A core tenet of the 1996 Telecom Act was requiring that incumbent ISPs let competitors access their networks in the quest to improve competition. Especially since high costs and incumbent dirty tricks often makes building your own nationwide network all but impossible (go ask Google Fiber). But over the years the industry's biggest ISPs have slowly but surely dismantled most of the line-sharing aspects of the Act, and are now taking aim at the last remnants in a move that could harm smaller ISPs that rely on them.
US Telecom, an AT&T-backed lobbying group, has petitioned the government to escape their obligations under Section 251 of the Act, which requires them to provide wholesale access to unbundled network elements (UNEs)--which offer a means of competitive entry for smaller competitors.
"These outdated rules distort competition and investment decisions," the lobbying organization said in a blog post.
"When outdated and overly restrictive regulations are rolled back, innovation and investment thrives," the group said. "And for over two decades, the broadband industry has transformed how the world communicates under a light-touch regulatory structure that spurred over one and a half trillion dollars in private investment."
You'll be shocked to learn the lobbying organization isn't being entirely truthful. Part of the reason line sharing failed in the States is because incumbent ISPs fought tooth and nail to ensure the process was as cumbersome and difficult as possible, something many of those familiar with the ILEC/CLEC wars of the 90s and early aughts will remember not so fondly. And before a serious effort to make the idea work could take root, ISP lobbyists had already begun scuttling the effort.
Meanwhile, other countries like France embraced the concept of line sharing to great success. Users in Paris can now routinely get 200 Mbps fiber, a full TV lineup and phone service -- often for less than $50. That, obviously, is not something US ISPs would like to see mirrored here in the States.
Smaller competitors that use these lines state the move is simply designed to reduce already pathetic competition in the US telecom market even further.
"Sonic is fully engaged in the process of building fiber to customers in a number of markets around Northern California, but this represents a serious impediment to our ability to deploy fiber," says Sonic CEO Dane Jasper of the group's petition.
"The 1996 Telecommunications Act created competition in the telephone and broadband marketplace by requiring incumbents to unbundle essential last mile facilities, primarily copper wires that go to premises," Jasper says. "Serving customers on these facilities is an essential step toward fiber deployment, which Sonic is actively engaged in."
"However, we cannot lose access to copper in the meantime," Jasper said. "The cut-off of unbundled network elements as contemplated by US Telecom is an audacious attempt at limiting new fiber deployment by competitive carriers including Sonic, and it would directly harm hundreds of thousands of California consumers and businesses who we currently provide high-speed services using UNE copper facilities and backhaul."
