|
|
Enron Mail |
Sue, this is an issue that is becoming more important as ECI becomes more
involved in local provisioning services.=20 =01;I also believe that the DSL provider that brought the complaint is a company that we may begin partnering on som= e=20 DSL delivery with. =01;Essentially this ruling is very good and will speed=20 competitive DSL deployment. =01;I don't think you will see ECI teaming with anyone to p= rovide DSL in Minnesota just yet, but we will be doing just that in LA, San Jose, = New York, Chicago, and DC very soon. Our response: =01;this is good, keep it up PUC, and Enron supports expandin= g competition. I think we should watch this development -- but I don't think = you should expend any resources at this time. We can't describe ECI's business as simply wholesale because we often contr= act services directly with end-users. =01;How we get from our national backbone= to=20 the custormer is becoming increasingly important as we reassess our responsibil= ity to deliver in the "last mile." =01;We used to think that the last mile woul= d take care of itself and that our customers would figure out how to reach us. =01= ;Now,=20 we are increasingly looking at how to better ensure delivery of services and provide the quality of connectivity it will take for our network to fully b= e appreciated. I hope that helps. |-------------------------+-------------------------+----------------------= --- | | | slandweh@enron.com | = =20 | | | | =01; =01; =01; =01;= To: =20 | | | 12/02/99 08:32 PM | Scott Bolton/Enron = =20 | | | | Communications@Enro= n =20 | | | | Communications = =20 | | | | =01; =01; =01; =01;= cc: =20 | | | | rshapiro@enron.com,= =20 | | | | snord@enron.com, = =20 | | | | jdasovic@enron.com,= =20 | | | | lyoho@enron.com, = =20 | | | | mrobinso@enron.com = =20 | | | | =01; =01; =01; =01;= Subject: =20 | | | | Minnesota telecom = =20 | | | | ruling = =20 | |-------------------------+-------------------------+----------------------= --- | [IMAGE] Scott--give me some guidance on how important or relevent this issue is for us so that I can get a better understanding of what I should/should not being spending time on. The Minnesota PUC ruled yesterday the US West must open/share it's lines with competitors offering digital subscriber line (DSL) high speed interent access. =01;Apparently the order is the first for a state, but I understand that the FCC passed a similiar rule in the last month or so. =01;The Commission also ruled that USWest could charge an additional $6.00 for this access to their lines (in addition to the current rate of $18 that the customer pays) and that the DSL provider had the right to pass that charge on to the customer. =01;The COmmission took a "soft" position on the $6.00, saying that they would review the amount of the charge over the next six months before making a final ruling on that specific issue. =01;I believe t= hat this ruling came about due to an initial complaint by =01;a provider from Colorado. I did not follow this case at all other than occassionally reading something about it. The major reason I did not was that I saw it as a "retail" access issue and I see our video streaming and bandwidth businesses as "wholesale" access/opportunity issues. =01;Certainly we alway= s want to see open access and we want to see competitive parity, but I didn't see that our involvment and/or tracking of this proceeding was of great value. =01;Am I correct? (Embedded image moved to file: pic32453.pcx) - pic32453.pcx
|