Subject: Still Waiting to Hear from APT
John Schwartz (schwartz@usa.net)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:21:39 -0600
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980629172139.00758738@postoffice.att.net> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:21:39 -0600 To: roundtable@cni.org From: John Schwartz <schwartz@usa.net> Subject: Still Waiting to Hear from APT
On June 5, I posted the message below, which contained questions on
certain APT positions. Those positions had been discussed on the list,
and an APT representative had posted an explanation about them, which
prompted my inquiry. There was no reply to this posting, either
privately or on the list. I posted another message reporting the lack
of a reply. An APT representative then posted a message---positive in
tone---praising the discussion and promising responses to various
inquiries which had appeared on the list.
Just for the record, other than the above-described general reply APT in
fact _still_ has not responded to my inquiries, either privately or by
posting. I have been asking myself why not. I don't know, of course,
but none of my speculations has been favorable.
Do you want to discuss your positions, APT, or are you hoping this
thread simply will die?
J.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed account of the APT
position. I have some follow-up questions.
Maureen Lewis <mlewis@apt.org> wrote:
>
> As for the substance, APT is seeking modification of existing FCC rules
> that it believes are disincentives to investment in advanced networks.
[snip]
> --APT has never endorsed monopolistic provisioning of advanced data
> services. On the contrary, it has urged availability of "dry copper"
> loops to CLECs so they can provide their own advanced services.
If competitors cannot lease access to ILEC switching and---even more
significant--- cannot colocate facilities at ILEC wire centers, of what
avail are dry loops? Further, recent experience here in Colorado with
U S West's xDSL deployments indicates that dry copper loops are often
unavailable.
> Suggestions about limiting Sec. 251 unbundling requirements relate
> solely to widely available elements like switches and transport and
> exclude the loop. APT Pet. at 20.
Is it APT's view that such unbundling inhibits investment? If so, the
logic is not immediately obvious to me. If not, what is the rationale for
imposing such limits?
> --RBOC entry into long distance is not raised in these filings. The
> petition does, however, recognize that Sec. 10 of Telecom Act requires
> full implementation of Secs. 271 and 251 before FCC can forbear
> enforcement of 251(c).
This appears circular to me. If Section 251 is implemented initially, and
then the FCC forbears from enforcing 251(c), and then ILECs cease to comply
with 251(c), the process of opening ILEC networks will be frustrated.
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 - 03:33:27 EST