Broadband :: DSL
:: Home :: Feedback ::
:: Disclaimer :: Sitemap ::
- Sec. 706
- Stimulus Plan
- Natl BB Map
- FCC Natl Broadband Plan
- Dial Up
- - Naked DSL
- - Net over Wireline (Info Service)
- - UNE
- - Open Access
- - 3G
- - Wifi
- - WiMax
- - 700 Mhz
- Muni Broadband
- Telecom Services
- Computer Inquiries
- Network Neutrality
- Consumer Protection
- - ICAIS
- - Negotiation
- Reciprocal Comp
- Federal Advisory Committees
- Universal Service
- Statistics: Broadband
"DSL is a modem technology that converts existing copper telephone lines into two-way high speed data conduits. Speeds can depend on the condition of the telephone wire and the distance between the home and the telephone company’s central office (i.e., the building that houses telephone switching equipment). Because ADSL uses frequencies much higher than those used for voice communication, both voice and data can be sent over the same telephone line. Thus, customers can talk on their telephone while they are online, and voice service will continue even if the ADSL service goes down. Like cable broadband technology, an ADSL line is “always on” with no dial-up required. Unlike cable, however, ADSL has the advantage of being unshared between the customer and the central office. Thus, data transmission speeds will not necessarily decrease during periods of heavy local Internet use. A disadvantage relative to cable is that ADSL deployment is constrained by the distance between the subscriber and the central office. ADSL technology over a copper wire only works within 18,000 feet (about three miles) of a central office facility. However, DSL providers are deploying technology to further increase deployment range. One option is to install “remote terminals” which can serve areas farther than three miles from the central office." - Broadband Internet Regulation and Access: Background and Issues, CRS p. 2 Jan. 26, 2006 OpenCRS ; Broadband Internet Regulation and Access: Backbround Issues, CRS Report for Congress, Nov. 21, 2008 (copy acquired through wikileaks)
Major regulatory issues related to DSL includes Internet over DSL (whether other ISPs get access), UNEs and Line Sharing, CLECs, Mergers, and Broadband Adoption.
Broadband Plan Recommendations
- Recommendation 4.9: The FCC should ensure appropriate balance in its copper retirement policies.
- AT&T / NCTA PSTN IP Transition 2012
- Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Business Broadband Marketplace, WC Docket No. 10-188, DA 10-1743, dated September 15, 2010.
- Policies and Rules Governing Retirement of Copper Loops by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, BridgeCom International et al. Petition for Rulemaking and Clarification (filed January 18, 2007) RM-11358 Comments Due: March 1, 2007 Reply Comments Due: April 2, 2007 Public Notice: Word | Acrobat
- "On January 18, 2007, BridgeCom International, Inc.; Broadview Networks, Inc.; Cavalier Telephone, LLC; Eureka Telecom, Inc. d/b/a InfoHighway Communications; Florida Digital Network, Inc. d/b/a FDN Communications; IDT Corporation; Integra Telecom, Inc.; DeltaCom, Inc.; McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc.; Mpower Communications Corp.; Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.; Pacific Lightnet, Inc.; RCN Telecom Services, Inc.; RNK, Inc.; Talk America Holdings, Inc.; TDS Metrocom, LLC; and U.S. Telepacific Corp. d/b/a Telepacific Telecommunications filed a Petition for Rulemaking and Clarification requesting that the Commission issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish certain safeguards for incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) copper loop retirement, and in the interim, to clarify certain existing rules regarding copper loop retirement. The petition argues that the copper loop is a "third wire" into the home that is capable of providing video, Internet access, and voice services, and therefore these copper loops should be retained for competitive service providers.
"On January 18, 2007, XO Communications, LLC; Covad Communications Group, Inc.; NuVox Communications; and Eschelon Telecom, Inc. filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking to amend certain sections of its Part 51 rules applicable to the retirement of copper loops and copper subloops by the incumbent LECs. The petition argues that current copper loop retirement rules do not adequately safeguard against discriminatory and anticompetitive modifications to incumbent LEC networks, and allow incumbent LECs to eliminate network alternatives that might otherwise prove essential for network redundancy in times of homeland security crises and natural disasters. The Petitioners requested that the Commission consider the two petitions in a consolidated proceeding.
See Petition of XO Communications, LLC, Covad Communications Group, Inc., NuVox Communications and Eschelon Telecom, Inc. for a Rulemaking to Amend Certain Part 51 Rules Applicable to Incumbent LEC Retirement of Copper Loops and Copper Subloops (filed Jan. 18, 2007).
See Letter from Brad E. Mutschelknaus et al. , Counsel for XO Communications, and Andrew D. Lipman et al. , Counsel for BridgeCom International, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Jan. 18, 2007).
