BellSouth Forbearance

This is an out of the box thought, but given comments about structural separation are bantered about by the competition (CLECs), who are effected by every whim of the ILEC and regulating bodies, perhaps BellSouth should pull a page out of the GTE playbook. Become a CLEC. That's right start a CLEC company. If the CLECs indeed have such an incredible advantage over the ILEC voice and broadband business, why then have the ILECs not moved out of region yet? Wouldn't this prove to be a profit maker for ILEC shareholders? Are you not doing a disservice to your shareholders by not competing out-of-region? And may I add that SBC was Required to offer services in all 48 states as part of its merger with Ameritech. http://www.rad-info.net/fcc.htm COMMENTS INVITED ON PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FILED BY BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING INCUMBENT LEC PROVISION OF BROADBAND WC Docket No. 04-405 Comments Due: December 20, 2004 Reply Comments Due: January 19, 2005 On October 27, 2004, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) filed a petition for forbearance from Title II common carriage requirements that apply to incumbent LEC broadband transmission. Further, BellSouth seeks forbearance from the Computer Inquiry rules to the extent they require incumbent LECs to tariff and offer the transport component of their broadband services on a stand-alone basis and to take service under those same terms and conditions. BellSouth argues that these rules are unnecessary, because the market for broadband transmission is competitive, and impose costs that inhibit innovation and deployment of broadband. In addition, BellSouth argues that these rules are not imposed on other providers of broadband transmission. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3507A1.doc This essentially reiterates, and perhaps goes a bit beyond, WC 02-33, a stalled Docket which proposed removing common carriage from broadband transmission service. Filed as a petition for forebearance rather than as a petition for rulemaking, I think the Commission has to actively dismiss it, or it takes effect. It asks for forebearance on both Computer II requirements (which made ISPs possible) and basic 1880s-era Title II common carriage obligations (which enable someone who leases transmission to do with it as they please, so long as they pay the bill). ISPs really should pay attention to these sorts of things and have their lawyers and regulatory consultants prepare good responses. Comment intelligiently to the FCC here: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs