Before the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
Request for Comments on Deployment of )
Broadband Networks and Advanced ) Docket No. 011109273-1273-01
Telecommunications )
) RIN 0660-XX13
)
COMMENTS OF GEMINI NETWORKS, INC.
Vice President and General Counsel
280 Trumbull Street
24th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3585
(860) 293-4281
(860) 293-4297 – fax
rrowlenson@gemnets.com - e-mail
Date: December 18,
2001
IV. CURRENT SUPPLY OF
BROADBAND IN
THE UNITED
STATES…………………………………………………… 13
A. Gemini Experience in Connecticut and Other
Northeastern
States…………………………………………………….. 13
B. Impediments to
Deployment…………………………………………… 15
V. “NON-BROADBAND” FACILITIES
AND/OR SERVICES V.
“BROADBAND FACILITIES”
AND/OR SERVICES…………………… 17
VI. A SINGLE REGULATORY REGIME
FOR
BROADBAND
SERVICES……………………………………………….. 18
VII. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………… 19
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington DC 20230
In the Matter of )
)
Request for Comments on Deployment of )
Broadband Networks and Advanced ) Docket No. 011109273-1273-01
Telecommunications )
) RIN 0660-XX13
)
COMMENTS OF GEMINI NETWORKS, INC.
Gemini Networks, Inc.
(“Gemini”), submits its Comments on deployment of
broadband networks and advance telecommunications services.
Gemini is a company formed for the specific
purpose of building state-of-the-art, competitive, facilities-based broadband
networks in the Northeastern United States.
Gemini’s business plan focuses upon seven Northeastern states and has
already built a state-of-the-art network in central Connecticut. Gemini offers broadband Internet access
services at several different downstream and upstream speeds depending upon the
needs of end-users. Gemini will be
bundling multiple video channels, voice and Internet access services on its
networks.
Gemini offers broadband Internet services in
Connecticut on a wholesale basis to Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), and
believes that it was the first, or one of the first companies in the nation to
provide open access on its network to ISPs on a continuing
basis. Gemini was not obligated
by law or regulation to provide open access.
It did so on its own, making wholesale broadband Internet access
services available to ISPs as part of its business plan, which includes retail
services as well as wholesale services.
In addition to its network in Connecticut,
Gemini has done the initial design and survey work necessary to construct
networks in six other Northeastern states.
Since Gemini’s service bundling business plan includes telephony, Gemini
secured certificates of public convenience and necessity (or the state-specific
equivalent) from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Virginia
and Pennsylvania. Further, Gemini has
undertaken extensive planning and preparation in these states, including
preparation and filing of pole attachment applications with pole custodians in
Connecticut, New York and New Jersey.
Gemini is not unique. There are a number of companies throughout
the country that are developing and building state-of-the-art broadband
networks. Thirteen of these companies
have formed the Broadband Service Providers Association (“BSPA”). The purpose of BSPA is to make state and
federal regulators and legislators aware of the promise of new facilities-based
competitive broadband networks, and the need to help eliminate roadblocks to
deployment of those networks. Only by
eliminating barriers to entry (in the form of access to poles, conduit and
rights-of-way (“ROW”), access to programming and access to multiple dwelling
units (“MDUs”)), will competition result, eliminating the need for extensive
regulation of broadband networks.
II. NATIONAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IN
FORMULATING BROADBAND POLICY
A. Facilities-Based
Competition To Permit Consumer Choice.
The primary policy consideration in formulating broadband policy for the country should be to encourage facilities-based competition to permit consumer choice. Monopolies by their definition preclude consumer choice. Legacy cable television MSO’s are the only existing facilities-based broadband networks. Monopoly status is a disincentive to serving the consumer. Competition keeps prices low and fosters development of innovative consumer services.
