DOCSLIB.ORG

OCT 2 7 2000 Yoff^Ofl Joseph A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
OCT 2 7 2000 Yoff^Ofl Joseph A Verizon New York Inc. 1095 Avenue of the Americas e NY 10036 37 th FS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION fel 212 395-6509 RECFJ^Ei Fax 212 768-7569 OCT 2 7 2000 yOff^Ofl Joseph A. Post Regulatory Counsel October 23, 2000 Honorable Janet Hand Deixler Secretary New York State Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Re: Case 00-C-1487: Reply Comments of Verizon Communications Inc. and NorthPoint Communications Group, Inc. Dear Secretary Deixler Initial comments in opposition to the Verizon/NorthPoint merger were submitted by AT&T, Covad, Choice One, NAS, and MetTel. In large part, these comments mirror plead- ings submitted by those parties in the pending FCC proceeding for approval of the merger.1 Covad and NAS merely filed copies of their FCC comments; and although AT&T prepared a separate set of comments for this Commission, those comments draw heavily on (and include a copy of) AT&T's FCC submission. None of the comments raise any issues that are specific to New York. Our point is not to accuse these parties of laziness, or lack of originality, but rather to point out that they — like Verizon and NorthPoint — believe that there are no issues pre- Joint Application of NorthPoint Communications, Inc. and Verizon Communications/or Authority Pur- suant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934. as Amended, To Transfer Control of Blanket Authorization To Provide Domestic Interstate Telecommunications Services as a Non-Dominant Carrier, CC Docket No. 00-157. C:\TEMP\Reply_Comments.doc Honorable Janet Hand SBde October 23,2000 sented by this merger in New York that differ in any degree from the issues that are currently being reviewed by the FCC. In fact, some of the parties raise explicitly interstate issues that can be addressed only by the FCC. AT&T, for example, argues that a merger of New York operations will have "spillover" effects in other jurisdictions outside of the Verizon footprint; and Covad argues that this Commission's requirements concerning migration from virtual collocation to cageless collo- cation arrangements should be imposed on Verizon operating companies in other states. This is not to say that these positions have any merit —as is shown below, they manifestly do not — but it is clear that the FCC is the body that is best suited to resolve them. The proposed trans- action is, of course, also being reviewed by the United States Department of Justice, which, like the FCC, can bring a multistate perspective to bear in its review. In light of these considerations, in the absence of any public interest concerns or alleged competitive harms that are unique to this State, and in view of the extensive review already be- ing conducted — from a multi-jurisdictional perspective — by the FCC, it would be appropri- ate for this Commission simply to approve the merger.2 2 Such an approach would also be consistent with the Commission's consistent recognition of the relaxed standard of review applicable to corporate transactions affecting the control of non-dominant carriers See, e.g.. Case 00-C-0866, Jow/ Petition ofTalk.com, Inc. and Access One Communications Corp. For Ap- proval of a Proposed Transfer of Ownership and Control (June 30,2000 Memorandum to the Commission from the Office of Communications, approved as recommended and so-ordered by the Commission effec- tive July 21,2000); Case OO-C-0687, Joint Petition of Listing Services Solutions, Inc. and Metromail Cor- poration For Authority to Complete a Corporate Merger. Acquire Shares and Property, and Issue Debt (June 5,2000 Memorandum to the Commission from the Office of Communications, approved as recom- mended and so-ordered by the Commission effective July 3,2000). The Commission should decline to dis- criminate against this transaction by applying a different standard of review than it has consistently ap- plied in the past. - 2 C:\TEMP\Reply_Comments.doc Honorable Janet Hand fl^ler October 23,2000 * * * Whatever role this Commission chooses to play in the review of the transaction, it is clear that the arguments presented in the CLECs' initial comments are totally without merit Many of the comments raise issues relating to line sharing and xDSL-compatible loops that are totally unrelated to the merger, and that have received or are receiving ample attention in other Commission proceedings. Only AT&T presents any detailed analysis of the alleged competitive harms that will supposedly be caused by the merger, and that analysis is specious — clearly aimed not at preserving competition among DSL providers, but rather at protecting entrenched cable modem providersyrow effective DSL competition. Of course, it is ironic that these sup- posedly "pro-competitive" arguments are proffered by AT&T, the largest operator of closed cable systems, which already controls the single largest cable modem provider (Excite@Home), and which has vigorously resisted opening its systems to multiple ISPs.3 Such arguments from a company that is basing its entire corporate survival on a strategy of maintaining its dominance in the delivery of advanced services into customers' homes should be rejected out of hand. As we show below, none of the commenting CLECs has identified any competitive harm that would result from the merger, or has refuted the Petitioners' showing that the merger See, e.g.. Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses, MediaOne Group, Inc., Trans- feror, to AT&T Corp. Transferee, CS Docket No. 99-251 (FCC filed Sept. 17,1999) (claiming that "forced access will not provide more consumer choice."); see also T. Wallack, Change Takes Hold at Excite, San Francisco Chronicle, July 17,2000, at El (quoting Excite@Home Chairman and CEO George Bell: "We have exclusive contracts (with our cable partners) through the year 2002 We have a regulatory envi- ronment where the forced-access issue has diminished in scope and scale.... In sum, the market condi- tions that we face over the next two years are enviable and may never come again."). - 3 C:\TEMF\Reply_Comments.doc Honorable Janet Hand flBcler October 23, 2000 will create substantial public interest benefits. For the reasons set forth below, in the Petition, and in Verizon's initial comments, the merger should be approved expeditiously.4 A. AT&T's Comments 1. Contrary to AT&T's Claims, The Merger Will Generate Sub- stantial Public Interest Benefits NorthPoint and Verizon demonstrated in their Petition that this transaction will produce significant pro-competitive (and pro-consumer) benefits. The key source of tiiose benefits is the fact that the merger will enhance the ability of the merger partners to offer an effective competi- tive alternative to existing cable modem providers. It is particularly significant that that alterm- tive will be an open system.5 AT&T launches a two-pronged attack on this demonstration: it claims that it and other cable incumbents already face enough competition, and it claims that in any event the merger will not give the merger partners any competitive abilities that they do not already enjoy as separate parties. In both respects, AT&T is wrong. * * * The claim that cable operators already face sufficient competition ignores the fact that closed cable systems control approximately three-quarters of the residential broadband access 4 Because of the substantial overlap between the issues presented here and those that are being considered by the FCC, we are attaching to these reply comments, and incorporating herein by reference, a copy of the reply comments (and attachments) that NorthPoint and Verizon filed with the FCC. The FCC com- ments, and the declarations that accompanied them, amplify and document many of the points outlined below. Most cable operators have signed exclusive contracts with one of the two dominant cable Internet access providers — Excite@Home or Road Runner — that are not scheduled to expire for 18-24 more months. C:\TEMP\Reply_Comments.doc Honorable Janet Hand MKler October 23,2000 subscribers (or at least three times as many residential broadband subscribers as DSL). And by the end of this year, cable modem service is expected to be available to many more households than DSL — 70 percent more, according to one source.6 Indeed, AT&T itself, through Excite@Home, has nearly six times the number of resi- dential subscribers as NorthPoint and Verizon combined.7 And well over one million of these customers will be connected to AT&T's own closed cable systems by year's end8 All of this led AT&T's Excite@Home recently to proclaim that, "even after the meiger of NorthPoint's and Verizon's digital subscriber line businesses, the 'new' NorthPoint will not be larger, meas- ured in either number of subscribers or revenue generated from subscribers, than Ex- cite@Home," and that "Excite@Home's 'footprint' is larger than that claimed by North- Point/Verizon.'9 6 See C. Crouch, Broadband Is Coming at High Speed, PC World, Oct. 12,2000 ("By the end of this year, 41 percent of U.S. households will have access to cable modem service but only 24 percent will have access to digital subscriber line."). The FCC has noted that, by the end of 2000, the largest cable companies "will have upgraded systems that cover at least 61 million (80%) households." D. Lathen, Bureau Chief, Cable Services Bureau, Broadband Today, A Staff Report to William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communica- tions Commission, on Industry Monitoring Sessions Convened by Cable Services Bureau at 27 (Oct 1999). AT&T recently extended its control over Excite@Home, thus solidifying its ability to control access on cable networks other than its own. See Excite@Home Press Release, Excite@Home Announces New Board and Completion of Partner Distribution Agreements, AT&T Assumes 74 Percent Voting Stake, Aug.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Residential Demand for Broadband Telecommunications and Consumer Access to Unaffiliated Internet Content Providers
