Getting Down to the Nitty-Gritty on Forbearance
August 1, 2008
Thanks to those of you who asked for a more thorough explanation of forbearance and wanted to understand its impact. Keep the questions and comments coming. As for forbearance, read on…
Forbearance comes from our “friends” in the legal community. Forbearance as applied to the telecommunications service providers is a legal instrument that determines on a market-by-market basis if there is adequate competition whereby Ma Bell no longer needs to supply Ma Bell wannabes wholesale services at government regulated prices.
Only Ma Bell can apply to the FCC to be granted forbearance to lift the market specific regulatory burden. In filing a forbearance petition to the FCC, Ma Bell must submit documentation and analysis that adequate competition exists. They may demonstrate market share loss or line loss due to wireless substitution, as two examples. Of course, the Ma Bell wannabes can file petitions in response, playing the same song since the Communications Act of 1996 some 12 years ago.
Why I favor granting forbearance is that I believe it will provide an impetus to build out fiber optic facilities to homes and offices. As long as forbearance gets denied, alleged ”competitors” of Ma Bell have no incentive to advance true broadband capabilities as the result of relying upon Ma Bell copper loops and/or special access wholesale. From a physics perspective, fiber optics offers unlimited bandwidth capabilities when compared to copper facilities or fixed wireless alternatives. From an economic perspective, fiber optics enables us to be globally competitive. From a national security perspective, the more last mile fiber we deploy, the sooner there is no longer a need to locally centralize trunking at Ma Bell central office wire centers. Router capability in each home and business will distribute access whereby terrorists targeting wire facilities would become very discouraged in doing so.
We have had 12 years since the Communications Act of 1996 to develop businesses that are not dependent upon Ma Bell. Instead, those that argue against forbearance are actually arguing for the status quo especially if in 12 years they have not enhanced shareholder value by being independently competitive of Ma Bell infrastructure. Here we are - it’s 2008, yet after 12 years of deregulation some 90% of business buildings are still served by one providers infrastructure, that being Ma Bell. And the vast majority of telecom services are provisioned over bandwidth limited copper facilities. We don’t need another 12 years of renting copper; we need greater grants of forbearance to drive a different competitive mind set.
Got something you want answered about forbearance or other telecom issue? Send me a question now.
Written by Dave Rusin - Telecom Executive
Posted by admin | Filed Under Telecom definitions, Telecom dictionary, Telecom terms, Trends + telecommunications, Trends in telecommunications
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Comments
One Response to “Getting Down to the Nitty-Gritty on Forbearance”
Got something to say?
Feeds
[…] http://www.telecomstraightshooter.com/20…; […]