Don’t let Core Communications revamp its intercarrier compensatio...

Circuit to deny Core’s appeal of an FCC order denying forbearance. The forbearance petition sought in effect to replace access charges with reciprocal compensation (CD July 27 p8). Oral argument is Oct. 7. In its brief, the phone group panned the Core appeal as “the latest in a long series of efforts by [Core] to promote its own short-term interest in regulatory arbitrage at the expense of rational, pro-competitive regulation.” Besides AT&T and Verizon, the brief was signed by the National Exchange Carrier Association, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, Nebraska Rural Independent Companies, Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies and Western Telecommunications Alliance. Core had no basis for seeking forbearance in the first place, said the intervenors. A carrier may ask for forbearance only from a regulation governing itself or a “class of telecommunications carriers” of which it’s a part, they said: “Core sought to impose a new set of regulations on other carriers… as a means of gaining competitive advantage.” Forbearance wouldn’t have given Core automatic relief, but create a “regulatory vacuum,” they said. Core’s petition “was, in substance, a request for new regulation, not a request for forbearance,” they said. Core didn’t comment. “Our reply brief is due on June 17, and we'll use that opportunity to address any issues raised by intervenors that merit a response,” said Michael Hazzard, the company’s lawyer. The forbearance appeal isn’t Core’s only case on ISP compensation. The D.C. Circuit also is weighing whether to grant a writ of mandamus forcing the FCC to clarify its ISP- bound traffic rules (CD May 6 p1). Reversing the forbearance order would give Core future relief only, whereas a mandamus could lead to retroactive relief.