up the advanced-network
subsidiary option if passed into law. Several
complained that the exceptions and
qualifications added administration burdens and
extra costs.

For their part, long-distance carriers said the
proposal went too far because it would be
difficult to police the separate subsidiary to
make sure it doesn't favor the parent company
when it comes to collocating DSLAMs and
other equipment.

"The phrase 'separate affiliate' is an oxymoron,"
said Jonathan Sallet, chief policy counsel in
MCI's Washington, D.C. lobbying office. "It's
like paying yourself to park in your own
garage."

Contact Senior
Editor David Rohde.



To: djane who wrote (51842)8/9/1998 12:11:00 PM
From: djane  Respond to of 61433
 
Vendors and Carriers, Eager for Interconnection with PSTN, Pitch in on Standards Process, But They're Not Waiting

soundingboardmag.com

By Ken Branson

An Internet protocol (IP) carrier and several vendors
have released a specification they hope will become
a standard for interconnection between IP and public
switched telephone networks (PSTNs). But they're
not waiting for the process to run its course.

The specification, called the Internet Protocol Device
Control, or IPDC, was hammered out between
Level3 Communications Inc. (www.level3.com) of
Santa Clara, Calif., and several hardware and
software vendors in a series of meetings which began
in May and ended last week in Salt Lake City, says
Dave Powers, manager of corporate
communications for Level3. The group calls itself the
Technical Advisory Committee, or TAC.

"We're rolling out an IP network, a national IP
network," Powers says. "To roll this out, we need
vendors of software and hardware who will build to
specifications that will allow us to interconnect the IP
networks to the PSTNs."

Powers says his company and its vendors intend to
pursue the standards process and look forward to its
give-and-take, but that they don't intend to wait for it
to run its course.

"This [specification] is market-driven," he says. "And
the standards process tends not to be."

TAC has submitted the specification to the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU). The executive
director of the IETF, Steve Coya, says TAC is just
at the beginning of a long process that might or might
not lead to the incorporation of IPDC as a standard.
"Just submitting to the IETF ain't a big deal," he says.

Now an IETF official must decide the specification
merits and forward it to a working groups. Then,
after the working group has recommended some
version of the specification for further consideration,
the same official must approve it. Then, the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG) must label the
specification a "standards-track document" before it
can be considered by the IETF.

The vendors in the TAC have committed themselves
to build products to the IPDC within a year,
however, standard or no standard. Among those
vendors are such heavy hitters as Lucent
Technologies Inc. (www.lucent.com) and Northern
Telecom Ltd. (www.nortel.com). But smaller
vendors have taken the plunge, as well. Selsius
Systems Inc. (www.selsius.com) of Dallas is one.
Dave Corley, director of product development at
Selsius, says a lot is riding on this specification for his
company, which makes, among other things, IP
gateways.

"The reason it's important to us is that we are more
of a premises-based solution," Corley says. "We go
sell our solutions in enterprises, or into buildings with
multiple businesses. And in order to take advantage
of large-scale VoIP (voice over IP) networks, we
need to interoperate, not only with other vendors'
large-scale gateways, but with legacy SS7 (signaling
system 7) protocols and the Advanced Intelligent
Network. Our components, in and of themselves,
don't have the level of sophistication that would
allow them to talk directly to SS7, for example.
[IPDC] contains an interface that would allow us to
bridge over to SS7 and intelligent network services
in the PSTN."

Selsius' commitment to build to IPDC means that its
gateway will be usable by Level3's customers. If
IPDC--or something very much like it--becomes a
standard, then "we'll be able to sell into other
environments as well," Corley says.

What happens if what emerges from the IETF and
the ITU is very different from IPDC?

"Well," Corley says, "we'll have to accommodate
that. But fortunately, the strength of our company
and our core competence is software call processing
and telephony interfaces. We've developed our own
H.323 protocol stack, for instance. We also have
our own TAPI (telecommunications application
based programming interface)-based service
provider interface. We have the software expertise
that would allow us to fairly rapidly move toward
any standards modifications the standards bodies
might move towards."

As for Level3, Powers says he's confident that the
standards process will come out well for IPDC.

"I think we feel comfortable with the specification as
it was developed," he says. "The engineers who
developed it are active in the IETF and the ITU. We
simply need the products to build our network. We
see this as an open dialogue, and we mean that
sincerely."

Other companies participating in the TAC's IPDC
specification are 3Com Corp. (www.3com.com),
Alcatel Alsthom (www.alcatel.com), Cisco Systems
Inc. (www.cisco.com), Ericsson Inc.
(www.ericsson.com), Stratus Computer Inc.
(www.stratus.com)
, Tekelec (www.tekelec.com)
and Vertical Networks Inc. (www.vertical.com)

Copyright c 1998 by Virgo Publishing, Inc.
Please read our legal page before using this site.