The bill would restrict competitors of the Baby Bells from accessing the local phone lines (known as the "last mile" or "local loop") to people's houses. If this bill passes, you will ONLY be able to get DSL (high speed Internet connections) from the local phone company. You will have to pay their price, and take whatever they offer you. (Does anyone remember how expensive long distance calls where in the 1970's when AT&T controlled all long distance phone lines?)
Already, the Baby Bells have been very effective in killing their competition, Northpoint Communications is gone, Rhythms Communication is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and nearly gone, and Covad Communications just filed Chapter 11 (Aug., 2001). This is NOT the time to give the local phone company monopolies more power to shut down their competitors.
You may see TV commercials sponsored by the Baby Bells telling you that this bill will allow the local phone company to wire rural America for high speed access. THIS IS FALSE. There is a technology called ISDN with has been around for 15 years, yet, the phone companies never pushed this technology. (in fact, they continue to charge a metered rate on this service. Verizon charges 2 cents per minute per channel [a channel is 64kbps]). This technology could have been used anytime in the past 15 years if the Baby Bells really wanted to give rural areas high speed Internet access. (There is a reason that the Baby Bells don't like ISDN or DSL lines. It is because it cuts into their T-1 market [Trunk-1, a dedicated line that cost around $1000.00USD to $5000.00USD per month and operates at 1.544mbps]. Contrast this with a 1.2mbps SDSL line that cost $400.00USD per month from a CLEC [Competitive Local Exchange Carrier] and you can see why the Baby Bells don't like CLECs or DSL).
The Baby Bell's track record in the metropolitan areas is not much better. I live in Fairfax Va (Washington DC area) which is the richest county in the United States. I ordered my IDSL line from a CLEC because Verizon did NOT offer DSL in my neighborhood. The CLEC (Covad) was the ONLY option. If Verizon can't even wire their own backyard, what makes anyone think that they are going to wire some rural area?
By the way, I can only get an IDSL line (144kbps) because Verizon refuses to upgrade the "local loop" in my area.... They prefer that I buy a T-1 (which I obviously can't afford).
I have called and written to all of my US House and Senate Representative (I even called the Whitehouse. Ya, I know, Pres. Bush could care less about my concerns....).
Currently, the Tauzin-Dingell Bill was dropped in the last US House session (Aug., 2001). However, my Representative, Tom Davis, has told me that it will probably be re-introduced in the next session. This is the time to call or write all of your representative at their local offices since they are on break now.
As I said, I called all of my representative. Tom Davis' office called me back. He is against the Tauzin-Dingell bill. George Allen sent me an email. He seemed very understanding and I'm glad that he wrote back to me, but I'm not sure which way he is going to vote if the bill makes it to the Senate (I've attached his email to this web page, you decide for yourself). And, of course, no word from Sen. Warner....
It would be good for everyone that wants affordable high
speed Internet access to call and/or write their representatives.
Robert Barnes
Networking/Systems Consultant
I received a letter from Tom
Davis (House, R-Va). His letter is so much better than the crap that
I got from George Allen (Senate R-VA) that I'm putting it first.
(George Allen and John Warner STINK (Senate). In fact, John Warner
didn't even think that my concerns were important enough to respond to
me. Tom Davis ROCKS!)
From - Fri Sep 21 22:57:54 2001
<----(I wonder if their mailserver is slow or are they really working
this late?)
Received: from xxxxx.house.gov ([1x.x.x.x])
Subject: Responding to your message
Thank you for your letter
expressing your opposition to H.R. 1542,
the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of
2001. As one who is
opposed to this legislation, I greatly appreciate hearing
from you.
New technologies and innovation
in services and service delivery are
promising to improve telecommunications for individuals
and small
businesses alike. Today, the overwhelming majority of
residential Internet
users access the Internet through the same telephone
line used for
traditional voice communication. But consumer expectations
are evolving
with the anticipation of widespread broadband deployment.
Currently, the expansion of high-speed
Internet access through the
deployment of broadband to the American home is being
financed and
implemented by the private sector. Competitive carriers,
following the
promises of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, invested
over $50 billion in
new telecom networks; for the past 2 years, they have
committed over $1
billion per month for DSL-type broadband connectivity
alone. And thousands
of high-skilled, high-paying jobs have been created nationwide.
From a public policy perspective,
the goals are to ensure that
broadband deployment is timely, that industry competes
fairly, and that
service is provided to all sectors and geographical locations
of American
society. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 (P.L. 104-104)
required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
to determine whether
"advanced telecommunications capability [i.e., broadband
or high-speed
access] is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable
and timely
fashion." If this is not the case, the Act directs the
FCC to "take
immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability
by removing
barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting
competition in the
telecommunications market."
