"The Commission adopted these requirements to implement the market-opening
provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But the communications
landscape has transformed since then: local telephone companies, known as
incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), have gone from monopolists to
providing only 12% of all voice service subscriptions across all technologies."
Clueless comment. Broadband was introduced by cable companies first, as they
had the coax wideband infrastructure mostly in place already. And yet, they
were never required to unbundle. Only the telcos were. So, with that unbundling
requirement, telco ADSL deployments lagged, by at least two years. ADSL took
off as soon as the FCC stopped insisting on that unfairness.
"And in the broadband marketplace, incumbent LECs are just one of many
intermodal competitors, providing only 20% of residential broadband
subscriptions at or above 25/3 Mbps. In fact, legacy copper voice services now
face competition from cable, voice over Internet protocol, fixed wireless, and
mobile wireless services, and 5G wireless services promise to revolutionize the
way consumers access broadband."
But this, too, is overhyped and deliberately misleading. The truth is, mobile
wireless does not compete with fixed broadband service. For one thing, its data
caps are way, way lower, when fixed broadband imposes data caps at all. Maybe a
difference of 100:1. And the better fixed broadband services don’t have data
caps.
Also, fixed wireless broadband and cabled broadband are not in competition.
Fixed wireless is used by the same local company that offers cabled broadband,
in that region, to lower its deployment costs. Such as, DSL speeds increased,
by deploying fixed wireless broadband *as opposed to FTTH*.
So in fact, the (vast) majority of neighborhoods still only have one, or at
most two providers, for fixed broadband. If there is any choice, the typical
choice would be, one telco (FiOS, DSL, or fixed wireless) and one cable company
(DOCSIS). With very much the same type of service, for the same prices. Most
places have one choice only.
Competition for broadband service is nothing like what these libertarians like
to pretend.
Here's a thought for this FCC: If you want to insist that net neutrality is not
necessary, THEN IMPOSE AN UNBUNDLING MANDATE on all fixed broadband providers.
That would get us back to the huge ISP competition we had in the dialup era,
which put out of business any non-neutral service. Or, impose a neutrality
mandate, understand why in some cases, neutral (local) monopolies exist, and
let the providers retain control of their infrastructure and their own ISP
service. Don’t attempt to mislead people with vague nonsense about how times
have changed.
Bert
---------------------------------------
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360979A1.pdf
Media Contact: Mark Wigfield, (202) 418-0253
mark.wigfield@xxxxxxx
For Immediate Release FCC PROPOSES ELIMINATING OUTDATED PHONE NETWORK
UNBUNDLING AND RESALE REQUIREMENTS
Requirements May Be Unnecessary, Counterproductive in Many Parts of the Country
in Era of Robust Intermodal Competition --
WASHINGTON, November 22, 2019—The Federal Communications Commission today
proposed eliminating or reducing outdated phone company network unbundling and
resale requirements that today may be unnecessary for—and detrimental
to—facilities-based competition.
The Commission adopted these requirements to implement the market-opening
provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But the communications
landscape has transformed since then: local telephone companies, known as
incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), have gone from monopolists to
providing only 12% of all voice service subscriptions across all technologies.
And in the broadband marketplace, incumbent LECs are just one of many
intermodal competitors, providing only 20% of residential broadband
subscriptions at or above 25/3 Mbps. In fact, legacy copper voice services now
face competition from cable, voice over Internet protocol, fixed wireless, and
mobile wireless services, and 5G wireless services promise to revolutionize the
way consumers access broadband.
These facilities-based competitive alternatives provide more advanced service
capabilities than legacy copper networks. Where this competition exists, there
may no longer be a need to require incumbent LECs to unbundle, or share,
elements of their legacy networks with competitors at regulated rates.
In fact, these network sharing obligations can reduce the incentives of
incumbent and competitive carriers alike to deploy, and transition to,
next-generation networks and services. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted
by the Commission today seeks comment on proposals to eliminate and/or reduce
requirements to provide the following unbundled network elements:
DS1 and DS3 Loops—These legacy last-mile lines are used largely by business
customers and are being eclipsed by higher-speed packet-based services sold by
incumbent LECs, competitive LECs, cable providers, and other intermodal
competitors.
o The Notice therefore proposes to remove DS1 and DS3 loop unbundling
obligations in counties and study areas deemed competitive in the FCC’s 2017
BDS Order and 2018 Rate-of-Return BDS Order.
o However, the Notice proposes to still require the unbundling of DS1 loops in
rural areas to enable residential broadband service in places where there may
be fewer facilities-based competitive options.
DS0 Loops—These network elements are typically used to provide both voice and
broadband service using various DSL technologies. Recognizing the low and
falling barriers to entry that competitors face in providing broadband in urban
areas, the Notice proposes to eliminate DS0 loop unbundling obligations in
urban census blocks. However, the Notice proposes to still require unbundling
of such loops in rural areas, where there may be greater barriers to
facilities-based deployment.
Legacy Narrowband Voice-Grade Loops—These network elements are used to
provide voice service and have no broadband service capability. In light of
the migration by consumers and businesses away from legacy voice services in
favor of IP-and wirelessbased voice services provided by multiple intermodal
providers, the Notice proposes to remove unbundling obligations for narrowband
voice-grade loops nationwide.
Dark Fiber Transport—Unbundled transport provides a connection between phone
companies’ wire centers in a local service area. Consistent with the relief
that the FCC granted earlier this year from DS1 and DS3 transport unbundling
requirements, the Notice proposes to grant relief from dark fiber transport
unbundling requirements where competitive fiber exists within one-half mile of
a wire center. The Notice also proposes to grant non-price cap incumbent LECs
relief from the requirement that they resell their retail legacy
telecommunications services at statutorily prescribed rates. The FCC granted
large, price-cap incumbent LECs this relief earlier this year.
Finally, the Notice proposes a three-year transition period to give existing
customers served via these unbundling and resale obligations time to transition
to alternative arrangements without service disruption.
Action by the Commission November 22, 2019 by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FCC 19119). Chairman Pai, Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr approving.
Commissioner Rosenworcel and Starks dissenting. Chairman Pai, Commissioners
O’Rielly, Carr, Rosenworcel, and Starks issuing separate statements.
WC Docket No. 19-308
###
Media Relations: (202) 418-0500 / ASL: (844) 432-2275 / TTY: (888) 835-5322 /
Twitter: @FCC / www.fcc.gov