Subject: Re: Peering and 706
Robert Cannon (cannon@dc.net)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 08:48:29 -0700
Message-Id: <3576C1CD.7692@dc.net> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 08:48:29 -0700 From: Robert Cannon <cannon@dc.net> To: roundtable@cni.org Subject: Re: Peering and 706
On 06/03/98, Andy Oram <andyo@ora.com> wrote:
>
> I think a bit more background is worth offering -- both on
> peering and on 706. I was waiting for somebody else to do it
> because I'm no routing heavy, but I'll post what I know as
> briefly as I can.
> ...
> Several months ago Bell Atlantic and Ameritech (maybe some
> other Bells tool) asked the FCC to let them enter the market
> of providing long-distance data service. They disingenuously
> cited this part of the law as justification -- in other
> words, "Let us enter the market and we'll make sure
> everybody has Internet access." The reason they can't enter
> is that there's practically no competition in their core
> market of local phone service, so both Congress and the FCC
> wants to keep them from cross-subsidies and other unfair
> practices.
No "routing heavy," what does that mean Andy :-)
The Internet Telecommunications Project has a page dedicated to tracking
the Section 706 proceedings. Links to all available online material
(that I know about), including material related to the petitions of US
West, Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, APT, and ALTS (comments in response to
the ALTS petition are due at the end of the month) can be found at this
site. http://www.cais.net/cannon/ Also there is testimony from a
Congressional hearing on 706 and statements of the FCC Commissioners.
The Commission should be issuing a Notice of Inquiry pursuant to Section
706 prior to August 8, 1998. The proceeding will address the issue of
whether advanced telecommunications are being provided to all Americans
in a reasonable and timely manner.
The Internet Service Providers Consortium, ISP/C, http://www.ispc.org/,
has announced on Cybertelecom-l that it is gathering case studies from
ISPs concerning "obstacles" ISPs are experiencing in providing advanced
services. In other words, ISPs should raise in this proceeding troubles
they have experienced with ILECs and Telcos such as refusal to provide
lines, refusal to pay reciprocal compensation, refusal to service
infrastructure, outages, refusal to provide high speed lines such as
ISDN and DSL, and so forth. This is an important opportunity to vent
the frustrations so many are experiencing with the ILECs. Others have
suggested that the issue of peering should also be raised in this
proceeding.
One aspect of the right to free speech is to fight government
restrictions of free speech. Another aspect of the right to free speech
is the opportunity to in fact speak. This is why the Internet is so
exciting. Unlike mass media such as TV and radio, the barriers to
entry on the Internet are extremely low. As the District Court stated
in ACLU v Reno, the Internet is like a never ending dialogue. However,
the right to free speech on the Internet is meaningless to those,
however, who are denied access. While expansion of the Internet is
occurring at a tremendous rate, there are also occasions where Internet
providers are frustrated in their efforts to expand their markets.
This frustration stems from the refusal of the ILECs to comply with
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and their refusal to do things like
supply lines to ISP modem banks. A significant obstacle to the
provision of advanced services to all Americans is the behavior of the
ILECs. The Section 706 proceeding will be an opportunity to make clear
to the FCC what these obstacles are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Cannon, Esq. || Leashes!
cannon@dc.net \ @@==* We Dont Need No
www.cais.net/cannon ====== Stinkin' Leashes!
|| || -Pancho Villa
~~~~~~~~~~Internet~Telecommunications~Project~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:26 EST