Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: HR 1542
From: David Lesher <wb8foz () nrk com>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 17:49:38 -0400 (EDT)


Unnamed Administration sources reported that Steve Sobol said:



"Joseph T. Klein" wrote:

Hmmm .... I don't think this improves competition.

Joseph T. Klein                                         +1 414 915 7489
Senior Network Engineer                                 jtk () titania net
Adelphia Business Solutions                joseph.klein () adelphiacom com

[Joseph, this mini-rant is not directed specifically at you, so please
do not take it personally.]

I felt compelled to answer this. You work for a company operating in
another industry that is doing much the same thing! I don't see Adelphia's
cable Internet services in Cleveland being opened to other ISPs. 


There are the following truths:

1)      Telco's are regulated under one body of law/FCC regulation.

2)      Cable Co's are regulated under an entirely different set,
        with different basis in history & law.

3)      The current law requires the telcos to rent UNE's {pieces, such
        as the local loop copper...} to CLEC's. This was part of the
        96 Telecom Act. When the Bells complied withabuncha rules,
        they'd get free rein in the LD business.

4)      There is no such law such as the 96 Act applying to cable data. 

5)      The Bells especially SWB (who now controls a massive amount
        of territory -- Califunny to Ohio) are whining and crying
        "It's not fair; Johnny Cox gets to play outside after dark,
        why can't I go along?" 

6)      Their solution is to remove ALL requirements that they must
        rent UNE's; that they have to meet any requirements before
        being allowed into LD, and to boot - an exemption from FCC
        regulation, period.

7)      The Bells have tried and failed to get state PSC's to vote
        their way.  They have tried in the courts, and failed. They
        have tried to get the FCC to do it their way, and failed again.

8)      They are NOW busy with their new shill, a certain Hillcritter
        from ForestGumpville, trying yet again in the form of a
        bill to accomplish same. They have paid him very well^H^H^H
        rather their PAC's have donated lotsa ""soft money".....

9)      Note the Bell/ForestGump solution is MORE monopoly, by
        denying facilities to any/all CLEC's; It's NOT to require
        the cable co's to rent cabledata to CLECish folks.

Now My Opinion:


While I don't like 4); there is no way that 6) solves the issue;
it just helps restore the One Bell Monopoly dream, now free of
many regulatory constraints traded away in 96.

YMMV, but I do not look forward to a new OBM. I'm old enough
to recall the pre-84 one.


-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz () nrk com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]