Mudslinging continues in service destandardization and withdrawal process

The two sides debating the merits of creating a new process to deal with applications for service destandardization and withdrawal continue to accuse the other of wanting to thwart the development of effective regulation. The mudslinging is the result of a Bell Canada application filed in January seeking the creation of an entirely new process for the withdrawal of low-demand services. After initial comments raised concerns about service categorization and automatic approval, Bell Canada responded in mid-February that opponents are simply trying to saddle the company with additional regulatory baggage. The current process, Bell says, doesn’t take into account the fundamental changes occurring in the industry as a result of new technologies. The company adds that competitors are only trying to "gain a competitive advantage by saddling the ILECs with unwieldly regulatory processes" and thus inhibiting their ability to become more efficient. "Bell Canada’s application provides the Commission an opportunity to streamline and make more efficient an aspect of its processes and to ensure that the exercise by the Commission of its powers follows pre-defined objective criteria for the benefit of all affected parties. Primus, Call-Net and MTS Allstream simply seek to maximize regulatory costs and delays for the ILECs and the Commission," reads Bell’s February 14 comments. Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. shares Bell’s concern that incumbent telephone companies should be able to withdrawal services that aren’t profitable, and don’t have sustainable customer bases. But, Primus Canada, is concerned that the new process proposed by Bell shifts the burden of proof onto the competitors rather than forcing the ILECs to prove there is no longer sufficient demand for a particular service to continue offering it. The company also raises concerns that the categorization of services will hurt competitive providers. "…The fact remains that the services in question are offered pursuant to tariffs because market conditions do not merit ILEC forbearance and/or are critical inputs for competitors. ILEC tariffs provide customers a high degree of certainty and protection both for the rates and the terms and conditions under which tariffed services are offered. The obligations placed on the Commission by the Telecommunications Act and the Commission’s own tariff regulations cannot simply be set aside in an effort to streamline processes for the dominant service providers," Primus Canada writes. Call-Net Enterprises Inc. indicates in its comments that a new process is not only unneeded, it is counter productive. "In Call-Net’s view, parties, including the Commission, should be applying resources to address the substantive issues raised by an application rather then what class the service falls into. It is the significance of the regulatory issues raised by an applications that should dictate the procedures that should be followed not the class of service nor the number of interventions," the company writes. In an interview with Network Letter prior to Bell’s response being filed, Call-Net’s Don Bowles didn’t mince words about the Bell proposal, noting that the current tariff approval process is the right venue in which to address service withdrawal applications. "From our point of view a different process wouldn’t really make any difference," he says, adding even if there is an application under Bell’s proposed process, competitors still have the right to comment as in the existing process. "I think it’s just wasting the commission’s time to come up with a non-standard process for something that’s so trivial. "The last thing the commission needs is another process…These people at Bell have been around for a long time and surely to God they’ve figured out that any time you do a non-standard process to speed things up, it slows things down. I mean they are better off in the established process than trying to come up with a new one. I don’t think it’s good for Bell. I don’t think it’s good for anybody. It’s certainly not good for the commission," he tells NL.

Mudslinging continues in service destandardization and withdrawal process

News | 03/02/2005 5:00 am EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us