Is, Or Isn't The FCC Exploring A Return To Line Sharing? Aide to Genachowski hints that it's still on the table... Tipped by RichNice 
Rumors began circulating late last year that the FCC was considering making line sharing part of their national broadband plan. Line sharing, as most of you know, involves requiring that incumbent carriers lease their networks to new entrants. The idea is that those ISPs then grow into larger carriers, capable of competition with incumbents. While we discarded the idea here (more accurately it was lobbied to death by major carriers and bungled by incompetent regulators), it has worked in markets like France, where consumers now see 100Mbps/50Mbps fiber service, VoIP and IPTV bundles for $40 a month.  (line sharing) is certainly something that we’ll look very closely at. -FCC |
Obviously carriers don't like the idea because no giant incumbent carrier wants eroded revenues or added competition. Incumbent carriers spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars attacking the plan at every turn, and are in no hurry to have to fight this particular fight all over again. While rumors of a return to line sharing blossomed last fall, broadband plan boss Blair Levin (who was primarily responsible for line sharing in the 1996 telecom act) seemingly harpooned that idea in an interview with the Wall Street Journal last December: "There are certain things where what’s going on in other countries really isn’t germane for where we go from here. As to (line sharing rules), the courts threw that out and we’re not that terribly interesting in moving toward things that will just freeze capital investment and have long, drawn-out court battles,” he said. "That doesn’t strike me as that productive." "(Fighting over line sharing in the courts) doesn’t strike me as that productive." -FCC's Blair Levin |
In other words, Levin suggests that the FCC will avoid a return to line sharing because the agency will just wind up in the courts indefinitely fighting AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon lawyers and their bottomless pocketbooks. But while Levin seemed to kill the idea, Business Week interviews an aide to FCC boss Julius Genachowski, who seems to think that line sharing remains very much on the table: Letting competitors lease lines into businesses may boost Internet adoption, help small businesses grow and aid job creation, said Colin Crowell, an aide to Democratic FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, in an interview. "That is certainly something that we’ll look very closely at, and has a lot of appeal as part of a national strategy," said Crowell. The change may be proposed as part of the FCC’s national plan for increasing the use of high-speed Internet, or broadband, that is to be delivered to Congress in March, Crowell said. It still seems unlikely that the agency will take such a bold step, given that early glimpses of the plan by consumer advocates seems to indicate the plan doesn't really do much of anything to seriously address competition. That of course would be a huge mistake, given that competition can cure all manner of problems in the sector (network neutrality, overly expensive metered broadband plans) without the need for additional, potentially dysfunctional regulation. We'll see if line sharing is part of the equation with the FCC unveils their plan to Congress in 33 days.
|
 | | No help for rural broadband Line sharing is a disincentive for telco's to deploy BB tech in rural areas because of an uncertain ROI.
Consumers with service issues get screwed when the telco and the line sharing company point fingers rather than cooperate to resolve a problem. | |
|  | | | Re: No help for rural broadband said by hoyleysox:Line sharing is a disincentive for telco's to deploy BB tech in rural areas because of an uncertain ROI. Consumers with service issues get screwed when the telco and the line sharing company point fingers rather than cooperate to resolve a problem. Like they are deploying BB tech to rural areas now?  | |
| | | | | Re: No help for rural broadband said by digitalfreak:Like they are deploying BB tech to rural areas now? My thoughts exactly 
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | | | Re: No help for rural broadband said by jimbo2150:said by digitalfreak:Like they are deploying BB tech to rural areas now? My thoughts exactly Yep, where are all the rural areas that Verizon is deploying FiOS to??? | |
|
| | |
| | | Linesharing is still in place in rural areas, and rural LECs specifically requested to remain under title-II rules, such as line sharing.
Not because they love regulation, but because some Title-II rules allow them to participate in NECA pooling and tarrifing, which spreads risk.
