[IP] more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
------- Original message -------
From: James Seng <jseng@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 30/3/'05, 11:05
http://james.seng.sg/archives/2005/03/26/naked_dsl_dilemma.html
I have been thinking about Naked DSL ever since the story about FCC is
about to grant Bellsouth naked DSL petition broke a few days ago. And
of course, the subsequent suspension of various states decision by FCC.
Most propongates of IP Telephony considered Naked DSL as absolutely
neccessary to get VoIP adoption. Afterall, why bother with VoIP if you
are forced to take up POTS before you can have your DSL to get IP
Telephony. From that perspective, the decision to have Naked DSL is
fairly simple one - no way we should grant Bellsouth petition.
But that's coming from an evangelism point of view, one that may not
convience many people who do not share the vision of IP Telephony. I
shall give an alternative perspective why Bellsouth petition is
dangerous. My argument is based on two assumptions:
1) First assumption is we believe in Free Market (and I absolutely do
believe in Free Market). Free Market means we allow a competitive
market to sort out the winners and losers. In this argument, we should
allow Bellsouth to makes it own business decision to offer Naked DSL or
not, excuses or not. They may choose to offer naked DSL like Qwest or
they may not. If they didn't then competitions like cable who does not
bundled with POTS may be more attractive to consumers, and Bellsouth
will lose market share.
2) Second assumption is we believe that monopoly (regardless natural or
coercive) have to be regulated (or deal with by other means, e.g.
antitrust) to ensure general public interests are not been abused by
the monopoly. In this regard, Bellsouth petition should not be granted
in areas where Bellsouth is a monopoly without alternative
competitions. It wouldn't be a competitive market if there is no
competitions, would it?
Following these two assumptions, Bellsouth petition to pre-empt PUCs
from mandating it to provide Naked DSL should not be granted by FCC.
Instead, PUCs are in a better position to judge if Bellsouth odd to be
regulated or to be allowed compete freely because siutations are
different in different part of US.
While I like the concept of naked DSL, I think the decision to mandate
Naked DSL or not would differ from places to places - ie, it is not a
uniform yes or no. (Regardless how much I like IP Telephony, I believe
in Free Market even more.)
But it is even harder in the context of Singapore, where only 1 in 5
broadband users are on cable, a market with choices but not quite
competitive. Should we mandate Singtel Magix1 to provide Naked DSL
because they are a market monopoly or should we let the market forces
works itself out. For that, I am still thinking...
ps: Please note the disclaimer below : I do not speak for IDA here in
this blog.
1 Singtel Magix is the sole DSL provider in Singapore. Everyone who
provides DSL like Singnet or Pacnet is a reseller of Singtel Magix.
-James Seng
On 28-Mar-05, at AM 06:14, David Farber wrote:
>
> ------ 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
>
> Dave,
>
> 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!
>
>
> Robert Lee
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of
> David Farber
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 1:47 PM
> To: Ip
> Subject: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: d berns <dberns@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
> <CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:22:57 -0500
> To: <CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
>
> "The Commission has before it a petition for declaratory ruling filed
> by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) regarding issues
> stemming from the Triennial Review Order. As explained below, because
> the Commissions national unbundling rules in the Triennial Review Order
> directly address the primary issue raised by BellSouth, we grant
> BellSouths petition to the extent described in this Order.
>
> "Specifically, applying section 251(d)(3) of the Communications Act
> of 1934, as amended (the Act), we find that a state commission may not
> require an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) to provide digital
> subscriber line (DSL) service to an end user customer over the same
> unbundled network element (UNE) loop facility that a competitive LEC
> uses to provide voice services to that end user.
>
> "For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that state decisions
> that impose such an obligation are inconsistent with and
> substantially prevent the implementation of the Act and the
> Commissions federal unbundling rules and policies set forth in
> the Triennial Review Order that implement sections 251(c) .....
>
> rest at:
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.txt [a]
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.doc [b]
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.pdf [c]
>
> [a] messy ascii
> [b] Word Doc
> [c] PDF
>
> (most FCC material is available in all three forms. URLs are identical
> except for the trailing extension).
>
> Further info on the main FCC page: http://www.fcc.gov
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at:
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
>
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as james@xxxxxxx
> To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at:
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
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/