Missouri Explores Deregulation > I just want a 10/10 connection

I just want a 10/10 connection

how much would you pay once they get rid of the competition? is price no option? is the greeny green overflowing from your pockets?

reply to mob
You will when you pay $100 a month for regular DSL. That's the bottomline, in many markets there isn't any effective competition because cable isn't offered or vice versa. So when the telcos say cable is their competition they aren't being accurate.

House Bill 142 and Senate Bill 221 would prohibit the Missouri Public Service Commission from regulating high-speed Internet or broadband services. They also would guarantee that state regulations do not exceed rules set by the Federal Communications Commission.
Of course SBC wants this. It removes the authority from state PUCs, who they have a harder time with than federal regulators (politicians on the Hill, Powell at the FCC), and when Powell redesignates DSL as an "information service", then the state PUCs wouldn't have a foot to stand on it terms of fighting that reclassification.
Also, if the RBOCs see their way in all of the regulatory rewrites of Telecom laws, and revocation of provisions under TA1996, sec.271, then again, the states would have their hands tied.
This is all part of a bigger strategy for the RBOCs, which is to sway regulations to their "way of thinking", and to eliminate the others that they despise, specifically UNE provisions of section 271.
This will not spur investment or broadband deployment in my view.
Many telecom analysts that are independent analysts see things this way also.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....

***** This is all part of a bigger strategy for the RBOCs, which is to sway regulations to their "way of thinking", and to eliminate the others that they despise, specifically UNE provisions of section 271. This will not spur investment or broadband deployment in my view.
Many telecom analysts that are independent analysts see things this way also. *****

Why do so many of your posts build on a false representation of ILEC goals and strategies? Your favorite complaint is that ILEC's want to eliminate TA'96 agreed to UNE rules to ruin competition. Try reading ILEC positions and specific complaints and you will find that they are opposed to "UNE-P", which was not included in TA'96.

UNE-P was the creation of the prior administrations decision making and not TA'96 rulemaking. UNE-P is built on the theory that switching should be an unbundled element despite widespread availability of Switches. Then to make things worse they added the discount UNE Loop to the discount UNE Switching and created a further discounted UNE-P!

ILEC's have not asked for elimination of all UNE's, just to require competitors to provide their own switches and not force them to sell UNE-P elements at below cost. And if you want to try the old "ILEC's lie and they are making a profit" line, try reading the comments yesterday of AT&T President David Dorman.

Mr. Dorman has accused SBC California of selling residential service at below cost and making it up on extras! As past President of Pacific Bell he knows that is how California regulates ILEC's. Make them sell residence service at below costs to make it affordable to everyone, and then make up for it on other features and toll charges. Alas, Mr. Dorman admits that the ILEC retail price is below cost, but has no problem selling 1M lines to California residents by leasing UNE-P's at below the below cost rate!

Finally while some "independent analysts" don't think deregulation will spur investment, the stock market does. That is why ILEC's have stopped investing in new technology until they can show investors that their dollars are working for them and not competitors with no investment.

said by Skier:

---

Why do so many of your posts build on a false representation of ILEC goals and strategies?

---

reply to Skier

quote:

---

Mr. Dorman has accused SBC California of selling residential service at below cost and making it up on extras! As past President of Pacific Bell he knows that is how California regulates ILEC's. Make them sell residence service at below costs to make it affordable to everyone, and then make up for it on other features and toll charges. Alas, Mr. Dorman admits that the ILEC retail price is below cost, but has no problem selling 1M lines to California residents by leasing UNE-P's at below the below cost rate!

---

reply to Skier
Try reading ILEC positions and specific complaints and you will find that they are opposed to "UNE-P", which was not included in TA'96.
I have read them.
The problem is, their solution is not meant to dismember UNE-P provisions, they are designed to repeal UNE provisions on the whole, which will cut everyone off.
Then, interconnection, colocation, etc., are all moot points.
You can try to disguise it under whatever thin veil you want but I have read the verbage.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....

said by BrianDamage:

---

Try reading ILEC positions and specific complaints and you will find that they are opposed to "UNE-P", which was not included in TA'96.
I have read them.
The problem is, their solution is not meant to dismember UNE-P provisions, they are designed to repeal UNE provisions on the whole, which will cut everyone off.
Then, interconnection, colocation, etc., are all moot points.
You can try to disguise it under whatever thin veil you want but I have read the verbage.

