Wightman raises concerns about changes to forbearance criteria

Comments from some parties participating in Telecom Public Notice 2006-12 – a proceeding discussing changes to forbearance criteria – have been submitted to the CRTC. Wightman Communications Ltd., whose edited comments are below, has raised concerns about the proposed changes and the local forbearance region (LFR) suggested. Wightman feels there is a strong correlation between two markets, and forbearance should not be entertained until both markets have reached the established criteria and application for forbearance is made for both markets at the same time. Wightman supports the use of primary exchange services (PES) as the measure of the market but does not support the use of mobile wireless services in the equation. Mobile wireless services have not reached the point where they would be considered a PES rather than an augmentation to a PES. Wightman would support including mobile wireless services going forward if it were based on ported numbers from the ILEC or any manner in which the mobile wireless service is established as a primary exchange service through an established criteria and appropriate data gathering process. In whatever manner wireless is included in the determination of market share loss, wireless services provided by an affiliate of the ILEC should not be considered as market loss to competitors. Wightman feels the criteria of 25% as the threshold of market share loss that would trigger the application for forbearance to be too low. This level of competition would suggest that the ILEC has retained 75% of the market and the remaining 25% is divided among any number of competitors. Wightman feels a threshold of 30% to be appropriate criteria with at least 50% of the market loss to be held by one competitor; 25% is too low to create a sustainable competitive market and without a major competitor in the LFR, new entrants would be unable to withstand the economic power of the ILEC and the sought-after balance would not be achieved. Wightman feels the threshold of market share loss that triggers an application for forbearance should be demonstrated for 12 months to ensure the threshold has been reached and has been maintained in a sustainable manner. There appears to be no safety net for LFR that may have reached the criteria of market share loss falling back below the threshold. A 12 month period of time before forbearance is granted would provide some assurance that the LFR has reached the established threshold and market forces have maintained that threshold for a period of time. Given the dependency of the CLEC for services from the ILEC such as local loops, collocation, support structures and others in meeting its financial forecasts and establishing itself within an LFR on a platform of service excellence, quality of service (QoS) indicators are an issue. Prior to applying for forbearance an ILEC should demonstrate it has met the QoS indicators for all competitors in the LFR consistently for one year and that upon application for forbearance the ILEC would need to ensure the QoS indicators are met each month during the 12 month period before forbearance is granted. If a sustainable competitive market is to be reached, the CLEC needs to be assured that its dependency on the ILEC for services is recognized and protected. Furthermore, should the ILEC fail to deliver on the QoS indicators the penalty needs to be severe enough in financial terms to ensure compliance from the ILEC.

Wightman raises concerns about changes to forbearance criteria

News | 10/27/2006 4:00 am EDT

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us