    Residential Demand for Broadband Telecommunications and Consumer Access to Unaffiliated Internet Content Providers Jerry A. Hausman†, J. Gregory Sidak††, and Hal J. Singer††† In this article, we examine the open access debate in the context of cable services and broadband Internet services from an antitrust framework. Our analysis is prompted by the recent AT&T-MediaOne and AOL-Time Warner mergers, which raise issues concerning the impact of integrated cable content and Internet access to residential telecommunications. Economic analysis, demographic surveys and federal antitrust guidelines each indicate that the broadband Internet access market is distinct from the narrowband Internet access market. Emerging or competing technologies, such as satellite Internet services or digital subscriber lines, cannot discipline the broadband Internet access market over the relevant time horizons. Vertical integration increases the incentives and power of cable providers to discriminate against unaffiliated broadband content, thereby substantially decreasing consumer welfare. We conclude that the recent mergers of cable content and Internet access is the most current manifestation of the classic strategy of cable providers to control alternate channels of content distribution. Introduction ......................................................................................... 131 I. Improperly Combining the Narrowband and Broadband Internet Access Markets ........................................................................... 135 A. Qualitative
    [Show full text]
  • Inet Revolutio2.4 Part 4
    COOK Network Consultants, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ITU and IETF in Agreement on ENUM Administration Letter from ITU To ICANN Blocks .tel gTLD Applications As Competition to ENUM -- Administration Modeled on Neutral Tier 1 Database Holder of Pointers to Records of Provisioned Services lobbying. Editor’s Note: The ENUM process has should turn to: taken some significant further steps towards On Novemeber 1, 2000 in a letter <http:// implementation since the publication (in mid Title : Liaison to IETF/ISOC on www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/itu-re- October) of our December issue that con- ENUM sponse-01nov00.htm> to Mike Roberts, tained the ENUM interview with Richard Author(s) : R. Blane Yoshio Utsumi, the ITU Secretary General Shockey of Neustar. In this brief article we Filename : draft-itu-sg2-liason- told Roberts to back off and not to inaugu- highlight the most recent developments. The enum-01.txt rate any names that would compete in any material that follows is based on conversa- Pages : 7 way with e164.arpa. After various para- tions with Shockey. Date : 08-Nov-00 graphs of diplomatic circumlocution the let- ter concluded: “As I am sure you are aware, According to Shockey, “communications Abstract: Working Party 1/2, of the Interna- the E.164 international public telecommu- between the IETF as a professional engineer- tional Telecommunication Union P Telecom- nication numbering plan is a politically sig- ing organization with the ITU Study groups munication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) nificant numbering resource with direct im- which are trying to solve engineering prob- held a meeting of its collaborators in Berlin plications of national sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • Facility Management Staffing Report
    Facility Management Staffing Report Research Report #33 FM STAffING SURVEY COmmITTEE MEMBERS Jon Bredemeier, CFM, Sears Holdings Management Corporation Sheryl Callahan, CFM, Grubb & Ellis Jamie Galileo, Energy Solutions Arena Ted Maslin, CFM, City of Seattle Lyle Schall, General Dynamics Fred Weiss, CFM, IFMA Fellow, University of Texas at San Antonio Ed Wirth, CFM, Emprise Bank Director of Research Shari F. Epstein, CAE Survey Design and Report Kevin Whorton, Whorton Marketing & Research © Copyright 2010 by the International Facility Management Association All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in whole or part, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the International Facility Management Association. For more information, please contact: IFMA Research Department 1 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77046-0104, USA Phone: +1-713-623-4362 Fax: +1-713-623-6124 E-mail: [email protected] ISBN 1-883176-81-6 Printed on 10% post-consumer waste recycled paper. FSC certified. Facility Management Staffing Report Table of Contents Introduction 4 Facility Description 7 Staffing the FM Function 15 Pay Practices 19 Estimate - Total U.S. Facility Management Professionals 23 Detailed Data Tables by Key Characteristics 25 A. Overall Staffing Levels 29 B. Staff Composition 31 C. Detailed Professional Staff Breakdown 34 D. Recent Changes 38 E. Salary Change and Basis 41 F. Outsourced Functions 47 Participant List 49 Introduction About this Report Facility management – a profession that DEFINITIONS encompasses multiple disciplines to ensure functionality of the built environment by integrating Average people, place, process and technology.
