Noting that it took the FCC two years to produce the order, Verizon Communications said it needed time to fully consider the implications. Tom Tauke, senior vice president-Public Policy and External Affairs for Verizon, said “the world is changing so fast that the order may already be outdated.”
AT&T commended the FCC majority “for keeping its promises to consumers.” Robert Quinn, AT&T Vice President for Federal Regulatory Affairs, said the order “will allow AT&T to continue to serve our existing local customers and to follow through with our plans to expand to other markets.” However, on the broadband front, AT&T said the FCC simply “surrendered to the wishes of the incumbent telephone monopolies.”
MCI applauded the release of the FCC’s Triennial Review Order saying the ruling would enable it to continue offering local voice services to consumers nationwide. However, on the broadband front, MCI believes the FCC has jeopardized competition. MCI said it would consider appropriate avenues to reverse “the unfortunate decision restricting competition in the broadband marketplace.”
Qwest Communications said the FCC “made the right decision in the area of broadband communications – taking a pro-investment and pro-competitive approach to the deployment of new facilities.” However, Qwest “remains disappointed with the majority’s decision to allow other companies, notably AT&T and MCI, to continue to use our network at below-cost rates rather than invest in facilities of their own.”
The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) welcomed the release of the FCC’s order, saying that the FCC is right to deregulate new, last-mile broadband facilities on a national basis. TIA said that the removal of serious economic disincentives to nationwide investment in telecommunications networks will result in a greater commitment from the ILECs to invest capital to more effectively compete with cable modem providers. TIA also believes that the broadband deregulation portion of the order has already made a significant contribution to the beginnings of a turnaround in the telecommunications industry.
Voices for Choices, a coalition of associations whose members include the Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) and the Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel), described the FCC announcement as “three steps forward, one step back.” The coalition said the final rules are not as surprise because “there’s no buried treasure that’s just been unearthed.”
The California ISP Association (CISPA) called the FCC’s line sharing order “an unconstitutional disaster for independent ISPs and their residential and business customers,” warning that the policy will force consumers to find another telephone line if they choose DSL service from someone other than their ILEC. CISPA encouraged the California Public Utility Commission to protect CLECs’ access to line shared loops based on the powers it has under the FCC’s order, and laws already enacted by the California Legislature.
Allegiance Telecom applauded the FCC’s implementation of a more granular analysis for local transport and for ensuring that the local loop bottleneck remains accessible by facilities-based competitors using today’s technology. However, the company criticized the FCC’s denial of access to advanced packet-switching technologies for facilities-based competitors. Allegiance highlighted the lack of competitive choices faced by small and medium-sized enterprises, and encouraged the FCC to reevaluate its decision on broadband to recognize the distinct market differences that exist between the residential market and the small and medium business sector.
The California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies (CALTEL) said that the FCC’s order supports a “dangerous deregulation of the broadband sector.” Monopolies will not lower prices unless forced to by regulators or competitors, and the FCC has now left consumers with neither force in place.
