1. PHOENIX CENTER 2002 U.S. TELECOMS SYMPOSIUM Personal Remarks of Lawrence J. Spiwak President © 2002 Phoenix Center and Lawrence J. Spiwak 20 November 2002 Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill Washington, D.C.

2. What’s New at the Phoenix Center?

3. Activities: Six new Policy Papers since the last Symposium. One of which was reprinted in the Federal Communications Law Journal. Started Congressional Briefing Series. Members asked to participate in prestigious academic conferences. Web page traffic continues to rise. Lots of hits from the developing world. Increased press coverage. Receiving awards and recognition.

4. The “Phoenix Center is a small but well connected pro-consumer public policy think tank” that “deserve[s] credit for providing the best proof yet” for “detail[ing] exactly why the 1996 Telecommunications … Act didn’t open up local markets as intended.” – San Francisco Chronicle

5. Conference Theme: How Do We Go From “One” to “Many”? What Do We Need to Do to Create a Vibrant Market for Wholesale “Last Mile” Access?

6. Local Access CPE and Terminal Equipment Long- Haul A Brief History of Telecoms Restructuring All Segments of Network are Not Homogeneous Telecoms Companies are Multi-Product Firms No such thing as a homogeneous customer Unbundling Collocation Source: Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies (www.phoenix- center.org)

7. CLEC Incumbent Telecoms Operator Data LEC or “PCLEC” Cable MSOMobileSatellite Interconnection; Build-out requirements Building Access; Local government “user” fees; USO Obligations; Lack of regulatory harmonization among various jurisdictions Loops; Collocation; Provisioning; Loop- Conditioning; Recalcitrant incumbent “Carrier of last resort” obligations; Stringent price, conduct and structural regulation Spectrum; Interconnection; Tower siting; Tech. standards GSM TDMA CDMA 3G Programming; Franchise certification authority Local Access Technology Examples of Major Endogenous Entry Costs Spectrum; Interconnection; Tower siting; Tech. standards; Int’l approval for each country in which it seeks to do business Technical advantages and limitations Excellent for voice; Good for “broadband” (xDSL); Poor for multi-channel video programming Ability to build state-of-the-art network; thus, has potential to be excellent for voice, video and/or “broadband” depending on business conditions Good for “broadband”; Poor for voice; Poor for multi- channel video programming Excellent for multi-channel programming; Excellent for “broadband”; Poor for voice Excellent for voice; OK for data; Poor for video; But very advantageous because it is MOBILE Excellent for video; Excellent for data OK for voice; OK for “broadband”; Can be either mobile or fixed RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER Substitutes or Complements? The “Myth of Convergence”… Source: Naftel & Spiwak, THE TELECOMS TRADE WAR (HART 2001).

8. “The Four Horsemen of the Broadband Apocalypse”  Lawrence J. Spiwak, Communications Week International, Opinion: U.S. Competition Policy – The Four Horsemen of the Broadband Apocalypse (01 April 2002) available at: http://www.phoenix-center.org/commentaries/CWIHorsemen.pdf