The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Decima Reports. Bell Canada’s proposal for a streamlined administrative process to deal with routine filings is not without merit, and the backlash – valid as it is – should be tempered in the commission’s mind by the need to conduct a thorough review of its processes to better help the telecom industry reach greatest market efficiency. We hope Bell’s Part VII application, in fact, opens the floodgates to creative proposals from each of the stakeholders involved to cut red tape and streamline procedures both large and small. Some of the pushback against Bell’s application stems from what competitors say were bungled tariff filings, and there is an industry feeling that Bell’s troubles have in some degree been brought on itself. Further backlash was inevitable since Bell Canada and TELUS, of course, stand to benefit entirely from a streamlined tariff application process, and the competitors would be forced to face a more nimble opponent. But, if the commission adopts Bell’s proposal, the phone giant argues that resources that are currently being misused in routine paperwork could be better directed to other issues. Without exception, CLECs contacted by Network Letter about the application have a laundry list of issues for which they have been waiting, years sometimes, for rulings. Delays, as Bell’s Mirko Bibic points out however, are not good in and of themselves. Competitors would be mean spirited to suggest that the ILECs should face unreasonable delays, and the problems Bell and TELUS face must be addressed. We hope that rather than concentrate on the negative aspects of Bell’s proposal in reply comments, we see further creative proposals put on the table by CLECs and other stakeholders to address the larger issues of policy-setting. Bell’s application has engendered some initial ill-will, but we’re confident both the industry and the CRTC can use it as a starting point for fruitful discussions.