Before the
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration
U.S. Department of
Commerce
Washington DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
Request for Comments on Deployment of )
Broadband Networks and Advanced ) Docket No. 011109273-1273-01
Telecommunications )
) RIN 0660-XX13
)
COMMENTS OF GEMINI NETWORKS,
INC.
Vice President and General Counsel
280 Trumbull Street
24th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3585
(860) 293-4281
(860) 293-4297 – fax
rrowlenson@gemnets.com - e-mail
Date: December
18, 2001
IV. CURRENT
SUPPLY OF BROADBAND IN
THE UNITED STATES……………………………………………………
13
A. Gemini Experience in
Connecticut and Other
Northeastern States……………………………………………………..
13
B. Impediments to
Deployment……………………………………………
15
V.
“NON-BROADBAND” FACILITIES AND/OR SERVICES V.
“BROADBAND FACILITIES” AND/OR SERVICES……………………
17
VI. A SINGLE
REGULATORY REGIME FOR
BROADBAND SERVICES………………………………………………..
18
VII.
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………… 19
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration
U.S. Department of
Commerce
Washington DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
Request for Comments on Deployment of )
Broadband Networks and Advanced ) Docket No. 011109273-1273-01
Telecommunications )
) RIN 0660-XX13
)
COMMENTS OF GEMINI NETWORKS,
INC.
Gemini Networks, Inc. (“Gemini”), submits its Comments on deployment of
broadband networks and advance
telecommunications services.
Gemini is a company formed for the specific
purpose of building state-of-the-art, competitive, facilities-based broadband
networks in the Northeastern United States. Gemini’s business plan focuses upon
seven Northeastern states and has already built a state-of-the-art network in
central Connecticut. Gemini offers
broadband Internet access services at several different downstream and upstream
speeds depending upon the needs of end-users. Gemini will be bundling multiple video
channels, voice and Internet access services on its
networks.
Gemini offers broadband Internet services in
Connecticut on a wholesale basis to Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), and
believes that it was the first, or one of the first companies in the nation to
provide open access on its network to ISPs on a continuing
basis.
Gemini was not obligated by law or regulation to provide open
access. It did so on its own,
making wholesale broadband Internet access services available to ISPs as part of
its business plan, which includes retail services as well as wholesale
services.
In addition to its network in Connecticut,
Gemini has done the initial design and survey work necessary to construct
networks in six other Northeastern states.
Since Gemini’s service bundling business plan includes telephony, Gemini
secured certificates of public convenience and necessity (or the state-specific
equivalent) from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland,
Virginia and Pennsylvania. Further,
Gemini has undertaken extensive planning and preparation in these states,
including preparation and filing of pole attachment applications with pole
custodians in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey.
Gemini is
not unique. There are a number of
companies throughout the country that are developing and building
state-of-the-art broadband networks.
Thirteen of these companies have formed the Broadband Service Providers
Association (“BSPA”). The purpose
of BSPA is to make state and federal regulators and legislators aware of the
promise of new facilities-based competitive broadband networks, and the need to
help eliminate roadblocks to deployment of those networks. Only by eliminating barriers to entry
(in the form of access to poles, conduit and rights-of-way (“ROW”), access to
programming and access to multiple dwelling units (“MDUs”)), will competition
result, eliminating the need for extensive regulation of broadband
networks.
II. NATIONAL POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS IN FORMULATING BROADBAND POLICY
A.
Facilities-Based Competition To Permit Consumer
Choice.
The primary policy consideration in formulating broadband policy for the country should be to encourage facilities-based competition to permit consumer choice. Monopolies by their definition preclude consumer choice. Legacy cable television MSO’s are the only existing facilities-based broadband networks. Monopoly status is a disincentive to serving the consumer. Competition keeps prices low and fosters development of innovative consumer services.
B.
