Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Nextel On VoIP-In the Matter of (IP-Enabled Services ) WC Docket No. 04-36

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 01:23:11 -0400

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of  (IP-Enabled Services ) WC Docket No. 04-36
REPLY OF NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

July 14, 2004

.Nextel Communications, Inc. (“Nextel”), hereby respectfully submits
this reply in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s
(“Commission’s”) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”) in the
IP-Enabled Services proceeding.1 The Notice seeks comment on the
appropriate regulatory treatment for the wide range of current and
emerging Internet Protocol (“IP”)-enabled services. The Notice also
focuses questions on relevant differences between IP-enabled services
and traditional telephony, as well as the differences among various
types of IP-enabled services.

SUMMARY

In general, Nextel Communications, Inc. (“Nextel”), concurs with the
Commission and a majority of commenters that Internet Protocol
(“IP”)-enabled services will develop more rapidly by the application of
a light-handed regulatory approach.  One area of potential concern,
however, is that any light-handed regulatory framework not become an
open invitation for entities to arbitrage technology simply for the
purpose of avoiding perceived undesirable regulatory obligations.
Further, it is simply too soon for the Commission to conclude that there
is or will be effective competition across all IP-enabled services
platforms and that there will be no dominant providers in emerging
markets. The Commission’s public interest obligation is to ensure that
all technology platforms—wireline, wireless, power lines, satellite,
cable—have a fair and unfettered opportunity to reach consumers with the
package of service offerings they demand so there is a vibrantly
competitive retail market for those services.  As a number of commenters
correctly observed, greater regulatory obligations may be needed for
dominant providers of telecommunications transmission services that
support the delivery of IP-enabled services to ensure that competitive
alternatives remain available and that market power in one market is not
leveraged into another.

 Rather than trying to engage in a line-drawing and classification
exercise to define markets for IP-enabled services, the Commission
should instead invest its limited resources towards understanding the
essential ingredients that will allow IP-enabled services to develop,
grow and flourish. Nextel believes that the incumbent local exchange
carriers (“ILECs”) are the most important players in this equation
because of their unique position and historical circumstance. ILECs
currently control transmission -ii-facilities on which end users and
other carriers depend for different kinds of connectivity, including
connecting to the Internet. The ILECs are offering, and likely will
continue to offer, IP-enabled services themselves, potentially in a
bundle or package of end user services, along with other less regulated
telecommunications services such as commercial mobile radio services
(“CMRS”). Given their network dominance, the Commission cannot accept
glib arguments that ILEC networks are really IP platforms entitled to
regulatory treatment in the same way as any other information service.
It is far too early in the evolution of IP-enabled services to draw this
conclusion.  Notwithstanding the need for a light-handed regulatory
touch with IP-enabled services in general and Voice over IP (“VoIP”) in
particular, there are still some basic public interest obligations that
all providers should fulfill and that cannot be left to the workings of
the competitive marketplace. It simply is not the case that the
marketplace will resolve all of the “social policy” obligations
currently applicable to telecommunications providers. As many commenters
acknowledge, in the areas of consumer access to emergency services and
law enforcement access to communications, some type of regulation,
taking into account current technology and its limitations and
abilities, likely is necessary.

Finally, the Commission must reevaluate how new technologies affect the
need for universal service support, as well as who should contribute to
the universal service fund. As VoIP, in particular, makes it possible to
provide service more cheaply than traditional circuit-switched
technology, the Commission should reassess the continued necessity of
universal service support.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/61FxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/