HR 1542

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

The ads on TV prompted me to look at this.

In Section 4 ...

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (c) and (d), the Commission shall not require an incumbent local exchange carrier to--

`(A) provide unbundled access to any network elements used in the provision of any high speed data service, other than those network elements described in section 51.319 of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 51.319), as in effect on January 1, 1999; or

`(B) offer for resale at wholesale rates any high speed data service.

`(2) AUTHORITY TO REDUCE ELEMENTS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENT- Paragraph (1)(A) shall not prohibit the Commission from modifying the regulation referred to in that paragraph to reduce the number of network elements subject to the unbundling requirement, or to forbear from enforcing any portion of that regulation in accordance with the Commission's authority under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, notwithstanding any limitation on that authority in section 10 of this Act.'.

Hmmm .... I don't think this improves competition.

2

"Joseph T. Klein" wrote:

Hmmm .... I don't think this improves competition.

Joseph T. Klein +1 414 915 7489
Senior Network Engineer jtk@titania.net
Adelphia Business Solutions joseph.klein@adelphiacom.com

[Joseph, this mini-rant is not directed specifically at you, so please
do not take it personally.]

I felt compelled to answer this. You work for a company operating in
another industry that is doing much the same thing! I don't see Adelphia's
cable Internet services in Cleveland being opened to other ISPs. (Yes,
I know that Adelphia just entered the market about a year ago, and yes,
I know that the cablemodem rollout is far from complete.) Time
Warner isn't, either. I heard about them doing it in about a dozen test
markets (Central Ohio being one of them) but haven't heard anything since
then. To the south of my home, RoadRunner is *huge* in Akron, Canton
and Columbus. But it's the same old song and dance...

And I don't understand why every single ISP (regardless of size) isn't
doing more to stand up for open access. Ultimately, it will become an
issue of survival.

3

Adelphia is not a regulated public utility, that's the difference.

If you want to see some serious battle over this issue, check the various
Dingell/Tauzin threads at dslreports.com...

My basic argument is that the copper is more of a public resource. ATT
was granted a monopoly way back when, and the ILECs have certainly
recouped all their costs on that particular resource. Adelphia did not
inherit their cable plant, and is likely still paying it off.

The ILECs can refuse to resell other elements, but the copper really
should remain and unbundled element. The best (and most unlikely) remedy
I've seen is to put all the copper under control of a neutral third party
through which both the ILECs and CLECs would order lines...

Charles

4

Charles Sprickman wrote:

Adelphia is not a regulated public utility, that's the difference.

Since when are cable companies not regulated?

(Did they suddenly give up their monopoly positions in the
areas they serve?)

The ILECs can refuse to resell other elements, but the copper really
should remain and unbundled element. The best (and most unlikely) remedy
I've seen is to put all the copper under control of a neutral third party
through which both the ILECs and CLECs would order lines...

Certainly would help. Well, maybe. The same problems might exists as
exist with ICANN in the TLD world.

5

Steve,

I will make the standard disclaimer. My opinions are mine and
do not reflect the policies or opinions of Adelphia.

That said;

My personal opinion it for the most part in agreement with your
last paragraph. I do not belive that giving anyone a monopoly
on the last mile is in the best interest of the public, nor
the majority of the network operators.

OK, back to the normal NANOG topics ....

6

Commonly known as 'structural seperation'...

joe

7

Though a different cable company, a letter I received from ATT Broadband's legal counsel might be of interest. I've been charged some 17 cents in various taxes on top of my $49.95/month cable modem bill (I don't subscribe to cable TV, just the data service). So I sent a letter asking why my Internet service is taxed, where the State of Massachusetts does not impose a sales tax on services, and where I thought the cable modem business was outside regulation.

The response letter I received indicated that the cable modem business, like EVERYTHING else in the cable business WAS INDEED regulated by the state and local governments. I'm keeping a copy of this letter to use when next ATT claims the local cable commission has no control over the cable modems (next license renewal, I intend to push for open access).

I'll post a PDF of this letter on the web somewhere if anyone is interested.

Dan

8

Also sprach Steve Sobol

I felt compelled to answer this. You work for a company operating in
another industry that is doing much the same thing! I don't see
Adelphia's cable Internet services in Cleveland being opened to other
ISPs. (Yes, I know that Adelphia just entered the market about a year
ago, and yes, I know that the cablemodem rollout is far from complete.)
Time Warner isn't, either. I heard about them doing it in about a dozen
test markets (Central Ohio being one of them) but haven't heard
anything since then. To the south of my home, RoadRunner is *huge* in
Akron, Canton and Columbus. But it's the same old song and dance...

I've said many times, in many fora...

I'll be the first to stand up for Open Access on cable plants. Indeed,
we (IgLou) were quite active in trying to get the city of Louisville
Board of Alderman to at least *act* like they have a backbone (even
though natives know they don't have one at all) and try to enforce Open
Access on TKR^WIntermedia^WInsight (I proly missed quite a few there,
and I know there were some that predated TKR), alas, the city decided
that they didn't real care about locally owned and operated businesses,
doing the right thing, or even showing some semblance of intelligence
regarding the cable franchise. Consequently, they didn't even *attempt*
to push the Open Access issue, and settled for a $5 credit to customers
for *years* of illegally including a property tax fee on cable bills.

