Last call for change

Long before the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there was Computer Inquiry. Neither the Telecom Act nor the current inquiry, known as Computer III, have done the job of opening access to the local loop, according to a grassroots organization, the United States Internet Services Provider Alliance. Using the FCC-initiated remand proceedings and biennial review of Computer III as its pulpit, the USISPA filed comments last week urging the FCC to dump the process and begin anew.

Speaking for more than 800 small to-medium-sized ISPs across the country, USISPA asked the FCC to acknowledge the failure of Computer III and the Commission's implementation of Section 251 of the Telecom Act.

Responding to the FCC's request to “refresh the record” as part of the review of Computer III rules, the USISPA “recommends that the Commission establish a new competitive framework governing relations between ILECs and ISPs by re-crafting its unbundling regime to ensure that ISPs and CLECs have meaningful, nondiscriminatory access to network facilities.”

According to Stephanie Joyce, a competitive telecom attorney in Washington, D.C., who helped prepare the USISPA comments, “The bottom line is Computer III didn't work. The ‘96 Act doesn't work. We're in a mess. People are going bankrupt, and competition has not happened.”

The new framework would be established not by further amending Computer III, but by throwing it out and enforcing the rules for access already written into the Telecom Act, Joyce said.

Covad Communications' legal counsel called for this type of grassroots movement at this month's DSLcon in Denver. However, the USISPA has been at this for several years.

“The ISPs are the recipients of FCC confusion and have been left with no recourse,” said a spokeswoman for the USISPA. “You have [ISPs] fighting in the trenches everyday that can't afford to come to Washington to tell their story, but those are the stories that Congress really needs to hear.”

Some say the arguments are too late, and the war may already be over. The continuing approval of Verizon Communications' Section 271 applications is one indication. Another may occur this week as decisions are made on resurrecting the Tauzin-Dingell Bill, which contains provisions and requirements governing the ILEC's burden of proof for local competition.

The comments filed by the USISPA do more than highlight the inefficiencies of current legislation. They include a four-point plan that appears to be in step with the current Commission's stated goals of enforcing existing rules rather then enacting new ones (see figure).

The fourth point is perhaps the USISPA's boldest. The USISPA calls for the federalization of the local loop, saying the FCC should assert its jurisdiction over ILEC provisioning of broadband-related network components in the name of uniformity and widespread deployment.

One expert agrees with the sentiment but holds little hope for the methods. “I would agree with people who say we are trying to work from old paradigms and put them on new technologies, and as a result, it ends up with a lot of the wrong outcomes,” said Chris Murray, telecommunications fellow for the Consumers Union.

But “hope springs eternal,” said Kitty Sachs, president and director of the Virginia ISP Alliance. “We hope [at least] that they reappraise the current environment and begin to recognize that the problems ISPs encounter are very real.”