On January 28, 1999, the FCC
adopted a report pursuant to Section 706
which concluded that "the consumer broadband market is
in the early stages
of development, and that, while it is too early to reach
definitive
conclusions, aggregate data suggests that broadband is
being deployed in a
reasonable and timely fashion." The FCC announced that
it would continue
to monitor closely the deployment of broadband capability
in annual
reports and that, where necessary, it would "not hesitate
to reduce
barriers to competition and infrastructure investment
to ensure that
market conditions are conducive to investment, innovation,
and meeting the
needs of all consumers." Similarly, an FCC staff report
issued on July 19,
1999, concluded that regulation should not "automatically"
be imposed on
new technologies, and that when Internet-based services
replace
traditional legacy services, the FCC should "begin to
deregulate the old
instead of regulate the new." At the same time, the report
cautioned that
the FCC should "maintain a watchful eye to ensure that
anticompetitive
behavior, such as bottlenecks and tying, do not develop,
and be careful
that any regulatory responses are the minimum necessary
and outweigh the
costs of regulation."
While the FCC's position is not
to intervene at this time, some
assert that legislation is necessary to ensure fair competition
and timely
broadband deployment. Currently, the debate centers on
two specific
proposals: 1) compelling cable companies to provide
"open access" to
competing Internet Service Providers, and 2) easing certain
legal
restrictions and requirements, imposed by the Telecommunications
Act of
1996, on incumbent telephone companies that provide high-speed
data
(broadband) access.
Access to broadband services
has prompted policymakers in Congress to
examine a range of issues to ensure that broadband will
be available on a
timely and equal basis to all U.S. citizens. One issue
under examination
is whether present laws and subsequent regulatory policies
as they are
applied to the RBOCs (the Regional Bell Operating Companies
which include
Verizon, SBC, Qwest, or BellSouth) are thwarting the
deployment of
broadband services. The two primary regulations of concern
are the
restrictions placed on Bell operating company provision
of long distance
services within their service territories, and network
unbundling and
resale requirements imposed on all incumbent telephone
companies.
As a result of the 1984 AT&T
divestiture, the Bell System service
territory was broken up into service regions and each
assigned to an RBOC.
The geographic area in which an RBOC may provide telephone
services within
its region was further divided into local access and
transport areas, or
LATAs. These LATAs total 164 and vary dramatically in
size. LATAs
generally contain one major metropolitan area, and an
RBOC will have
numerous LATAs within its designated service region.
Restrictions contained in Section
271 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 prohibit the RBOCs from offering interLATA services
within their
service regions until certain conditions are met. RBOCs
seeking to provide
such services must file an application with the FCC and
the appropriate
state regulatory authority that demonstrates compliance
with a 14-point
competitive checklist of market-opening requirements.
The FCC, after
consultation with the Justice Department and the relevant
state regulatory
commission, determines whether the RBOC is in compliance
and can be
authorized to provide in-region interLATA services. To
date, Verizon has
received this approval in New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts,
while
SBC has earned approval in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
The independent
telephone companies, or non-BOC providers of local service,
are not
subject to these restrictions and may carry telephone
traffic regardless
of whether it crosses LATA boundaries.
As you may know, H.R. 1542 was
introduced this year by Representative
Billy Tauzin (R-LA), Chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee,
and Representative John Dingell (D-MI). The bill
unravels the two core
components of the 1996 Telecom Act that were designed
to spur competition
in local telecommunications services. First it removes
the unbundling and
resale requirements and immediately allows the RBOCs
to offer interLATA
services without having to meet the 14-point competitive
checklist
contained in Section 271.
On April 25, 2001, the bill would
was considered by the full House
Energy and Commerce Committee. The following day,
H.R. 1542 was marked up
and approved in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet.
On May 9th, the full Committee marked up the legislation,
where it passed
by a smaller-than-expected margin of 32-23. As a Member
of both the
Committee and Subcommittee, I voted against the bill
on both occasions.
The April hearing on H.R. 1542
did serve an important objective in
giving Committee members the opportunity to measure the
extent to which
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has achieved its ultimate
purpose: To
unleash competition in all forms of telecommunications
services in order
to increase the quality and lower the prices of those
services for
American consumers. While judicial action brought competition
to the
long-distance market, the passage of the 1996 Act hailed
Congress
recognition that to achieve network-wide competition,
we had to prescribe
a recipe that would similarly bring competition to the
local telecom
market. As in any market, only then would consumers benefit
from lower
prices, advanced services, technological innovation,
and increased
investment in information infrastructure. The strategy
is simple. Offer
the RBOCs an incentive to open their local monopolies
so that conditions
for market competition in the local loop will flourish.
For these reasons, I strongly
disagree with the path taken in H.R.
1542. It would irrevocably defeat the purpose of the
Act by destroying the
efforts made to bring competition to the local loop.
Given the 100 years
in which the RBOCs were able to build their monopoly,
5 years is a
severely inadequate period of time by which Congress
should measure the
success of the 1996 Act. By eliminating the applicability
of Section 271
to in-region inter-LATA data and the requirement that
the Incumbent Local
Exchange Carriers (ILECs) provide their network elements
to competitors on
an unbundled basis, this legislation will destroy any
incentive for the
ILECs to open up their local loop to competition. At
this time, the ILECs
possess monopolistic control in over 90% of their markets
nationwide. In
Virginia, Verizon controls 96% of the phone lines. Clearly,
competition in
the local markets targeted by the 1996 Act has not yet
arrived.
