how-to block ads
|
flomokas
Premium
join:2003-01-06
Moberly, MO
| A Chunk of U.S. Code
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/c···pII.html
Honestly, I know just enough about the Law, to keep out of trouble. What few sections of the code I did read, seem to put the baby bells in a bad light, IMHO.
I do hope at least one or two knowledgable folks can review this part of Title 47 and figure out what it means. | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by flomokas  :
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/c···pII.html
Honestly, I know just enough about the Law, to keep out of trouble. What few sections of the code I did read, seem to put the baby bells in a bad light, IMHO.
I do hope at least one or two knowledgable folks can review this part of Title 47 and figure out what it means.
BrianDamage claims to have read and understood all telecom laws and regulations with absolute clarity and certainty... perhaps HE might be able to shed some light on this section...
However, for those that are interested in the LAW as it's written... here's a bit clipped for you...
quote:
B) Competitive checklist
Access or interconnection provided or generally offered by a Bell operating company to other telecommunications carriers meets the requirements of this subparagraph if such access and interconnection includes each of the following:
(i)
Interconnection in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(2) and 252(d)(1) of this title.
(ii)
Nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1) of this title.
(iii)
Nondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by the Bell operating company at just and reasonable rates in accordance with the requirements of section 224 of this title.
(iv)
Local loop transmission from the central office to the customer's premises, unbundled from local switching or other services.
(v)
Local transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.
(vi)
Local switching unbundled from transport, local loop transmission, or other services.
(vii)
Nondiscriminatory access to -
(I)
911 and E911 services;
(II)
directory assistance services to allow the other carrier's customers to obtain telephone numbers; and
(III)
operator call completion services.
(viii)
White pages directory listings for customers of the other carrier's telephone exchange service.
(ix)
Until the date by which telecommunications numbering administration guidelines, plan, or rules are established, nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers for assignment to the other carrier's telephone exchange service customers. After that date, compliance with such guidelines, plan, or rules.
(x)
Nondiscriminatory access to databases and associated signaling necessary for call routing and completion.
(xi)
Until the date by which the Commission issues regulations pursuant to section 251 of this title to require number portability, interim telecommunications number portability through remote call forwarding, direct inward dialing trunks, or other comparable arrangements, with as little impairment of functioning, quality, reliability, and convenience as possible. After that date, full compliance with such regulations.
(xii)
Nondiscriminatory access to such services or information as are necessary to allow the requesting carrier to implement local dialing parity in accordance with the requirements of section 251(b)(3) of this title.
(xiii)
Reciprocal compensation arrangements in accordance with the requirements of section 252(d)(2) of this title.
(xiv)
Telecommunications services are available for resale in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3) of this title.
I particularly am fond of item iii, which speaks of non-discriminatory access requirements to owned right of ways, conduits, poles and ducts for the purpose of a CLEC deploying its OWN network... So... there goes the concept of saying, "It's illegal to string up my own wires" or "Congress never intended for CLECs to build their own networks" or "CLECs don't have access to right of ways or poles" as they DO. They just choose not to use that portion of the law.
What we are all wanting to see, however, is this: quote:
Local loop transmission from the central office to the customer's premises, unbundled from local switching or other services.
(v)
Local transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.
(vi)
Local switching unbundled from transport, local loop transmission, or other services.
Yes, it's a repeat, but a big repeat at that! What this says, is that if RBOCs wish to offer long distance, they must offer local loop transport to any CLEC unbundled from any service offered. English speakers may like this better: If RBOCs want long distance, they are required to offer wholesale access to the CLEC completely and wholely without offering any services to the customer on that local loop (DSL included) and without offering any services using the same central office equipment and/or trunk.
For those who wish to see this, please contact your librarian or search the web (the link I used is above) (BrianDamage, you might wish to look through ALL of this first- cuz we know you didn't read it all...) This info is from US Code Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part III, and what I quoted up above is section 271.
So I guess I found it...
