US Telecom Association wants 'archaic' regulations gone | TheHill

US Telecom Association wants 'archaic' regulations gone | TheHill: Steve Davis, chairman of the board of U.S. Telecom, said some of the regulations cited "don't apply to cable companies or any of our competitors, and to the extent that they ever served a purpose, that purpose has long since evaporated."

The group pointed to a number of regulations they want to avoid, including requirements that companies "separate local and long-distance business, and requiring traditional phone companies to continue the provisioning of obsolete technology."

The group cited a speech Wheeler gave in February in which he noted that a large percentage of investment recently by telephone companies went to "maintaining the declining telephone network, despite the fact that only one-third of U.S. households use it at all."

"The future regulatory environment should be one that is based upon the world as it exists today," the group’s president and CEO, Walter McCormick, told reporters. "That is sort of like the overall theme we think public policy should move towards. This petition is a little tiny baby step in that direction."

The world of POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) is still very much alive in much of the United States, where some 19 million homes and small businesses still rely on the publicly switched telephone network (PSTN) and dialup wireline Internet service. As long as it exists, regulators will be hard pressed to scrap rules designed for POTS without a firm transition plan in place.

The Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) could potentially get more than they wish for in making this request. The Federal Communications Commission could respond by effectively saying, "OK, if you don't want to comply with outdated POTS rules, you are hereby subject to Title II of the Communications Act and thereby must deploy advanced telecommunications infrastructure throughout your service territories."

U.S. telecom market needs alternative business models, not more regulation

Telecommunications like other infrastructure such as roads, electric power transmission equipment, natural gas and water lines that serve homes and businesses is not a competitive market. It is a natural monopoly and at best a duopoly. Overlaid by market failure, represented by 7 million U.S. homes the Federal Communications Commission estimates are off the telecom grid because they are located outside cable company footprints or unable to subscribe to DSL due to distance limitations. Last October, the Yankee Group estimated about 12 percent of U.S. households, including those in some major metropolitan areas, lack access to broadband service.

This is perceived as a regulatory conundrum by regulators like the FCC. Too much regulation, the legacy telco and cable companies warn, will choke off infrastructure investment. The implication that will make the existing market failure worse. But would it really? The legacy carriers' own business models already severely limit network build out to neatly defined geographic and demographic market segments that can generate a return on investment in about five years.

The real challenge facing regulators isn't regulating the market. This is a market that needs stimulating and alternative business approaches that will solve the existing market failure and create a new telecom market to deliver the Internet protocol-based telecommunications services Americans need now and into the future.

Legacy telco regulatory concerns overblown as Internet replaces PSTN

The United States is moving from an era of the highly regulated, proprietary publicly switched telephone network (PSTN) to a new telecommunications paradigm in which the Internet is replacing the PSTN and the "plain old telephone service" (POTS) it delivered.

Both of America's biggest investor-owned telcos, AT&T and Verizon, have heralded the death of PSTN/POTS. Verizon is adopting Internet protocol-based next generation technology in its place. AT&T went so far as to declare its legacy, copper-based wireline infrastructure in a "death spiral" in a filing with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission just before last Christmas. That business, AT&T wrote, cannot be sustained as more and more residential customers drop their land line phone service for wireless PCS devices or use their Internet connections to make voice calls.

As the nation adopts this new Internet-based telecom infrastructure, the legacy carriers are worried that the FCC will attempt to overregulate it. Those concerns are overblown. There will be no need for increased regulation at a time when the telecom infrastructure is changing and alternative business models -- most notably locally owned open access fiber infrastructure -- are emerging.

Strict regulatory oversight is only needed in a monopolistic market. New business models such as municipal and cooperative-owned open access fiber networks dilute the monopolistic market power of the legacy carriers and thus the need for enhanced regulation. If enhanced regulation does come about, it will likely be aimed at penalizing legacy telcos that stand in the way of federal policy to expand advanced telecommunications infrastructure and Internet access with uncompetitive market practices.

Vint Cerf: Single purpose phone, cable systems and legacy regulation impede broadband expansion

Some observations from World Wide Web creator Vint Cerf. They show that we're in a transition period between yesterday's single purpose, proprietary analog-based telco and cable systems and an evolving digital Internet Protocol-based platform that can deliver the Web, voice and video. Cerf's observations suggest this transition explains why many broadband black holes persist in the U.S. since the nation's current infrastructure was not designed and built to deliver universally accessible IP-based services. Nor is the current regulatory scheme that treats the Internet as an afterthought -- an optional "information sevice" -- rather than an essential telecommunications service.

Cerf also pays homage to the notion that IP-based infrastructure is a natural monopoly like publicly owned roads and highways that by its nature does not lend itself to market competition:

You don't have multiple roads going to your house for example. Instead, it is a common resource. I said something like "maybe we should treat the Internet more like the road system."

Cerf correctly notes that competition to deliver IP-based services isn't likely to develop among the legacy telco and cable providers since the old regulatory framework isn't designed to foster competition for them. He posits that like the early telephone system, subsidies will be needed to ensure universal access.

If broadband service is essential to the national economy and to citizens, given the present means by which it is implemented, and given that it appears unlikely that the usual competitive pressures will lead to discipline among the competitors, perhaps we need new national rules to assure that the service is openly and equally accessible to any application provider and to all users. Equal does not mean that everyone pays the same amount. In particular, higher capacity might be priced at a higher rate. Provision needs to be made, however, to deal with high cost (to the provider) areas using a new form of Universal Service or some other subsidy.

Media think tank faults flawed U.S. telecom regulation for shortcomings in broadband access

U.S. telecommunications regulators operate without a clear overall policy goal and Americans consequently have less access to broadband services than Europeans, a media think tank concludes in a paper issued this week.

[W]hile the European Union has defined its issues focused on their definition at the highest levels of policymaking and seems to be addressing the challenge created by social inequity, Congress is mired in regulating the relationship among the operators. Instead of managing competition it manages the competitors. It perceives the issue as one that arises from the need to allow operators to provide certain services, and as a result the regulator does not deliberate the goals of the policy. Indeed the focus of policy in the United States is on the needs of the industry and not on public service.

According to the Benton Foundation:

America is on the verge of vast new broadband-driven digital transformation that promises to make life more livable, businesses more productive, jobs more plentiful, and the Internet more accessible. However, at the dawn of this digital age, those who could benefit the most from this economically empowering technology are also those most likely to be left without access because of where they live or how much money they make.

As Congress puts universal service reform at the top of its telecom policy agenda, this page will provide a one-stop collection of papers and speeches advancing a new vision for Universal Service -- for making broadband as universal as telephone service is today and a pathway for progress. This effort will embrace the premise that Universal Broadband access is now as important to the advancement of the American ideal of equal opportunity in the 21st century as universal access to education and universal phone service was in the last.