Competition Means Lower Prices, More Innovative
Services
The
cable television industry is concentrated in two respects. First, legacy cable television systems
generally have the one and only cable television franchise in a town, city or
county. In this sense, it is a
broadband monopoly. NTIA should
take official notice of the increasing concentration of ownership of MSOs. At present, there is a private auction
underway for the cable television systems of AT&T Broadband. The primary bidders are Comcast, Cox
Communications and AOL/Time Warner, three of the largest media/communications
companies in the nation. Whether
one company is successful in the bid, or whether the AT&T Broadband
properties are broken up, it is clear that concentration of control of MSO-owned
broadband networks among a handful of MSOs will either increase, or at least,
not decrease.
In many towns and cities throughout the
country, the introduction of facilities-based broadband competition evokes a
singular response from legacy cable systems: a decrease in price to the
consumer. Sometimes these price
decreases are implemented in particular neighborhoods just prior to time that
the new competing broadband network activates service. Sometimes the reaction of the legacy
cable MSO appears predatory in nature, including offers of multiple months, or
one year of free cable television service in return for execution of an
exclusive contract. Leaving aside
the possible anti-competitive impact, these past reactions of the legacy cable
systems make clear that as facilities-based networks are deployed around the
country, prices for cable television services, Internet access services and
telephony services will decrease or increase at a much slower rate then what is
currently being experienced by the consumer. This is good for the consumer. Similarly, this competition will spark
the offering of innovative services to consumers. These service offerings by the legacy
cable MSO and the new competitor may not all be the same. Beneficially, consumers will have the
opportunity to choose among broadband service providers.
C.
Redundant Networks - National Security
The tragic and disturbing events of September
11th made many regulators, legislators and managers in the
communications industry realize the need for redundant networks for national
security purposes. At present there
is a substantial redundancy in wireless networks. This is a good thing. It helped substantially during the
September 11th crisis in New York City. Portions of the wireline network were
destroyed in southern Manhattan.
Some wireless antennas were destroyed, too. Nonetheless, the existence of multiple
wireless networks and at least portions of
one landline network helped people in Manhattan during that time of the tragedy
and emergency to communicate with police, emergency workers and their own
families to assure them that they were unharmed, or being taken care
of.
As consumers throughout the United States
become more and more dependent on the Internet, e-mail and information sources
on the Internet (e.g., MSNBC.com,
CNN.com and other sources), it is very
important that there be a clear-cut national policy to deploy redundant
broadband networks through the United States.
D.
Redundant Networks - Unanticipated Problems
The need for redundant networks for national
security purposes is clear.
However, there are other reasons.
Sometimes there are unanticipated problems that affect broadband
networks. Recently, AT&T
Broadband could not come to an agreement with Excite@Home, and the bankruptcy court involved
permitted Excite@Home to disconnect more than
800,000 AT&T Broadband Internet access customers all at once.[1] It took more than a week to even
begin to migrate all of those customers in various states throughout the country
onto an alternative network that AT&T is developing. In fact, no Connecticut customers could
begin migrating until the 6th day of the outage. The problems are not over yet. Wait times for AT&T Broadband
customer service are extremely long.
There are reports in the press and on the Internet user groups that
people are complaining of slow downstream and upstream speeds. AT&T Broadband has reportedly
imposed on its customers a ceiling of 1.5 Mbps per second downstream speed and
128 Kbps per second upstream speed.
If the nation had redundant broadband
networks, many of these AT&T Broadband customers would have had the
opportunity to avoid losing service.
In fact, those residents of Connecticut within the footprint of Gemini’s
broadband network did have the choice of contacting Gemini to connect to the
Gemini network and receive Internet access services. Many did so. Unfortunately, companies like Gemini,
and the other members of the BSPA, have not been able to build out their
networks nationwide at this time to provide for ubiquitous redundancy. Nonetheless, it should be a national
policy that all homes above some economically, reasonable density per mile
should be passed by at least two facilities-based broadband
networks.
E.