Boogie | |
flomokas
Premium
join:2003-01-06
Moberly, MO
| reply to flomokas
»supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html···.ZS.html
»supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html···.ZO.html
»supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html···.ZO.html
IMHO, the above links to a Supreme Court decision and two of the justices' opinion are real good example of laying out part of the background how baby bell(s) actually view the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
My apologies on the broken link.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-31 09:55:02] | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by flomokas :
»www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm···st_match
IMHO, the above link to a Supreme Court decision is a real good example of how a baby bell actually view the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Broken link | |
Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
clubs:
|  said by boogie74 :
said by flomokas :
»www4.law.cornell.edu/
IMHO, the above link to a Supreme Court decision is a real good example of how a baby bell actually view the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Broken link
Edit your Margin Busting post please.  ;)
--
Starfire is The Future Now!  Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
 ·Comcast
| reply to boogie74
I don't think I read this quite the same way you do.
My reading of 47CFR Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(vi) is that the RBOCs must provide the CLECs with local loop transport, trunkside transport and local switching WITHOUT BUNDLING one of the services with the other two--(iv) says LOCAL LOOP UNBUNDLED FROM SWITCHING, (v) says LOCAL TRANSPORT FROM TRUNKSIDE OF WIRELINE LOCAL EXCHANGE UNBUNDLED FROM SWITCHING, (vi) says LOCAL SWITCHING UNBUNDLED FROM TRANSPORT or LOCAL LOOP.
To me this says that the RBOC can't FORCE the ILEC to take one or more of these services in order to get the other ones. Seems to me to be intended to allow the ILEC to make provisions for one part of the requirements for providing service independent of the others...or am I missing something?
In any event, what does all this have to do with what this thread is ostensibly about, which is RBOCs *requiring* customers to get their POTS from the RBOC in order to get DSL as well? I don't see anything to support this view in these regs. Just the opposite--at least in spirit--as the objective of the regs seems to be to decouple services and allow more of an a-la-carte approach. Again, am I missing something? | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by huntml :
I don't think I read this quite the same way you do.
My reading of 47CFR Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(vi) is that the RBOCs must provide the CLECs with local loop transport, trunkside transport and local switching WITHOUT BUNDLING one of the services with the other two--(iv) says LOCAL LOOP UNBUNDLED FROM SWITCHING, (v) says LOCAL TRANSPORT FROM TRUNKSIDE OF WIRELINE LOCAL EXCHANGE UNBUNDLED FROM SWITCHING, (vi) says LOCAL SWITCHING UNBUNDLED FROM TRANSPORT or LOCAL LOOP.
To me this says that the RBOC can't FORCE the ILEC to take one or more of these services in order to get the other ones. Seems to me to be intended to allow the ILEC to make provisions for one part of the requirements for providing service independent of the others...or am I missing something?
In any event, what does all this have to do with what this thread is ostensibly about, which is RBOCs *requiring* customers to get their POTS from the RBOC in order to get DSL as well? I don't see anything to support this view in these regs. Just the opposite--at least in spirit--as the objective of the regs seems to be to decouple services and allow more of an a-la-carte approach. Again, am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing the fact that when a local loop is offered unbundled for wholesale, the RBOC cannot reuse it retail. The RBOC is prevented from offering the end user services over that loop (or using that switch or trunk).
The CLEC can use those services and products unbundled. The RBOC cannot reuse them at the same time. The complaint is that CLECs aren't offering DSL and customers who want DSL from the RBOC can't get it unless the POTS service is with the RBOC too. There is nothing stopping the CLEC from offering DSL but the CLEC itself.
Think of things this way... When the RBOC (ILEC) sells a local loop unbundled for wholesale, it would be anti-competitive for the retail division to know what that particular loop is being used for wholesale. Imagine what chaos would occur if the ILEC decided to use that loop to sell voice service retail while the loop was already in use for voice service wholesale. This could not POSSIBLY work. Imagine what kind of uprising would occur if customers of MCI got calls from the ILEC saying, "We know you have caller ID, call waiting and unlimited local calls... this is what WE offer instead..."
Because the ILEC's retail divisions can't know what the loop is being used for wholesale, the ILEC is prevented from using that loop for ANY type of service retail- regardless of whether the service would technically work concurrently with the service being offered wholesale.
