TMCnet News
US LEC Weighs in on BICCA ImplicationsBy TED GLANZER TMCnet Communications and Broadband Columnist Wanda Montano, US LEC's vice president of regulatory and industry affairs, told TMCnet in an interview on Tuesday that the sky really does appear to be falling in the telecommunications marketplace. It's the summer of discontent in the telecom world, unless, of course, you are an incumbent telco. Those who aren't so fortunate, however, are left to ponder the question, "How did it come to this?" Count US LEC among the growing legion of CLECs, ISPs, consumer groups, and concerned citizens who believe that recent orders from the FCC combined with the introduction in the Senate of the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act (BICCA) add up to the re-monopolization of the telecommunications market. The vice president of regulatory and industry affairs of the Charlotte, NC-based CLEC spoke with TMCnet on Tuesday as to why the regulatory landscape is so onerous to Wanda Montano, US LEC's vice president of regulatory and industry affairs, told TMCnet in an interview on Tuesday that the sky really does appear to be falling in the telecommunications marketplace. Specifically, Montano said that BICCA, if passed, would essentially strip all remaining regulations from the "incumbent monopolies [read ILECs]." "That's right, I said monopolies," Montano added. A major issue for CLEC's is the total control that incumbent telcos will have on the "last mile," she said, noting that it is not feasible for CLECs to build into customer premises. "It just doesn't make economic sense," she said. "There is no other option." Indeed, Montano rattled off the possibilities that CLECs have in obtaining alternative network access from the other broadband players. Broadband over power line technology is several years away from being viable. Cable operators "don't sell their lines, they aren't regulated, they are not required to sell to us," Montano said. "For CLECs, cable is not an option." "There may be some wireless options," Montano said, although she remained skeptical of the technology's future, adding that "wireless hasn't worked yet." Businesses like the wireline option because of its reliability, she said. Taken as a whole, CLECs are finding themselves between a rock and a cable/telco duopoly. "How do we get to customers?" an exasperated Montano asked rhetorically. "Spend 100 years building a network?" Montano said that the pending mega mergers - SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI - will further reduce competition, providing customers with fewer choices and less innovation. CLECs and ISPs aren't the only companies who should be keeping an eye fixed on the developments coming out of Washington, D.C. VoIP providers, in non-peering situations, utilize CLECs for interconnectivity, Montano said. In the end, the general public loses out, Montano said, noting that, historically, pushing innovation and new services has not the incumbents' forte. Montano cited the classic example of how ILECs pursue innovative technology. "DSL sat on the shelf for 20 years and [Verizon] didn't deploy it," she said. "Once those industries start going to the incumbents, they can charge whatever the heck they want to charge," Montano said. "If [CLECs] are not here to provide those services, [VoIP providers] are going to be eliminated from the market, too." As if being on top of the world isn't enough, Montano said that there is a new proposal in Texas that would eliminate the reciprocal compensation and inter carrier regime. When a network call must be interconnected with another network, the calling network pays a facilities fee to the connected network. So, US LEC would have to pay a fee to Verizon if a call generated from US LEC's network is eventually connected to Verizon's network, and vice versa. For now at least. The Texas proposal would hoist the cost of every interconnected call, regardless of where it was generated, squarely on the CLECs' shoulders. The silver lining for CLECs, if there is one, is that BICCA most likely won't be put to a vote any time soon because the bill does not address Universal Service Fund (USF) issues, Montano said. The USF, which was created to increase the availability of telephone service to rural and underserved areas, distributes funds to rural and high-cost areas to create rates reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas. Universal Service will almost certainly find its way into any proposed updates or rewrites of telecommunications legislation, considering that Republican Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ala) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - the committee that has jurisdiction over telecommunications technology. Stevens also is the senior senator from Alaska – you can't get any more rural than that - so he and his constituents have a vested interest in USF. ----- Ted Glanzer is assistant editor for TMCnet. For more articles by Ted Glanzer, please visit: http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/columnists/columnist.aspx?id=100033&nm=Ted%20Gl anzer |