IP: Re: Bells attempt to control the Internet

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>X-Sender: >X-Sender: brett@localhost
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
>Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 14:51:05 -0600
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
>Subject: Re: IP: Re: Bells attempt to control the Internet
>
>At 02:22 PM 5/1/2001, Matt Oristano wrote:
>
> >Upon getting the e-mail on HR 1542, I immediately downloaded the bill, a 
> PDF of which is attached.[deleted djf] Unless I haven't deciphered 
> something in it, I think that claim number one below, "Makes voice 
> applications of Internet illegal," is incorrect.  What the bill does do 
> is prevent *RBOC's* from using VOIP to get around current interLATA 
> restrictions on voice unless they are otherwise approved to sell long distance.
>
>Not quite. It does forbid them for charging for long distance calls made
>via IP telephony. But it does not prevent them from billing for the raw
>Internet bandwidth.
>
>The RBOCs can thus sell "raw" interstate data pipes to large corporations
>and other customers, knowing that these customers will, in turn, attach
>VOIP units to them and use them to make long distance calls. This is a
>much more lucrative market than consumer long distance, a market
>in which prices and profit margins are falling dramatically.
>
>The Baby Bells will thus be able to tap a huge market which they formerly
>could not enter -- without being forced to conform to the provisions of
>Section 271 of the 1996 Telecomm Act.
>
> >  These seems to make sense.  As for claims two and three below, they 
> are correct.  It's worth noting however, that the bill guarantees 
> competitors the right to interconnect with RBOC data networks.
>
>True. However, it also strips the FCC and state regulators from preventing
>the RBOCs from making the price of such connection so high as to forestall
>all competition. The right to connect is useless if the RBOCs are allowed
>to price competitors out of the market.
>
>The bill likewise forbids the FCC and the states from mandating access to
>unbundled network elements. This prevents competitors from taking advantage
>of next-generation DSL technologies that require repeaters to reach beyond
>10-18 kilofeet, and hence places large numbers of customers out of their
>reach.
>
>--Brett Glass



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/