Well, this certainly looks like something close to the deathknell for
competition.
* Original: FROM..... Dave Farber's list
------ Forwarded Message
From: d berns
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:22:57 -0500
Subject: FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
"The Commission has before it a petition for declaratory ruling filed
by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) regarding issues
stemming from the Triennial Review Order. As explained below, because
the Commissions national unbundling rules in the Triennial Review
Order directly address the primary issue raised by BellSouth, we grant
BellSouths petition to the extent described in this Order.
"Specifically, applying section 251(d)(3) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the Act), we find that a state commission may not
require an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) to provide digital
subscriber line (DSL) service to an end user customer over the same
unbundled network element (UNE) loop facility that a competitive LEC
uses to provide voice services to that end user.
"For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that state decisions
that impose such an obligation are inconsistent with and substantially
prevent the implementation of the Act and the Commissions federal
unbundling rules and policies set forth in the Triennial Review Order
that implement sections 251(c) .....
rest at:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.txt [a]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.doc [b]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.pdf [c]
[a] messy ascii
[b] Word Doc
[c] PDF
(most FCC material is available in all three forms. URLs are identical
except for the trailing extension).
Further info on the main FCC page: http://www.fcc.gov
--- End of Forwarded Message
--- Forwarded Message
From: Bob Frankston
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:37 -0500
To: <dave farber.net>
Subject: Re: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
Am I missing something or is this indeed a battle over whether a given
copper line has to support two over-specified protocols? (No pun, as
in voice-over-data, this is over as in over-the-top).
If so, then wouldn't it make more sense to focus on naked DSL with
voice telephony being provided over IP? There are plenty of faux
telephony providers, including the carriers themselves, who will give
the illusion of line sharing for those who want it.
This is an example of where an "IP-only" policy makes sense rather
than fighting legacy skirmishes. I don't want to oversimplify the
problem but it seems better than continuing to fight the old battles.
It reminds me of the two back-to-back panel discussions on the
triennial review -- the first was arguing over how it affected the
purchase of switches. The second, with most of the same participants,
was on VoIP because no one was buying those switches anymore. And I
thought lawyers were taught not to argue moot cases outside of class
and what is the Regulatorium if not moot?
--- End of Forwarded Message
Marcus Didius Falco (falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk)