Technically Infeasible Argument Rears Ugly Head … Again

Posted: 09/1998

Technically Infeasible Argument Rears Ugly Head … Again

By Russell Frisby

Following divestiture in 1984, AT&T Corp. ardently opposed the implementation of
equal access conversion, maintaining it was technically infeasible. Fortunately for
consumers, the equal access process proceeded. As a result, 98.9 percent of the nation’s
lines have been converted to equal access, resulting in lower toll prices and more choices
for consumers. But if forward-looking regulators had not dismissed the technically
infeasible argument and made the procompetitive decision, the consumer would still be
bogged down with inflated long distance bills.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Fourteen years later, the
technically infeasible argument has reared its ugly head in the local arena. Specifically,
incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) argue "recent change" software is a
technically impossible means to unbundle network elements. Recent change is an electronic
method to combine network elements, particularly loop and switch ports. The system is used
by ILECs today to update and assign the features and functions of the local switch. The
Competitive Telecommunications Association’s (CompTel’s) recent white paper answers the
critics’ technical as well as legal arguments against recent change technology and
explains why it is the superior method to unbundle and recombine network elements.

In the months to come, state public utility commissions and the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) will have to decide how to unbundle and combine network elements in a
manner that will support widespread and rapid local competition. Of the few options
presented, there is one which is most consistent with the competitive spirit of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Iowa Utilities Board vs. the FCC case–the
electronic application of "recent change" software. That is, entrants must have
access to the same electronic systems that ILECs use to manage and combine network
elements if the core policies of the Telecom Act are ever to be achieved.

Despite ILEC opposition to recent change software, regulators have begun to draw the
same conclusion they did with equal access in the ’80s. For example, states such as New
York, Texas and California are considering recent change as an alternative to manual
collocation. Various ILECs will continue to argue that recent change is not technically
feasible, but this argument holds little water as vendors have already submitted
functional recent change software proposals. Thus, the question is not whether the recent
change process can be opened, but whether it will.

The bottom line is that recent change technology is nondiscriminatory and simple, as
well as more efficient and cheaper than manually recombining loops, switches and other
elements at the ILECs’ central offices. Unlike manual collocation, recent change fully
automates the combining of loop and local switching network elements. Therefore,
competitive LECs (CLECs) will be able to recombine elements in an uncomplicated and
reliable manner. This method also avoids the ILECs’ physical destruction of perfectly
functional networks.

We are at the most critical stage of local competition under the Telecom Act. An
automated system to combine elements is the superior means by which to ensure the central
goal of Section 251 of the Telecom Act succeeds: widespread local competition (i.e, local
choices, lower prices and innovative services). Without such, some CLECs may conclude it
is too costly and complicated to combine network elements in a number of instances. As a
result, in these cases competitive entry into various local markets will be delayed. And
without this vigorous competition, the other key components of the Telecom Act (i.e.,
access charge reform, universal service and Section 271), which rely on interconnection as
a condition to their success, will fail. Most important, if recent change is not
permitted, the real losers will be American consumers, who will continue to remain under
the monopolistic blanket of the ILECs.

Russell Frisby is president of the Competitive Telecommunications Association
(CompTel), the national industry association representing competitive telecommunications
carriers and their suppliers. CompTel’s 220 members include large nationwide companies as
well as scores of smaller regional carriers. For a copy of CompTel’s white paper,
"Broadening the Base: Combining Network Elements to Achieve Widespread Local
Competition," contact John Ferguson at jferguson@comptel.org

ROUNDTABLE

On the proposed GTE-Bell Atlantic merger …

"In the absence of the merger, Bell Atlantic and GTE were competitors
in data services, including Internet access and, in the future, probably [in] long
distance service. This [merger] eliminates that current and future competition."
–James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology

"The proposed merger of Bell Atlantic with GTE, AT&T’s recent decision to
merge with TCI and its intention to form an international alliance with British Telecom
show that these companies have reached the same conclusion we have: American carriers that
want to be successful national and global competitors need size, scale, skilled employees
and a large customer base."
— Jim Ellis, General Counsel, SBC Communications Inc.

"The purpose of the antitrust laws of the Telecommuni-cations Act is to protect
consumers and competition. But the only local competition that consumers have seen so far
is a type of Parker Brothers’ board game to see who can amass the largest local telephone
monopoly."
–J. Richard Devlin, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and External Affairs,
Sprint Communications Co.