Time to Eliminate Monopoly Broadband Problems
It should be a national policy to eliminate the problems brought about by a monopoly on broadband services facilities-based provision of broadband services – a status currently enjoyed by cable MSOs in most communities in the nation. Although most cable franchises are non-exclusive, until recently, cable MSOs enjoyed a monopoly on provision of cable television video services. This is been ameliorated in minor part by satellite-delivered multiple channel video services, but the number of users of this type of service is relatively small. Further, the announced Direct TV/Echo Star transaction may result in a virtual monopoly of satellite-to-home delivered multiple channel video offerings.
Further, technological developments had moved
the focus of broadband to the bundling of services. Now, broadband service providers such as
Gemini and others are working to bundle video, voice and Internet access
services. At present,
satellite-delivered services do not include all of these bundled services,
leaving consumers without a choice of bundled service providers in most parts of
the nation.
F.
Minimal Regulation is Needed to Remove Road Blocks to
Entry
Wide deployment of competitive facilities-based networks will go a long way toward eliminating or minimizing the need for federal or state regulation of broadband networks. However, a variety of entrenched interests are putting up roadblocks to deployment of new broadband networks.
1.
Roadblocks to Access to Poles, Conduits and
Rights-of-Way
Companies like Gemini have a great deal of
difficulty in securing access to poles, conduit and rights-of-way. This is due in part to the fact that
pole custodians are often telecommunications companies that compete against
Gemini for provision of voice and/or Internet access services. The application procedures, costs and
time consumed in securing access to poles, conduits and rights-of-way are
excessive. The conduct of pole
custodians can often be characterized as hostile, or at best indifferent. It is clear that the pole custodians do
not want new broadband service providers like Gemini on the poles, despite the
fact that companies like Gemini provide them with recurring revenues and
non-recurring revenues for pole attachments for pole
make-ready.
There are many instances of abuses by pole
custodians. Examples
include:
1. Limitations on the number
of pole license applications that
a
new attacher can submit. This
thwarts rapid build out of a
network to enable new entrants to reach critical mass in
a
timeframe necessary to meet the expectations of Wall
Street,
venture capital and bank sources of financing.
2. Refusal of pole
custodians to process pole license applications
in a timely fashion, or on a first-come, first-serve
basis.
3. Pole custodians giving
preference to their affiliates in processing
pole
applications.
4. The refusal of pole
custodians to provide new pole attachers with
access to
maps and other data necessary to permit expeditious
completion of pole applications.
5. Pole custodian use of
unnecessarily complicated pole license
applications to discourage new pole attachers.
6. Pole custodian refusal to
grant or deny pole license applications
within 45 days, or other reasonable timeframe that is
consistent
with
timely construction of a network.
7. Pole custodian refusal to
use qualified/outside contractors for
make-ready, even though the new pole attacher would pay for
the
outside contractor.
8. Pole custodians of
jointly owned poles (electric and telephone)
requiring a pole attacher to go through duplicative pole
license
application processes, one for the telephone utility and one
for
the electric utility.
9. Flat rate pole license
application fees (e.g., $50 per pole) when
those charges bear no relation to the actual costs incurred
by
the pole custodian.
10. Inflated make-ready
engineering charges that are not reasonable
and are no cost based and which the pole custodian refuses
to
verify.
11. Pole custodian
requirements that the attacher use an outside
engineering firm of the pole custodian’s choice charging
“Cadillac” fees in a deliberate attempt to drive up the
new
entrant’s costs.
12. Refusal of pole custodian to permit overlashing, backside
attachments, extension arms or brackets, etc., where consistent
with safety requirements of the National Electric Safety Code,
to decrease the cost of pole attachment.
13. Refusal of a pole custodian to recover the cost of pole modifications
from third parties benefiting from the modification.
14. A pole custodian hiding the fact that it was about to change out
a pole as parts of its normal replacement plan and imposing the entire
cost of pole change out upon the new pole attacher.
15. Pole custodians imposing the cost of correcting pre-existing
problems or the cost of removing abandoned attachments on the new
pole attacher.
