A recent survey released by the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association included comments from the RLECs themselves that are fascinating but have been virtually ignored.

by Alex Goldman ISP-Planet Managing Editor [August 21, 2006]

The Arlington, Va.-based National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA), the "voice of rural telecommunications," released the results of a member survey [.pdf] last week.

Surveyed RLECs had a median customer base of 3,513 residential and 903 business lines. RLECs ranged in size from as few as 44 lines to over 90,000. About half of RLECs surveyed were cooperatives, and about half were commercial enterprises. Population density in RLEC areas tended to range from one to five per square mile.

Appended to statistics detailing, for example, the percentage of carriers who have a fiber product (28 percent, including FTTH and FTTC), the report printed, it appears verbatim, on pages 14 through 18, comments received from RLECs in answer to the question, "What specific action(s) on the part of the FCC or state regulators would enable you to accelerate the pace of broadband deployment in your service area?"

Interests of ISPs and RLECs diverge
Some RLECs complained about the use of USF funds to serve competitors. RLECs asked that the FCC "make all carriers pay" and "quit subsidizing wireless competitors with USF funds based on our costs."

RLECs want regulatory oversight over ISPs, asking the FCC to "regulate all service providers equally" and force "competitors to meet the same requirements as we have."

RLECs are as eager as AT&T's Whitacre to charge third parties like Google and Vonage when their customers use these services. One RLEC complained about "service that companies like Vonage that can offer to our local loop facilities without paying access fees." Another asked the FCC to permit "not allowing others to use our network, which costs millions of dollars annually to maintain, for free."

One RLEC added, "regulators also need to require payment from other carriers for use of our facilities, no matter what type of technology they are using."

Another RLEC asked for "accelerated depreciation of copper plant" and "relief from competition."

In most areas, ISPs and RLECs share concerns
The RLECs were as concerned as ISPs about ILEC abuses. One RLEC complained about the ILEC practice of cross-subsidizing competitive services with monopoly rents, asking the FCC to forbid "the practice of regional and national competitors of raising rates in areas where there is no competition so they can lower rates where they compete with us."

Another RLEC asked for "equitable and comparable access to a POP."

One asked for "certainty of continued (and added) support."

Several were concerned about regulatory uncertainty, an issue that ISP-Planet has been following for years, and commented on in depth in our 2003 article, Regulatory Future? More Uncertainty.

One RLEC asked that the FCC decide once and for all whether telecommunications is an information service or a telecommunications service, appearing to be more concerned about the uncertainty than about which option the FCC might chose.

Many RLECs said they want to offer IPTV but are finding it difficult to do so. One said, "programmers are a hassle with LECs trying to do IP video." Another asked for permission to share head ends, so that several RLECs could share costs.

One RLEC complained that the PSC is obstructing efforts to borrow money to fund broadband because "they believe broadband is a risky venture for independent phone companies."

Concerns unique to rural areas
Many rural ILECs want broadband added to USF, so that the government will subsidize residential broadband connections.

One ILEC said that in their area, a few affluent people live among subsistence farmers and that the wages of the affluent push up the average so far that the area in not eligible for RUS funding. The RLEC asked the FCC to factor in "the cost of living differential."

Another complained about the "slow RUS release of funds," a concern shared by every rural ISP.

Conclusion
Although the RLECs and the independent ISPs will come into conflict over some issues, both will find they have much in common on the majority of issues. As long as regulatory uncertainty prevails at the FCC, and monopoly provision rules internet access, the biggest obstacle to universal broadband will remain the government and the monopolies.

— End