Something I failed to mention, which IMO will (in private conversations, the Covad's and Northpoint of DSL) be an enormous problem. This is one reason why I'm staying away from companies investing all their capital in DSL, and that is, the source of all the problems.
In each case I have read, and the few calls I have made to mags, dsl distributors, its the ILECs that will cause unhappiness to those that enter DSL Copper.
Its the end customer that will not tolerate anything near what the Cable Subscribers have in recent events.
Call someone from Covad Comm. or Northpoint Comm, or someother CLEC that's involved in DSL. I think you'll find a real problem from the source (if they talk at all).
The source is the most obvious evildoer after reviewing the Tele-Act of 96, why there's not enough money in LD for them to give up their turf, how Kennard is coming down on them, and after all of that, the how's and why's to keep intruders off your turf.
I see it as a real problem not letting up anytime soon. PacBell may be the worst of the bunch from what I've read.
Thanks for the return remarks, all !
Temp'
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
|