They don't care they are still subjected to line sharing, because no CLEC wants to focus on rural markets. | |
| |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by hoyleysox:Line sharing is a disincentive for telco's to deploy BB tech in rural areas because of an uncertain ROI. uncertain *direct* roi (i.e. from subscribers on direct plans). however, i would *tend* to think that if a group of people show interest in forming an isp in a rural area that the incumbents (with deep pocketbooks) could deploy infrastructure on a guarantee of service commitment from the rural isps.
this nets the incumbents steady income to subsidise the cost of deployment, sheltering them against the "worry of roi" and places the control of the network in the hands of the people who know the community the best - the rural isp.
it seems like it could actually *bolster* growth of rural broadband, in a perfect world.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
| | | | Why buy broadband from a company leasing the lines when you can go right to the source ?? Unfortunately the incumbents. Competitors need to be more like RCN who overbuild with their own lines to compete with the incumbents. | |
|
| | Separation Yet another reason why telcos and cablecos should be forced to split up their network and ISP business. | |
| Reviews:
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| Ready for the chainsaw-and-brick-wall approach yet? Customers paid premium rates for most of the 20th century to build a network that was second to none and provide a guaranteed ROI, generous R&D, and great jobs and benefits for employees.
When that business model became obsolete, ILECs cooked up all kinds of other ideas to keep subsidizing a very minimal level of plant investment, declare maintenance workers redundant, and expand profits for managers and stockholders.
With Google, Amazon, Apple and Netflix about to send a heat seeking-missile up their tailpipe, ILECs still don't realize that the one thing of value they still have, and the one thing they have let slip the most, is their last mile.
So let's fire up the chainsaws and build a brick wall between services and the outside plant. Then, the more providers that want to get on the outside plant, the better.
On the other side of the wall, if ILECs' services are worth buying, people will buy them. If not, well, too bad, welcome to capitalism.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder | |
| | | | Re: Ready for the chainsaw-and-brick-wall approach yet? Long distance and business customers paid premium rates. Residential customers paid barely what it cost. If even that.
The gov't took away all the cash cows that subsidized build-outs and now wonders why no one wants to set down any more plant. | |
| | | Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| Re: Ready for the chainsaw-and-brick-wall approach yet? said by bogey780:Long distance and business customers paid premium rates. Residential customers paid barely what it cost. If even that. The gov't took away all the cash cows that subsidized build-outs and now wonders why no one wants to set down any more plant. OK, so the "government" should "put back" some cash cows to help ILECs continue an outmoded business model?
Turn the wire center into a bidding center. If everybody is going for wireless, just let the last mile die.
If wired can't stand on its own in a capitalist system, it needs to be nationalized or at least be subsidized additionally by public policy (althought it already gets plenty of favorable tax treatment) that encourages equal access.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder | |
| | | | | | Re: Ready for the chainsaw-and-brick-wall approach yet? I like your thinking. Regulate it till it's unprofitable then nationalize it. Blame the failings on it's inability to compete in a "fair" market.
You'll be the top commissar with ideas like that. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| Re: Ready for the chainsaw-and-brick-wall approach yet? said by bogey780:Regulate it till it's unprofitable then nationalize it. Blame the failings on it's inability to compete in a "fair" market. I didn't say anything about regulating it, outside of putting a wall between service providers and OSP owner-operators. Just saying that there's no way a company that's a service provider can be expected to give equal access to its competitors.
If the OSP is split off, all service providers negotiate with the OSP company for the best lease rates. Telecom OSP can operate as a private coop, a sanctioned monopoly, or in competition with other OSP providers such as HFC networks.
They charge rates that support the true costs. If they can't compete with other last-mile providers, they die.
What's wrong with that, comrade?
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ready for the chainsaw-and-brick-wall approach yet? 'Just saying that there's no way a company that's a service provider can be expected to give equal access to its competitors.'
Saying they need to is regulating it.
"The Market" and "Evolution" are grossly misunderstood by many Americans it seems. They don't produce what is "best" in the generalized sense of the word. They sustain themselves and whatever sustains itself "wins". Right now with the current regulation, the market sustains itself best with conservative infrastructure build-outs with high recoup costs. That's why you're not seeing people rolling out fiber to every man, woman, and child. It's a matter of profitability. And despite what some economists thought during the 90s, there's no such thing as a "New Economy".
