[IP] " 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."

-------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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