Is, Or Isn't The FCC Exploring A Return To Line Sharing? → 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!!

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."

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?

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/d ··· 20354600

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.

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?

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.

Do you have a link to the other half? It's titled one of two.