11/18/1999
Response to iAdvance Second
Study
The following may be
attributed to David Rubashkin, managing director of the Competitive
Broadband Coalition, whose members include the Association for Local
Telecommunications Services (ALTS), AT&T, the Commercial
Internet eXchange Association (CIX), CompTel (Competitive
Telecommunications Association), Cable & Wireless, Information
Technology Association of America (ITAA), MCI WorldCom, Personal
Communications Industry Association (PCIA), Prism Communications
Services, Inc., Qwest, Sprint and the Telecommunications Resellers
Association (TRA).
Matt Robison’s paper "A 21st Century Internet for All Americans"
is just a recycling of the first fatally flawed study produced by
iAdvance. The Chairman of the Maine Public Service Commission said
of the first study:
Maine's infrastructure is first rate, and the
representations to the contrary made by iAdvance … show that
iAdvance is out of touch with what is happening here.
* * *
There is no evidence at all that the federal policies
iAdvance complains about have in any way slowed the growth of
Internet usage, or the development of telecommunications-intensive
businesses, in Maine. Thomas Welch, Chairman of the Maine PUC,
op-ed, Bangor Daily News, September 2, 1999
Once again the RBOCs and GTE continue to try to confuse the
public and the Congress about two distinctly different
telecommunications markets – the local market or “last mile” and the
Internet backbone. It is the RBOCs’ and GTE’s “last mile” – not the
Internet backbone -- that is the choke point for Internet traffic.
The RBOCs and GTE continue to resist opening their local networks to
competitive carriers, and their intransigence hurts customers across
America that want a competitive choice of broadband providers.
There are a number of other problems with iAdvance’s report. For
instance, Robison relies on information more than a year old, an
eternity in Internet time. He thus fails to account for: (1) the
RBOCs’ and GTE’s rapid acceleration of DSL deployment (to 46M lines
by YE99 alone) in response to competition from cable and competitive
carriers; (2) deals cut in 1999 between AOL and several RBOCs, GTE
and Hughes; (3) SBC’s recent naming of Prodigy as its “exclusive”
Internet service provider; and (4) the economics of mass DSL
deployment. (SBC predicts that expense and capital savings from its
$ 6 B “Project Pronto” offset the cost of the entire initiative!)
Robison also pays scant attention to the FCC’s deregulatory decision
this fall – generally exempting key broadband facilities of the
RBOCs and GTE from the Telecom Act’s unbundling requirements.
Robison’s effort to position the RBOCs and GTE as the best hope
for rural America also fails. U S WEST has divested over 600 rural
exchanges since 1994, GTE has divested 1.6 million lines since
November 1998, and BellSouth has recently refocused its DSL
deployment away from rural communities.
Robison should instead have looked at the efforts of smaller
incumbent local exchange carriers, competitive carriers and
alternative technology providers (satellite, cable, and fixed
wireless). Today, satellite delivered broadband service is available
from DirecPC throughout the U.S., starting at $19.95 per month.
Cable operators in rural areas are committed to providing high-speed
Internet access. Wireless companies are investing heavily in order
to provide high-speed Internet access in both residential and lower
density markets. Despite the road blocks to competition erected by
the RBOCs and GTE, members of the Competitive Broadband
Coalition—Birch Telecom, McLeod Communications, New Edge Networks,
TriVergent Communications—and dozens of other competitive carriers
are expanding the provision of broadband telecommunications services
in smaller markets across the country.
What was true in 1996 is still true today: the RBOCs and GTE
retain monopoly control over their local telephone markets. What is
different is that broadband services offered by competitive
providers are compelling the RBOCs and GTE to respond. This
reinforces the Competitive Broadband Coalition’s point: the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 is working.
The public and Congress should see this iAdvance study for what
it is: just another feeble attempt by the RBOCs to justify avoidance
of the market opening and interconnection requirements of the 1996
Telecom Act.
Contacts:
Jim
Crawford |
Pam
Small |
Julie
Hill |
Barbara
Dooley |
Ellen
Mullally |
ALTS |
CompTel |
TRA |
CIX |
PCIA |
703-715-0844 |
202-296-6650 |
202-835-9898 |
703-709-8200 |
703-535-7413 |
# # #
The Competitive Broadband Coalition members
include the Association of Communications Enterprises (ASCENT), the
Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS), AT&T,
the Commercial Internet eXchange Association (CIX), CompTel
(Competitive Telecommunications Association), Cable & Wireless,
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), Montana
Telecommunications Association, Personal Communications Industry
Association (PCIA), Sprint, Touch America and WorldCom. More
information can be found at http://www.competitivebroadband.org/1041/home.jsp
|