Saying we'd all have super fast broadband really cheap if we just had the right regulation in place is like saying we'd have free energy if we wished really hard. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| Re: Ready for the chainsaw-and-brick-wall approach yet? said by bogey780:'Just saying that there's no way a company that's a service provider can be expected to give equal access to its competitors.' Saying they need to is regulating it. ... Saying we'd all have super fast broadband really cheap if we just had the right regulation in place is like saying we'd have free energy if we wished really hard. Fair enough. That much I can agree with. It probably does cost more than most people think, but because it's a nickel here and a dime there, we don't notice.
My point is not that anyone should be regulated out of existence, or that companies shouldn't have profits, but that it's a better system for consumers if we know what we're paying, who we're paying, and why. People who aren't willing to pay don't get to play, however.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder | |
|
| | Read Between the Lines 1) Chief architect of the national broadband plan throws line sharing under the bus.
Then
2) national broadband plan is delayed one month.
Then
3) Someone inside the chairman's office, who is not working on the national broadband plan, says positive things about line sharing in the context of a separate and unrelated petition, and mentions that it has a lot of "appeal" as a part of a national strategy. | |
| | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Read Between the Lines It's possible. Crossed wires and aides speaking out of turn who may not be fully versed on the plan are also possible explanations...
I'd be shocked if they really seriously embraced an open access policy. Everything about the plan to me right now reads "timid." | |
| | | | | Re: Read Between the Lines Completely agree. My read between the lines was pointing to this... that there is dissatisfaction and worry that the national broadband team is about to lay an egg. | |
| | | | | said by Karl Bode:It's possible. Crossed wires and aides speaking out of turn who may not be fully versed on the plan are also possible explanations... I'd be shocked if they really seriously embraced an open access policy. Everything about the plan to me right now reads "timid." "Where the phone company, sir. We don't have to care."
NBP should be wire everything FTTH and sell access to anyone. $50-75 billion would make the economy ramp up and a lot of jobs could be done at home increasing productivity, profits, and employee pay. | |
| | | | | | Re: Read Between the Lines The amount of money this country wastes on pork, war, nation building and other crap could have delivered a national fiber to the home network to every single home fifty times over at this point....with money left over.... | |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
 ·Comcast
| This was our last hope I know it has been beaten to death in here about "no the government shouldn't mandate competition" but i don't know about the rest of you but there current model doesn't really seem to embrace competition so much. In my humble opinion i say it's time to change the game,i have followed line sharing around the world and it always seems to benefit the consumer not harm. | |
| Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
4 edits | The Bush FCC essentially KILLED LIne sharing! The Bush/Powell FCC got paid off by the ILECS and 'de-regulated' the DSL line sharing provisions out of the 1996 Communications Act-then they interpreted the 1996 Act (the Communications Act for "the next 50 years") to only require line sharing for the copper plant in place as of 1996! In simpler terms, linesharing doesn't apply AT ALL for fiber. Let's get real-did ANYONE out there really believe in 1996 that we'd still be using any copper plant in 2046?
Let's not forget that the ILECS AGREED TO LINESHARING in exchange for being allowed to enter the long distance business-then when it was time for honoring THEIR side of the agreement, paid off Powell to exempt them from having to do so. In simpler terms, they: Got their cake and got to eat it too!!.
How do YOU spell rig job?
Also, in the BrandX case, SCOTUS determined that cable did not have to lineshare, because the FCC managed to convince them that the Internet sent over cable lines was NOT a Communications Service-instead it was an "Information Service". Of course at the same time the FCC also claimed that the Internet sent over DSL and fiber is NOT an Information Service-instead it's a "Communications Service".
Can you believe this? The FCC has ruled The SAME Internet is TWO compeletely different services-depending on what kind of WIRES it's sent over!! | |
| | | | Re: The Bush FCC essentially KILLED LIne sharing! Well, this is an interpretation of what went down. But in the interest of informing the community, here's what actually happened.
1) In 1999, the Clinton FCC issued the "Advanced Services Order," which required "line sharing" over copper networks. "Line sharing" specifically refers to an ILEC being required to "share" the high-frequency portion of the copper phone line with a CLEC, at state-regulated rates.
2) USTA took the FCC to court over this decision, and the circuit court remanded it back to the FCC.
3) In 2003, in the "Triennial Review Order" the Powell-FCC eliminated any Section 251 unbundling requirements on fiber-optic to the node or premise lines. Powell supported this.
