Much of the information in this post was extracted from a briefing provided by Covad discussing the "Forebearance" issue that's currently before the FCC at Verizon’s request. This request, if permitted, will in many opinions have significant impact on all of us as consumers and business operators who rely on the Internet every day, particularly those of us whose livelihoods are based on or around Internet technologies.

I'm working to schedule a comprehensive briefing with Angela Simpson, Covad's Assistant General Counsel. She's part of their their Washington D.C. Legislative and FCC team, and I'm hoping she'll consent to a podcast conversation.

Verizon, having gobbled up and digested one of its few real competitive threats – MCI – now wants to stamp out the little competitive providers that remain for small businesses in some of its most lucrative East Coast markets. If successful succeeds there, Verizon is expected to shift its sights to markets in California, Texas and Florida where it’s also the incumbent local exchange carrier.

Despite Congressional direction in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to open local markets to competition, Verizon has continually thrown its considerable muscle into exercising many regulatory roadblocks against potential competitors.

Verizon has wrung a great deal of success by playing the waiting game to stifle competition. Now they are arguably trying to rescind an essential element to competition. Many small, would-be competitors failed to withstand the procedural red tape and slow-rolling Verizon used to delay connections to its network. Those that endured now seem to be faced with Verizon’s resolve to eliminate them through a regulatory process known as “forebearance.”

The FCC is expected to issue a ruling on Verizon’s forebearance petition on December 5.

Oponents argue that if Verizon succeeds in this forebearance bid before the FCC, it will mean higher local phone rates for small businesses and consumers. Yet higher local phone rates are directly contrary to the whole intent of the Telecom Act of 1996.

It's well known and documented that Verizon fought the “unbundled network elements” (UNE) concept tooth and nail because it meant establishing cost-based pricing for each aspect of the local network that competitors might want to buy from incumbent local exchange carriers.  UNE had the effect of highlighting the carriers’ inflated costs (and profits) for certain elements of their networks. Not surprisingly, the carriers have abided UNE only grudgingly and Verizon’s forebearance petition is a bid to end UNE in markets where small businesses have benefitted the most from competition – New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, Virginia Beach and Providence.

If Verizon succeeds in rolling back rules governing “last mile” access elements , many argue that small businesses will see
diminished choices among technology providers and innovation.

If you're interested in engaging to oppose the effort, you can log on to www.freetocompete.org to make your voice heard by policymakers in Washington.

Naturally, I also invite a Verizon representative to contact me to share more directly their views on the subject.

Technorati Tags: Verizon, FCC, forebearance