Subject: Re: Section 706 and APT
John Schwartz (schwartz@usa.net)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 18:55:04 -0600
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980602185504.00737cd4@postoffice.att.net> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 18:55:04 -0600 To: roundtable@cni.org From: John Schwartz <schwartz@usa.net> Subject: Re: Section 706 and APT In-Reply-To: <35749A53.3094@dc.net>
On 6/2/98, Robert Cannon <cannon@dc.net> wrote:
>
> Today the Alliance for Public Technology requested support at TPR for
> its Section 706 petition. APT's petition mirrors the Section 706
> petitions of US West, Ameritech, and Bell Atlantic. It is worth noting
> that each of those ILECs is a major supporter of APT. See
>
> http://www.apt.org/sponafflt.html
>
> The purpose to Section 706 is to have the FCC assess whether advanced
> telecommunications services are being provided reasonably and timely to
> all Americans. What APT requested in its petition is the following:
>
> * ILECs receive relief from regulatory constraint
> * ILECs be permitted to enter the long distance market
> * ILECs be permitted to provide services such as xDSL without providing
> interconnection or unbundling to its competitors
> * Phasing out the unbundled network element requirements for ILECs
> * ISPs be assessed access charges.
>
> APT's filing can be found at http://www.apt.org/706filing.html.
>
> The Commercial Internet Exchange and the Internet Service Providers
> Consortium have opposed APT's requests, arguing that instead of
> returning monopolistic powers to ILECs, regulations which assure
> competition should be strengthened. Open Network Architecture and CEI
> should be strengthened, extending interconnection rights beyond CLECs to
> include ISPs. ILECs should not be permitted to leverage their monopoly
> position in the market to dominate advanced technologies and services.
> CIX's comments can be found at http://www.cix.org/ and ISP/C's comments
> can be found at http://www.ispc.org/.
>
> The problem of providing advanced telecommunications services is not
> long distance. Internet access companies are building out access at an
> astounding rate. The problem with access is the last mile, between the
> consumer and the ILEC's CO. ISPs cannot get phone lines into their
> modem banks. ILECs have refused to provide ISDN lines. ILECS are
> refusing to provide DSL lines. ILECs are refusing to pay reciprocal
> compensation (a provision which they fought for in the
> telecommunications Act.) ILECs are imposing unreasonable collocation
> requirements. The problem is the last mile. The solution is not to
> strengthen the monopolistic positions of ILECs but to increase
> competition. If ILECs cannot provide advanced telecommunications
> services, Internet access providers are ready and eager. They simply
> need the opportunity. Removing UNE requirements on ILECs does not
> create that opportunity. Strengthening ONA does.
I find the reported APT position to be highly ill-advised. The fact is
that creating competition will entail making telco facilities available
to competitors on reasonable terms because no competitor has the time or
money to build full facilities-based networks immediately. And the
telcos have been brilliant at evading their responsibilities under the
Act to lease wholesale facilities to competitors. It is quite beyond me
why APT apparently wants to facilitate such evasion.
J.
_____________________________________________________________________________
John B. Schwartz
P.O. Box 6060 Telephone 303-442-2707
Boulder, CO 80306 FAX 303-442-6472
schwartz@usa.net
_____________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:25 EST