16. Pole custodians requiring excessive security/bonds, where the
pole custodian has no credible basis to conclude that the new
attacher will meet its obligations.
17. Recurring pole attachment rates that are not cost based.
The foregoing problems have occurred all around the country and are an
indictment of many pole custodians.
Their recalcitrance impedes the deployment of broadband networks in this country and should
not be tolerated.
2.
Roadblocks to Access to
Multiple Dwelling Units
Similarly, legacy cable MSOs have taken a variety of actions to deny
access to multiple dwelling units to new competitive broadband networks. It should be a national policy to remove
these roadblocks to deployment of new facilities-based broadband networks. The type of conduct that the legacy
cable MSOs sometimes engage in include the following:
1. Immediately before a
competing broadband network is deployed, the legacy MSO secures perpetual (or
long term) contracts which bind MDUs to permit access to their premises only to
the legacy cable MSO. This deprives
the MDU residents of a choice of services.
Sometimes the MDU owner would be happy to allow a new broadband network
to access the MDU, but the MDU owner signed the exclusive arrangement not
understanding the implications, or not knowing that a new broadband network was
being built.
2. Grant by MDU owners of
exclusive easements to legacy cable franchisees in order to deny new broadband
access to the MDUs.
3. Roadblocks to Access to Programming
It should be a national policy to preclude parties or their affiliates controlling (a) video programming and (b) a legacy cable system in a geographic area from denying access to programming by competitive broadband networks serving that same geographic area. At present, vertically integrated owners of satellite-delivered programming are precluded from denying competitors access to that programming in communities in which the vertically integrated entity has a cable franchise.[2] Several cable MSOs have tried to get around this prohibition by changing the delivery mode of programming from satellite to terrestrial. If asked, such MSO’s argue the switch is “economic”. Whether it is, or whether it is anti-competitive conduct, new broadband network entrants should not be blocked from access to such programming to make it available to consumers.
There is a minimal level of video programming necessary for any viable
multi-channel programming
provider. These include
certain news services (e.g., CNN, Headline News Network, C-SPAN, ESPAN, and the
like). It should be a national
policy that programming made available on broadband and other networks owned or
controlled by a party or an affiliate owning or controlling the programming
should be made available to other multi-channel programming providers. The bottom line: Consumers should have a choice of
services. A legacy MSO should not
be able to use programming as a weapon to maintain its monopoly or near-monopoly
dominance of the multi-channel
programming provision in a geographic
area. This is especially so because
new entrants like Gemini would pay regular fees for the programming. Thus, the only real purpose for
withholding such programming is anti-competitive in nature. Trying to keep facilities-based
competitors out of the market will do no more than deprive consumers of another
choice of services. We should have
a national policy against this.
G.
Technology Neutrality is Fine, Absence Abuses
Gemini supports a policy in favor of
technology neutrality, which permits the marketplace to embrace its technology
of choice. However, because of the
highly concentrated ownership of the cable industry, the policy must take into
account the need to preclude abuses.
There are instances in which legacy cable companies have used their size
and market power to force a manufacturer of equipment, such as converters, to
provide those converters only to the legacy cable MSO. It appears that the MSO uses its power
to force this exclusivity for the sole purpose of discouraging facilities-based
competition. One may rest assured
that an equipment manufacturer would be more than happy to sell to competitors
if it were not forced into the exclusivity obligation by the legacy MSO. Abuses of this type should not be
permitted because they are anti-competitive in nature.[3]
III.
BROADBAND DEFINED
A. Criteria Used to Define Broadband
Gemini asserts that the criteria to be used to define broadband should be based upon customer expectations.
At present, Gemini’s direct experience makes
clear that a majority of consumers of broadband services expect speeds of 1.5
Mbps per second downstream or higher and 256 Kbps per second upstream or
higher. On a short-term basis, this
is an adequate speed for consumers.
This will change quickly.
Beginning in 2002, a variety of companies will be initiating video on demand and other services. These require higher speeds for a product of sufficient quality to satisfy consumers of broadband services. Full screen video will require 3.0 Mbps or higher downstream speeds[4].
