- "USTelecom asks the FCC to forbear from applying archaic regulations that divert spending to narrowband networks and perpetuate inefficient legacy network architectures."
- "Clearly the data show that with the growth of mobile voice and broadband-enabled Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) alternatives, it no longer makes sense to classify traditional landline providers as dominant in voice service."
- "There was not a single state in which landline telephone service from a traditional voice provider was used by more than half the households — the range was 22 percent to 45 percent with a median of 32 percent."
USTA wants deregulation for LECs. I get that. They want to be deregulated, but still receive favorable status, USF funds, CAF money, government contracts, yet no responsibility as the monopoly and carrier of last resort. Many of the USTA members - like Frontier and Fairpoint - have a large rural base, where they ARE the only choice. As you examine the rest of the USTA board, they are larger RLECs as well - Pockets of monopoly and fiefdom. Yeah, deregulate the monopoly of the communications network that is vital to residents and small businesses. That makes sense.
Kathleen Q. Abernathy is an EVP (of External Affairs & Chief Legal Officer) at Frontier now and on the board of directors for USTA. She used to be an FCC commissioner. You have to love the revolving door of industry and government.
Free Press Disagrees With Findings of USTelecom Study on Title II Regulation (from NECA)
"Free Press filed a letter on November 21, 2014, asserting the study USTelecom filed, which Free Press said purports to say a return to Congress’s Title II legal structure for broadband telecommunications services would cause a near one-third drop in capital investment, is flawed. Free Press argued the study: does not accurately separate out investments under Title II regulation from those that are not; fails to account for investments already made; the basic premise is essentially that investment in the PSTN declined since 2009 and broadband investment increased under Title I; ignores the current massive investments LECs (and MSOs) are making in Title II enterprise broadband services; and reaches a wildly inaccurate conclusion, while ignoring the realities of forbearance."
Post a Comment