    [Show full text]
  • 3Com Officeconnect® Wireless 54 Mbps/108 Mbps 11G Cable/DSL
    OfficeConnect® Wireless 54Mbps/108Mbps 11g Cable/DSL Router User Guide 3CRWER100-75(Model:WL-537) 3CRWER200-75(Model:WL-537S) http://www.3com.com/ 3Com Corporation Copyright © 2006, 3Com Corporation. All rights reserved. No part of this documentation may be reproduced 350 Campus Drive in any form or by any means or used to make any derivative work (such as translation, transformation, or Marlborough, MA adaptation) without written permission from 3Com Corporation. USA 01752-3064 3Com Corporation reserves the right to revise this documentation and to make changes in content from time to time without obligation on the part of 3Com Corporation to provide notification of such revision or change. 3Com Corporation provides this documentation without warranty, term, or condition of any kind, either implied or expressed, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties, terms or conditions of merchantability, satis34factory quality, and fitness for a particular purpose. 3Com may make improvements or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described in this documentation at any time. If there is any software on removable media described in this documentation, it is furnished under a license agreement included with the product as a separate document, in the hard copy documentation, or on the removable media in a directory file named LICENSE.TXT or !LICENSE.TXT. If you are unable to locate a copy, please contact 3Com and a copy will be provided to you. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LEGEND If you are a United States government agency, then this documentation and the software described herein are provided to you subject to the following: All technical data and computer software are commercial in nature and developed solely at private expense.
    [Show full text]
  • Cable Modem Service and the First Amendment: Adventures in a “Doctrinal Wasteland”
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 16, Number 1 Fall 2002 CABLE MODEM SERVICE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: ADVENTURES IN A “DOCTRINAL WASTELAND” * William E. Lee TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................125 II. THE EMERGING BROADBAND MARKET .......................................129 III. FCC POLICY ...............................................................................134 A. The AT&T Mergers ..................................................................134 B. The AOL-Time Warner Merger................................................136 C. The Declaratory Ruling ...........................................................139 IV. THE FIRST AMENDMENT.............................................................140 A. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland...............................................140 B. Comcast v. Broward County ....................................................147 1. Strict Scrutiny........................................................................149 2. Intermediate Scrutiny ............................................................154 V. CONCLUSION................................................................................157 I. INTRODUCTION Broadband communication facilities — whether provided by ca- ble companies, telephone companies, wireless providers, or satellite operators — are commonly seen as a veritable panacea for all that ails America. A group of technology company CEOs recently advocated a massive government program,
    [Show full text]
  • Broadband: Competition and Consumer Choice in High–Speed Internet Services and Technologies
    S. HRG. 106±678 BROADBAND: COMPETITION AND CONSUMER CHOICE IN HIGH±SPEED INTERNET SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGIES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON EXAMINING COMPETITION AND CONSUMER CHOICE IN BROADBAND, HIGH±SPEED INTERNET SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGIES, FOCUSING ON THE IMPACT OF RECENT CONSOLIDATION IN THE COMMUNICA- TIONS INDUSTRY JULY 14, 1999 Serial No. J±106±36 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 66±614 CC WASHINGTON : 2000 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:46 Oct 04, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 66614.TXT SJUD2 PsN: SJUD2 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:46 Oct 04, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 66614.TXT SJUD2 PsN: SJUD2 C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ................................ 1 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 2 DeWine, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-202 Before the Federal
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-202 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Applications for Consent to the ) Transfer of Control of Licenses and ) CS Docket No.99-251 Section 214 Authorizations from ) ) MediaOne Group, Inc., ) Transferor, ) ) To ) ) AT&T Corp. ) Transferee ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 5, 2000 Released: June 6, 2000 By the Commission: Chairman Kennard issuing a statement; Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth concurring in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement; Commissioner Powell concurring and issuing a statement; and Commissioner Tristani concurring and issuing a statement. Table of Contents Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………1 II. PUBLIC INTEREST FRAMEWORK.........................................................................................8 III. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................14 A. The Applicants ..............................................................................................................14 B. The Merger Transaction and the Application to Transfer Licenses..................................30 IV. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST HARMS...................................................35 A. Video Programming.......................................................................................................36 1. Diversity and Competition in Video Program Purchasing ...................................39
