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

[Nexus <dave () farber net>]

------- Original message -------
From: James Seng  <jseng () pobox org sg>
Sent: 30/3/'05,  11:05

http://james.seng.sg/archives/2005/03/26/naked_dsl_dilemma.html

I have been thinking about Naked DSL ever since the story about FCC is 
about to grant Bellsouth naked DSL petition broke a few days ago. And 
of course, the subsequent suspension of various states decision by FCC.

Most propongates of IP Telephony considered Naked DSL as absolutely 
neccessary to get VoIP adoption. Afterall, why bother with VoIP if you 
are forced to take up POTS before you can have your DSL to get IP 
Telephony. From that perspective, the decision to have Naked DSL is 
fairly simple one - no way we should grant Bellsouth petition.

But that's coming from an evangelism point of view, one that may not 
convience many people who do not share the vision of IP Telephony. I 
shall give an alternative perspective why Bellsouth petition is 
dangerous. My argument is based on two assumptions:

1) First assumption is we believe in Free Market (and I absolutely do 
believe in Free Market). Free Market means we allow a competitive 
market to sort out the winners and losers. In this argument, we should 
allow Bellsouth to makes it own business decision to offer Naked DSL or 
not, excuses or not. They may choose to offer naked DSL like Qwest or 
they may not. If they didn't then competitions like cable who does not 
bundled with POTS may be more attractive to consumers, and Bellsouth 
will lose market share.

2) Second assumption is we believe that monopoly (regardless natural or 
coercive) have to be regulated (or deal with by other means, e.g. 
antitrust) to ensure general public interests are not been abused by 
the monopoly. In this regard, Bellsouth petition should not be granted 
in areas where Bellsouth is a monopoly without alternative 
competitions. It wouldn't be a competitive market if there is no 
competitions, would it?

Following these two assumptions, Bellsouth petition to pre-empt PUCs 
from mandating it to provide Naked DSL should not be granted by FCC. 
Instead, PUCs are in a better position to judge if Bellsouth odd to be 
regulated or to be allowed compete freely because siutations are 
different in different part of US.

While I like the concept of naked DSL, I think the decision to mandate 
Naked DSL or not would differ from places to places - ie, it is not a 
uniform yes or no. (Regardless how much I like IP Telephony, I believe 
in Free Market even more.)

But it is even harder in the context of Singapore, where only 1 in 5 
broadband users are on cable, a market with choices but not quite 
competitive. Should we mandate Singtel Magix1 to provide Naked DSL 
because they are a market monopoly or should we let the market forces 
works itself out. For that, I am still thinking...

ps: Please note the disclaimer below : I do not speak for IDA here in 
this blog.

1 Singtel Magix is the sole DSL provider in Singapore. Everyone who 
provides DSL like Singnet or Pacnet is a reseller of Singtel Magix.

-James Seng

On 28-Mar-05, at AM 06:14, David Farber wrote:

> ------ 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 james () seng cc
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: 
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


-------------------------------------
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/