'Asymmetric' FCC Regulations Impeding Telcos, Broadband Competition, ACI Study Says
FCC “asymmetric regulations” are impeding wireline broadband competition by constraining the ability of telcos to invest in new fiber networks, said a study released by the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research. ACI said ILECs aren't the dominant providers…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
of voice, data or video services, but they're subject to stricter regulation. That's “stifling” their broadband deployment, said an ACI release Monday, criticizing the commission's broadband reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act. While an AT&T request to do IP transition trials offered an opportunity to provide ILECs relief and level the playing field, "the FCC embraced its new Title II power over broadband services by expanding its regulations," the study said, citing the commission's August tech transition rules (see 1508100019). ILECs that build all-fiber networks “must keep their copper networks running” for some time, creating duplicative costs that discourage new deployment, the release said. “With these new rules in place, ILECs have sustained back-to-back declines in the total number of broadband subscribers, despite continued growth in the overall broadband market,” said Steve Pociask, ACI president and co-author of the study. “This study shows that imposing asymmetric regulations affects broadband competition, reduces broadband investment and innovation, increases wireline concentration and reduces consumer choice.” ACI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational and research institute that's "100% supported by public donations and a few public (not private) foundations," emailed Pociask Tuesday. "Donations are tax deductible and, according to IRS rules, this means that no one 'pays for' or sponsors a study. We are also not an advocacy group (501c4)," he said.