B. Competition Means Lower
Prices, More Innovative Services
The cable
television industry is concentrated in two respects. First, legacy cable television systems generally have the one and
only cable television franchise in a town, city or county. In this sense, it is a broadband
monopoly. NTIA should take official
notice of the increasing concentration of ownership of MSOs. At present, there is a private auction
underway for the cable television systems of AT&T Broadband. The primary bidders are Comcast, Cox
Communications and AOL/Time Warner, three of the largest media/communications
companies in the nation. Whether one
company is successful in the bid, or whether the AT&T Broadband properties
are broken up, it is clear that concentration of control of MSO-owned broadband
networks among a handful of MSOs will either increase, or at least, not
decrease.
In many towns and cities throughout the
country, the introduction of facilities-based broadband competition evokes a
singular response from legacy cable systems:
a decrease in price to the consumer.
Sometimes these price decreases are implemented in particular
neighborhoods just prior to time that the new competing broadband network
activates service. Sometimes the
reaction of the legacy cable MSO appears predatory in nature, including offers
of multiple months, or one year of free cable television service in return for
execution of an exclusive contract.
Leaving aside the possible anti-competitive impact, these past reactions
of the legacy cable systems make clear that as facilities-based networks are
deployed around the country, prices for cable television services, Internet
access services and telephony services will decrease or increase at a much
slower rate then what is currently being experienced by the consumer. This is good for the consumer. Similarly, this competition will spark the
offering of innovative services to consumers.
These service offerings by the legacy cable MSO and the new competitor
may not all be the same. Beneficially,
consumers will have the opportunity to choose among broadband service
providers.
C. Redundant Networks -
National Security
The tragic and disturbing events of September
11th made many regulators, legislators and managers in the
communications industry realize the need for redundant networks for national
security purposes. At present there is
a substantial redundancy in wireless networks.
This is a good thing. It helped
substantially during the September 11th crisis in New York
City. Portions of the wireline network
were destroyed in southern Manhattan.
Some wireless antennas were destroyed, too. Nonetheless, the existence of multiple
wireless networks and at least portions of one landline network helped
people in Manhattan during that time of the tragedy and emergency to
communicate with police, emergency workers and their own families to assure
them that they were unharmed, or being taken care of.
As consumers throughout the United States
become more and more dependent on the Internet, e-mail and information sources
on the Internet (e.g., MSNBC.com,
CNN.com and other sources), it is very important that there be a
clear-cut national policy to deploy redundant broadband networks through the
United States.
D. Redundant Networks -
Unanticipated Problems
The need for redundant networks for national
security purposes is clear. However,
there are other reasons. Sometimes
there are unanticipated problems that affect broadband networks. Recently, AT&T Broadband could not come
to an agreement with Excite@Home, and the
bankruptcy court involved permitted Excite@Home
to disconnect more than 800,000 AT&T Broadband Internet access customers
all at once.[1] It took more than a week to even begin to
migrate all of those customers in various states throughout the country onto an
alternative network that AT&T is developing. In fact, no Connecticut customers could begin migrating until the
6th day of the outage. The
problems are not over yet. Wait times
for AT&T Broadband customer service are extremely long. There are reports in the press and on the
Internet user groups that people are complaining of slow downstream and
upstream speeds. AT&T Broadband has
reportedly imposed on its customers a ceiling of 1.5 Mbps per second downstream
speed and 128 Kbps per second upstream speed.
If the nation had redundant broadband
networks, many of these AT&T Broadband customers would have had the
opportunity to avoid losing service. In
fact, those residents of Connecticut within the footprint of Gemini’s broadband
network did have the choice of contacting Gemini to connect to the Gemini
network and receive Internet access services.
Many did so. Unfortunately,
companies like Gemini, and the other members of the BSPA, have not been able to
build out their networks nationwide at this time to provide for ubiquitous
redundancy. Nonetheless, it should be a
national policy that all homes above some economically, reasonable density per
mile should be passed by at least two facilities-based broadband networks.
