|
Forget Disruptive Technology - How about Disruptive Regulation? |
|
|
|
|
Written by Ken DiPietro
|
|
Wednesday, 22 March 2006 |
In the last few days we have been treated to exactly how powerful a change in the regulations that govern the telecommunications industry can be.
Take, for example, the new dynamic that faces any of the ILECs legitimate competitors if they depend on the "ILEC's network" to deliver services. As of yesterday, Verizon has been granted Forbearance, a term that basically means that Verizon now has almost complete control over "their" network and can make it difficult for anyone to either buy transport on their network (should they choose to do so) and now the big prize is whether they even have to provide service to any competitor.
This morning I read that AT&T is filing "Me Too" paperwork to ensure they now have the same basic rights as their competition in this respect.
Check out this quote from this article,
One analyst said that AT&T and other incumbent telephone carriers could be at a disadvantage when competing against Verizon for business customers if the FCC delayed acting on requests for similar regulatory relief.
"It's certainly possible they will gain similar deregulation, at least eventually; but if there is a delay, Verizon could gain a temporary regulatory advantage, which could be particularly important in the traditional enterprise competition between AT&T and Verizon in the latter's region," said Blair Levin, an analyst with Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. It goes without saying that we can't have one side of Ma Bell having an advantage over the other side - even if that advantage is okay over the rest of their competition.
There is also the ongoing debate as to whether or not any of the ILECs need to ensure QoS of anyone's traffic when it crosses their network (Net Neutrality) which translates into the stark reality that should this be allowed any competitor's traffic might be slowed down to the point of unusable all the while providing the larger carriers the ability to charge a "tariff" to carry traffic from high demand sites (like Google) even if these sites already pay to connect to the net.
So, here's an interesting question...
Why aren't we (we, as in municipalities) looking at using legislation to level the playing field? One piece of legislation that comes to mind is the relatively recent ruling by the Supreme Court clarifying the use of Eminent Domain.
The following quotes as confirmed in the article (linked above) presents both sides of the issue.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government," - Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority
"The court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use." - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor I guess the question is, can we consider a strand of fiber to be property and if so, can it be "taken" under Eminent Domain for use by either a municipality or a private party as long as it can be shown that the overall benefit is for the common good? I would further argue that Economic Development has long been considered "common good" and that there is adequate proof that affordable broadband does stimulate Economic Development.
It seems to me the next step would be for us to set in motion the mechanism to "take" the necessary fiber strands that would allow broadband to be brought into many of the unserved or underserved areas and begining deploying broadband for the public good.
Without question, it can be shown that waiting for the big companies to deliver ubiquitous and inexpensive broadband has been nothing but an exercise in frustration and has cost many communities a lot of public good.
Have at it. |
|
Industry Commentary 
Advanced Search
