bad news for dcanet!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:59:55 -0500
From: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IP] Verizon High-Speed Services Deregulated
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brett Glass <brett@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: March 21, 2006 12:42:57 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, Ip ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Verizon deregulated; cable/ILEC duopoly likely to follow
Dave:
This is a truly momentous event -- one that will likely be
devastating to competition, consumer choice, and network
neutrality. A few years ago I mentioned, in a conversation with
then-Governor Jim Geringer of Wyoming, that I feared the dawning
of a "new Gilded Age." I believe that with this decision (or,
rather, a non-decision by default), that age is upon us. Among
other things, the FCC's inaction will allow Verizon to refuse to
interconnect with other carriers. So much for CLECs in Verizon
territory -- and you can be sure that SBC/ AT&T/Wal-Mart (What....
You mean they haven't merged with
Wal-Mart yet? Only a matter of time) and Qworst will follow suit.
We're about to see a big push toward an ILEC/cable duopoly and the
end of network neutrality. I've included an excerpt from a
Washington Post article, followed by the complete comments of FCC
Commissioner Michael Copps (which, as a public statement by a
government official, can be reproduced in full on your list
without any protests about copyright issues). Mandatory reading,
IMHO, for anyone concerned with the future of telecommunications
and/or the Internet.
--Brett Glass
---------------
Verizon High-Speed Services Deregulated
FCC Democrats Decry Lack of Vote
By Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 21, 2006; D05
The Federal Communications Commission yesterday deregulated a host
of high-speed data services that Verizon Communications Inc.
offers to business customers, a move critics said could sweep away
decades of rules governing the company's pricing and practices.
The agency exempted Verizon from having to file proposed prices
with the government and lifted the requirement that it provide
competitors access to its high-speed business lines. FCC Chairman
Kevin J. Martin said freeing Verizon of many "common carrier"
obligations on those lines will give the company "the flexibility
to further deploy its broadband services and fiber facilities
without overly burdensome regulations."
Critics, however, said the FCC went too far. Among other things,
telecom lawyers said the decision will allow Verizon to charge
businesses what it wants for such lines. While large companies are
likely to bargain effectively, smaller companies may see their
costs rise.
The outcome reflected deep divisions on the commission, with
Republicans Martin and Deborah Taylor Tate saying they favored
giving Verizon what it wanted to accelerate the deployment of high-
speed broadband services and Democrats Michael J. Copps and
Jonathan S. Adelstein vehemently opposing it.
The FCC, which is split evenly between the two Republicans and two
Democrats, did not vote to ease the rules on Verizon but rather
exempted it under a statute that allows a company's request to be
approved unless the agency denies it within a set period. That
period expired Sunday, allowing the request to go through
automatically -- a rare event at the FCC.
More at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/
AR2006032001527_pf.html
----------------
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSION INACTION ON
VERIZON'S FORBEARANCE PETITION
Re: Petition of Verizon Telephone Companies for Forbearance
under 47 U.S.C.
§ 160(c) from Title II and Computer Inquiry Rules with Respect to
their
Broadband Service, WC Docket No. 04-440 (March 20, 2006)
I am deeply disappointed at the outcome of this proceeding. This
is not the way to make environment-altering policy changes.
We all understand that technology has changed in ways that
required this Commission to think anew and act anew in recent
years. I have tried to participate constructively in our
proceedings, dialogues and votes, even when the outcomes went
beyond where I thought it wise for us to go. In those
proceedings, generally, we started rulemaking proceedings,
compiled a record, sifted through data and then crafted rules in
an orderly fashion. It would have been far better to deny this
petition and begin such a proceeding here. The Commission fails
to take that course. Instead, this sweeping outcome is
unaccompanied by any regulatory footsteps. Here we permit a
forbearance petition go into effect that erases decades of
communications policy in a single stroke. In effect, we provide
industry the pen and give it the go-ahead to rewrite the law.
Congress instructed this agency to implement the law; it did not
tell us to delegate far-reaching policy changes to the companies
that fall under our jurisdiction. It is end users, particularly
small business consumers, who will suffer the consequences.
As a legal matter this approach is suspect. There is no
appealable Order. There is no document, no stitch of analysis, no
trace of discussion, nothing that a court can use to gauge where
the Commission is coming from. And by failing to act through a
normal proceeding, the Commission jeopardizes many Congressional
policies that are at the core of its statutory duties. I find no
basis to support an approach that puts so much at risk:
· Homeland Security: By failing to act, national and local
law enforcement agencies charged with protecting the American
people could find that key networks are no longer subject to the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). At a
time when all aspects of our security demand heightened attention,
this is an area where the Commission should proceed with extreme
caution. Anything else is a distinct disservice to those whose
duty it is to protect us from harm.
· Universal Service: By failing to act, the contribution
base for universal service could be put in jeopardy. Rural
America relies on the universal service fund to ensure they have
telecommunications on a par with the rest of the country. Without
it, too many places would not have phone service, much less the
possibility of broadband. By pulling a whole swath of services
out of the obligation to contribute, universal service could be on
newly shaky ground. This will only enhance the urban and rural
divide in communications, at a time when the Commission should be
doing everything in its power to bridge the gap.
· Privacy: By failing to act, customers will no longer enjoy
the privacy that Congress sought to give them under the
Communications Act. That means hospitals, banks and other
organizations that handle sensitive and life-threatening
information are not given the assured protections of Section 222.
In a day and age where identity theft is common and private cell
phone records are bought and sold over the Internet, dumping the
Commission's privacy protections is downright dangerous.
· Disability Access: By failing to act, the Commission could
undermine the access for millions of Americans with disabilities
that Congress required in Section 255. We have come too far in
improving access for the disability community in this country to
turn back the clock now.
· Rate Increases: By failing to act, the Commission flashes
a green light for rate increases without any regulatory
oversight. Services like special access are the backbone of
business communications in this country. But customers could see
special access rates skyrocket and competitors who rely on this
input squeezed out of the enterprise market. This will raise the
cost of doing business in this country for businesses both large
and small.
· Interconnection in Rural America: By failing to act,
interconnection in rural America may be needlessly endangered.
Rural carriers tell us that where Verizon's access services to the
IP backbone are the only option in remote areas, rural carriers
will be subject to unchecked market power. This could mean higher
rates for rural consumers whenever they want to interconnect with
the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
· Interconnection between Technologies: By failing to act,
the Commission relieves Verizon of any duty to interconnect with
any other carrier. Discriminatory rates, terms and conditions
for interconnection can now become the norm. Prices to
interconnect can be set at rates designed to squeeze out
competition from inter-modal providers. This could raise costs
for unaffiliated wireless and cable providers. In the end,
consumers will bear the burden of this mess with higher rates.
· Enforcement Actions for Unlawful Behavior: By failing to
act, aggrieved parties lose their right to seek enforcement action
against Verizon in front of the Commission. Carriers,
individuals, municipal organizations and state commissions will be
stripped of their Section 208 right to complain to the FCC about
any discriminatory or unlawful practices Verizon may engage in.
They will be told to take their grievances elsewhere, because the
FCC has closed up shop on hearing public complaints.
There are other vitally important issues that may suffer from the
impact of our failure to act. Longstanding policies from pricing
flexibility standards to accounting rules to notice required for
service withdrawal may all be in play now. No doubt in the days
and weeks ahead this Commission will be compelled to seek promises
from the petitioner and issue follow-on Orders in a reactionary
attempt to clean up the wreck. Such are the costs of this
abdication of our responsibilities. It is unfortunate that
consumers are the ones who will pay the price.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/