---

reply to BrianDamage

said by BrianDamage:

---

Try reading ILEC positions and specific complaints and you will find that they are opposed to "UNE-P", which was not included in TA'96.
I have read them.
The problem is, their solution is not meant to dismember UNE-P provisions, they are designed to repeal UNE provisions on the whole, which will cut everyone off.
Then, interconnection, colocation, etc., are all moot points.
You can try to disguise it under whatever thin veil you want but I have read the verbage.

---

Whatever, Boogie. You want me to answer or not?
If you want to resort to taunting then you chip away more and more at your integrity and credibility.
But, a lot of folks here at DSLR/BBR have already had their fill of your shenanigans and don't listen to you, because they know that you are nothing but a mouthpiece for SBC anyway.
I also find it funny that you guys always request proof here, proof there and then do little to substantiate your own claims.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....

said by BrianDamage:

---

Whatever, Boogie. You want me to answer or not?
If you want to resort to taunting then you chip away more and more at your integrity and credibility.
But, a lot of folks here at DSLR/BBR have already had their fill of your shenanigans and don't listen to you, because they know that you are nothing but a mouthpiece for SBC anyway.
I also find it funny that you guys always request proof here, proof there and then do little to substantiate your own claims.

---

Here you go, and not so much for your benefit Boogie, but for others who may read this.
1. I pointed out that the RBOCs seek to dismantle unbundling provisions in general. Here's some relevant press:
From upcoming TLE: Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Feb. 13 FCC review-
3 WIRELINE COMPETITION TI Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
(CC Docket No. 01- 338), Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket No. 96- 98), Deployment of Wireline Services Offering
Advanced Telecommunications Capability (CC Docket No. 98- 147), and Appropriate Framework
for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities (CC Docket No. 02- 33).
SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order concerning incumbent local exchange carriers’ obligations to make elements of their networks available on an unbundled basis.
No where in that does it specify UNE-P.
2. As to an another debate we had concerning the relationship between ASI and SBC-
From FCC 02-340-
(3.) In the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, the Commission concluded that an
advanced services affiliate that operated in accordance with the specified safeguards would be
presumed not to be a “successor or assign” of an incumbent LEC and thus would not be subject
to regulation under section 251 as an incumbent LEC.11 The Commission also concluded,
without extensive analysis, that because such an advanced services affiliate would not be a
“successor or assign” of an incumbent LEC, it would be presumed to be non-dominant in its
provision of interstate advanced services.12 The merger conditions thus specified that the
interstate telecommunications services offered by this presumptively non-dominant affiliate
would be permissively detariffed.13 The merger conditions also specified that in the event a court
of competent jurisdiction ruled that a separate advanced services affiliate operating in
accordance with the merger conditions must be deemed a “successor or assign” of an incumbent
LEC, SBC would have the option of providing advanced services directly, rather than through a
separate affiliate, but did not otherwise address what would happen to SBC’s tariffing
obligations in such an event.14
(4.) In January 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated certain portions of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, ruling that the Commission
may not permit an incumbent LEC to avoid section 251(c) obligations as applied to advanced
services by establishing a wholly-owned affiliate to offer those services.15 While the D.C.
Circuit did not address specifically whether SBC’s advanced services affiliate should continue to
be presumed non-dominant in the provision of advanced services, the court, by vacating the
Commission’s holding that those affiliates were not successors or assigns of an incumbent LEC, eliminated the basis for that presumption, as explicitly set forth in the SBC/Ameritech Merger
Order.16 Note-16 See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14900, n.834, & 14988, n.41.
This was in response to the argument that ASI could not exempt itself from provisions of TA1996, simply because it was a spun off division. It is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of SBC therefore being subject to the same provisions.
3. From the Tauzen-Dingell Bill (HR 1542), passed by the House but killed in the Senate-
SEC. 232. PROVISION OF HIGH SPEED DATA SERVICES.
(a) FREEDOM FROM REGULATION- Except to the extent that high speed data service, Internet backbone service, and Internet access service are expressly referred to in this Act, neither the Commission, nor any State, shall have authority to regulate the rates, charges, terms, or conditions for, or entry into the provision of, any high speed data service, Internet backbone service, or Internet access service; nor shall the Commission impose or require the collection of any fees, taxes, charges, or tariffs upon such service that is not imposed or required on the date of enactment of this section.
This is the basis for the current SBc argument and strategy so far as their attempts to wrangle authority from state PUCs in regulation of Telecommunications services in their respective states. This is the same logic they seek to use to undermine federal authority with respect to the FCC's oversight and regulation.
Further, it goes on:
(E) SCOPE- Notwithstanding any provision of law, neither the Commission nor any State shall--
`(i) require an incumbent local exchange carrier to provide unbundled access in accordance with subsection (c)(3) to any packet switching network element;
`(ii) require an incumbent local exchange carrier to provide, for the provision of high speed data service, access on an unbundled basis in accordance with subsection (c)(3) to any fiber local loop or fiber feeder subloop; or
`(iii) require an incumbent local exchange carrier to provide for collocation in accordance with subsection (c)(6) in a remote terminal, or to construct or make available space in a remote terminal.
All of this verbage exists solely to supplant any authority any state or federal agency may have in regulating the actions of RBOCs/ILECs in relation to their interaction and cooperation with CLECs.
It also goes on to say-
(c) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS- Nothing in the amendments made by this section--
(1) shall be construed to permit or require the abrogation or modification of any interconnection agreement in effect on the date of enactment of this section during the term of such agreement, except that this paragraph shall not apply to any interconnection agreement beyond the expiration date of the existing current term contained in such agreement on the date of enactment of this section, without regard to any extension or renewal of such agreement; or
(2) affects the implementation of any change of law provision in any such agreement.
Sounds cooperative, but what it is saying is that when existing agreements run out with CLECs, that those agreements would not have to be renewed after the expiration date.
Here's another "goodwill gesture" that the RBOCs submit, albeit deceptive:
SEC. 233. INTERNET CONSUMERS FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
`(a) PURPOSE- It is the purpose of this section to ensure that Internet users have freedom of choice of Internet service provider.
`(b) OBLIGATIONS OF INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS- Each incumbent local exchange carrier has the duty to provide--
`(1) Internet users with the ability to subscribe to and have access to any Internet service provider that interconnects with such carrier's high speed data service;
`(2) any Internet service provider with the right to acquire the facilities and services necessary to interconnect with such carrier's high speed data service for the provision of Internet access service;
`(3) any Internet service provider with the ability to collocate equipment in accordance with the provisions of section 251, to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection; and
`(4) any provider of high speed data services, Internet backbone service, or Internet access service with special access for the provision of Internet access service within a period no longer than the period in which such incumbent local exchange carrier provides special access to itself or any affiliate for the provision of such service.
Yes, ISPs galore, as long as they all resell an RBOC service. This section applies after the verbage of the others, which all spell out the exclusion of competition.
The RBOCs' current argument is based on the Tauzen-Dingell Bill. The RBOCs have convinced the FCC to revisit the provisions of TA1996 pertaining to unbundling and presents its' petitions to amend TA1996 as per the changes proposed under TD.
The tactics are the same. Only the playground is different this time.
The argument is that they seek to nullify UNE-P provisions, but the fact of the matter is that UNE-P is not specifically mentioned. Only UNE in general is, which would disenfranchise everyone, including facilities-based providers.
Also, anyone interested in a little more light reading:
»www.lightreading.com/spc/document.asp?..
»www.lightreading.com/spc/document.asp?..

