Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Unintended Consequences for ILECs
Here's some breakthrough thinking! Daniel Berninger points out that state law (in general) requires that the ILECs must be common carriers as a condition of using our public rights of way. He uses Maryland as an example:
Berninger observes:
Nice work, Daniel.
. . . [in] the Maryland Code section covering public utility companies[,] Title 1-101 defines a telephone company as “a public service company that owns telephone lines to receive or transmit telephone communications.”and, he points out
the Maryland Constitution Article 12 titled “Public Works” noting among other things that “the Directors of all said Public Works guard the public interest, and prevent the establishment of tolls which shall discriminate against the interest of the citizens or products of this State.”and he says
The non-neutral private network deployments associated with the Bell company broadband offers look like the non-common carrier networks of the cable companies.and he implies that the ILECs might be liable for pole attachment fees, plus franchise fees for even non-TV services when those services are privatized and offered on a discriminatory, non-common-carriage basis. And they might be giving up important immunities against litigation. This might well nullify the expected ILEC investment incentives.
Berninger observes:
Ed Whitacre and Ivan Seidenberg might regret their push to remove government oversight.Complex, tightly-coupled systems. Several regulatory tweaks that could resonate in unexpected places. Here's hoping that Ed and Ivan go, "Hmmmmm."
Nice work, Daniel.
Technorati Tags: F2C, NetworkNeutrality
Comments:
Post a Comment
