[IP] more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
Title: more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
------ Forwarded Message
From: Chris Savage <chris.savage@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:41:21 -0500
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
------ Forwarded Message
From: Robert Lee <robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:52:13 -0500
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
>>1. This does not quite address the issue of naked DSL for me. I thought
the recent decision was that Bell South did not have to offer naked DSL.<<
>>2. If this is that decision then one would assume that the FCC was making
the leap that anyone getting naked DSL would get VOIP and that VOIP was a
"voice service".<<
>>I would like to hear in layman's language what this means!<<
I actually am involved in this issue, so let me take a stab at it.
1. "Traditional" CLECs buy the use of the local loop and sometimes other functionalities from the ILEC, as an "unbundled network element."
2. For a while the FCC permitted/required the following scenario: a CLEC buys the right to use the "high-frequency" portion of the loop (basically, the DSL capability) while the ILEC keeps on providing plain old voice service.
3. Then the FCC changed its mind and said that ILECs didn't have to sell only the DSL capability of the loop separately. CLECs can buy an entire loop and use it as they will, including splitting it up with another CLEC (so one does voice and the other DSL). But the can't force the ILEC to split it with them.
4. Some ILECs have set things up so that if you are an ILEC DSL and voice customer, they won't allow the customer to switch their voice service to a CLEC as long as the customer has DSL on the line. Either the customer stays with the ILEC for both, or the DSL gets cut off.
5. This is either stupid, or it is anticompetitive BS, or both. The issue arose in the states based on complaints from voice-based CLECs who wanted to offer their voice services and let the customer keep their ILEC DSL.
6. States, seeing that the ILEC policies are stupid, anticompetitive BS, required the ILECs (directly or indirectly) to let the customer keep their ILEC-supplied DSL, either by keeping it on the loop the CLEC would use for voice service, or by deploying a new loop.
7. Sensible though that may be, it involves the states making decisions about when and under what conditions ILECs have to provide unbundled loops, DSL service, or both. These are issues that reside entirely within the FCC's authority (or at least that's what the FCC thinks).
8. So, when BellSouth asked the FCC to preempt the state rulings that, in effect, told the ILECs when they have to offer unbundled loops, DSL service, or both, the FCC thought about it for a while and agreed that states didn't have to legal authority to do what they did.
9. This is not to say that the FCC agrees with the underlying ILEC practices. I don't think they do. Look, e.g., at paragraph 36 of the order. But that language simply emphasizes that the basis of the FCC's decision was who's in charge of what ILEC activity, not the "merits" of naked DSL.
Chris S.
************************************************************************
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged
information. If you believe that you have received the message in error,
please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message
without copying or disclosing it.
************************************************************************
------ End of Forwarded Message
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/