IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Monday, February 2, 2004

No Unbundled Packets in MA
(previous | next)

Continuing our tour of regulatory actions in the northeast, we now turn our attention to Massachusetts, where they are not only celebrating a Super Bowl victory, but also a definitive statement from the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Electricity that packet switching at remote terminals will not be unbundled. The final order is here. In the docket, AT&T and Covad urged the DTE to order unbundled packet switching under state law after the FCC rejected such a mandate in the Triennial Review. The order is short and sweet in concluding that the DTE could not be consistent with federal law and order packet unbundling.

This arcane action however is important because it is a signal on the margin that some states "get it" on the forward-looking incentives point. If you want more remote packet switching -- an indicator of broadband deployment -- you don't order it unbundled at regulator-set rates. To get broadband deployed, you have to give the entity deploying the service -- be it cable, fiber, DSL or wireless -- the right incentives to invest. And that means the ability to sell access to the product at market, as opposed to regulators', rates. Furthermore, the choice isn't between regulated new investment and non-regulated new investment; it is between investment with market rates and no investment with regulated rates.

posted by Ray Gifford @ 10:48 AM | General

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation