Stifle yourself, edict

The problem with most arguments is that they never end. Inspired, perhaps, by our legal system's penchant for appeal, modern debate has become an endless cycle where losers never give up and winners never completely win.

The whole cluster-truck called The Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the TELRIC pricing and UNE platform that came with it, is a good example of this perpetual polarization. And that's all that is good about it.

Ultimately, the Act has been just that: an act. It has always had less to do with creating fair and open competition than it did with bleeding-heart judges and federal functionaries stroking their egos and abating their big business fears by tearing down the perceived monsters of monopoly. It reminds me of a young, pony-tailed technology writer who uses his 400-word allotment to deride Microsoft not because it sucks, but because it makes the writer important. It's part of the same mindset that leads piss-ant potentates in third world countries to challenge the authority of the United States because they think it makes them somebody.

The Telecom Act was ill-conceived from the start, poorly implemented throughout and (dare I say it?) anti-American at its core. It didn't work because it tried too soon to force through legislation that which eventually would have come to pass naturally through innovation, advances in technology and the more dependable, less convoluted engine of market demand and the insatiable American spirit for building a better mousetrap. But these forces were stifled by a wireline welfare program that made it easier to duplicate the telephone system rather than build a better one and has given us nothing more than other welfare programs: a society of satisfied, sycophant service providers that may never break their cycle of dependency as long as the FCC forces RBOCs to provide them access cheaper than they could ever build themselves, and certainly more cheaply than they could maintain it.

You might think I'm anti-competitive. I am not. I understand the argument that it would be virtually impossible for new competitive carriers to enter the market without access to the local loop. I just don't believe it.

The cable and wireless operators have found their way around access. They just haven't yet exploited it to its full potential. There are other technologies on the horizon--cable, wireless, Wi-Fi and IP telephony, to name a few--that are already nibbling at the stronghold of the RBOCs. They are potentially disruptive technologies that are invented by creative technical minds and put to the test by daring entrepreneurs and a discerning market. These things take time. And time, not legislation, could and will solve the problem of competition. If consumers want choice, they should be given a choice between one innovative and useful service or another, not one telephone company or another.

Sure, competitive carriers have pumped more than $50 billion into new networks, but only a small percentage of that was spent on the last mile, where 100% of the contention exists and 100% of self-realization awaits real competitors. Most of that investment went into real estate, core infrastructure and operations support software. An embarrassingly huge chunk went to system integrators who got rich trying to cobble together solutions that were not ready because they were forced down the copper gullets of the imperfect but stable RBOCs by regulators making demands on systems of which they had no knowledge. And is it despicable to hold hostage the livelihoods of 11,000 workers to prove a political point, as SBC Chairman Ed Whitacre appears to be doing? Absolutely. Should he have had to resort to it? Absolutely not.

Granted, it may be too late to turn back the clock now, but by virtue of the worst downturn in the history of telecom, we are being presented with a rare opportunity to start over. The industry is in shambles. How much worse could it get by doing the unthinkable? Provide a grandfather clause for companies already using UNE-P and throw the rest out. If all the money and effort spent over the next five years on legislators, lobbyists and lawyers was put into innovation and expansion, all those jobs and more could be saved.

After all, if the most formidable competitors to incumbents turn out to be--as they have so far--the interexchange carriers, what have we accomplished besides taking ourselves back to 1984? And speaking of 1984, would someone please talk ADC CEO Rick Roscitt out of his idea to get the government involved in promoting the widespread deployment of broadband through 30-year bonds? Haven't they done enough? The information highway should not be a put-the-country-to-work project that the government will forever have its hands in.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

E-mail Tim McElligott at tmcelligott@primediabusiness.com