HR 1542

Unnamed Administration sources reported that Steve Sobol said:

"Joseph T. Klein" wrote:

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

> Joseph T. Klein +1 414 915 7489
> Senior Network Engineer
> Adelphia Business Solutions

[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.

There are the following truths:

1) Telco's are regulated under one body of law/FCC regulation.

2) Cable Co's are regulated under an entirely different set,
  with different basis in history & law.

3) The current law requires the telcos to rent UNE's {pieces, such
  as the local loop copper...} to CLEC's. This was part of the
  96 Telecom Act. When the Bells complied withabuncha rules,
  they'd get free rein in the LD business.

4) There is no such law such as the 96 Act applying to cable data.

5) The Bells especially SWB (who now controls a massive amount
  of territory -- Califunny to Ohio) are whining and crying
  "It's not fair; Johnny Cox gets to play outside after dark,
  why can't I go along?"

6) Their solution is to remove ALL requirements that they must
  rent UNE's; that they have to meet any requirements before
  being allowed into LD, and to boot - an exemption from FCC
  regulation, period.

7) The Bells have tried and failed to get state PSC's to vote
  their way. They have tried in the courts, and failed. They
  have tried to get the FCC to do it their way, and failed again.

8) They are NOW busy with their new shill, a certain Hillcritter
  from ForestGumpville, trying yet again in the form of a
  bill to accomplish same. They have paid him very well^H^H^H
  rather their PAC's have donated lotsa ""soft money".....

9) Note the Bell/ForestGump solution is MORE monopoly, by
  denying facilities to any/all CLEC's; It's NOT to require
  the cable co's to rent cabledata to CLECish folks.

Now My Opinion:

While I don't like 4); there is no way that 6) solves the issue;
it just helps restore the One Bell Monopoly dream, now free of
many regulatory constraints traded away in 96.

YMMV, but I do not look forward to a new OBM. I'm old enough
to recall the pre-84 one.