YOU ARE AT:Archived ArticlesState regulators told broadband's future may be wireless

State regulators told broadband’s future may be wireless

WASHINGTON-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) told state regulators last week that the answer to how to get broadband services to rural American might be wireless.

“We can’t wire rural America. … We have a lot of dirt between light bulbs. We know we can’t wire rural America, but we can go wireless. … It will be high-speed. It will be interactive,” said Burns.

As chairman of the Senate communications subcommittee, Burns has laid out a legislative agenda known as the Tech Seven, and the centerpiece of that agenda, he told the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, will be broadband-wireless broadband.

The promise of wireless broadband may not be as accepted by state regulators because wireless is generally not regulated at the state level. But, that may be exactly the reason that wireless may be the answer, said Susan Ness, who sits on NARUC as a member of the Federal Communications Commission.

“The FCC has evolved over time. The FCC of today is not your father’s FCC. We have focused on investment and innovation … allowing new wireless services to develop without rate regulation or very little regulation,” said Ness.

Companies hoping to offer broadband solutions-albeit wired broadband solutions-also are looking to wireless. If wireless technology is going to be a pipe for broadband service, then broadband should not be regulated, just as wireless is not regulated, said Gerald Hogan, executive director of federal relations for SBC Communications Inc.

But if you listen to the Baby Bells, the first step to deregulating broadband is granting them data relief from portions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that precludes them from offering long-distance services until they meet the 14-point local-competition checklist.

But if the Baby Bells are granted data relief, will broadband services come? The Bells and their friends in Congress believe the answer is yes. This view, not surprisingly, is not shared by competitors and consumer advocates, who do not believe the Bell companies have sufficiently opened their networks.

“We are persuaded that none of the Bell companies have earned relief from the telecom act. … Very few states have been able to create the conditions that really open local markets,” said Donna Sorgi, vice president and regional executive for public policy for WorldCom Inc.

Verizon Communications can offer long-distance services in New York and has an application pending for Massachusetts, and SBC Communications Inc. can offer long-distance services in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

Data-relief legislation may have friends in Congress, but state regulators were told last week that it might be tied into an overall FCC-reform bill and therefore bollixed up because FCC reform means to many that the debates of the telecom act will be re-argued.

It is probably for this reason that Joseph P. Nacchio, chief executive of Qwest Communications International Inc., said he isn’t waiting for data relief. Rather, he is working with state regulators to open up the local wireline market in the 14 states of the old U S West Inc. territory. Nacchio is hoping his company will be given the opportunity to offer long-distance service in the majority of its states by the end of the year by proving he has been successful.

Universal services

State and federal regulators are also debating whether universal-service subsidies should be awarded for delivering broadband services to high-cost or low-income areas.

Jonathan Adelstein, legislative assistant in the office of Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle (S.D.), voiced the opinion of many in rural America that the definition of universal service would eventually involve or evolve to advanced services. Those in more urban states see the costs of universal service going up with this definition without any of the corresponding benefits.

While the debate about the definition of universal service rages, state regulators want federal regulators to examine ways that would allow low-income landline subscribers to automatically subscribe to services that can cut local telephone bills by more than $11.

NARUC “expresses its support for the policy goals for the LifeLine and LinkUp programs [and] encourages the [Federal-State] Joint Board [on Universal Service], the FCC, and states to explore alternative mechanisms, including automatic enrollment, to efficiently target and distribute funding to consumers, and determine eligibility for LifeLine and LinkUp support,” read a resolution passed last week by the NARUC telecommunications subcommittee.

The cost of universal service in rural areas and the belief by some consumer advocates that it could increase prompted the Alliance for Public Technology to send a letter to NARUC urging it to object to suggestions that incumbent local exchange carriers be required to separate their retail and wholesale businesses. Pennsylvania is considering a plan to break up Verizon to spur local competition in that state and some have called for this to be done at the federal level.

“Our concerns are those of residential telephone consumers, workers, people with disabilities, rural users and low-income consumers,” said Debbie Goldman, chairwoman of APT’s public policy committee, noting that structural separation would mean “the integrated network’s economies of scope and scale can be used to the benefit of traditionally underserved communities [that] would be lost to the high end of the market.”

ABOUT AUTHOR