Unraveling the Act
By Kim Sunderland
Posted: 02/2000
The drama of supporting proposed broadband legislation on Capitol Hill could win an Academy Award for the ILECs, who competitors say are directing congressional members to act as puppets in supporting their attempts to unravel the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
CLECs are convinced the biggest issue vis-à-vis the fourth anniversary this month of the Telecom Act is the Bells' efforts to undo it via their broadband legislation. In what will be one of this year's fiercest telecom legislative battles, the Bells already are out in force, lobbying federal lawmakers to adopt any of the five broadband-related bills introduced (and stalled) in Congress during 2000. All are aimed at helping the ILECs by removing unbundling requirements, instituting in-region long-distance data relief, or eradicating federal and state pricing measures.
The most popular piece of pro-Bell broadband legislation--measured by both the number of congressional co-sponsors and strong lobbying efforts--is H.R. 2420, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act. Sponsored by Reps. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) and John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), the Tauzin-Dingell bill would all but eliminate Section 251 unbundling requirements, although the ILECs would have to provide unbundled loops and collocation to ISPs.
|
||||||||||||||||
Simply stated, relief from Sec. 251 unbundling requirements means the FCC shall not require an ILEC to (1) provide unbundled access to any network elements used in the provision of high-speed data services, or (2) offer for resale at wholesale rates any high-speed data service. An ILEC still would have to provide (1) Internet users access to any ISP that interconnects with its high-speed data services, (2) access to any ISP with the right to acquire the facilities and services necessary to interconnect with the ILEC's high-speed data service for the provision of Internet access service and (3) access to any ISP with the ability to collocate equipment.
"The Tauzin-Dingell bill is our legislative priority in 2000," confirms Roy M. Neel, president and CEO of the United States Telecom Association (USTA) (www.usta.org). "We will do everything we can to help get this bill passed. We don't want it to be held hostage and die before it reaches a vote." The Tauzin-Dingell bill has more than 100 co-sponsors, Neel says, "so it's time it gets a fair hearing." While there's been some progress to move this bill forward in Congress, Neel says, "we're still waiting." He predicts that with Congress' upcoming summer break and the impending presidential elections, the ILECs have about six months to get a bill approved, "so we'll be working hard out of the gate in 2000."
These are scary words for competitors to hear because they've been busy investing billions of dollars in the buildout of their advanced networks, all of it being done in accordance with the Telecom Act. They're concerned that pro-Bell broadband legislation ultimately would undermine their ability to compete by allowing the ILECs to get into long-distance voice/data without first opening up their local markets to competitors. It's a matter of the ILECs not wanting to comply with the market opening provisions of the Telecom Act, explains Robert E. Knowling Jr., president and CEO of Covad Communications Co. (www.covad.com). Instead, they want to circumvent the act's 14-point checklist by changing the federal law through congressional legislation.
"Two years after setting in place the process to gain long-distance entry, no RBOC--save Bell Atlantic--has come close to complying with the provisions on the checklist," Knowling says. "Even the Bell Atlantic solo victory in New York has been done with publicly identified and conceded failures on their part, with the FCC vowing to enforce compliance once the grant has been done."
In fact, Bell Atlantic Corp.'s (www.bell-atl.com) interLATA long-distance service approval in New York adds an interesting element to this broadband battle, telecom executives say. "The Tauzin-Dingell bill is now overtaken by these events and it won't
be necessary," says Royce J. Holland, chairman and CEO of Allegiance Telecom Inc. (www.allegiancetelecom.com). "This approval should take a lot of steam out of the RBOCs' attempts to avoid the checklist." Competitors now believe the Bell Atlantic long-distance decision will make any proposed pro-Bell broadband legislation a moot point because all the ILECs have to do now to get into long distance is adhere to the Telecom Act's 14-point competitive checklist. Why bother going another route?
Incumbents' suggestions that they need congressional relief to offer advanced services is ridiculous, competitors say, because the Bells and GTE Corp. (www.gte.com) already are out there offering DSL services and making loads of money doing so, and they're doing it under the guise of the Telecom Act. "This is fraud with a capital 'F,'" Holland says. "What's keeping [the RBOCs] from building out their own networks and being anything to everyone? Not a damn thing."