I mean, really... do you REALLY want to read about reports of SBC or BellSouth or Verizon simply adding lineshare DSL onto wholesale lines in error? What would happen if there is an error with the address? Then the customer (the wrong customer that is) calls and says, "What's the static on my line?" and the CLEC can only say, "We don't know... your problem SOUNDS like DSL, but we aren't selling it to you- call SBC." SBC then says, "You don't have an account with us... Call your CLEC." The problem now lies in the fact that SBC is required to offer DSL via a subsidiary who isn't allowed to tell SBC anything- once again- anticompetitive.
This simply isn't workable. The ILEC has TOO much to gain by having access to retail records for wholesale lines. CLECs don't have that capability- they can't see what services you use retail on a particular pair (unless they are the ones selling it to you). And per Federal Law, CPNI consent is required to offer you non-mandated products such as DSL- in other words, neither SBC nor the CLEC can even offer you DSL without asking you for permission to have access to your retail service records with THEM! Forget about other companies!
So as much as people would like to believe that ILECs are trying to make them unhappy by charging for the local line if you want DSL from them, it's all a bunch of paranoid hooey. There is a reason- and there is a law.
Boogie
[text was edited by author 2003-02-04 21:44:48] | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| This makes sense. Thanks. I am not very well-versed in this subject, and am trying to come up to speed on the issues.
Based on what you've said so far, it would seem that what's preventing CLEC dialtone customers from getting choice of DSL providers on their lines is not the ILECs which have sold the lines to the CLEC, but the CLECs, because they don't (or won't) release their retail records. Is this indeed the case as you see it? And if so, do you think this is a technical issue, or an, ahem, *philosophical* (wink) one? And even if the CLEC can't (or won't) allow the ILEC's retail division for to provide DSL on the line, why couldn't *another* DSL provider come in?
I live in Verizon territory, and when I just ran DSLR's availability wizard for my address a slew of potential providers popped up. As a consumer, it simply doesn't make sense to me that, were I to drop Verizon's dialtone service and go with a CLEC for dialtone, this list would be chopped down to one.
The more I look at this issue, the more it seems to me that if there is any fault in the issue of CLEC dialtone customers not being provided with alternatives for DSL provision, it's attributable *at least* to the policies/capabilities of the CLEC as to any other cause.
Any thoughts on this? Boogie, or anyone else? | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| quote:
Based on what you've said so far, it would seem that what's preventing CLEC dialtone customers from getting choice of DSL providers on their lines is not the ILECs which have sold the lines to the CLEC, but the CLECs, because they don't (or won't) release their retail records. Is this indeed the case as you see it? And if so, do you think this is a technical issue, or an, ahem, *philosophical* (wink) one? And even if the CLEC can't (or won't) allow the ILEC's retail division for to provide DSL on the line, why couldn't *another* DSL provider come in?
I wouldn't say that it is a voluntary refusal to release retail records; rather it is not legally allowed due to the proprietary nature of those records.
As I have stated before, it isn't an issue so much as to whether it is technically possible to get DSL on the same pair as POTS service from 2 different companies, but rather that in order to make this possible, many steps would be required that would make the option not only unfeasible but also illegal and anticompetitive in many respects.
That would also open the door to a whole new host of issues that you don't want to try to address- for instance, why not complain that it's unfair that I have to have dial-tone with one company in order to get caller id and call waiting with them? I should be able to get caller id and call waiting from MCI and get dialtone and voicemail from SBC... right? Wrong! There might very well be a technical way to literally program things and bill for this type of arrangement, but is it actually feasible? Are the steps involved in doing this not only all legal and fully competitive, but also worth the cost and work of attempting?
The laws as they are stated are written to encourage facilities based competition (despite the denials of many here) as well as to prevent things from happening (such as orders for switch based and/or data services being placed on an ubundled pair assigned for CLEC usage). The fact that lineshare DSL could work with POTS service while being transparent to the user of the POTS is immaterial.
Boogie | |
|
