reply to TBBroadband
said by TBBroadband:Totally agree. What I disagree with is the USF itself.
Any network that uses USF to be built, should be open. But the FCC tossed that out the window when they ruled that the Internet was an Information Service and not a Communications service under Brand X, which would have opened up the MSOs to line sharing as well.
If Country Joe wants to live 50 miles from nowhere, that's his choice to exchange big city conveniences for fresh air-- and one of those conveniences is high speed internet. Joe should never expect someone ELSE to pay the (high) cost of pulling high speed internet to the boondocks because he didn't want to live near the city. That was HIS choice, and he needs to man up to the drawbacks of rural life.
But I digress.
Since we DO have the USF, then YES, carriers SHOULD be required to open USF-funded networks.
However, if an ILEC takes NO subsidies and does a buildout 100% on their own dime, THEN it should be OK for them to keep it closed and proprietary. A 100% privately-funded investment should not be forced open by regulators.
Superstorm Standy was an anomoly, and a lot of copper plant was destroyed. I don't think VZ should be required to rebuild the copper-- but in all fairness, they should be requried to allow access to the fiber replacements for some reasonable period of time (define "reasonable" as you will) since the CLECs were already under an open access agreement at the time of loss. Otherwise, the CLECs have instantly and without warning, lost all access to thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of their own customers, with no hope of recovering them.
However, if VZ uses ANY public funding to rebuild, then all bets are off and the replacement network SHOULD have to be open.