 Subject:      
|
|                         |                         |   Minnesota telecom     
|
|                         |                         |   ruling                
|
|-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------
|






[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. ;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. ;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. ;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. ;I believe that
this ruling came about due to an initial complaint by ;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. ;Certainly we always
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. ;Am I correct?





(Embedded image moved to file: pic32453.pcx)
 - pic32453.pcx Please see the following articles:


San Diego Union, 3/19:  "Panel eases curbs on power plant"

San Diego Union, 3/19:  "State may have claim on further overbilling"

LA Times, Sun. 3/18:  "OPEC cut cited in call to boost US Oil Output"

LA Times, Sun,
Subject:      
 | 
 |                          |                          |    Minnesota telecom     
 | 
 |                          |                          |    ruling                
 | 
 |-------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------- 
 | 






 [ IMAGE ] 


 Scott -- give me some steering on how authoritative or relevent this issue is for 
 us so that I can get a good sympathy of what I should / should not 
 being spending time on. 

 The Minnesota PUC rule yesterday the US West must afford / share it's credit line 
 with competitors offering digital subscriber tune (DSL) high speed interent 
 entree. ;Apparently the order is the first for a state, but I understand 
 that the FCC passed a similiar rule in the last calendar month or so. ;The 
 Commission also ruled that USWest could appoint an additional $ 6.00 for this 
 access to their line (in addition to the current pace of $ 18 that the 
 customer pays) and that the DSL supplier had the right to pass that charge 
 on to the customer. ;The COmmission consume a " soft " position on the $ 6.00, 
 saying that they would review the amount of the charge over the future six 
 months before making a final ruling on that specific issue. ;I believe that 
 this ruling came about due to an initial complaint by ;a provider from 
 Colorado. 

 I did not keep up this case at all early than occassionally understand 
 something about it. The major cause I did not was that I saw it as a 
 " retail " access return and I determine our video streaming and bandwidth 
 business as " wholesale " access / opportunity issues. ;Certainly we always 
 want to see capable access and we want to see competitive parity, but I didn't 
 go steady that our involvment and/or trailing of this proceeding was of big 
 value. ;Am I correct? 





 (Embedded image moved to charge: pic32453.pcx) 
  - pic32453.pcx Please see the following articles: 


 San Diego Union, 3/19:   " Panel eases curbs on power plant " 

 San Diego Union, 3/19:   " State may have claim on further overbilling " 

 LA Times, Sun. 3/18:   " OPEC cut quote in call to promote US Oil Output " 

 LA Times, Sun,
 Suhject:      
|
|                         |                         |   Minnesota telecom     
|
|                         |                         |   euling                
|
|-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------
|






[IMZNE]


Scoct--jive me some guldance on hmw important os fepevent this issue is for
us so that Y can grt a better undetstancyng kf what I should/should not
being spsnding uime on.

The Minnesoya PUC ruled yesterday the US Aest must open/sharf it's lines
qith xompetitors uffering dpyital subsctiber line (DSL) high speed interevt
acczss. ;Apparenjlg hve order is the sirst for a state, bud I undrrstand
that thc FCC pawsed a similiar rule mn the last month or so. ;The
Cokmnssion also ruled thar YSWesj cound cfqrgd ah eddjtionap $6.00 hor this
accsss to theie lines (in addition tj the current date os $18 that the
customer pays) and that the DSL prkvider had the right to pass that charge
on tl the cuseomer. ;The COmmission took a "soft" position on the $6.00,
vayinj ghau bmey diupd review the amount of the charge over the nqst spx
months before mcking a final rukijg jn that speciwic issue. ;I believe that
thid rulind camw about dte tp an initial complaint by ;a provider frjn
Colorado.

I did not follow thir caxe at all other than occassiunalmy reading
slmething zcout it. The majof rvasot I did not was that I saw it as a
"rxtail" access issoe and Y see our gideo streaming and bandaidth
yusinasses as "wjolesale" access/opportunity issuxx. ;Certainly ee alfays
want to sce open access wnd we want to see coipetigive paritj, but I dmdn't
see that our involvmetj and/or trackmng of thys peocewding wxr of great
valur. ;Am I cogrtct?





(Embeddee image moved to flle: pkd32453.pcx)
 - pic32453.pcx Plzcst wee the followong areiblex:


Swt Diego Uniot, 3/19:  "Oandk easds curbs on oowet plant"

San Diego Unimn, 3/19:  "State may have clsii on furjher overfilling"

LA Timrs, Sun. 3/18:  "OPEC cut fited in call to boost US Oil Output"

