Where Do We Go From Here?

On the heels of The New York Times reviewing The $200 Billion Scandal, Bruce Kushnick describes some next steps:

Over the last decade there’s been a barage
of anti-competitor behaviors and rulings by the FCC.

Line
sharing, to be able to split the line for DSL, was taken away as was the
reselling of of Bell’s DSL service. The FCC also blocked the ISPs from cable
networks. It then also screwed the CLECs buy getting rid of the obligation
to unbundle their networks, UNE-P, which killed off most CLECs and got
AT&T and MCI sold off. Finally, all new builds "greenfields", were
given to the Bells for exclusive use.  — Therefore, FIOS, under the FCC"s
rulings is not for ISPs to use, (or CLECs.)

So what should we focus on?

Getting back basic
rights… The next action we’re taking is this $5 billion dollar complaint
in NJ based on the books data. —

It says: Customers funded the networks,
current and future. Therefore, under prior obligations of Opportunity New
Jersey, any new fiber optic build will be subject to these obligations…
If FIOS is just a decade late, then these networks would be
open.

Our argument is that they have obligations to give ISPs and CLECs
direct access to the fiber plant.
(or even video programmers,
etc.)

I also argue that an FCC complaint about ‘customer takings’ by
giving exclusive green field builds was a violation of subsidized
committments for rewiring the state, which was open…

VOIP  —
since many ISPs sell VOIP, it’s clear that making sure illegal bunling
of products does not occur.

As us telecomers know, the Bells were
allowed into long distance because they were
first supposed to open their
networks to competition. They then enter state-by-state,
and then got rid
of the competitors that they were required to allow in.

Be that as it
may, the Bells currently bundle  and DSL and Long distance and
local
service, thus eliminating VOIP services because who would use it after paying
for
local and long distance?

The case we make in the book, and about NJ is that
DSL and long distance were and still
are being illegally 
cross-subsidizing local service, also funded through the networks that never
showed up.

We have documentation that shows that DSL was funded through Bell of
Pennsylvania out of rates, and that it came to $60 million, $194
million in California under Pacific Bell. They also paid below
wholesale rates, and their advertising and marketing materials were
being cross-subsidized.

If, as we argue,
the rate of return should never have been removed, since under fraud they
used false and misleading information to the public  to change state laws, we
can then argue that the
added expenses from cross-subsidization
is overcharging.

If nothing else, it makes the
case to not trust them in FIOS and Lightspeed and so, it could
be used as
a wedge for possible swings of the pendulum if the FCC changes it’s
Commissioner lineup.

There’s more but this was the basic reasons I did
the book — to use the data for these cases.