Last-mile broadband networks have “unique control” of access...
Last-mile broadband networks have “unique control” of access to their customers, Microsoft told Congress in its comments about interconnection. Several stakeholders have submitted comments, due Friday, to the House Communications Subcommittee on the topic, none officially posted online yet by…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
the committee. The subcommittee is considering ideas for a rewrite of the 1996 Telecom Act. “Last-mile broadband network operators should not be permitted to leverage their control over or role in interconnection to their networks to circumvent open Internet policies,” Microsoft said. “The goals of a legal framework for interconnection should be to promote efficient connection between and among those networks, regardless of the particular network transmission medium, i.e., wireline or wireless, copper or fiber; and to enable frictionless exchange of traffic across those networks, regardless of the particular content, application, or service being exchanged,” Microsoft said. Yet Microsoft cautioned that Congress must not “simply transfer last century’s interconnection regime to a 21st century broadband interconnection regime,” saying interconnection policy must evolve in the IP environment. Level 3 did not file comments, its spokeswoman told us. “We didn’t file public comments, although we are working with Congressional staff on these issues,” she said. “Any Communications Act update needs to ensure that the networks of the future interconnect on reasonable terms, no matter the technologies involved.” Any update to the Communications Act “must recognize those principles” of past interconnection policy “and must continue to provide backstop rules to ensure fair interconnection,” the Level 3 spokeswoman said. NARUC filed comments defending the state role in interconnection as well as Communications Act sections 251 and 252, which ILECs have argued should not apply to IP interconnection. “Unfortunately, the FCC has, through inaction, encouraged carriers to ignore Congress’s instructions in Sections 251 and 252,” NARUC said. “The FCC’s failure to clarify VoIP’s regulatory status, through both Republican and Democratic Administrations, has spawned numerous otherwise unnecessary (and wasteful) State and Federal administrative proceedings and appeals at taxpayer and ratepayer expense.” The FCC “lacks the resources” to handle all interconnection policy disputes, NARUC added.