[IP] USG threatens USG's ability to communicate
Begin forwarded message:
From: "W. Scott McCollough" <wsmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 25, 2004 3:34:21 PM EDT
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: USG threatens USG's ability to communicate
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
<CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
As the readers of this list are surely aware, the regulatory
underpinnings for local telephone network competition are under some
stress. In the Triennial Review Order, the FCC sunsetted line-sharing
and Enterprise UNE-P but tried to save (or at least said it was trying
to keep) mass market UNE-P, analog loops and high-speed business
services (by keeping that TDM UNEs and dark fiber and EELs, albeit with
more difficult eligibility criteria).
The reviewing USTA II court seems to have finished off UNE-P, affirmed
the death sentence for line sharing, threatens line splitting and,
almost casually, (according to the ILECs) swept nearly all the other
UNEs (especially dark fiber, high-capacity loops and transport) that
competitors need and use off the table.
Both the Administration and the FCC then sat out the last dance for the
96 Act's unbundling requirements, by not contesting the USTA II decision
before the Supreme Court. Endgame.
Recently, however, another arm of the government has been heard from,
with a plaintive cry for help. The Department of Defense and "All Other
Federal Executive Agencies" have filed a pleading with the Maryland PSC
asking that unbundling be maintained at the state level because, it
turns out, the federal government is a large telecom consumer, and it
gets a lot of service from CLECs which need unbundled network elements
to serve the government - just like they need them for all their other
customers. In the words of the federal agencies: "(h)owever, decisions
concerning the availability, prices, terms and conditions for UNEs will
impact the prices, terms and conditions for services that federal
agencies obtain from all of their telecommunications vendors. Decisions
concerning UNEs will also determine whether there will be viable
competition for all telecommunications services. Since federal agencies
obtain telecommunications services by competitive bidding procedures
whenever possible, they are vitally interested in having as many active
participants as possible in all Maryland telecommunications markets."
and
"Services provided by the Department of Defense and dozens of additional
entities of the federal government are critical to the security, health
and well-being of persons who live, work and visit in Maryland. A wide
array of telecommunications capabilities are needed by federal agencies
to perform their functions, so that the FEAs are concerned seriously
with service continuity, high availability, and the ability to obtain
services from a variety of telecommunications suppliers quickly and
efficiently."
DoD/FEA seems quite concerned that the aggressive deregulatory policies
now being pursued by a sister branch of government will affect the
availability, price, and quality of telecommunications, and will,
therefore, affect the ability of DoD/FEA to perform its mission. This
seems odd. A different part of the Executive Branch is concocting
policies which hurt the work of the Defense Department and the rest of
the "executive agencies." In wartime.
The FCC and courts are busily ensuring that the federal government's
phones don't work or will only work after they go back to the incumbents
- at significantly greater expense.
And we see no mention or consideration of it in the TRO or in the
litigation.
Can anyone see where the logic is in this?
W. Scott McCollough
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/