Oh man...and my wife is watching the news downstairs and just informed
me that the Louisville Board of Alderman managed to make themselves look
like total idiots yet again. For those of you (I would assume most)
that aren't familiar with the situation here. After Derby (I assume
most of you realize that the Kentucky Derby was today), traditionally,
there has been a massive cruising problem on Broadway from downtown
Louisville out to the west end (predominantly african american area of
town). So the Board decided to hold hip-hop concerts to try to draw
people to the concerts to avoid the cruising. Apparently, they needed
ot have 23,000 people come to the concerts between the two nights to
break even...they ended up with something like 2800 people there between
the two nights.

So what does this have to do with nanog? Well...ok...its a stretch, but
cablecos are "regulated" (if you can call it that) by local franchises
almost exclusively. At least in the state of KY, the PSC does *NO*
regulation over cablecos. The FCC only does very basic regulation
(primarily content regulation as I understand it). And the local
franchises are "regulated" by people like the Board of Alderman here in
Louisville that don't have a *clue* about what's going on with stuff
like this, or about what the significance is. Even worse, though, is
that they don't *care*, even when its pointed out to them! This makes
the Open Access fight for cable very hard to nigh on impossible.

The good news, however, is that if we fight the fight to get real
openness on telco networks (not the crap that the RBOCs like BellSouth
are trying to pull right now), then the cable networks will be moot
before too long.

Look at the history of computing and computer networking...the more open
solution wins, almost without fail. Open up the telco networks, and the
cable networks will loose out and will cease to be relevent.

The RBOCs seem to think, however, that two wrongs make a right. The
prevailing thought being something like, "Sure, openness is good, but if
the cablecos aren't going to be open, then its bad for us to be open."

Uh...huh?

So, in summary, I agree with you that cable networks should be open as
well. The bad news is that its a fight that we (independent ISPs) won't
win because we don't have legal and regulatory leverage. The good news
is that we *can* win the fight for real open access on telco networks if
we organize and fight. The better news is that winning the fight for
real open access on telcos makes the fight for open access on cablecos
moot.

And I don't understand why every single ISP (regardless of size) isn't
doing more to stand up for open access. Ultimately, it will become an
issue of survival.

Check out http://war.iglou.com

Join or start your state ISP Association or one of the national ones
like The American ISP Association (http://www.aispa.org).

9

Jeff Mcadams wrote:

Look at the history of computing and computer networking...the more open
solution wins, almost without fail. Open up the telco networks, and the
cable networks will loose out and will cease to be relevent.

The RBOCs seem to think, however, that two wrongs make a right. The
prevailing thought being something like, "Sure, openness is good, but if
the cablecos aren't going to be open, then its bad for us to be open."

Uh...huh?

You've got it wrong. It's "They don't have to do it; why should we?"

So, in summary, I agree with you that cable networks should be open as
well. The bad news is that its a fight that we (independent ISPs) won't
win because we don't have legal and regulatory leverage.

But it's a fight that others can fight too. Big guys. AOL probably won't
(AOL==Time Warner, remember), but Earthlink and MSN might.

EarthlinkMindspringOneMainSprint of BORG *is* aligned with Sprint,
but Sprint isn't an ILEC in the vast majority of towns across the USA.

Everyone should be fighting for this, IMHO. Little ISPs, big-name nationwide

retail providers, and backbones that aren't associated with an ILEC. That
means
UUNet and Intermedia, for example. MCI isn't an ILEC in most places that I
know of, either.

So why aren't we fighting?

The good news
is that we *can* win the fight for real open access on telco networks if
we organize and fight.

Yup!

10

Also sprach Steve Sobol

Jeff Mcadams wrote:

Look at the history of computing and computer networking...the more
open solution wins, almost without fail. Open up the telco networks,
and the cable networks will loose out and will cease to be relevent.

The RBOCs seem to think, however, that two wrongs make a right. The
prevailing thought being something like, "Sure, openness is good, but
if the cablecos aren't going to be open, then its bad for us to be
open."

Uh...huh?

You've got it wrong. It's "They don't have to do it; why should we?"

But they'll give lip service that open networks are good...so the two
arguments that we're attributing to RBOCs boil down to be the same
thing...just stated differently.

But it's a fight that others can fight too. Big guys. AOL probably
won't (AOL==Time Warner, remember), but Earthlink and MSN might.

EarthlinkMindspringOneMainSprint of BORG *is* aligned with Sprint, but
Sprint isn't an ILEC in the vast majority of towns across the USA.

Everyone should be fighting for this, IMHO. Little ISPs, big-name
nationwide

retail providers, and backbones that aren't associated with an ILEC.
That means UUNet and Intermedia, for example. MCI isn't an ILEC in most
places that I know of, either.

So why aren't we fighting?

We are...though its kinda low grade since the bigger current fight is to
maintain the current openness on the RBOC networks since they seem to
have the FCC and at least some Representatives pretty much on their
payroll, and are doing their best to embrace and extend their monopoly
out into broadband. My experiences are in dealing with BellSouth, and
to be quite blunt, I can't see why anyone would want to acknowledge
working for such a completely unethical company.