4) But in the same 2003 order, the FCC eliminated the line sharing over copper requirement. Powell actually voted against eliminating line sharing, saying that he didn't believe it discouraged investment, since the facilities were old copper. Powell was supported in this by another republican commissioner. It was actually a 3-2 decision with the two democrats joining with Martin to kill line sharing. The politics of why they did this are complex, and has to do with lots of horse trading.
5) In 2005, when the FCC reclassified DSL as an information service, this removed the last vestige of wholesale obligations on DSL, so-called "bitstream access."
6) What this Businessweek article is about is a petition by C-Beyond to require ILECs to sale CLECs wholesale access to fiber facilities, essentially revisiting that part of the Triennial Review Order. This isn't "line sharing", but wholesale access, more akin to full local loop unbundling. The FCC spokesperson and the articles author have sort of muddled the issue, expanding it to generic "line sharing." | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: The Bush FCC essentially KILLED LIne sharing! said by Bill Dollar:6) What this Businessweek article is about is a petition by C-Beyond to require ILECs to sale CLECs wholesale access to fiber facilities, essentially revisiting that part of the Triennial Review Order. This isn't "line sharing", but wholesale access, more akin to full local loop unbundling. The FCC spokesperson and the articles author have sort of muddled the issue, expanding it to generic "line sharing." Fiber unbundling isn't possible in most cases. Verizon's FIOS system is a PON, 32 users per fiber back to the CO sharing the same bandwidth pool and 870 mhz coax pool. How do you unbundle that? | |
| | | | | | Re: The Bush FCC essentially KILLED LIne sharing! Yeah, good point. on PON I imagine they'd want something more like bitstream access. Either way, here's the Cbeyond petition in all its glory:
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/···20354600 | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: The Bush FCC essentially KILLED LIne sharing! Haha, cold day in hell bitstream unbundling will happen over FTTC/PON FTTH/DOCSIS for business customers.
Residential/Small Business customers can be expected to never use their line's rated capacity, oversubscription concept. What happens when someone is pumping live blu-ray through their unbundled DOCSIS 3 modem 24/7? Can the ILEC cap the CLEC's/customer's connection? Whose AUP/TOS will apply? Who determines what abusive usage? What about SLA? What happens if a remote terminal/fiber node is congested everyday from 2 PM to 10 PM and the ILEC/MSO doesn't want to upgrade anything? What if the RT/fiber node fails and the ILEC/MSO won't fix it until monday morning because its the weekend? What can the CLEC do? Alpha male SMB CEO will go berzerk threatening lawsuits against the CLEC for costing him revenue.
Im not sure how Utopia, which is based off shared fiber ethernet links, handles its CLECs/abusive/oversubscription. AFAIK, all/almost all the CLECs of Utopia have GB caps on their internet connections, not sure if they are enforced.
Per TA1996 CLECs are supposed colocate their boxes at the ILEC's RT box, or run their own lines all the way to the customer's property (look at all of Cogent's or Lightpath's or RCN's on-network buildings). Why haven't they done this?
Lightpath's network shares very little with Optimum HFC, different levels on the telephone poles, different ducts underground (but same ROW/ditch), different entry ducts into building basement. Lightpath was an independent company with its own network at one point that CV bought. RCN's SLA fiber plant is the same as is used to deliver RCN HFC, atleast in NYC.
Cbeyond is basically asking for a P2P VPN over possibly bonded residential DSL/Cable modems from the customer to Cbeyond the CLEC and let Cbeyond "manage" the line, so the customer doesn't have to coordinate between Cbeyond's equipment and the ILEC's line when trouble arises. For all the reasons bitstream unbundling doesn't work above, Cbeyond faces the same problems, and Cbeyond will go whining to the FCC about net neutrality.