E. Time to Eliminate
Monopoly Broadband Problems
It should be a national policy to eliminate the problems brought about by a monopoly on broadband services facilities-based provision of broadband services – a status currently enjoyed by cable MSOs in most communities in the nation. Although most cable franchises are non-exclusive, until recently, cable MSOs enjoyed a monopoly on provision of cable television video services. This is been ameliorated in minor part by satellite-delivered multiple channel video services, but the number of users of this type of service is relatively small. Further, the announced Direct TV/Echo Star transaction may result in a virtual monopoly of satellite-to-home delivered multiple channel video offerings.
Further, technological developments had moved
the focus of broadband to the bundling of services. Now, broadband service providers such as Gemini and others are
working to bundle video, voice and Internet access services. At present, satellite-delivered services do
not include all of these bundled services, leaving consumers without a choice
of bundled service providers in most parts of the nation.
F. Minimal Regulation is
Needed to Remove Road Blocks to Entry
Wide deployment of competitive facilities-based networks will go a long way toward eliminating or minimizing the need for federal or state regulation of broadband networks. However, a variety of entrenched interests are putting up roadblocks to deployment of new broadband networks.
1. Roadblocks
to Access to Poles, Conduits and Rights-of-Way
Companies like Gemini have a great deal of
difficulty in securing access to poles, conduit and rights-of-way. This is due in part to the fact that pole
custodians are often telecommunications companies that compete against Gemini
for provision of voice and/or Internet access services. The application procedures, costs and time
consumed in securing access to poles, conduits and rights-of-way are
excessive. The conduct of pole
custodians can often be characterized as hostile, or at best indifferent. It is clear that the pole custodians do not
want new broadband service providers like Gemini on the poles, despite the fact
that companies like Gemini provide them with recurring revenues and
non-recurring revenues for pole attachments for pole make-ready.
There are many instances of abuses by pole
custodians. Examples include:
1. Limitations on the number of pole license
applications that
a new attacher can
submit. This thwarts rapid build out of
a
network to enable new entrants to reach critical
mass in a
timeframe necessary to meet the expectations of
Wall Street,
venture capital and bank sources of financing.
2. Refusal of pole custodians to process pole
license applications
in a timely fashion, or on a first-come,
first-serve basis.
3. Pole custodians giving preference to their
affiliates in processing
pole applications.
4. The refusal of pole custodians to provide
new pole attachers with
access to maps and other data necessary
to permit expeditious
completion of pole applications.
5. Pole custodian use of unnecessarily
complicated pole license
applications to discourage new pole attachers.
6. Pole custodian refusal to grant or deny pole
license applications
within 45 days, or other reasonable timeframe that
is consistent
with timely construction of a
network.
7. Pole custodian refusal to use
qualified/outside contractors for
make-ready, even though the new pole attacher
would pay for the
outside contractor.
8. Pole custodians of jointly owned poles
(electric and telephone)
requiring a pole attacher to go through
duplicative pole license
application processes, one for the telephone
utility and one for
the electric utility.
9. Flat rate pole license application fees
(e.g., $50 per pole) when
those charges bear no relation to the actual costs
incurred by
the pole custodian.
10. Inflated make-ready
engineering charges that are not reasonable
and are no cost based and which the pole custodian
refuses to
verify.
11. Pole custodian requirements
that the attacher use an outside
engineering firm of the pole custodian’s choice
charging
“Cadillac” fees in a deliberate attempt to drive
up the new
entrant’s costs.
12. Refusal of pole custodian to permit overlashing, backside
attachments, extension arms or brackets, etc., where consistent
with safety requirements of the National Electric Safety Code,
to decrease the cost of pole attachment.
13. Refusal of a pole custodian to recover the cost of pole modifications
from third parties benefiting from the modification.
14. A pole custodian hiding the fact that it was about to change out
a pole as parts of its normal replacement plan and imposing the entire
cost of pole change out upon the new pole attacher.
15. Pole custodians imposing the cost of correcting pre-existing
problems or the cost of removing abandoned attachments on the new
pole attacher.
16. Pole custodians requiring excessive security/bonds, where the
pole custodian has no credible basis to conclude that the new
attacher will meet its obligations.
