more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Robert Lee <robertslee () verizon net>
Reply-To: <robertslee () verizon net>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:52:13 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing

Dave,

1.  This does not quite address the issue of naked DSL for me.  I thought
the recent decision was that Bell South did not have to offer naked DSL.

2.  If this is that decision then one would assume that the FCC was making
the leap that anyone getting naked DSL would get VOIP and that VOIP was a
"voice service".

I would like to hear in layman's language what this means!


Robert Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf Of
David Farber
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 1:47 PM
To: Ip
Subject: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing


------ Forwarded Message
From: d berns <dberns () PANIX COM>
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
<CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:22:57 -0500
To: <CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
Subject: FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing

"The Commission has before it a petition for declaratory ruling filed
by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.  (BellSouth)  regarding issues
stemming from the Triennial Review Order. As explained below, because
the Commissions national unbundling rules in the Triennial Review Order
directly address the primary issue raised by BellSouth, we grant
BellSouths petition to the extent described in this Order.

"Specifically, applying section 251(d)(3)  of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (the Act), we find that a state commission may not
require an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC)  to provide digital
subscriber line (DSL)  service to an end user customer over the same
unbundled network element (UNE)  loop facility that a competitive LEC
uses to provide voice services to that end user.

"For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that state decisions
that impose such an obligation are inconsistent with and
substantially prevent the implementation of the Act and the
Commissions federal unbundling rules and policies set forth in
the Triennial Review Order that implement sections 251(c) .....

rest at:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.txt [a]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.doc [b]
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.pdf [c]

[a] messy ascii
[b] Word Doc
[c] PDF

(most FCC material is available in all three forms. URLs are identical
except for the trailing extension).

Further info on the main FCC page: http://www.fcc.gov

------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as robertslee () verizon net
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/



------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/