I have also heard concerns that
cable companies do not face a
regulatory environment, and that in order for the RBOCs
to keep pace with
cable broadband deployment, Congress must treat the RBOCs
in a similar
fashion by prohibiting the imposition of federal and
state regulations.
This argument fails to account for a number of facts.
First, cable
companies are not completely deregulated; they do face
regulatory
authority in their franchise agreements with local governments.
In
addition, the Bell companies built their networks over
decades with a
monopoly profit guaranteed by the government. Captive
ratepayers paid for
the Bells infrastructure, and in exchange for granting
the Bell system a
monopoly, the government mandated certain build-out requirements
to help
ensure affordable and universal phone service to every
consumer. With a
government-guaranteed monopoly rate of return, the Bells
assumed no risk.
In stark contrast, the cable companies built their networks
in the 1980s
using private capital with no guaranteed profit. As well,
I do not believe
that a duopoly--where the only two choices available
to consumers are
either the Bell company or the cable company--translates
into competition.
Furthermore, H.R. 1542 would
ultimately retard speedy deployment of
broadband technologies to consumers. With little competition
in the space
that brings wired digital services into homes and businesses,
there will
be no competitors or market forces to push their widespread
provision of
broadband markets. However, I disagree with the notion
that broadband
deployment is not moving at a market-induced pace and
that as a result,
the RBOCs are the only entities capable of delivering
the service in the
wired market. Statistics prove that broadband deployment
is indeed moving
forward. At the end of 2000, the DSL market had 2,429,189
lines in
service, a 389% increase from year end 1999. ILECs accounted
for 78% of
the total, followed by CLECs with 21%. SBC has almost
ten times as many
subscribers as of March 2001 as in the 4th quarter of
1999, increasing
from 115,000 subscribers to 954,000 subscribers, and
at the same time,
raising the price of that service by 25%. Over that same
time period,
SBC's DSL availability has doubled: from 10.2 million
customer locations
to 21.7 million customer locations. Furthermore, the
Act in no way
prohibits the ILECs from offering inter-LATA voice or
data service in
out-of-region areas, but to date, only Qwest has invested
in the
infrastructure to move into those areas.
In the same vein, I am puzzled
by the arguments put forth by the
RBOCs that they need the relief contained in H.R. 1542
in order to
incentivize their use of capital to deploy broadband.
When SBC announced
their Project Pronto initiative in October 1999, they
touted plans to
spend $6 billion over the following 3 years to bring
high speed
connections to 80% of the homes, or 77 million Americans
in its region. At
the same time, SBC promoted its expectation of saving
$1.5 billion per
year in operating costs and gaining $3.5 billion in revenues
by 2004 as a
result of the upgrades. SBC appears well on its way to
meeting that goal,
having reported a DSL expansion to 50% of its customer
base at the end of
the first quarter 2001. BellSouth reported that it would
achieve greater
than 70% deployment of DSL services by the end of 2001,
and Verizon has
stated that by the end of the first quarter for 2001,
it had upgraded 47%
of its lines to DSL.
Finally, the proposition that
the RBOCs are the only entities capable
of bringing broadband to the rural corners of America
is seriously
undermined by the fact that rural in-region access lines
are being sold by
the millions. The RBOCs have already divested 10 million
rural lines. As
well, Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio has publicly discussed the
idea of selling off
rural in-region access lines, including possibly the
operations of some
entire states, leaving Qwest free to focus on the 8 to
12 metropolitan
areas that it considers strategically important. GTE,
now part of Verizon,
has sold 393,673 rural lines since last summer.
I agree that deregulation is
always preferable for encouraging market
forces. But the 1996 Act already provides for deregulation--so
long as
there is competition. A monopoly will never voluntarily
welcome
competition--and of course, it makes rational business
sense that they
would not. Deregulation for deregulations sake is bad
for consumers and
its bad for our economy. To remove the carrot that is
embodied in Section
271 and allow ILECs to close off access to the local
loop is simply
obliterating the Acts ultimate goal: to foster competition
in the local
telecom markets.
Again, thank you for taking the
time to express your concerns to me.
Should you have any additional comments, please do not
hesitate to contact
me. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis
Member of Congress
August 22, 2001
Mr Robert Barnes
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fairfax, Virginia xxxxxx
Thank you for your letter expressing your views concerning
the Internet
Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. While
I apologize for the
delay in my response, I appreciate your insight and I
value your input.
As a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee, I can assure you that the deployment of broadband
Internet
access is among my top priorities. The 1996 Telecommunications
Act has
been instrumental in providing much-needed growth in
the technology and
telecommunications industries and expanding consumer
access to broadband
technologies. I am committed to ensuring that all
Virginians have
access to affordable broadband data services, and am
carefully studying
the effects of this bill on investment and the marketplace
before
supporting or opposing any legislation that would alter
the current law.
There are many new opportunities for broadband services
from fiber
optics to satellite and wireless. Government policy
should encourage a
stable environment for investment in a variety of innovations
in this
much-desired service.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
It is an honor and a
privilege to work for you in the United States Senate.
Please do not
hesitate to contact me again about issues important to
you.
With warm regards, I remain
Sincerely,
George Allen
GA/pet