Message-Id: <55206A473154D011924D0020AFF7ACB56A64C5@mail1.oulan.ou.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:46:38 -0600
From: "Swisher, Bob" <bswisher@ou.edu>
To: "'it-fyi@listserv.ou.edu'" <it-fyi@listserv.ou.edu>
Subject: FARNET's Washington Update 3-09-98
FARNET'S WASHINGTON UPDATE --- MARCH 9, 1998
FARNET (http://www.farnet.org/) is a non-profit public interest
Internetworking organization with a primary focus on the education,
research and related communities.
IN THIS ISSUE:
AMERITECH JOINS OTHER RBOCS IN PETITIONING FCC FOR REMOVAL OF BARRIERS
TO PROVIDE BROADBAND DATA SERVICES
FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON COMPUTER III AND ONA REQUIREMENTS - WILL ISPs
OBTAIN RIGHTS TO SEC. 251(c)(3) UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS?
FCC HEARS FROM STATE COMMISSIONERS & INDUSTRY PANELISTS ON UNIVERSAL
SERVICE/HIGH COST SUPPORT REFORM; REPORT TO CONGRESS DUE NEXT MONTH
________________________________________________________________________
AMERITECH JOINS OTHER RBOCS IN PETITIONING FCC FOR REMOVAL OF BARRIERS
TO PROVIDE BROADBAND DATA SERVICES
Ameritech and two other RBOCs have petitioned the FCC to allow them to
provide advanced data services through the creation of broadband
"backbone" networks. This move could potentially allow them to enter
the long distance market on the back of an effort to enter the advanced
data services market.
All three companies have cited Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, which directs the FCC and state utility commissions to
"encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced
telecommunications capability to all Americans" and grants them the
authority to remove any "barriers to infrastructure investment and by
promoting competition in the telecommunications market." The three RBOCs
are petitioning the FCC to remove restrictions found in Section 271 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that prevent the RBOCs from providing
long-distance services until they have adequately allowed local
competition.
In addition, all three RBOCs are seeking relief from requirements to
unbundle their network elements for competitors and to allow such
competitive network services to be available at a wholesale discount for
resale.
With no RBOC having its Sec. 271 application approved to date, there is
a growing frustration in Congress with the FCC. At a recent hearing on
the matter, Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Sam
Brownback (R-KS) asked FCC Chair William Kennard to provide coherent
guidelines an RBOC must meet to provide long-distance service.
FCC SEEKS COMMENT ON COMPUTER III AND ONA REQUIREMENTS - WILL ISPs
OBTAIN RIGHTS TO SEC. 251(c)(3) UNBUNDLED NETWORK ELEMENTS?
As part of its biennial regulatory review, the FCC is reviewing whether
the agency's Open Network Architecture (ONA) guidelines should allow
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) equal access to the same unbundled
network elements RBOCs use for their own enhanced services. Developed
in 1985, ONA was designed to ensure that the RBOCs would provide equal
access to basic services for all providers of "enhanced services".
Today, enhanced service providers are equated to ISPs.
Of particular importance to ISPs in this proceeding is the potential
ability to implement Digital Subscriber Line technology (xDSL) on their
own, which provides a significant bandwidth increase with
less-expensive, already-in-place copper wiring.
Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 dictates that the
RBOCs must provide other Local Exchange Carriers "...nondiscriminatory
access to network elements on an unbundled basis...", and requires the
RBOCs to "offer for resale at wholesale rates any telecommunications
service that the carrier provides at retail to subscribers who are not
telecommunications carriers," (such as ISPs). The Act defines network
elements in broad terms as "a facility or equipment used in the
provision of a telecommunications service."
In its inquiry into the Computer III and ONA Safeguards and
Requirements, the FCC is seeking comment "whether ONA has been and
continues to be an effective means of providing ISPs with access to the
BOC/GTE unbundled network services they need to structure efficiently
and innovatively their information service offerings" and whether ISPs
should be extended unbundled network element access rights granted to
Local Exchange Carriers under Section 251.
In the meantime, the FCC is undertaking an examination of how to
characterize ISPs for purposes of universal service (courtesy of Sen.
Stevens). As noted above, ISPs are currently classified as enhanced
service providers; the FCC's upcoming report to Congress will recommend
whether or not to reclassify them as telecommunications carriers.
The deadline for comments to the FCC on the Computer III proceeding is
March 27, 1998. To access the FCC review:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98008.html
FCC HEARS FROM STATE COMMISSIONERS & INDUSTRY PANELISTS ON UNIVERSAL
SERVICE/HIGH COST SUPPORT REFORM; REPORT TO CONGRESS DUE NEXT MONTH
An FCC en banc hearing this past Friday focused on how universal service
funding responsibilities should be divided between the states and
federal government. U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility
Service representative Chris McLean stated that under the current FCC
plan to reform high cost support, rates would increase in 39 states,
with rural states carrying the greatest financial burden. Thomas Welch,
Chairman of Maine's Public Utilities Commission, proposed that universal
service funding should be primarily a state responsibility, with federal
support provided only when the costs to an individual state would
"exceed the national average." (Maine, along with New York and Vermont's
Public Service Boards, has submitted an alternative universal cost
support distribution proposal to the FCC.)
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth questioned whether Internet access
should be considered an interstate service. Not surprisingly, both
Thomas Tauke, Senior VP of Government Relations for Bell Atlantic, and
Joel Lublin, Regulatory VP on Law and Public Policy for AT&T, defined
the Internet as an interstate service and argued that Internet Service
Providers should be contributing to the universal service fund. Internet
Service Providers were not represented at this hearing.
This en banc hearing was one of a series designed to gather information
as the FCC prepares its report to Congress on universal service, due
April 10. The report was ordered by the Department of Commerce, Justice,
State, Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998
(ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/h2267.enr.txt)(see sec.623) for the
review of the implementation of universal service provisions under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
________________________________________________________________________
Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update" is
a service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers. We
gratefully acknowledge EDUCOM's NTTF and the Coalition for Networked
Information (CNI) for additional support. If you would like more
information about the Update or would like to offer comments or
suggestions, please contact Garret Sern at garret@farnet.org.
______________________
Garret Sern
Policy Analyst
FARNET
(202)331-5365
garret@farnet.org