Interesting People mailing list archives
more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:10:19 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:24:51 -0500 To: <dave () farber net> Subject: Re: [IP] more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing This is a simple jurisdictional issue. Some months ago, the FCC relaxed the constraint on the ILECs to do DSL unbundling. However, some states have decided they want it differently, even tho the courts have more or less settled that the FCC has jurisdiction over unbundling issues as required by the Telecom Act. The FCC is simply re-asserting its jurisdiction, reminding the states that line sharing is not in their bailiwick. This has nothing to do with naked DSL. It has everything to do with who gets to set the rules. The FCC does (for unbundling) and it has already decided not to require DSL unbundling. Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber Business and Public Policy Dept. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing David Farber (Mar 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing David Farber (Mar 28)
- more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing David Farber (Mar 28)
- more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing David Farber (Mar 28)
- more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing Nexus (Mar 30)