North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Tauzin-Dingell (was ICANN)
- From: William Allen Simpson
- Date: Thu Mar 07 08:53:29 2002
Thank you both for these excellent resources!
For the rest of you, especially the two who didn't think this was
a topic for this list, or were too "busy" to read the
TauzinDingellisEvil link, please read the rest, where I explain why
this directly affects how you configure your routers....
And for those of you in California, you had a primary on Tuesday. Yet,
one of the few times you KNOW your legislator is listening, I'm told
there were ZERO calls on this issue last week in Bay Area and Marin.
Shame on you!
This passed the US House by 273 to 157. It was bipartisan (you cannot
blame it on a particular party.)
Find out what your US Senator's position is on this bill!
Robert Cannon wrote:
> You may also wish to talk to the Texas ISP Association
> --- bcurnow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Both the California ISP Association (www.cispa.org)
> > and the American ISP
> > Association (www.aispa.org) are active on this
> > issue.
Remember when ISDN was rolled out, the ILECs wanted to charge more for
data than voice? So, we (I) defined the IETF standard so that it
could run equally well over 56K voice channels....
This bill makes that illegal. For the first time, it says that data
is different from voice, and the ILECs can monitor how we use the
wires, and charge differently.
When setting rates, terms and conditions, "high speed data service shall
be deemed a nondominant service." That is, they can require huge
installation charges, among other nastiness. With NO oversight by
your state, and no recourse other than suing them for years.
You don't offer ISDN? Remember, PRIs are ISDN. The ILECs hate the
CLECs selling PRIs over unbundled ILEC wires, so this bill says that
they no longer have to provision them, until the ILEC offers the same
service. So much for our "agility" as small competitors....
Still using ILEC PRI? They no longer have to provision the service.
If they do, they no longer have to charge you the same rate that they
charge their wholly owned subsidiary, your competitor.
Offer DSL? They no longer have to allow you to connect your own DSLAM
to their wiring.
(However, a late amendment specifically allows you to build your own
"remote terminal" next to theirs instead, in their right-of-way.
Presumably, you can run your own wiring to your customers.)
Running DSL over so-called alarm circuits to bypass the CO? They can
refuse to provision, and can charge anything they want. States would no
longer be able to regulate.
Resell ILEC DSL? You have 3 years.
Nice that they allow a special transition period -- for most things it
is whatever was "in effect on May 24, 2001," or "the expiration date
of the existing current term contained in such agreement on the date
of enactment of this section, without regard to any extension or
renewal of such agreement". So, get those 2,3,5 year agreements in
You only use T1s and above? "The term `high speed data service' means
any service that consists of or includes the offering of a capability to
transmit, using a packet-switched or successor technology, information
at a rate that is generally not less than 384 kilobits per second in at
least one direction." Looks like that includes you.
Basically, "freedom of choice" is laid out as "access to any Internet
service provider that interconnects with such carrier's high speed data
service". We are all, by law, about to become resellers of ILEC
Just think, you might not need to configure any routers -- forever more.
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32