Other interested parties may argue that broadband should be defined at much slower speeds. For instance, iDSL has a downstream speed of 144 Kbps per second. This is just double dial-up modem speed and is simply not broadband.
Incumbent Local Exchange Companies (“ILECs”) might argue that broadband should be defined as 768 Kbps per second downstream and 128 Kbps per second upstream, because this is what DSL most often provides today. ILECs would argue that 768 Kbps per second downstream provides SIF Resolution (320 X 240 pixels) and that this constitutes broadband service. In fact, its small size and lack of fluid motion are annoying to broadband consumers. 768Kbps speed is to 3.0Mbps as a biplane is to a commercial Boeing 747 jetliner. Consumers and the flying public clearly want the latter in both cases.
The DSL
interests argue that DSL can provide video on demand at 1.5 Mbps per second
downstream, but if they do so, they conveniently will fail to indicate the
resultant resolution. At full
screen, the resolution would be one-fourth the resolution at 320 X 240
pixels. Essentially, this will
provide the equivalent of “bad” VCR quality that one might experience if one
rented a very old VCR tape from a video rental store. To minimize this problem, ILECs offering
DSL will soften the picture and its transmissions in order to minimize the
quality disparity.
It is important
to focus on the purpose of the definition for broadband services. The foregoing analysis is designed to
define broadband from a consumer
point of view. The definition of broadband for purposes
of adequate services to consumer should not be confused with the definition of
broadband from an anti-competitive point of view. As described earlier, certain ILECs that
are pole custodians are placing roadblocks in the way of new broadband networks
attaching to poles. These same
ILECs that provide DSL service market that service to consumers as broadband in
nature. In essence, some of these
DSL providers are using their positions as pole custodians to throw up a
roadblock to entry to new broadband service providers like Gemini so that the
pole custodian or its affiliate can continue to provide “quasi-broadband
service” in a monopoly environment (or in a market in which the incumbent MSO
provides broadband Internet access in an oligopolistic environment, at
best).
A. Gemini
Experience in Connecticut and Other Northeastern States
Legacy cable television systems pass 97.7 million homes in the United States. 69.5 million homes receive basic cable service. This amounts to 68% of the 102.1 million U.S. telephone households as of January 2001.[5] 69.9% of homes passed have at least basic cable. Annual cable revenues exceed $42 Billion.[6] In a recent Press Release,
NCTA indicated that its member MSOs had completed 80% of the effort necessary to upgrade its networks to two-way technology.[7] Against this backdrop of a pervasive legacy cable coverage in the United States, are the statistics relating to competitive facilities-based networks. The BSPA has 13 member companies, one of which is Gemini. BSPA members have more than 22 Million households under franchise, pass more than 4 Million homes with their networks and serve over one million customers. Total capital investment exceeds $5 Billion to date and BSPA members have constructed more than 29,000 miles of network.
These statistics are encouraging for competitive facilities-based broadband service providers, but make
clear how far the nation is from enjoying true competition in the supply of
broadband services.
As noted above, more than 800,000 broadband customers lost service when
Excite@Home terminated service to AT&T
Broadband. These customers had no
alternative but to wait without service or
utilize slow, dial-up services, while AT&T Broadband tried mightily to
provide connectivity with its recently developed in-house network.[8]
Gemini received a number of calls from AT&T Broadband customers
located in the geographic areas in which Gemini has an operating broadband
network in Connecticut. Many of
these customers wanted to switch to Gemini Internet access services. Gemini has
provided service to many of them.
We are still adding former AT&T Broadband customers, several weeks
after the Excite@Home network terminated
services to AT&T broadband customers.
Further, Gemini received a number of calls from customers that are not
located within geographic areas served yet by Gemini. Many of them expressed frustration that
our network had not yet been built out to their areas. They expressed frustration that they had
no other alternative for high-speed broadband services. Some of them stated that DSL service was
not available in their area, or the DSL services were not satisfactory primarily
because of the relatively low downstream and upstream
speeds.