[text was edited by author 2003-02-08 00:03:45]

You have just PROVEN my point. Your claim was that ILECs want to rid themselves of ANY requirement to provide unbundled access to ANY network element and to dismantle the entire UNE concept completely.

You have just shown verbiage from 3 sources- 1. A legislative ammendment- NOT a request from SBC or any other ILEC to dismantle ALL UNE of ALL kind, but legislation regarding the deregulation of high speed internet investments and deployments. 2. Wording from a US Appeals court opinion regarding an FCC requirement for the SBC/Ameritech merger (neither the requirement nor the appeal of the requirement was requested by SBC, mind you- but it appears that you thought it had big enough words to count and some of them looked important) and 3. Legislative wording from a HR bill that was OVERWHELMINGLY passed in the house and backburnered by Fritz Hollings in the Senate (Gee... can't imagine why Fritz would do ANYTHING like that... of course he HATES the phone companies with a passion) AND the bill said NOTHING of repealing UNE requirements on ILECs.

Now what I am confused about here is what verbiage you have that says that SBC (or any other ILEC for that matter) has been requesting and lobbying for the reversal of all UNE requirements and the ousting of any telecom competition?

That does seem to be your claim, doesn't it? Or are you under the impression that UNE-P has ANYTHING to do with DSL? That is it- isn't it? You haven't learned enough about what you're talking about, and you actually think that UNE-P has something to do with DSL?

