Deregulation

Why does this term sound so good? De-regulation. Unregulate. Stop regulating. Was it effective for California Energy? Remember the black-outs? Enron? How about airlines? The US deregulated the airlines and have since fed that industry 100s of billions of bail-out dollars and still the industry is a mess - backruptcies everywhere. Yes, the fares have remained the low, but at what expense? The low-cost airlines are now feeling the bite (as ATA hit bankruptcy and JetBlue has to start paying for its planes sometime). How about cable? It was deregulated in 1996. Since then rates have increased 56%! Maybe we get more channels, but 'analysis by Federal Communications Commission staff - - released Friday -- found the average cable household watches about 17 channels, including over-the-air broadcast stations.' So basically we are paying for stuff we don't want. If Broadband is deregulated, what will that mean for the internet? With only two avenues for broadband - cable and the ILEC: Will we have access to VOD websites like iFilm? Will we have undisrupted VOIP from non-ILECs like Lingo? (One cableco has already closed port 62 due to "security". Port 62 is used for TFTP access. Cisco VOIP phones use this port.) Do large companies provide innovation to the marketplace? Not since the 1970s, PARC, Bell Labs, DARPA, et al. We only have Mass market ADSL today because cable started to roll out internet and the DLECs started attacking the lucrative ILEC T1 markets. (DLECs were Northpoint, Rhythms, DSL.net and Covad). VOIP could have been how ILECs attacked cable. But that kind of thinking doesn't happen in those companies. It's this same thinking that pushes the BOCs to wish for monopoly again, instead of accepting the wholesale market as a better revenue stream, as well as wholesale customers - yes CLECs and ISPs are customers - help the ILECs against cable. BTW, the Bells are running into municipalities that want them to pay franchise rates to offer TV and it must be offered to all. The Bells say no to the fees and only want to cherry pick neighborhoods. Hmmm. Sounds like Bells want what CLECs are supposed to be getting per TA96. Please comment on the current dockets before the FCC: http://www.rad-info.net/fcc.htm

SBC & FCC

The FCC must be tired of the RBOC legal staff, who have been working overtime filing petitions and tariff changes. Since the election, it seems like the BOCs can't file fast enough. ---- PETITIONS FOR FORBEARANCE OF THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES, SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. The FCC further spurs advanced fiber optic network deployment. ---- COMMENTS INVITED ON PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FILED BY QWEST CORPORATION REGARDING QWEST'S DSL SERVICE. WC Docket No. 04-416 ----- SECTION 272 SUNSETS FOR SBC IN THE STATES OF ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI. ------ COMMENTS INVITED ON PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FILED BY BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING INCUMBENT LEC PROVISION OF BROADBAND. WC Docket No. 04-405 ----- An SBC plan to offer a new VoIP access tariff that might raise the cost of completing calls for VoIP roviders has triggered talks between FCC and SBC representatives. FCC officials wouldn't talk about the meetings but there was speculation the agency was seeking assurances from the company. SBC's proposed tariff, which the company said it planned to file no earlier than Fri., would offer VoIP providers a voluntary access method whose price would fall between those of traditional access charges and lower-cost reciprocal compensation. SBC's tariff could take effect 24 hours after it's filed, although the FCC might halt it for investigation if parties filed objections. The agency also might halt the tariff on its own. News of SBC's plan began to raise red flags for some VoIP providers, including members of the VON Coalition, this week. ---------

BellSouth Forbearance

This is an out of the box thought, but given comments about structural separation are bantered about by the competition (CLECs), who are effected by every whim of the ILEC and regulating bodies, perhaps BellSouth should pull a page out of the GTE playbook. Become a CLEC. That's right start a CLEC company. If the CLECs indeed have such an incredible advantage over the ILEC voice and broadband business, why then have the ILECs not moved out of region yet? Wouldn't this prove to be a profit maker for ILEC shareholders? Are you not doing a disservice to your shareholders by not competing out-of-region? And may I add that SBC was Required to offer services in all 48 states as part of its merger with Ameritech. http://www.rad-info.net/fcc.htm COMMENTS INVITED ON PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FILED BY BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING INCUMBENT LEC PROVISION OF BROADBAND WC Docket No. 04-405 Comments Due: December 20, 2004 Reply Comments Due: January 19, 2005 On October 27, 2004, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) filed a petition for forbearance from Title II common carriage requirements that apply to incumbent LEC broadband transmission. Further, BellSouth seeks forbearance from the Computer Inquiry rules to the extent they require incumbent LECs to tariff and offer the transport component of their broadband services on a stand-alone basis and to take service under those same terms and conditions. BellSouth argues that these rules are unnecessary, because the market for broadband transmission is competitive, and impose costs that inhibit innovation and deployment of broadband. In addition, BellSouth argues that these rules are not imposed on other providers of broadband transmission. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3507A1.doc This essentially reiterates, and perhaps goes a bit beyond, WC 02-33, a stalled Docket which proposed removing common carriage from broadband transmission service. Filed as a petition for forebearance rather than as a petition for rulemaking, I think the Commission has to actively dismiss it, or it takes effect. It asks for forebearance on both Computer II requirements (which made ISPs possible) and basic 1880s-era Title II common carriage obligations (which enable someone who leases transmission to do with it as they please, so long as they pay the bill). ISPs really should pay attention to these sorts of things and have their lawyers and regulatory consultants prepare good responses. Comment intelligiently to the FCC here: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs