FCC: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing

Well, this certainly looks like something close to the deathknell for competition.

  • Original: FROM..... Dave Farber's list

------ Forwarded Message From: d berns Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:22:57 -0500 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:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link

[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:

formatting link

--- End of Forwarded Message

--- Forwarded Message

From: Bob Frankston Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:37 -0500 To: Subject: Re: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing

Am I missing something or is this indeed a battle over whether a given copper line has to support two over-specified protocols? (No pun, as in voice-over-data, this is over as in over-the-top).

If so, then wouldn't it make more sense to focus on naked DSL with voice telephony being provided over IP? There are plenty of faux telephony providers, including the carriers themselves, who will give the illusion of line sharing for those who want it.

This is an example of where an "IP-only" policy makes sense rather than fighting legacy skirmishes. I don't want to oversimplify the problem but it seems better than continuing to fight the old battles.

It reminds me of the two back-to-back panel discussions on the triennial review -- the first was arguing over how it affected the purchase of switches. The second, with most of the same participants, was on VoIP because no one was buying those switches anymore. And I thought lawyers were taught not to argue moot cases outside of class and what is the Regulatorium if not moot?

--- End of Forwarded Message

Reply to
Marcus Didius Falco
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.