Subject: Re: APT Section 706 Petition
Chris Savage (csavage@crblaw.com)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:27:00 -0500
Message-Id: <45E08735810E66D1@colegate.crblaw.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:27:00 -0500 From: Chris Savage <csavage@crblaw.com> To: roundtable@cni.org Subject: Re: APT Section 706 Petition
Mary Jones <mgjones@cqi.com> wrote:
>
> That leaves me with Sec 706 as the only leverage to try to prod, cajoce,
> create incentives what have you to get these carriers to start deploying
> their advanced networks to the home. without using concepts like the
> social contract, conditions on merger approval and the like, I don't see
> how we, the public, via FCC and state commissions, have a leg to stand
> on to get them to install their advanced wires like ISDN, ADSL on the
> public network.
If competition doesn't work, how about old fashioned command-and-control
regulation? On behalf of a bunch of ISPs I have suggested to the FCC
that the FCC simply flat-out *order* LECs to offer a "clean unswitched
copper" service to allow the ISPs to offer high-bandwidth services to
customers without having to rely on any telco services or infrastructure
other than conditioned copper itself. This would be done, in my
proposal, under the FCC's authority to direct carriers to provide
service upon reasonable request. Basic, old-fashioned regulation.
I am more optimistic about competition actually working than you are;
but if competition is not sufficient in the real world to make things
happen, I am more suspicious than you are about the effectiveness of the
ersatz competition called "incentive regulation." If there isn't enough
competition to force ILECs to offer xDSL-type services at fair rates,
why not just tell them to do it?
Chris
Chris Savage
<csavage@crblaw.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:26 EST