Bells Ask FCC to Act on Verizon Forbearance Petition
The Bells lined up against competitors on a Verizon petition seeking forbearance from Title II and Computer Inquiry rules as they apply to broadband service. The Bells said the broadband marketplace is highly competitive and the regulatory structures they face give cable providers in particular an unfair advantage. Competitors argued that Verizon wants to destroy competition. The 2 sides recently faced off in a similar battle over a BellSouth forbearance petition also before the Commission.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
SBC urged the Commission to act promptly on the Verizon petition and other rulemakings that will lead to parity between ILECs and their competitors. “The broadband marketplace is highly competitive, with the market-leading cable providers outpacing their local telephone company competitors in the provision of broadband services,” SBC said. “Yet, despite this intense competition, the Commission’s outdated rules place heavy regulatory burdens on the second place telephone companies, while the broadband services offered by cable providers are effectively subjected to no regulation at all.”
BellSouth supported the Verizon petition, saying it raised virtually the same argument it had raised in a similar petition. “As BellSouth demonstrated in its reply comments, there is no valid basis for the Commission to deny the relief sought,” the carrier said. Qwest observed: “Cable modem providers, the leaders in mass- market broadband, are free to do business without the Computer Inquiry restrictions and their associated costs… Qwest believes that the persistent regulatory asymmetry is contrary to the public interest and thwarts Congress’s goal of promoting the deployment of high-speed telecommunications.”
But the Information Technology Assn. of America sided against the Bell arguments, saying Verizon was seeking more than proposals the Commission has declined to adopt after looking at them in the ILEC Broadband Non-Dominance Notice and the Broadband Wireline ISP Notice. “If the Commission grants Verizon’s petition, Verizon will have the legal right to refuse to provide broadband telecommunications services -- including special access services-- to non-affiliated ISPs,” the group said. “If Verizon chooses to provide these services to non- affiliated ISPs, it would be able to do so at prices, terms, and conditions that are significantly less favorable than those on which it provides the identical services to itself and its affiliates.” ITAA said the FCC’s siding with Verizon would harm competition: “To the extent non-affiliated ISPs remain in the market, Verizon would be able to distort competition by cross-subsidizing its broadband information service offerings.”
Vonage largely repeated comments it made on the BellSouth petition. The VoIP provider said it agreed that federal telecom policy needs to be changed to address 21st century markets. “But federal broadband policy should be developed according to a holistic plan, and -- absent exigent circumstances -- not from a haphazard series of waivers and ad hoc exemptions from existing rules.”
A group of CLECs led by Closecall America, CTC Communications and FDN Communications, said Verizon lacked credibility in claiming that economic realities will lead it to offer wholesale service at competition prices.
“Why is Verizon fighting so hard to be relieved of its obligation to provide wholesale services if it intends to continue proving such services anyway?” the CLECs ask. “In the retail residential market, there is at most a duopoly for the provision of high-speed Internet access service, and the Commission has recognized that duopoly competition is insufficient to replace regulation to assure that rates for service are reasonable and nondiscriminatory.”