Does all this bickering from Local / LD Companies help in allowing IP to further its strength? ggg
BROADBAND PROVIDERS URGE FCC TO FORESTALL NEW REGULATIONS
September 17, 1998 COMMUNICATIONS DAILY via NewsEdge
Corporation : All comments on FCC's
advanced network notice of inquiry (NOI)
supported rapid growth of high-speed
broadband networks to home, but all
commenters argued against regulations on
themselves. Sec. 706 of Telecom Act
requires FCC to examine market for
advanced services -- such as high-speed
data, video and Internet - - and find ways
to promote markets if necessary. Responding
to Aug. 7 Commission inquiry, Bell companies
and large LECs sought to eliminate
"burdensome" regulations, IXCs and CLECs
said agency should hold local phone
companies to same requirements for
advanced services as they are for traditional
voice networks, and cable urged Commission
not to saddle it with new regulations.
Bell companies and large LECs sided with
USTA, which said: "Market forces, not
Commission regulations, should dictate the
deployment of advanced data and Internet
networks." Assn. urged FCC to forbear from "
erecting regulatory barriers" such as
separate subsidiary requirements, unbundling
and resale obligations and enforcement of
"arcane interLATA restrictions" because they
place ILECs at "competitive disadvantage. "
Such regulations are "disincentives to the
deployment of advanced telecommunications
networks, delay the availability of innovative
products and services [and] limit consumer
choices, while increasing the costs of
services that are available." BellSouth said
that current requirements are " regulatory
handicaps" that give Bell companies "fewer
incentives and diminished ability" to compete
in market. It proposed that FCC eliminate
"dominant carrier regulation" of Bell
companies in markets where they "have no
market power."
But AT&T, new entrants and resellers said
best way to encourage deployment of
advanced networks would be to continue to
require incumbent companies to unbundle
parts of high-speed networks for resale by
competitors. Such unbundling and resale
requirements are contained in Sec. 251 of
Act for voice networks. AT&T, bidding to
enter cable business with purchase of TCI,
said agency also should "refrain from
imposing traditional common carrier
regulation on new players who do not
possess significant market power." Company
criticized incumbents for being "reluctant" to
build advanced networks except when
threatened by competition from CLECs or
cable companies. Qwest said FCC "should
not be swayed by arguments offered up by
incumbents seeking deregulated treatment in
exchange for promises of faster investment.
" Incumbents "do not need -- and clearly
should not be granted -- a monopoly" in
market, it said. Qwest said best way to
encourage development of competitive last
mile is to require ILECs to comply with same
market-opening provisions as they do in local
phone market.
Telecom Resellers Assn.(TRA) cited cable
services as indication that competition is
"finally beginning to drive" deployment of
advanced services, primarily by cable modem
services: "The net result is that advanced
telecommunications capability is finally being
deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion."
Because market forces will continue to
ensure timely deployment, Commission "need
not, and should not, take any action to
speed deployment... other than to make
clear" that LECs must continue to unbundle
and resell high-speed services until Section
251 has been fully implemented, TRA said.
Cable Claims Regulation Will Slow Broadband
Growth
Further regulating cable would stand
Telecom Act "on its head," NCTA contended,
because Congress intended Sec. 706 to be
deregulatory. It's " very dangerous this
early" to regulate emerging Internet market,
NCTA Pres. Decker Anstrom said at Mon.
briefing. Along with 300,000 homes in 41
states now accessing Internet by cable,
telcos, wireless providers and satellite
companies are offering broadband capacity,
he said, and competition proves "there is no
bottleneck." Regulation would only slow
rollout of cable Internet access, he said,
which would be contrary to Sec. 706's
language urging accelerated deployment.
Because Sec. 706 focuses on " advanced
telecommunications capability" and not
"cable services, " NCTA said, FCC has no
authority for further cable regulation. In
fact, since Sec. 706 was meant to "remove
barriers to investment," Assn. said, section
"does not empower the FCC to impose new
regulations" on any advanced telecom
provider. In response to question, Anstrom
said he isn't wishing more regulation on
telecom competitors and would support
deregulation of telcos if they're complying
with Secs. 251 and 271, designed to open
networks to competitors. "We want to be
clear here," he said: "The last thing the FCC
should be doing is think up new methods of
regulation."
America Online said broadband should be
"free of electronic gatekeepers, " philosophy
it said was now behind narrowband
regulation. AOL said FCC should accord
"consumers the right to select the ISP of
their choice" by "requiring cable operators to
provide broadband access... to unaffiliated
ISPs." Comments echoed some points made
by FCC Office of Plans & Policy staff in
recent working paper on Internet over cable
(CD Sept 4 p1). However, Commercial
Internet Exchange Assn. (CIEA) devoted
little of its comments to cable; instead, it
declared that "end users," not ILECs, should
choose carriers, but when it did mention
cable, it was to promote services such as
TCI's AtHome as evidence that IP telephony
market is flourishing and doesn't need
regulation.
FCC's "broadband policies should be rooted in
encouraging competitive risk-taking as
MediaOne has, rather than in devising new
regulatory schemes, " MediaOne said. MSO
said that through "an aggressive upgrade
strategy," it's "fulfilling the congressional
objective of making a full range of broadband
services available to consumers on a
'reasonable and timely basis.'" More than
90% of homes passed by MediaOne will have
Internet option by 2001, it said: "The
unprecedented investment in broadband
plant renders unnecessary -- and
counterproductive -- new government
regulation of cable operators and other
competitive entrants.
Comcast said Sec. 706, unlike much of
Telecom Act, "is a regulatory statute" and
agreed with Commission that it should "take
a fresh look " at broadband deployment.
However, MSO said that "those parts of the
Notice of Inquiry that seem to focus on
developing a 'Grand Unified Theory' of
telecommunications regulation are seriously
misdirected." Cable and broadcasters,
another player that could enter market via
digital TVs, "are subject to extensive
regulatory obligations that are designed to
implement policy goals other than
telecommunications competition," Comcast
argued: "It is premature to try to develop a
single regulatory model."
SMATV operator OpTel said it "recently has
begun to offer a variety of telephony
services and now is able to provide an
integrated package of voice, video and data
services to residents of the [Multiple
Dwelling Units] that it serves." However,
contrary to Sec. 706, it said its competition
is limited by "obstruction and foot-dragging"
of incumbent LECs in restricting access to
MDUs. Further regulation of incumbents is
needed, OpTel said, and microwave rules
"should be more flexible," permitting private
cable operators to cover broader areas than
are possible now under "the technical
limitations of the 18 GHz band."
Internet over cable was part of friendly but
serious exchange between FCC and cable
officials at Washington conference Mon. FCC
Office of Plans & Policy Chief Robert Pepper
told telecom executives that Telecom Act
was working, citing numerous competitors in
IP telephony as prominent example. At
Telecommunications Reports conference,
Pepper said competition was welcome, but "4
regulatory regimes on transmission" didn't
result in level playing field. He said his office
had supported building overcapacity into
networks in past to encourage new services
on theory that "if you build it, they will
come." NCTA Vp-Law & Regulatory Daniel
Brenner responded that " if you build it, the
regulators will come," arguing that Sec. 706
isn't "enabling act for regulators." Pepper
said "I don't think Congress intended... that
there shouldn't be a role for government" in
IP telephony. There is role, Brenner replied,
but FTC and Justice Dept. "are already
there." |