Perhaps maybe you should enlighten the rest of us and explain in common terms what exactly you THINK the ILECs are complaining about? Because it DEFINITELY isn't all about DSL...

Boogie

reply to rit56
I just want a fast internet connection both ways in home for less than 200. I do not even have DSL. But if the cable company actually had to worry about DSL and its speed and reliability,maybe I would not have to pay over 100 to the cable company for both internet and cable. I would gladly pay more to SBC for a higher speed data connection via DSL than cable. I feel bad enough having Time Warner Cable now.

[text was edited by author 2003-02-08 02:50:31]

reply to boogie74
No, UNE-P is not about DSL.
I showed quotes from the legislation that was proposed because that is still the basis for the current argument.
You obviously miss the relevance of the quotes. I suggest you re-read my post.
I included the bit about the SBC/Ameritech merger because it helps to illustrate why the RBOCs are subject to 251 and 271....whether or not they try to spin off a "division" that they think would not be subject to the same provisions.
Now, I will say that I don't always agree with Mr. Hollings, but in this case, he stands for the preservation of competition, and not "faux" competition...real competition. To say that he "hates" the Bells is a bit paranoid.
I don't hate them either. But, I do see that compliance to TA1996 is not a choice-they must do so, but they never have.
100% compliance to unbundling provisions, and cooperation with the requesting CLEC in a "timely and fair manner" (which is a condition of the act) has never been achieved.
Entry into the Long-Distance market was held out as the "carrot" to obtain the compliance that was a condition of the Act. Not "spirit" of the Act, but a CONDITION of it....spelled out in black and white.
Moving on, now show me anything that shows that the Bells seek to repeal UNE-P provisions only. This is not what they seek. They seek the repeal of UNE provisions altogether.
As far as pointing out what the ILECs are complaining about, I think that all of us that have followed this already know the answer to that.
It's about interconnection, linesharing, and unbundling. The Bells feel that they were forced into opening their networks and that they should not be made to unbundle any network element, whether it is done via UNE-P or not.
This debate has not and does not specifically target UNE-P as it has been presented, but UNE provisions in general. Now, it is YOUR turn to show ME where any of their argument is targeted toward UNE-P, and since you disagree with me that T-D (HR 1542) is the template for these actions, then you provide proof to the contrary.
Also, show me that SBC and the other Bell's attempts to wrangle autority from the federal AND state governments does not stem from provisions of HR 1542.
I have illustrated my points. Now it's your turn.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....

You're just not clear on this. First you say that the Bells are trying to get out of any type of UNE regulation and from having to share any element of their network- and you then quote HR 1542 (which specifically differentiates between new broadband investments and mission critical elements for POTS service) as proof... And you quote it like the Bells were in Congress writing the bill and debating it first hand!

You are CLEARLY out of the loop. Go pay for your $32 UNE-P loop!

Boogie

You are struggling.
The Bells didn't have a hand in crafting this legislation? Please.
HR 1542 was all RBOC in scope.
Billy Tauzin and John Dingell were recruited to push that legislation, and the Bells "supported" it 100%.
It remains the basis for all of present arguments pertaining to unbundling.
This is not disputable.
You can try to cast dispersions on it all that you want, but TD is the basis for the RBOCs' current position pertaining to Telecom regulation.
Since they didn't get TD through the Senate, the next logical step was to target the FCC and the states' regulatory agencies (PUCs).
Mike Powell has been easily influenced by corporate interests before, which is why he seems so squirrelly pertaining to positions which he has taken before.
First, he seems to want to further the cause of competition, then, he suggests to Congress that an RBOC should be allowed to assimilate MCI/WCOM, even though that the very idea of that would probably not get past the scrutiny of the anti-trust laws.
You are the one who seems out of the loop here. If you can't respond intelligently here, then I am done with this thread, and the last shred of your credibility will disappear with this last post, as far as I'm concerned.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....

And the Emancipation Proclaimation was bought by all the slaves in 1865... Why?? Because, (using your logic) it benefited them by setting them free-

Every bill that benefits one group or organization MUST be immoral, wrong and just plain problematic.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's bad- has it ever occurred to you that you don't know everything about this? That you MIGHT be wrong??

Get a life!

Speak for yourself.
I never claimed to be an expert, but I DO know how to read.
You are wrong here, and everyone else here who is not a Bell shill already knows that.
Like I said in another thread, I will not tolerate your juvenile behavior any longer.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....