FCC Denies OrbitCom Forbearance Petition Amid Controversy
Democratic FCC commissioners condemned the agency’s handling of an OrbitCom forbearance petition late Wednesday, in statements on a succinct order denying the petition. As expected, the FCC said the competitive local exchange carrier’s petition was facially deficient. The agency controversially kept the petition from public view for nearly a year after OrbitCom filed it (CD Aug 22 p6).
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!
The OrbitCom petition, submitted Aug. 27 last year, was only one page long. The carrier sought forbearance from sections 61.26(b) and 61.26(c) so it could tariff rates for interstate switched access that mirror its intrastate tariff rates. OrbitCom failed “to address in any manner the statutory criteria for a grant of forbearance or to provide any showing that those criteria are met by its request,” the FCC said.
“Perhaps the Commission should have dismissed the petition as deficient when it was first filed,” said Commissioner Michael Copps. “Or, perhaps, the Commission should have remedied the petition’s deficiencies by seeking to develop the information necessary to make a fully-informed decision.”
The case highlights flaws in the forbearance process, Copps said. “The Commission has now seen the two ends of the spectrum when it comes to the forbearance process,” Copps said. “On one end is the case where forbearance is deemed granted because after due consideration the decision lacks a majority of support. On the other end we now have a forbearance petition that could have been deemed granted without sufficient consideration due to a lack of information. Neither outcome is a good one and both demonstrate the clear need for better procedural rules and an end to the deemed granted scenario.”
Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein agreed: “The appearance of this item on the public circulate list before the Commission sought public comment predictably evoked questions from interested parties and raises questions about the Commission’s approach to facially deficient petitions,” he said. “We are again reminded of the need to develop meaningful procedural rules to govern the forbearance process.”