    [Show full text]
  • S T a T E O F M I C H I G a N BEFORE the MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * in the Matter, on the Commission's O
    S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter, on the Commission’s own motion, ) to implement the provisions of Section 304 of ) Case No. U-14731 2005 PA 235. ) ) ) In the matter, on the Commission’s own motion, ) to implement the provisions of Section 301a of ) Case No. U-14899 2005 PA 235. ) ) At the August 22, 2006 meeting of the Michigan Public Service Commission in Lansing, Michigan. PRESENT: Hon. J. Peter Lark, Chairman Hon. Laura Chappelle, Commissioner Hon. Monica Martinez, Commissioner ORDER On November 21, 2005, Governor Jennifer M. Granholm signed into law 2005 PA 235, amending the Michigan Telecommunications Act, MCL 484.2101 et seq. (Act 235). Among other things, Act 235 amended Section 304(1) of the Act to require the provision of primary basic local exchange service to all residential customers within the provider’s service area where it offers residential basic local exchange service by April 1, 2006. MCL 484.2304. Primary basic local exchange service is defined in MCL 484.2102(y) as: “…the provision of 1 primary line to a residential customer for voice communication and shall include all of the following: (i) Not fewer than 100 outgoing calls per month. (ii) Not less than 12,000 outgoing minutes per month. (iii) Unlimited incoming calls. In its December 20, 2005 order in Case No. U-14731, the Commission directed that all providers of basic local exchange service file the tariff upon which it would rely to comply with MCL 484.2304, as amended, no later than January 19, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-03-138 Financial Statement Restatements
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on GAO Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate October 2002 FINANCIAL STATEMENT RESTATEMENTS Trends, Market Impacts, Regulatory Responses, and Remaining Challenges a GAO-03-138 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 4 Background 9 The Number of Restatements Has Grown Significantly and Trends Emerge 14 Restating Publicly Traded Companies Lost Billions of Dollars in Market Capitalization in the Days and Months Surrounding a Restatement Announcement 24 Restatements and Accounting Issues Appear to Have Negatively Impacted Investor Confidence 32 SEC Has Been Investigating an Increasing Number of Cases Involving Accounting-Related Issues 42 The Growing Number of Accounting Problems in the Corporate Financial Reporting System Have Spurred Reforms 55 Observations 72 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 73 Appendixes Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 75 Identifying the Number of and Reasons for Financial Statement Restatements 75 Determining the Impact of Financial Statement Restatements on Market Values of Restating Companies 77 Determining the Impact of Financial Statement Restatements on Investor Confidence 84 Analysis of SEC’s Accounting-Related Enforcement Activities 84 Collecting Information on Current and Proposed Accounting and Financial Reporting Oversight Structures 85 Appendix II: Comments from the Securities and Exchange Commission 86 Appendix III: Listing of Financial Statement Restatement Announcements, 1997-June 2002 88 Appendix IV: Case Study
    [Show full text]
  • Use This PC's MAC Address
    Internet Settings 61 ■ Use this PC’s MAC address - This field is automatically filled in with the MAC address of the PC you are using to configure the Gateway. You should use this address only if you were previously using this computer to connect directly to your modem. ■ Enter a new MAC address manually - Use this option if you want to specify a new MAC address. Enter the new MAC address. 5 Check all settings and click Apply. PPP over Ethernet Figure 43 PPPoE Setup Screen To setup the Gateway for use with a PPP over Ethernet connection, use the following procedure: 1 Select PPP over Ethernet in the IP Allocation Mode field. (Figure 43) 2 Enter your Primary DNS Address and Secondary DNS address. Your ISP may provide you with primary and secondary DNS addresses. If they have been provided, enter the addresses in the appropriate text boxes. If not, leave 0.0.0.0 in the boxes. 3 Enter the Host Name (optional). Some ISPs require a host name. If your ISP has this requirement, enter the host name in the Host Name text box. 4 Enter your PPP over Ethernet user name in the PPPoE User Name text box. 5 Enter a password in the PPPoE Password text box. 62 CHAPTER 5: GATEWAY CONFIGURATION 6 Enter your PPP over Ethernet service name in the PPPoE Service Name text box. Not all ISPs require a PPPoE service name. Only enter a service name if your ISP requires this. 7 Select an idle time from the Maximum Idle Time drop-down list.
