North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: SBC Contract Post (fwd)
- From: Owen DeLong
- Date: Tue Jun 26 11:14:05 2001
And, of course, we all know how well BOCs (Bell Operating Companies)
and other incumbent LECs (Local Exchange Carriers) follow such rules.
The problem is that most of these safeguards are not really enforceable,
and the telecom providers violate them at will. Heck, look at how
easily Pac Bell was able to drive MCI out of the local telco business
in California by dragging their feet on service/install requests,
making repeated mistakes in the process, etc. (Yes, Pac Bell makes
mistakes with their own customers as well, but these were mistakes
that looked suspicious, even compared to Pac Bell's usual level
SBC is one of the scariest, slimiest, sleaziest organiziations I've
ever run up against. They truly fit the definition of Telco someone
posted a while back (A law firm with a side business in telecommunications).
They have certainly violated most, if not all, of the safeguards
mentioned below, and their new contract certainly violates the
spirit, if not the letter, of said same safeguards.
> Robert Cannon of cybertelecom.org asked I submit
> this re: the SBC Contract thread....
> In proceedings going back to 1966 known as the Computer Inquiries,
> the FCC established a series of safeguard rules that create ISP
> rights to telecommunications. The Computer Inquiries first divided
> the world into Enhanced Service Providers (aka computer networks,
> ISPs, information service providers) and basic telecom. Enhanced
> service providers are unregulated by the FCC. But acknowledging
> the dependency of ESPs on the underlying telecom monopoly (remember
> this is 1970s and 1980s), the FCC created a series of safeguards.
> The safeguards require all facilities based telecom carriers who
> offer ISPs services to unbundle the services and offer them to
> independent ISPs on the same terms and conditions. BOCs have added
> requirements; they can elect to have an ISP through a separate
> subsidiary (Computer II) or they can have an integrated ISP if they
> file a comparably efficient interconnection plan (Computer III).
> BOCs, regardless of whether they have an ISP, were also required
> to create Open Network Architecture plans, breaking their networks
> down to basic building blocks for the benefit of ISPs.
> Additional safeguards that generally fall on all carriers include
> prohibitions against discrimination, requirements that line
> provisioning be completed in the same time frame, cost accounting
> rules, prohibitions against cross subsidization, requirements
> for network information disclosure, and restrictions on the use
> of customer information.
> I have created a white paper entitled "Where ISPs and Telephone
> Companies Compete: A Guide to the Computer Inquiries, Enhanced
> Service Providers and Information Service Providers." It is
> available at http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/ciii.htm#guide It
> explains these rules as they exist today.
> A host is a host from coast to coast.................firstname.lastname@example.org
> & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
> Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
> is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433