As further evidence of the lack of supply of broadband capability, Gemini
has received calls from individuals in New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island
seeking broadband service from Gemini.
While Gemini has not built its networks in those states yet, these
consumers were desperate for broadband services and had researched the names and
contact information of communications companies at the PUC in their state.
The research indicated that Gemini had
received a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or the equivalent in
their state and they were calling Gemini to find out if bundled service,
including Internet access service, was available. This is an extraordinary amount of
effort undertaken by consumer seeking high-speed broadband service. It indicates that the current supply of
broadband service is sorely lacking in this country and development of
alternative high-speed broadband networks should be
encouraged.
B. Impediments to
Deployment
Despite the progress of Gemini and other BSPA member companies in
deploying their networks, they are not even further along because of serious
impediments to deployment. These
include (a) impediments to pole, conduit and right-of-way access,
(b) impediments to programming access and (c)
impediments to MDU access.
Unfortunately, the parties controlling poles, conduits and rights-of-way
and programming in many instances are competitors to Gemini and other BSPA
members. They have no incentive to
make it commercially reasonable for Gemini to attach to poles and secure
programming for its broadband networks.
Similarly, as noted above, legacy cable MSOs often try to secure
perpetual or long-term rights to access to MDUs from landlords as a means of
precluding competition by competing networks such as Gemini consumers that live
in those MDUs.
In addition to the access impediments, come
the cost impediments. Gemini has
elsewhere described in some detail the abuses employed by pole custodians to
make it costly and to delay the availability of pole attachments. If there were a competitive market for
space on poles, there is no doubt that marketplace forces would cause pole
custodians to actively solicit Gemini to attach to their poles, just as
competing equipment vendors aggressively solicit Gemini for business. Pole custodians would offer reasonable
rates designed to encourage Gemini to attach to as many poles as possible. The today’s world, some pole custodians
undertake “guerrilla warefare” and “passive resistance” to discourage pole
attachments.
Another impediment to deployment are cable television franchise
delays. It is not uncommon for a
cable television franchise proceeding to take a year or more from start to
finish. There are numerous examples
of legacy MSOs injecting themselves into the process, threatening lawsuits if
they do not like the terms of the franchise agreement proposed by a franchising
authority to a competitive cable franchisee.
Gemini is aware of one instance in which a MSO purportedly commissioned a
Washington law firm to research various theories and causes of actions that
could be used against new cable television franchise applicants for markets in
which the legacy MSO operates.
While an MSO confronted with this fact would argue that it simply wants a
“level playing field”, the impact of threats of lawsuits and filed lawsuits is
to intimidate franchising authorities from granting competing franchises
quickly, if at all. This conduct
increases the costs to new entrants at a time when they do not have revenue
streams necessary to support the costs of litigation. Finally, the legacy MSOs have the cash
flow to support endless litigation and delay.
V.
“NON-BROADBAND” FACILITIES AND/OR SERVICES V.
Gemini submits that it is not feasible to draw a line between legacy
“non-broadband” facilities and/or services and “broadband facilities” and/or
services.
For the first time, technological advances have made it possible for
broadband networks to provide an array of services including video services,
telephony and data services (including Internet access services). The lines between these services have
blurred. It creates artificial
distinctions and difficulties to try to distinguish between these services.[9] Broadband service providers bundle these
services because that is what consumers want. Consumers look at these services
as a bundle and do not distinguish between “non-broadband” facilities and/or
services and “broadband facilities” and/or services.
Gemini submits that introducing these artificial distinctions will result
in confusion, delay and obfuscation.
The only real answer is lifting the impediments to entry and encouraging
deployment of facilities-based broadband networks. This will result in competition, and the
marketplace will become a superior substitute to administrative regulation.
