[IP] Re: FCC takes steps to remove neutrality, privacy obligations from wireless broadband

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>
Date: March 23, 2007 12:29:19 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net, ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: FCC takes steps to remove neutrality, privacy  
obligations from wireless broadband

David:

For IP, if you will.

The declaration of wireless broadband to be an "information service"  
would have one positive effect on wireless broadband providers: It  
would relieve them of the expensive obligation to make their networks  
tappable under CALEA.

However, this positive result would be offset by a much bigger  
negative one. It is possible for such a declaration to be construed  
as relieving monopoly telecommunications providers of their common  
carrier obligations with respect to wireless broadband providers.

This would mean that an ILEC could strangle competitive wireless  
broadband providers -- even in areas where the ILEC does not itself  
provide broadband service -- by refusing to connect them to the  
Internet backbone. (To dampen the political consequences, they may  
claim that they will connect a competitor but only at exorbitant  
prices which do not allow the competitor to make a profit. This  
effectively constitutes refusal to deal as well.)

We have already seen such tactics here in Wyoming. Our wireless ISP  
is unable to expand to serve many cities in Wyoming, because the only  
way to reach the Internet backbone from those cities is via the local  
ILEC. To forestall competition, the ILEC quotes a price for wholesale  
Internet bandwidth -- or for transport to any Internet backbone --  
that is above the retail price that it charges directly to consumers  
for DSL service.

In short, not only could the ILECs cut independent ISPs off from  
their DSL systems (which the FCC has already allowed them to do), but  
they could also cut wireless ISPs off from the Internet backbone. In  
effect, the ILECs would be saying to rural customers, "You'll get  
broadband when WE deign to provide it, because no competitor will be  
able to step in and do it before then."

Therefore, if the FCC should declare wireless broadband to be an  
information service, it must insist that the ILECs and other owners  
of monopoly infrastructure continue to be obliged, as common  
carriers, to provide Internet bandwidth and/or transport to the  
Internet backbone at rates which do not forestall competition. In  
particular, they must not be allowed to engage in "price squeezing,"  
in which wholesale services are priced at or above retail. Otherwise,  
such a decision will lead to a further decline in competitive options  
for consumers and a potential reduction in the availability of rural  
wireless broadband.

--Brett Glass, LARIAT.NET



-------------------------------------------