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