17. Recurring pole attachment rates that are not cost based.
The
foregoing problems have occurred all around the country and are an indictment
of many pole custodians. Their
recalcitrance impedes the deployment of broadband
networks in this country and should not be tolerated.
2. Roadblocks to Access to Multiple
Dwelling Units
Similarly, legacy cable
MSOs have taken a variety of actions to deny access to multiple dwelling units
to new competitive broadband networks.
It should be a national policy to remove these roadblocks to deployment
of new facilities-based broadband networks.
The type of conduct that the legacy cable MSOs sometimes engage in
include the following:
1. Immediately before a competing broadband
network is deployed, the legacy MSO secures perpetual (or long term) contracts
which bind MDUs to permit access to their premises only to the legacy cable
MSO. This deprives the MDU residents of
a choice of services. Sometimes the MDU
owner would be happy to allow a new broadband network to access the MDU, but
the MDU owner signed the exclusive arrangement not understanding the
implications, or not knowing that a new broadband network was being built.
2. Grant by MDU
owners of exclusive easements to legacy cable franchisees in order to deny new
broadband access to the MDUs.
3. Roadblocks to Access to Programming
It should be a national policy to preclude parties or their affiliates controlling (a) video programming and (b) a legacy cable system in a geographic area from denying access to programming by competitive broadband networks serving that same geographic area. At present, vertically integrated owners of satellite-delivered programming are precluded from denying competitors access to that programming in communities in which the vertically integrated entity has a cable franchise.[2] Several cable MSOs have tried to get around this prohibition by changing the delivery mode of programming from satellite to terrestrial. If asked, such MSO’s argue the switch is “economic”. Whether it is, or whether it is anti-competitive conduct, new broadband network entrants should not be blocked from access to such programming to make it available to consumers.
There is a minimal level
of video programming necessary for any viable multi-channel programming provider.
These include certain news services (e.g., CNN, Headline News Network,
C-SPAN, ESPAN, and the like). It should
be a national policy that programming made available on broadband and other
networks owned or controlled by a party or an affiliate owning or controlling
the programming should be made available to other multi-channel
programming providers. The bottom line: Consumers should have a choice of services. A legacy MSO should not be able to use
programming as a weapon to maintain its monopoly or near-monopoly dominance of
the multi-channel
programming provision in a geographic area. This is especially so because new entrants like Gemini would pay
regular fees for the programming. Thus,
the only real purpose for withholding such programming is anti-competitive in
nature. Trying to keep facilities-based
competitors out of the market will do no more than deprive consumers of another
choice of services. We should have a
national policy against this.
G. Technology Neutrality is
Fine, Absence Abuses
Gemini supports a policy in favor of
technology neutrality, which permits the marketplace to embrace its technology
of choice. However, because of the
highly concentrated ownership of the cable industry, the policy must take into
account the need to preclude abuses.
There are instances in
which legacy cable companies have used their size and market power to force a
manufacturer of equipment, such as converters, to provide those converters only
to the legacy cable MSO. It appears
that the MSO uses its power to force this exclusivity for the sole purpose of
discouraging facilities-based competition.
One may rest assured that an equipment manufacturer would be more than
happy to sell to competitors if it were not forced into the exclusivity
obligation by the legacy MSO. Abuses of
this type should not be permitted because they are anti-competitive in nature.[3]
III.
BROADBAND DEFINED
A. Criteria Used to Define Broadband
Gemini asserts that the criteria to be used to define broadband should be based upon customer expectations.
At present, Gemini’s direct experience makes
clear that a majority of consumers of broadband services expect speeds of 1.5
Mbps per second downstream or higher and 256 Kbps per second upstream or
higher. On a short-term basis, this is
an adequate speed for consumers. This
will change quickly.
Beginning in 2002, a variety of companies will be initiating video on demand and other services. These require higher speeds for a product of sufficient quality to satisfy consumers of broadband services. Full screen video will require 3.0 Mbps or higher downstream speeds[4].
