Thanks for the history lesson, Fred! I'm glad I pointed you this way
from the replacement ISP-CLEC.
These regulations certainly spurred the ecosystems that enable us to
deploy cost effectively today.
I've never been a fan of using someone else's network without a
long-term agreement (IRU, for example).
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
On 7/17/2011 9:35 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 7/17/2011 08:30 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
No policy that I'm aware of prevented anyone from being an ISP. It
was a cost issue.
Before 1996, there was open entry into the ISP market under Computer
II/III, but that was largely limited to dial-up, leased lines, and
telco transport services (such as Frame Relay). A handful of
competitive access providers (CAPs, like MFS, Teleport and Brooks) had
set up shop before TA96, based on a 1985 FCC ruling (among other
thing, asserting interstate jurisdiction over fiber optics used to
carry interstate or mixed-jurisdiction traffic, and thus pre-empting
state barriers to entry), but only served a relatively few buildings,
and were with narrow exceptions very unprofitable.
TA96 did not create ISPs; it created CLECs, who in turn made life much
easier for ISPs. (Before TA96, a few states had authorized CLECs on
their own, often on rather limited terms, but TA96 made it a
requirement.) It was certainly aimed at opening up markets and
weakening ILEC monopoly power. In 1996, the dial-up ISP boom was
creating congestion on the ILEC networks, and their three-year
expansion cycle couldn't cope with it. So they were again petitioning
the FCC to impose switched access charges on calls to enhanced service
providers, a/k/a "the Modem Tax". CLECs rode to the rescue by adding
inbound dial capacity in a hurry.
Wireless ISPs were theoretically authorized earlier, by relaxed rules
for 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz unlicensed operation, but the technology was
not ready for volume deployment until after the turn of the century.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals remanded some FCC pro-competition
rules (even after the Supreme Court had approved the most contentious)
and the post-2001 FCC used that as an excuse to roll back open
competition. This mostly hinged on the so-called "necessary" and
"impair" clauses of TA96. But I have some recent correspondence from
the former Senate staff member who helped draft that language, and he
points out that the current interpretation is far from what was
intended and far from what it literally says in black letter law. (The
stricter "necessary" part was only intended to cover intellectual
property issues in the use of ILEC operational support software, not
all UNEs.)
FCC policy this past decade was very literally a War on ISPs, with
CLECs not the direct target so much as an ally of the true enemy,
ISPs. The FCC changed the reciprocal compensation rate on ISP-bound
calls. It took away DSL line sharing. It took away ISP wholesale
access to ILEC fiber networks such as FiOS and uVerse (hence open
Pronto became closed uVerse). And it revoked the Computer II rules
that allowed ISPs on ILEC facilities at all. WISPs are less impacted,
of course, than urban wireline ISPs, who are now largely closed off
from mass markets.
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
