U.S. telecom "reform" as an object lesson?

  By Scott Bradner, Network World, 08/29/06

The framers of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 aimed to ensure real telecommunications services competition for residential and enterprise customers. It's safe to say few observers outside of the shrinking number of remaining major Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers think the Act has achieved that goal.

The nonsuccess of the Act is explored in detail in a report recently submitted to the Canadian government in response to its request for comments on proposed telecommunications regulations. "Avoiding the missteps made south of the border" was prepared by researchers Lee Selwyn and Helen Golding from the Boston-based company Economics and Technology. ETI is hardly an unbiased observer: Its Web page says, "For more than thirty years, [Economics and Technology] has been at the center of national and international efforts to open formerly monopolized public-utility markets and to bring the benefits of competition - accelerated innovation and lower prices - to consumers, large and small." That does not mean the report is short of facts to support the contention implied in its title that the implementation of the Telecommunications Act has eliminated rather than enabled competition.

The key issue the report addresses is third-party access to the ILECs' physical and electronic infrastructure - called "unbundled network elements" by the Act. This access, and third parties reselling ILEC services and building their own infrastructure, were the three ways the Act assumed telecommunications competition would be enabled.

About Network World, Inc. | Advertise | Careers | Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy | Reprints and links | Partnerships | Press room | Subscribe to NW

Copyright, 1994-2008 Network World, Inc. All rights reserved.