See Digital Future of the United States: Part VI: The Future of Telecommunications Competition Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing 9:30 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Witness List (Thomas Tauke, VP from Verizon, testified - Verizon does not remove the copper line from homes, Verizon sometimes removes the copper line but only removes it from the residence to the poll, when Verizon removes the copper line it is just for asthetic reasons, the line is still available and will be reinstalled on a UNE basis upon request, there is no cost to reinstall the line)
- Petition of XO Communications, LLC., Covad Communications Group, Inc., NuVox Communications and Eschelon Telecom, Inc. for a Rulemaking to Amend Certain Part 51 Rules Applicable to Incumbent LEC Retirement of Copper Loops and Copper Subloops (filed January 18, 2007)
|SBC 271 Approval Arkansas and Missouri|
SBC now Approved to Provide Long Distance Service in its Original Five-State Region Press Release Nov 16, 2001
Separate Statement Of Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy
I fully support the Commission's order and write separately to comment on the difficult and complex questions regarding SBC's resale obligations in the context of its provision of DSL-related services. The Commission appropriately concludes in the foregoing order that, because we have never held that an incumbent LEC's DSL Internet access service -- as opposed to a distinct end-user DSL transport service -- is subject to section 251(c)(4), we cannot find that SBC is in violation of checklist item 14. Whether SBC's DSL Internet access service is subject to section 251(c)(4) turns on whether the provision of that service entails the provision of a "telecommunications service . . . at retail." (1) The Commission has prudently declined to reach a definitive conclusion on this issue in this adjudicatory proceeding, in light of the 90-day statutory deadline for decision and the fact that our ultimate resolution of this issue likely will have significant implications in other regulatory contexts. For example, our analysis of this question likely will affect our classification of advanced services provided by cable operators and other facilities-based Internet service providers; it also could affect our administration of the federal universal service mechanisms, since carriers contribute based on their end-user revenues from telecommunications services, but not information services. I look forward to addressing the appropriate regulatory treatment of incumbent LECs' DSL-based Internet access services in a separate rulemaking proceeding, in which we can thoroughly explore this complex issue based on comments from a broad range of parties.
. . . . . .
Separate Statement Of Commissioner Michael J. Copps, Concurring
My major concern in this application is whether SBC has complied with an important checklist requirement - the obligation to ensure that telecommunications services are made available for resale. More precisely, the issue concerns whether SBC has met its obligation to make its DSL services available for resale. The majority concludes that our precedent is not adequately clear. While I believe it would have been preferable to resolve these issues here, I believe that a separate proceeding with a full record can clarify the situation and provide relatively prompt redress if the facts indicate the need for remedy. . . . I am seriously troubled that, for small business and residential customers, SBC does not make available for resale pursuant to section 251(c)(4) any DSL service offerings. SBC currently offers two types of broadband DSL services. First, SBC sells directly to large businesses. These services are retail offerings, and SBC makes them available at a wholesale discount to competitors wishing to resell them. For small businesses and residential customers, however, SBC generally provides DSL services only to its own Internet provider and to unaffiliated Internet providers. Citing the AOL Bulk Services Order, SBC claims that it is not providing DSL at retail, thus triggering no obligations under section 251(c)(4). Yet, a strong argument can be made that the AOL Bulk Services Order was premised on the expectation that there would be a retail offering from which discounts would be calculated.
. . . . .
Separate Statement Of Commissioner Kevin J. Martin
I am pleased that the local exchange markets in Arkansas and Missouri are open to competition and that SBC will be permitted to compete for long distance service in those states. I am writing separately on the narrow issue of the high-speed Internet access service offered by SBIS. Some commenters argue that this service is available to end users "at retail," and that therefore SBC must make the underlying DSL transport component available to competitive LECs pursuant to section 251(c)(4). SBC argues that this service is not subject to section 251(c)(4) because (1) this is an information service, not a "telecommunications service;" and (2) DSL transport is merely a component of the overall information service, and is not separately offered "at retail." Accordingly, SBC argues that the obligations of section 251(c)(4), which are triggered only by services that are "telecommunications services" provided "at retail," simply cannot apply.
Section 251(c)(4) imposes on incumbent LECs the duty "to offer for resale at wholesale rates any telecommunications service that the carrier provides at retail to subscribers who are not telecommunications carriers." As today's order states, SBIS is offering a "high-speed Internet access service." The Commission has definitively concluded that "Internet access services are appropriately classed as information, rather than telecommunications, services."1 Moreover, the Commission has concluded that "the categories of 'telecommunications service' and 'information service' in the 1996 Act are mutually exclusive."2 While the Commission may ultimately address this issue in more detail, those who argue that this high-speed Internet access service provided to end users should be subject to section 251(c)(4) must show how, in light of the precedent described above, this is a "telecommunications service" being offered "at retail."
NTIA Letter: Tariffing of Digital Subscriber Line Services, CC Docket Nos. 98-79, 98-103, 98-161, and 98-165 (undated).
Type Up Down Standard Comment ADSL Full 640 kbps 6.144 mbps ANSI T1.413
ADSL Lite 512 kbps 1.536 mbps ITU G.922.1 splitterless ADSL2 800 kbps 8 mbps ITU-T G.992.3 ADSL Lite 2 512 kbps 1.536 mbps ITU G.992.4 splitterless ADSL2+ 800 kbps 16 mbps ITU-T G.992.5 VDSL 26 mbps
HDSL 1.544 mbps ITU-T G.991.1 HDSL2 1.544 mbps ANSI T1.418 SHDSL 2.312 mbps ITU-T G.911.2
Distance limitations 12,000 feet.