Gemini submits that it would speed deployment of facilities-based broadband networks, including competing
networks, to establish a single regulatory regime for all broadband
services. It does not make sense to
bifurcate regulation on a state-by-state basis. The modern world and developing
communications networks, including terrestrial, wireless and
satellite-delivered, simply do not take into account artificial political
boundaries. Regulation by fifty
different states will result in fifty different sets of regulations. This is not good for the consumer,
because it will drive up the cost of broadband services as broadband service
providers desperately work to comply with laws of fifty different
states.
A single regulatory regime does not mean that the voice of the states
cannot be heard. Gemini has had
extensive contact with public utility commissions in Connecticut
where it has built its network, as well as in
each of its other target states.
Many of these regulators are very much committed to serving the public
interest. They often have their
finger on the pulse of consumers in their particular states. A unified regulatory regime at the
Federal level should make adequate provision for extensive communication with
state PUCs and should take advantage of state PUC knowledge of the needs,
desires and problems of consumers in their states when developing Federal
regulatory policy.
Federal regulators should continue to increase their interaction with
state PUCs, including attending NARUC meetings and
functions.
In short, a single Federal regulatory scheme, taking into account the
advice of state PUC commissions is the way to go. But without any question, there is a
need for one single regulatory regime to avoid possible chaos and the likelihood
of increase costs to the consumer and delays in deployment of new, competitive
facilities-based broadband networks around the country. To do otherwise will disadvantage the
United States versus other countries around the globe.
Gemini submits that there needs to be strong national policies favoring
the following:
(1)
Deployment of competitive facilities-based broadband networks that
are state-of-the-art throughout the United States;
(2) Redundant
broadband networks should be encouraged, not only for national security
purposes, but also because of unanticipated problems affecting broadband
networks, which become more and more serious as more Americans subscribe to
high-speed broadband services and rely upon them for their work and personal
lives;
(3) Minimal
regulation of broadband is appropriate, but some regulation is needed to
remove roadblocks to entry by new competitive facilities-based broadband
providers, including roadblocks to (a) access to poles, conduits and
rights-of-way
(b) access to MDUs, and (c) access to
programming;
(4) A national policy of
technology neutrality is fine, as long as dominant players cannot utilize
technology to block entry by new facilities-based broadband
networks;
(5) National policy should
define broadband from a consumer point of view, and should recognize that
consumers are on the verge of demanding much higher download and upload
speeds;
(6) There is a crying need
to increase the current supply of facilities-based broadband services in
the United States;
(7) It is a losing game to
try to draw artificial distinctions between legacy “non- broadband facilities”
and/or services and “broadband facilities” and/or
services.
Respectfully submitted,
GEMINI NETWORKS,
INC.
By: /s/ Richard C.
Rowlenson
Richard C. Rowlenson
280 Trumbull Street
24th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3585
(860) 293-4281
(860) 293-4297 – fax
rrowlenson@gemnets.com - e-mail
Date: December 18, 2001
[1] This is not meant as a criticism of AT&T Broadband. It was faced with a monumental task in making alternative arrangements for 800,000 customers—a nearly impossible task. Yet, AT&T Broadband had substantial advance notice of the problem. What will occur in the future if this happens to another broadband network with no notice? What will happen to consumers of high-speed broadband services?
[2] Communications Act, Section 628.
[3] This is to be distinguished from a situation in which a legacy MSO has invented something to which the intellectual property laws of the United States provide it with the exclusive right to use for a set period of years. In such cases, the legacy MSO may, but is not obligated, to license this invention to third parties.
[4] This is MPEG-2 at main level, main profile (ML/MP). It is similar to CCIR-601 resolution that we see on analog television today.
[5] www.nc&ta.com/industry_/overview/indStat.cfn?indOverviewld=2.
[6] Id.
[7] Cable and Telecommunications Industry Overview 2001, p.1, released December 11, 2001.
[8] Again, this is not a criticism of AT&T Broadband. The conversion task was monumental and would have taxed any company faced with it.
[9] NTIA should take official notice of the decades-long problem in trying to create workable definitions of (a) computer services and (b) communications services.