" I'm much more afraid of the FCC"

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] I'm much more afraid of the FCC

[Note:  I'm cross posting this from the CyberTelecom list.  I too am
concerned about Commissioner Martin based upon statement that I've
heard him make lately.  DLH]

At 22:17 -0800 12/17/02, Bruce Kushnick wrote:
> I'm much more afraid of the FCC.
> Here's Commissioner Kevin Martin's speech which was given at the FCC
> Bar Associations dinner.
> <http://www.newnetworks.com/martinfcbaspeech.htm>
>
> He  wants to restrict any use of future broadband networks,
> especially if they are fiber to the curb. --- see quote below.)
>
> So what if the fiber-to-the-curb-deployments were already paid for
> by customers and they never got anything for their hundreds of
> dollars. Before giving away a public-utility-asset to a private
> company, the FCC should get the facts about the deployments and get
> the money back for customers --- or at least not close
> customer-funded networks to competitors who want to use them.
>
> He also wrote that the Bells shouldn't have to resell to ISPs....
> and that it will be contractual and therefore the Bells will be nice
> to these companies ---- Ha. He hasn't bothered to read the
> complaints filed by ISPs currently about how they are being screwed
> today.
>
> my favorite line ---- "I must give Tom Tauke of Verizon credit for
> this policy construct. About a year and a half ago, shortly after I
> joined the Commission, I heard Tom give a speech where he laid out
> the concept of "new rules for new wires."
>
> Talk about being in the pocket of the monopoly.
>
> Bruce kushnick
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
> He wrote:
>
> 2. Deregulate New "Fiber to the Home"
> Secondly, I believe we also need to adopt the principles set forth
> in recent proposals regarding the regulatory framework for new fiber
> investment deployed to a customer premises.
>
> Under these proposals, "fiber to the home" facilities would be
> relieved from unbundling requirements and incumbents would be
> relieved of any obligation to deploy copper facilities in new build
> situations where fiber to the home is deployed. Incumbents also
> would have several options and obligations with respect to the
> existing copper plant in new build situations.
>
> In the recent DC Circuit decision overturning our unbundled network
> element regime, the Court criticized the Commission for not fully
> taking into account the ability of new entrants to invest in and
> deploy new network infrastructure. I believe that it is not
> "necessary" for a competitor to have access to a new fiber loop.
>
> I believe that if incumbent service providers decide to build new
> fiber local loops to a customer premise, they should be free of
> "old-style" legacy rules. Legacy rules are ill-suited for new
> facilities and new services in the supercharged IP and fiber
> broadband worlds of tomorrow.
>
> =========================================
>
> "In doing so, we would need to change our Computer II rules so that
> incumbent providers would no longer be required to provide
> underlying transmission services as retail service offerings.
> Providers nevertheless would have the incentive to provide broadband
> transport to unaffiliated ISPs on reasonable terms, because only by
> doing so could they maximize the value of their investments. Such
> offerings would be made available on a private carriage basis and
> not as unbundled tariffed offerings."

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/