    [Show full text]
  • Technological Analysis of Open Access and Cable Television Systems
    Technological Analysis of Open Access and Cable Television Systems Prepared for the American Civil Liberties Union December 2001 Columbia Telecommunications Corporation 5550 Sterrett Place, Suite 200 Columbia, Maryland 21044 (410) 964-5700 • fax: (410) 964-6478 www.internetctc.com Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................... 1 1.1 THE CONTROVERSY ............................................................................................. 2 1.2 THE CURRENT STATE OF OPEN ACCESS AND BROADBAND COMPETITION........... 4 1.3 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................... 5 1.4 EXPLANATION OF REPORT FORMAT..................................................................... 8 II. INTRODUCTION TO THREE TYPES OF CABLE SYSTEMS ........................ 9 2.1 BRANCH AND TREE LEGACY ARCHITECTURE .................................................... 11 2.2 HYBRID FIBER/COAXIAL ARCHITECTURE .......................................................... 11 2.2.1 Advantages of HFC Architecture.............................................................. 12 2.2.2 Limitations of HFC architecture............................................................... 13 2.2.3 Analysis of a Typical HFC System: Portland, Oregon............................. 13 2.3 FIBER-TO-THE-CURB ARCHITECTURE ................................................................ 14 III. POTENTIAL ARCHITECTURES FOR ACCESS BY MULTIPLE ISPS......
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C. Additional Sources
    APPENDIX C. ADDITIONAL SOURCES I. SWITCHING Figure 1. 1996. New Paradigm Resources Group and Connecticut Research, 1997 Annual Report on Local Telecommunications Competition, 8th ed. at 20, 165-185 (1997). 1997. New Paradigm Resources Group and Connecticut Research, 1998 Annual Report on Local Telecommunications Competition, 9th ed. at Chapter 2 – 8-9 of 22, Chapter 8 – 13-45 of 46 (1998). 1998. ALTS Press Release, The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Progress After Three Years, Jan. 21, 1999; March 1999 LERG. Figure 2. March 1999 LERG; New Paradigm Resources Group & Connecticut Research, The 1998 CLEC Report: Annual Report on Local Telecommunications Competition, 9th ed., Chapter 2 – 18-19 of 22 (1998). II. INTEROFFICE TRANSPORT Figure 2. 1985. New Paradigm Resources Group, 1999 CLEC Report, 10th ed. at Chapter 2 – 3 of 8 (1999) (1999 CLEC Report). 1986. 1999 CLEC Report at Chapter 2 – 3 of 8. 1987. 1999 CLEC Report at Chapter 2 – 3 of 8. 1988. 1999 CLEC Report at Chapter 2 – 3 of 8 (1999). 1990. FCC, Fiber Deployment Update Report – End of Year 1990 (1991). 1991. FCC, Fiber Deployment Update Report – End of Year 1991 (1992). 1992. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook 1993 at 29-12 (1993). 1993. Connecticut Research, Local Telecommunications Competition, 6th ed. at II-3, VII-1-115 (1994). 1994. FCC, Fiber Deployment Update Report – End of Year 1994 (1995). 1995. Connecticut Research, Local Telecommunications Competition, 7th ed. at II-2, VII- 1-120 (1996). 1996. New Paradigm Resources Group & Connecticut Research, Annual Report on Local Telecommunications Competition, 8th ed.
    [Show full text]