The RBOCs have been screaming for relief of what they believed to be harsh restrictions performed by the FCC ever since the AT&T divestiture took place. For once, the divestiture has taken away RBOCs ability to offer inter-LATA long distance services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TA96) has taken it a step further, by mandating that a Competitive Checklist of 14 items have to be performed before the RBOCs are allowed to enter inter-LATA long distance competition. Included in the list are the unbundling of the ILECs local loop and resale of ILECs service offerings by CLECs at wholesale discounts.
             The Tauzin-Dingell Bill essentially tries to put an end to such restrictions particularly on inter-LATA data offerings. The Bill, which was backed up by the baby Bells, argues that section 706 of the TA96 calls for deployment of advanced telecom services and the current FCC rules are definitely slowing it down. FCC prescribed requirements on unbundling network elements include line sharing and collocation of CLEC's equipments in the ILECs central offices, which the ILEC say is deterring them from deploying high-speed Internet access nationwide. [ISP News, 2001]
             The RBOCs claim that they are pushing for the bill because TA96 failed to predict that cable companies would monopolize the high-speed internet market and that the RBOCs are no match for these companies now with their (ILECs) existing copper wire. As in June 2001, cable modem service had 5.2 million subscribers, compare with 2.7 million DSL subscribers to the ILECs [Dallas News1, 2002]. Furthermore, with FCC regulated wholesale rates on services they are selling to CLECs, the RBOCs cannot justify the investment needed to upgrade their phone lines to accommodate for high-speed broadband services and someday, even faster data services. The Tauzin-Dingell bill allows the Bells to charge competitor market price for access to their lines with little FCC supervision. [Dallas...