[1st-mile-nm] Jim Baller Posting

Tue Jan 15 12:07:44 PST 2008

Link is at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279231A1.pdf

Marianne

At 01:00 PM 1/15/2008 -0700, Michael Orshan wrote:
>Interesting.  I've been meaning to send this.  New Mexico is last.
>
>The FCC recently released their annual "Local Telephone Competition" report,
>which offers insight into the competition for local telephone service
>through 2006. The numbers weren't terribly surprising. CLECs continue to
>lose market share for local loops, and as of December 2006, provided 17.1%
>of the 167.5 million local access loops in the U.S. That percentage is down
>from December 2005's number of 17.9%. According to the FCC's numbers, CLECs
>peaked with 19.1% of local access loops in June 2005. Of course local loops
>are declining in general, thanks primarily to wireless substitution. There
>were 175.1 million local loops in December 2005, compared to December 2006's
>167.5 million. RBOCs continued forbearance efforts, where they attempt to
>escape competitive mandates, aren't helping either. CLECs highest
>penetration of local loops occurred in Rhode Island (46%) and lowest
>penetration occurred in New Mexico (8%). Even though it's a year old, this
>FCC report provides a wealth of information about local telephone
>competition and includes extensive data about ILECs, CLECs, and wireless
>carriers.
>
>Michael Orshan
>www.marsound.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: 1st-mile-nm-bounces at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us
>[mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Richard
>Lowenberg
>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:48 PM
>To: 1st-mile-nm at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us
>Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Jim Baller Posting
>
>Last week, I posted a critique from Public Knowledge, of the Connect
>Kentucky and Connected Nation broadband initiatives.   There's been some
>back and forth exchange on this, online.   Jim Baller, a leading telecom.
>lawyer, posted the following, yesterday.   He takes a most intelligent
>position in his conclusion.   (There is a link to the Baller/Herbst Law
>Firm web site on the 1st-Mile web site's Resources page.)
>rl
>-----
>
>AMERICAs GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS
>
>Many of you have asked me to comment on
>  the controversy surrounding ConnectKentucky/
>  Connected Nation. Here are my first impress-
>  sions.
>
>On this list and elsewhere, I have repeatedly
>  praised CK/CN for their broadband mapping,
>  consumer education, and demand aggregation
>  activities. While some of their claims seemed
>  exaggerated to me, I gave them the benefit of
>  the doubt. At the same time, I often expressed
>  concerns about their limited, incumbent-centric
>  vision of Americas broadband needs and about
>  their strong bias against public broadband
>  initiatives.
>
>In his lengthy article, Art Brodsky has now
>  called many of CK/CNs claims into question.
>  Brian Meffert has responded on behalf of
>  CK/CN. Links to both pieces appear below.
>
>I hope that Mr. Meffert will provide a more
>  detailed response, that Mr. Brodsky will
>  reply, and that the unnamed sources to
>  which both refer will step forward and
>  enlighten us about what really happened
>  in Kentucky. In a matter of this import-
>  ance, we need to know the facts, and we
>  should not pre-judge them in either
>  direction.
>
>Wherever the truth may lie, however, my
>  main concerns about the CK/CN will remain.
>  In 2002, the US Department of Commerce
>  issued a report entitled Understanding
>  Broadband Demand in which it observed
>  that It is important to note here that the
>  current generation of broadband technol-
>  ogies (cable and DSL) may prove woefully
>  insufficient to carry many of the advanced
>  applications driving future demand. Today's
>  broadband will be tomorrow's traffic jam,
>  and the need for speed will persist as new
>  applications and services gobble up existing
>  bandwidth. http://tinyurl.com/34e49y
>
>Now, six years later, we can clearly see how
>  prescient the Department of Commerce
>  was. While CK/CN are stuck on single-
>  digit DSL and cable modem speeds, the
>  worlds leading nations are pushing rapidly
>  toward speeds of 100 Mbps and 10 Gbps.
>  Such speeds will completely tip the balance
>  of innovation and competetiveness in their
>  favor. Ironically, the bandwidth-rich appli-
>  cations that these nations will foster would
>  clog the arteries of the puny systems that
>  CK/CNs initiatives would produce.
>
>To remain a leader in the emerging global
>  economy, the United States needs a much
>  bigger vision than CK/CNs. We need to give
>  all Americans, including those in the rural
>  areas that CK/CN would serve, candid and
>  unbiased information about the stakes
>  involved and about the full range of options
>  available to their communities. Moreover,
>  we cannot afford to exclude any potentially
>  viable initiative  public or private -- that
>  can help the United States fulfill its vision.
>
>To be sure, we need reliable map of broad-
>  band availability  as well as speed, quality,
>  and price. No one disputes this, and many
>  tools are emerging to achieve this. We also
>  need better consumer education, including
>  accurate data about offerings of incumbent
>  and competitive providers. At the very least,
>  CK/CN deserve credit for highlighting these
>  needs.
>
>But even more, America needs a national
>  broadband strategy that is worthy of this
>  great Nation. This can happen only if all
>  major stakeholders, including the incum-
>  bents, candidly acknowledge that America
>  faces a tremendous challenge, that time is
>  short, and that the public and private
>  sectors must work together, in a spirit of
>  mutual respect, to meet this great chal-
>  lenge. We cannot allow the CK/CN
>  controversy to bog us down or divert us
>  from developing such a strategy.
>
>Jim Baller
>
>
>------------------------------------------------
>Richard Lowenberg
>P.O.Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504
>505-989-9110,  505-603-5200 cell
>
>1st-Mile Institute
>New Mexico Broadband Initiative
>www.1st-mile.com
>------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>1st-mile-nm mailing list
>1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
>http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>
>_______________________________________________
>1st-mile-nm mailing list
>1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
>http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1224 - Release Date: 1/14/2008 
>5:39 PM