Other interested parties may argue that broadband should be defined at much slower speeds. For instance, iDSL has a downstream speed of 144 Kbps per second. This is just double dial-up modem speed and is simply not broadband.
Incumbent Local Exchange Companies (“ILECs”) might argue that broadband should be defined as 768 Kbps per second downstream and 128 Kbps per second upstream, because this is what DSL most often provides today. ILECs would argue that 768 Kbps per second downstream provides SIF Resolution (320 X 240 pixels) and that this constitutes broadband service. In fact, its small size and lack of fluid motion are annoying to broadband consumers. 768Kbps speed is to 3.0Mbps as a biplane is to a commercial Boeing 747 jetliner. Consumers and the flying public clearly want the latter in both cases.
The DSL
interests argue that DSL can provide video on demand at 1.5 Mbps per second
downstream, but if they do so, they conveniently will fail to indicate the
resultant resolution. At full screen,
the resolution would be one-fourth the resolution at 320 X 240 pixels. Essentially, this will provide the
equivalent of “bad” VCR quality that one might experience if one rented a very
old VCR tape from a video rental store.
To minimize this problem, ILECs offering DSL will soften the picture and
its transmissions in order to minimize the quality disparity.
It is important to
focus on the purpose of the definition for broadband services. The foregoing analysis is designed to define
broadband from a consumer point of view. The
definition of broadband for purposes of adequate services to consumer should not
be confused with the definition of broadband from an anti-competitive point
of view. As described earlier,
certain ILECs that are pole custodians are placing roadblocks in the way of new
broadband networks attaching to poles.
These same ILECs that provide DSL service market that service to
consumers as broadband in nature. In
essence, some of these DSL providers are using their positions as pole
custodians to throw up a roadblock to entry to new broadband service providers
like Gemini so that the pole custodian or its affiliate can continue to provide
“quasi-broadband service” in a monopoly environment (or in a market in which
the incumbent MSO provides broadband Internet access in an oligopolistic
environment, at best).
A. Gemini
Experience in Connecticut and Other Northeastern States
Legacy cable television systems pass 97.7 million homes in the United States. 69.5 million homes receive basic cable service. This amounts to 68% of the 102.1 million U.S. telephone households as of January 2001.[5] 69.9% of homes passed have at least basic cable. Annual cable revenues exceed $42 Billion.[6] In a recent Press Release,
NCTA indicated that its member MSOs had completed 80% of the effort necessary to upgrade its networks to two-way technology.[7] Against this backdrop of a pervasive legacy cable coverage in the United States, are the statistics relating to competitive facilities-based networks. The BSPA has 13 member companies, one of which is Gemini. BSPA members have more than 22 Million households under franchise, pass more than 4 Million homes with their networks and serve over one million customers. Total capital investment exceeds $5 Billion to date and BSPA members have constructed more than 29,000 miles of network.
These
statistics are encouraging for competitive facilities-based broadband service providers, but make
clear how far the nation is from enjoying true competition in the supply of
broadband services.
As noted above, more than
800,000 broadband customers lost service when Excite@Home
terminated service to AT&T Broadband.
These customers had no
alternative but to wait without service or utilize slow, dial-up
services, while AT&T Broadband tried mightily to provide connectivity with
its recently developed in-house network.[8]
Gemini received a number
of calls from AT&T Broadband customers located in the geographic areas in
which Gemini has an operating broadband network in Connecticut. Many of these customers wanted to switch to
Gemini Internet access services. Gemini has provided service to many of
them. We are still adding former
AT&T Broadband customers, several weeks after the Excite@Home network terminated services to
AT&T broadband customers.
Further, Gemini received
a number of calls from customers that are not located within geographic areas
served yet by Gemini. Many of them
expressed frustration that our network had not yet been built out to their
areas. They expressed frustration that
they had no other alternative for high-speed broadband services. Some of them stated that DSL service was not
available in their area, or the DSL services were not satisfactory primarily
because of the relatively low downstream and upstream speeds.
