Posted by: Frank Simone on June 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm
In the movie Field of Dreams, Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) hears a voice tell him, “If you build it he will come.” What does this have to do with telecom policy you ask? Everything. Carriers build communications infrastructure in much the same way – without the whispering voices at night of course. Facilities-based providers are forward looking — investing and deploying so consumers and businesses will come and enjoy the next generation services.
And today’s explosion of data traffic, especially in the wireless market, gives facilities-based providers every incentive to peer into the future and invest to keep up with demand. Infrastructure investing today means deploying fiber or other advanced high capacity technologies as closely as possible to residences and businesses to unlock high bandwidth services. The Field of Dreams for policymakers is where multiple providers make those infrastructure investments to provide business and residential consumers not only with needed capacity, but also with competitive choices.
Which brings me to the wonkish issue of special access.
As a part of our merger with BellSouth, we voluntarily agreed to offer temporary, but significant reductions on our interstate special access services (purchased primarily by businesses). After 3 ½ years, that merger commitment expires tomorrow, June 30th. These rates will then revert to our original tarriffed rates.
Posted by: Jim Cicconi on June 28, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Today’s Presidential Memorandum on spectrum policy, and the public comments of the President’s top economic advisor, are both encouraging and timely. At AT&T, we are already dealing with phenomenal increases in mobile broadband use — a whopping 5,000 percent over the last three years. However, the potential of wireless broadband to drive innovation and connect every American to the Internet will be limited without bold action to address the spectrum crunch that all providers face, and today’s action signals this Administration’s commitment to do just that.
Spectrum deficiencies, if left unaddressed, will limit job growth and investment, harm consumers, and hobble innovation. And just as all wireless carriers will face these spectrum deficiencies, all carriers should be allowed a fair chance to acquire the spectrum their customers need. We look forward to working with the Administration as it moves to meet the spectrum goals outlined in the National Broadband Plan, and now endorsed by the President.
Posted by: Hank Hultquist on June 28, 2010 at 12:47 pm
“To define is to limit.” Or so said Oscar Wilde in The Picture of Dorian Gray.
When it comes to regulating the Internet, however, the FCC is apparently unwilling to define its regulatory limits.
In its “Third Way” NOI, the FCC did not define the Internet transmission service (what it dubs “Internet Connectivity Service”) that it proposes to regulate under Title II of the Communications Act. Instead, the NOI simply describes it, “at a high level,” as the service that “enables users to transmit data communications to and from the rest of the Internet.”
That’s all we get. What could that definitional blob mean?
Well, it appears to encompass a broadband Internet access provider’s entire Internet infrastructure – from the first mile copper, fiber or cable lines that connect each end user to a network node in their neighborhood all the way to the provider’s backbone routers, high-capacity links, servers, and backbone peering relationships that enable the broadband Internet access provider’s customers to connect with customers of other networks.
Posted by: Bob Quinn on June 24, 2010 at 11:43 am
The problem with the Open Internet fight generally and the Title II fiasco specifically is that fiction tends to trump facts in the debate. It’s understandable. It’s easier sometimes to understand and write about the vague and empty rhetoric than it is to unpack the facts and legal framework that lie at the heart of the dispute.
But, with the FCC proposing, unfortunately, to dip the Internet into the sugar-coated world of Title II regulation – light touch or not – specificity and clarity are really essential to understanding the extent and limits to the regulation that the FCC and particularly its General Counsel are advocating.
So, starting today, and over the coming days, we will do the hard work of unpacking the complex and esoteric legal issues of this debate so you won’t have to.
It’s been said repeatedly that the FCC must examine Title II regulation to put the Open Internet on a “solid legal foundation.” See here and here.
I will begin our examination by noting that the absence in the Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) issued last week of that “solid legal foundation” is a very large problem which is compounded by the notion that the FCC might actually attempt to go directly from NOI to Final Order in this proceeding.
Posted by: AT&T Blog Team on June 24, 2010 at 11:32 am
Authored By Jeanine Poltronieri, AT&T Assistant Vice President-Federal Regulatory
In the FCC’s 14th Annual Wireless Competition Report, the Commission spends a lot of time discussing investment. It also delves into profits. Now, before your eyes glaze over, stick with me on this. I’ll try to be brief.
The Commission analyzes capital investment and concludes that it is “robust” but “declining relative to industry size.” An analysis of either of these areas may be helpful. But why link them together?
The idea of comparing investment to industry size was proposed last year in comments filed by certain interest groups. They specifically focused on the capex and revenues of AT&T and Verizon and concluded that there was a decline in investment compared to profits. This decline, they said, is “a strong sign that providers are not competing on non-price factors such as investment.” In its report, the FCC adopted this idea but broadened the capex/revenues comparison to include the whole industry, rather than just AT&T and Verizon.
The notion that this comparison is a cause of concern, let alone the idea that this comparison demonstrates increased levels of concentration or declining competition , is simply untrue. AT&T made these points in our comments, but they bear repeating here.