Regarding setting unbundle prices to be profitable for ILEC's fiber network, thats a joke in the USA. Any ILEC will build and rent you dark fiber loop to the CO for 10Ks to low 100Ks with cost plus billing. Thats currently the "profit" price of fiber plant according to the law. How FIOS and Uverse were built, well, it involves the square root of -1 
quote:
Similarly, Canada has failed to effectively enforce unbundling requirements and has
performed poorly in terms of broadband penetration, capacity, and affordability. Indeed, based
on a quantitative analysis of the prices charged for the highest speeds of broadband offered by
the 59 firms in the countries studied, the study found that "the lowest prices and highest speeds
are offered by firms that occupy a market with unbundling-based entrants alongside incumbent
telecommunications companies and facilities-based competitors, both cable and power" whereas
"the highest prices and lowest speed combinations occur in North America, where there are no
unbundling-based entrants, and where both the United States, formally, and Canada, practically,
have come to rely on inter-modal competition." 77
Bias of course. Canada has full bitstream and conditioned copper unbundling. Canada has multiple CLECs for DSL that only need to connect one SONET line with their customers data from all over Canada from the ILEC to a backbone provider ethernet line at the DSL CLEC's facility. Everyone served by an ILEC DSL RT in Canada can get CLEC DSL. | |
| | | | | djweis
join:2006-04-02
West Des Moines, IA | Do you have a link to the other half? It's titled one of two. | |
|
| | |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by patcat88:Fiber unbundling isn't possible in most cases. Verizon's FIOS system is a PON, 32 users per fiber back to the CO sharing the same bandwidth pool and 870 mhz coax pool. How do you unbundle that? You allow the signal at the CO end to be routed to the non-Verizon ISP just like you used to sell dry copper to the other companies by hooking the incoming wire to their equipment at the CO or allowed another TelCo to use your last mile wires for phone service. | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
2 edits | Re: The Bush FCC essentially KILLED LIne sharing! said by RARPSL:said by patcat88:Fiber unbundling isn't possible in most cases. Verizon's FIOS system is a PON, 32 users per fiber back to the CO sharing the same bandwidth pool and 870 mhz coax pool. How do you unbundle that? You allow the signal at the CO end to be routed to the non-Verizon ISP just like you used to sell dry copper to the other companies by hooking the incoming wire to their equipment at the CO or allowed another TelCo to use your last mile wires for phone service. What happens when someone is pumping live blu-ray 24/7 through their CLEC shared with ILEC PON connection? Can the ILEC cap the CLEC's/customer's connection? Whose AUP/TOS will apply? Who determines what abusive usage? What about SLA? What happens if the PON strand is congested everyday from 2 PM to 10 PM and the ILEC doesn't want to upgrade anything? What can the CLEC do? Will cries of net neutrality come from the CLEC? | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| Re: The Bush FCC essentially KILLED LIne sharing! said by patcat88:What happens if the PON strand is congested everyday from 2 PM to 10 PM and the ILEC doesn't want to upgrade anything? What can the CLEC do? Will cries of net neutrality come from the CLEC? So is shared PON the new "load coils"? In other words, the ILEC's way of making sure even if the law is changed, it's going to be difficult and costly to implement?
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder | |
| | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: The Bush FCC essentially KILLED LIne sharing! said by ArgMeMatey:So is shared PON the new "load coils"? In other words, the ILEC's way of making sure even if the law is changed, it's going to be difficult and costly to implement? Yes. Its part of the telco's strategy. They could have done active FTTH, where the CLEC can rent a F1 virtual circuit from the SAI to the CO, where CLEC and ILEC traffic are never in the same packet switched domain. Or home run FTTH like in france. | |
|
| | | Fios FiOS shouldn't be subjected to line sharing. Why should the earthlink's of the world be allowed to sell services on the infrastructure Verizon is spending billions on building?
Copper is a different animal. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital ..
| Beep, beep, beep, beep.... Sounds like companies like EarthLink may possibly be getting off of life support. Hmm....
Nah, who am I kidding? This is big business we are talking about. Lol!
--
Satan is always busy. He makes bad things look good and good things look bad! Watch that Devil. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
The grass is always greener over the Septic Tank!
Erma Bombeck said it right. The grass is always greener over the Septic Tank! Unless the cost to competitive ISP's for the last mile connection, line sharing won't fly. In 1999 an incumbent local exchange carriers invited ISP's to take a share in the broadband pie. Unfortunately the sliver of pie was so small that one ISP discovered that they would continue making more money on their dial up customers than their DSL Customers. Wisely the company management predicted that in the long run dial up was doomed and sold their dial-up customers to a national ISP. 