As further evidence of
the lack of supply of broadband capability, Gemini has received calls from
individuals in New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island seeking broadband service
from Gemini. While Gemini has not built
its networks in those states yet, these consumers were desperate for broadband
services and had researched the names and contact information of communications
companies at the PUC in their state.
The research indicated that Gemini had received a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity or the equivalent in their state and they were
calling Gemini to find out if bundled service, including Internet access
service, was available. This is an
extraordinary amount of effort undertaken by consumer seeking high-speed
broadband service. It indicates that
the current supply of broadband service is sorely lacking in this country and
development of alternative high-speed broadband networks should be encouraged.
B. Impediments to
Deployment
Despite the progress of
Gemini and other BSPA member companies in deploying their networks, they are
not even further along because of serious impediments to deployment. These include (a) impediments to pole,
conduit and right-of-way access,
(b) impediments to programming access and (c) impediments to MDU access.
Unfortunately, the
parties controlling poles, conduits and rights-of-way and programming in many
instances are competitors to Gemini and other BSPA members. They have no incentive to make it
commercially reasonable for Gemini to attach to poles and secure programming
for its broadband networks. Similarly,
as noted above, legacy cable MSOs often try to secure perpetual or long-term
rights to access to MDUs from landlords as a means of precluding competition by
competing networks such as Gemini consumers that live in those MDUs.
In addition to the access impediments, come
the cost impediments. Gemini has
elsewhere described in some detail the abuses employed by pole custodians to
make it costly and to delay the availability of pole attachments. If there were a competitive market for space
on poles, there is no doubt that marketplace forces would cause pole custodians
to actively solicit Gemini to attach to their poles, just as competing
equipment vendors aggressively solicit Gemini for business. Pole custodians would offer reasonable rates
designed to encourage Gemini to attach to as many poles as possible. The today’s world, some pole custodians
undertake “guerrilla warefare” and “passive resistance” to discourage pole
attachments.
Another impediment to
deployment are cable television franchise delays. It is not uncommon for a cable television franchise proceeding to
take a year or more from start to finish.
There are numerous examples of legacy MSOs injecting themselves into the
process, threatening lawsuits if they do not like the terms of the franchise
agreement proposed by a franchising authority to a competitive cable
franchisee.
Gemini is aware of one
instance in which a MSO purportedly commissioned a Washington law firm to
research various theories and causes of actions that could be used against new
cable television franchise applicants for markets in which the legacy MSO
operates. While an MSO confronted with
this fact would argue that it simply wants a “level playing field”, the impact
of threats of lawsuits and filed lawsuits is to intimidate franchising
authorities from granting competing franchises quickly, if at all. This conduct increases the costs to new
entrants at a time when they do not have revenue streams necessary to support
the costs of litigation. Finally, the
legacy MSOs have the cash flow to support endless litigation and delay.
V. “NON-BROADBAND” FACILITIES
AND/OR SERVICES V.
Gemini submits that it
is not feasible to draw a line between legacy “non-broadband” facilities and/or
services and “broadband facilities” and/or services.
For the first time,
technological advances have made it possible for broadband networks to provide
an array of services including video services, telephony and data services
(including Internet access services).
The lines between these services have blurred. It creates artificial distinctions and difficulties to try to
distinguish between these services.[9] Broadband service providers bundle these
services because that is what consumers want.
Consumers look at these services as a bundle and do not distinguish
between “non-broadband” facilities and/or services and “broadband facilities”
and/or services.
Gemini submits that
introducing these artificial distinctions will result in confusion, delay and
obfuscation. The only real answer is
lifting the impediments to entry and encouraging deployment of facilities-based
broadband networks. This will result in
competition, and the marketplace will become a superior substitute to
administrative regulation.
