AT&T

From the comment's of AT&T, it first tried to clarify the definition of cable Internet service from telecommunication service. Cable can be run as a broadband transport over the existing cable system, and gives a free space for subscribers to access to any point of the Internet and vice verse. So to the extent of the definition, cable Internet service should attributed to cable service and information service or both.

AT&T demonstrates that cable Internet services make available information to subscribers over the same facilities that it uses to providing video programming, and therefore they are "cable service" and should be exempt under the regulatory mandate as follows:

• Section 621(C) and 624(f) of the Communication Act from federal, state and local access and unbundling requirements.

• Cable Internet service which makes available "information via telecommunications" are also "information services". Because cable providers don't control the bottleneck of the network, only the Internet backbone provider and ISP can control their own network to access into Internet, and so under the FCC's Computer III rules those information services on the cable platform are also exempted from access and unbundling requirements.

• Type II common carrier regulation cannot be applied to cable Internet service because cable only uses a telecommunication component and should not be recognized as common carriers. Cable operates either under a private network or a build up information services on its own facilities, so it is inappropriate to force cable to serve the carrier's obligation and should not be regulated as a common carrier.

In the FCC's First 706 Report, it states that "companies in virtually all segments of the communications industry are making sizable investments in broadband technologies" and these investments will lead to more competition in, and greater deployment of, broadband generally." All the comments indicate that the market-based approach that is advocated by the FCC is working and should be continued and also should be deregulated in future Internet and e-commerce markets. Any forced access or open network requirement will certainly delay the development of broadband services in Michigan and doom it to failure.

• AT&T launched large scale of connection trial with unaffiliated ISPs without government mandate

To support the market segment approach and continue to fulfill the promise of service, AT&T planned to negotiate private commercial arrangements with multiple ISPs. The broadband trial over the cable system would launch new broadband access services to customers from other ISPs or provide support that the unaffiliated ISPs need to build the price, point of connection, maintenance, and customer service in order to serve their customers.

AT&T wants to show the government that building new cable Internet service does not mean the cable operators want to gain monopoly power to limit the welfare of consumers. Moreover, imposing a forced access or unbundling regulation upon the operation of cable Internet service would cause delay and impair the provision of broadband services.

In this rapid-developing market, government-mandated access would harm consumers by deterring investment, impeding innovation, and cause it to be unable to meet the need of the consumers. Regulatory burdens undermine the perspective financing and deployment schedule of cable's investment and this would be harmful to society in the long term.

AT&T proposed several reasons why it is unnecessary to impose forced access regulation on cable operators:

• The market has already developed a wide array of business models for providing Internet access, either broadband or narrow band.

• It is inappropriate to put the requirement for ILECs on existing cable operators. There are distinguished differences between ILEC and cable.

• CRTC(Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) adopt its open access policy in 1996 and led to high cost and unlimited regulations to both cable providers and consumers.

• No regulatory parity should be inposed on cable based on the Communications Act (Type II and Type IV), the monopoly power from ILECs, and the cost of build-out of infrastructure.

• The competition issues raised in the voice monopoly of the ILECs are not present in the context of cable's network, because cable uses the existing video programming network to transmit Internet packet and no control over Internet content and traffic.
  
  Return to Start