[antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell OpposesInternet Phone Regulation
- From: Karen Furbish <karen.furbish@xxxxxxx>
- To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:36:50 -0500
Dan - I agree completely with your conclusions about the federal (and state)
universal service funds, propping up bloated or false ILEC costs, turning
them into ILEC profit centers. However, as you know, the Bells are currently
experiencing line losses due to wireless and broadband deployment. And the
VOIP handwriting is on the wall, and now being touted by Bells as their next
"strategy." CAble modem is still eating their DSL lunch, not to mention
cablecos' plans to roll out cable IP.
The Bells are currently in discussions with IXCs, non-affiliated wireless
carriers, their own affiliates and some small ILECs to try to reach
agreement on a Bill and Keep system for switched access (and recip comp).
However, the Bell proposal to go to bill and keep for all traffic seeks to
be "revenue neutral" for themselves, and would result in a very high
Subscriber Line Charge for all customers, and increases in universal service
funding requirements to be paid by all carriers. The Bells claim their
"frank" reason for seeking B&K on access is because not only are they
experiencing line losses, but access charge revenues continue to fall as the
traditional voice LD industry is beset by wireless, e-mail, IM, etc., and
they need "revenue stabilization" to offset continuing losses, which are not
being made up on consumer voice LD customers they are capturing from the
IXCs as a result of their 271-related entree into interLATA LD markets.
While IXCs would certainly welcome the disappearance of switched access
charges, I think their goal has more to do with imposing those inflated
last-mile switched access costs on consumers and competitors BECAUSE VOIP
will eventually be the norm, more than non-affiliated wireless and cablecos
(and notice I'm not mentioning CLECs) eroding their line counts.
Other carriers are participating in the discussions frankly because nobody
knows what the current FCC will do in the absence of an industry settlement.
However, IXCs are very unhappy that Bells require "revenue neutrality" for
themselves, for the very reasons you stated.
One thing is obvious to me: VOIP is happening, and the Bells want to be in
on it but at everyone else's expense.
Karen Furbish
MCI
-----Original Message-----
From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Daniel Berninger
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:27 PM
To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes
Internet Phone Regulation
Powell doth protests too much, methinks. Christopher Stern is always too
interested in pleasing Powell.
Does Powell embrace status quo non-regulation of VoIP? - No.
Does Powell embrace full common carrier like regulation of VoIP? - No.
Does Powell favor some regulation of VoIP - Yes.
This breaks a 30 year policy of non-regulation without anyone showing the
reality of negative effects.
This embraces a regulatory approach without anyone showing the positive
contribution of regulations.
Regulations arose in telecom as a check to market power of the monopoly.
The VoIP players have no market power.
Powell will pull VoIP into the Universal Service Program for starters. The
USP does little beyond serving ILEC profits. Telephone penetration in the
US reached 90% in 1972 and progressed only to 94% by 2002 after 30 years.
Price reductions in the competitive areas of the value chain accomplished
far more than the USP. The ILEC price increases tended to wipe out price
reductions by IXC's.
Computing would remain out of reach for folks if we had attempted to
subsidize mainframes as the means to achieve affordability.
The public interest and social progress goals would be much better served if
the FCC maintained a non-regulatory approach.
USP represents the thin edge of the wedge for the main game - ILEC desire to
get access fees.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valerie Fast Horse" <vjfasthorse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Antidote (E-mail)" <antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:36 PM
Subject: [antidote] Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes Internet
Phone Regulation
>
> Here's the latest in VoIP news....
> Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation
>
<snip>
>
> Having a Change of Heart, Powell Said to Now Favor Regulation of VoIP
> http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1069349769.htm
>
>
> If any of this makes sense to you, please let me know....
>
> Valerie Fast Horse
________________________________________________________
The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond
monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' in
the Subject field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
http://www.intercommunication.org
________________________________________________________
The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond monopoly
in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject
field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
http://www.intercommunication.org
Other related posts:
- » [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell OpposesInternet Phone Regulation