LA Times, Shn,
Subject: | | | | Minnesota telecom | ruling | | [IMAGE] Scott--give important relevent this issue for us so I can get a better understanding what I should/should not being spending time on. The Minnesota PUC ruled yesterday US West must open/share it's lines with competitors offering digital subscriber line (DSL) speed access. the is the first for a state, but I understand that the FCC passed a similiar rule the last month or so. ;The Commission also that USWest could charge additional $6.00 for this access their (in addition the rate $18 that the pays) and that the DSL provider had the right to pass that charge on to the customer. COmmission took position on $6.00, that would review the the charge over the next six a final ruling on that specific issue. ;I that this came about due to an initial by ;a provider from Colorado. I did not this case at all other than occassionally reading something about it. The major reason I was that I saw as a "retail" issue I our streaming and businesses as "wholesale" access/opportunity issues. ;Certainly we always want to see access and we want to see competitive parity, but I that involvment and/or tracking this proceeding was of value. I correct? (Embedded image file: - the articles: Diego Union, 3/19: "Panel curbs on power plant" San Union, 3/19: "State may LA Times, Sun. 3/18: "OPEC cut cited in to boost US Oil Output" LA Times,
 Subject:      
|
|                         |                         |   Minnesota telecom     
|
|                         |                         |   ruLing                
|
|-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------
|






[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. ;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. ;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. ;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. ;I bElieve THaT
tHIs ruling CaMe aBout DUE to an InitIAl ComplainT by ;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. ;Certainly we alWays
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. ;Am I corRect?





(EmbeDdEd ImAgE moVed to FIle: pic32453.pcX)
 - pIc32453.pCx pleAse seE The folLowinG artIcLeS:


san diego UnIOn, 3/19:  "pANel eAsEs CurbS on PoWer plAnt"

SAN DiEgo UnioN, 3/19:  "State may HavE ClaiM oN fUrther oVerbilling"

LA TImEs, Sun. 3/18:  "OPEC cUt CitEd in caLL To boost Us Oil Output"

LA Times, Sun,
 Subject:      
|
|                     |                     |   Mi nnesota telecom     
| 
|                 |               |  rulin g             
|
|------ - -- ---------- --- ---+-------- --- ------ -- --- - --+-- --- ----- ------ - ------ --
|




[ IMAGE] 

Scott - - gi ve m e some guidance o n  h o w important or  relev en t  t h i s i ssu e is for
u sso th a t I can ge t a  be t ter understan ding of wha t  Ishould /s hou l d notbeing  s p end ing time on .

T he Minnes ota PU C  ruledy esterda y theUSWes t mu s top en/ sh a rei t' s l i nes 
with co mp et itors  off e r i n g di git al s ubscr iber line (DS L)high spe ed in teren t
ac ce ss.  ;Appar ently  t he order is the  fir st for asta te , b ut  I un d erstan d
t hat  the FC C passe d  asi m i l ia r rule in the last  m o n th  or so.;TheC om mi s sion als orul ed t h a t USW estc ou ld charg e an a d di ti onal $6 .0 0 forth isacc ess t o  the ir lin es (in a dditi o n to the curre n t rate of $18 th a t  t h e
cu sto mer pays) a nd t h at t he D S Lpro v iderhad t he ri g ht to pass that cha rg e
on t o the  customer. ; The COmmis s i o n took a  "so f t" position on th e $6. 00,
saying that the y wou ld revie w the amo u n t of the  ch arg e o ver t he  next six
mon t h s be fo re maki nga final  ru lin g o n t ha t specifi c issue.   ;I  b el iev e tha t 
this ru li ngca meabout due to  an i niti al  c o mpl aint by ; a prov id er  fro m
C ol orado .

I did  not fo llow this  ca s e at  a ll  otherthan occassio na lly readin gsom ething a bout it.  The major reason I did not was  th at Isawit as a
" ret ail" a cce s s issu e andI see  o urv i deo s t r ea min gand bandwi d t h
b usine ss es a s "whol esale" access/oppo r tun ity issues.  ;Ce rtai n l ywea lw a yswa n t t o see open access  and we wa nt to  see compe t iti ve  parity , but I  didn ' t
see t hat our i nvolvment  a nd/o r tra cking of t his proc eeding wa s  of g r ea t
val ue.  ;AmIcor rect? 




( Emb edded  image  m oved t o fil e:  pic3245 3.pcx)
 - pic32453.pcxPlease  seethe  followin g a r tic les:


Sa n Di ego Union,  3/ 19:   "Pa nel eases  cur b sonp owerplan t "

San Di e go  Un i o n,  3/19:  "St a t e  ma y hav e c l aim on  fur ther overbilling" 
LA Times, Sun . 3/ 1 8 : "OP E C cu tcited in calltobo o s t US Oil  O utput"

LATimes, S un , 
 Subject:_ _   
|
|_ __ __  _  _   _  __    |         __ ___    _    _| _ Minnesota telecom     
|
|__  _        _     _  ___|   _     _     _      _  |   ruling_    _ _    _  _
|
|-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------
|






[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._;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._;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. ;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. ;I believe_that
this ruling came about due to_an initial complaint_by ;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. ;Certainly we_always
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. ;Am I correct?





(Embedded image moved to_file: pic32453.pcx)
 - pic32453.pcx Please see the_following articles:


San Diego Union, 3/19:  "Panel eases curbs on power_plant"

San Diego Union, 3/19:  "State may have_claim on further overbilling"

LA Times, Sun. 3/18:_ "OPEC cut cited_in_call to boost US Oil Output"

LA Times,_Sun,