Dreaming... hope you have a Plan B, Ethan Hunt.
Frank Muto wrote:
I do get it, but at a different view point. I'll agree that the USF
still be available, but let's widen the tax base and lower the
This also is a good time to look again at structural separation of the
from the CO and form a regulated utility.
It is time that the FCC and Congress forget it is not their job to worry
about a company's P&L, i.e., Bell's. Welcome the Bell's to our world
if they can survive without the CO plants. Then you will have equal and
reasonable competition for all.
Even if the TA 96 was codified, though it was not, in the assumption
CLEC's were to become facility based, it could have included a sunset of
such and also a move to structural separation. Now granted the latter
have caused as much grief as the TA 96 Act itself in having une-p and the
Bell's bitching about parasitic users, but it could make some other
(current) issues such as Homeland Security, USF and Network Neutrality
less the debates they are now.
Structural Separation was basically in place with the divesture of
1984 and also with the TA 96, that it was essential to create operating
systems to split the local and LD. The next step would be to separate
plant away from the Bell's.
Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com