Gemini
submits that it would speed deployment of facilities-based broadband networks, including competing
networks, to establish a single regulatory regime for all broadband
services. It does not make sense to
bifurcate regulation on a state-by-state basis. The modern world and developing communications networks,
including terrestrial, wireless and satellite-delivered, simply do not take
into account artificial political boundaries.
Regulation by fifty different states will result in fifty different sets
of regulations. This is not good for
the consumer, because it will drive up the cost of broadband services as
broadband service providers desperately work to comply with laws of fifty
different states.
A single regulatory
regime does not mean that the voice of the states cannot be heard. Gemini has had extensive contact with public
utility commissions in Connecticut
where it has built its network, as well as in each of its other target
states. Many of these regulators are
very much committed to serving the public interest. They often have their finger on the pulse of consumers in their
particular states. A unified regulatory
regime at the Federal level should make adequate provision for extensive
communication with state PUCs and should take advantage of state PUC knowledge
of the needs, desires and problems of consumers in their states when developing
Federal regulatory policy.
Federal regulators
should continue to increase their interaction with state PUCs, including
attending NARUC meetings and functions.
In short, a single
Federal regulatory scheme, taking into account the advice of state PUC commissions
is the way to go. But without any
question, there is a need for one single regulatory regime to avoid possible
chaos and the likelihood of increase costs to the consumer and delays in
deployment of new, competitive facilities-based broadband networks around the
country. To do otherwise will
disadvantage the United States versus other countries around the globe.
Gemini submits that
there needs to be strong national policies favoring the following:
(1)
Deployment of competitive facilities-based broadband networks
that are state-of-the-art throughout the United States;
(2) Redundant broadband networks should
be encouraged, not only for national security purposes, but also because of
unanticipated problems affecting broadband networks, which become more and more
serious as more Americans subscribe to high-speed broadband services and rely
upon them for their work and personal lives;
(3) Minimal regulation of broadband is
appropriate, but some regulation is needed to remove roadblocks to entry
by new competitive facilities-based broadband providers, including roadblocks
to (a) access to poles, conduits and rights-of-way
(b) access to MDUs, and (c) access to
programming;
(4) A national policy of technology
neutrality is fine, as long as dominant players cannot utilize technology
to block entry by new facilities-based broadband networks;
(5) National policy should define broadband
from a consumer point of view, and should recognize that consumers are on
the verge of demanding much higher download and upload speeds;
(6) There is a crying need to increase the
current supply of facilities-based broadband services in the United States;
(7) It is a losing game to try to draw
artificial distinctions between legacy “non- broadband facilities” and/or
services and “broadband facilities” and/or services.
Respectfully submitted,
GEMINI
NETWORKS, INC.
By: /s/ Richard C. Rowlenson
Richard C. Rowlenson
280 Trumbull Street
24th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3585
(860) 293-4281
(860) 293-4297 – fax
rrowlenson@gemnets.com - e-mail
Date: December 18, 2001
[1] This is not meant as a criticism of AT&T Broadband. It was faced with a monumental task in making alternative arrangements for 800,000 customers—a nearly impossible task. Yet, AT&T Broadband had substantial advance notice of the problem. What will occur in the future if this happens to another broadband network with no notice? What will happen to consumers of high-speed broadband services?
[2] Communications Act, Section 628.
[3] This is to be distinguished from a situation in which a legacy MSO has invented something to which the intellectual property laws of the United States provide it with the exclusive right to use for a set period of years. In such cases, the legacy MSO may, but is not obligated, to license this invention to third parties.
[4] This is MPEG-2 at main level, main profile (ML/MP). It is similar to CCIR-601 resolution that we see on analog television today.
[5] www.nc&ta.com/industry_/overview/indStat.cfn?indOverviewld=2.
[6] Id.
[7] Cable and Telecommunications Industry Overview 2001, p.1, released December 11, 2001.
[8] Again, this is not a criticism of AT&T Broadband. The conversion task was monumental and would have taxed any company faced with it.
[9] NTIA should take official notice of the decades-long problem in trying to create workable definitions of (a) computer services and (b) communications services.