FCC Finds SBC’s IP Platform Petition ‘Procedurally Deficient’
The FCC turned down SBC’s IP platform petition due to a “procedural deficiency,” the Commission said late Thurs. SBC had asked the Commission to forbear from enforcing regulations that might not even apply to the services in question, the Commission said. The FCC can’t grant forbearance “to obligations that ‘may or may not’ apply to the telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service at issue,” it said in a 12-page order.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
SBC wanted the agency to forbear from applying the common carrier regulation in Title 2 of the Communications Act to “IP platform services.” The FCC said SBC’s petition didn’t say Title 2 actually applied to IP platform services, but only sought forbearance “to the extent that these provisions might be found to apply to IP Platform Services.” Granting a forbearance petition when it’s not clear a regulation even applies “would create serious administrability concerns and would threaten the Commission’s ability to determine its own priorities and set its own agenda,” the order said.
The FCC cited another reason for denying the petition -- lack of specifics about which services and facilities would be covered and how SBC defines “IP platform.” Such vagueness would make it hard for other carriers to decide if their IP-based services met SBC’s definition of IP platform services, the FCC said. Granting SBC’s request also would have included forbearance of Secs. 201 and 202, which set basic requirements, such as establishing connections with other carriers and setting “just and reasonable” rates, the Commission said. The FCC said it considers these sections the Act’s “cornerstone” and has never forborne from applying them: “A petitioner seeking forbearance from sections 201 and 202… should be obligated to explain in detail why the Commission should forbear from those sections even though it has never done so before. SBC has not done so.”
Even though the Commission had to deny SBC’s petition, Chmn. Martin said, the issues it raises “are important ones that require the Commission’s attention” and should be addressed soon. “The removal of legacy regulations should spur investment and the deployment of new packetized networks and facilities,” he said. The agency should “move forward to address the creation of a level-playing field for the provision of advanced services by similarly situated service providers,” Martin said.
FCC Comrs. Copps and Adelstein said in a joint statement that lack of information from SBC was a more important reason for denying the petition than the question of whether the agency can forbear from requirements that “may or may not” apply. The SBC petition “procedurally misses the mark” by not defining “the specific services for which relief is sought, the statutory and regulatory provisions at issue, the carriers to which this relief applies and the geographic markets where this relief is directed,” the commissioners said.
SBC interpreted the FCC’s decision as reaching 2 conclusions: (1) There’s “ambiguity as to whether legacy, common carrier rules apply to IP platform services.” (2) The FCC “would prefer to resolve this ambiguity holistically in its pending IP-enabled services rulemaking.” BellSouth said it is “heartened by the FCC’s suggestion that outmoded rules may not apply to next generation [IP] networks.” Referring to Martin’s statement about the importance of regulatory actions that encourage broadband investment, BellSouth said retaining outdated regulation would handicap development of next- generation networks.
CompTel/ALTS praised the FCC for “rejecting this transparent attempt by SBC to recapture its local phone monopoly.” Had the FCC granted the petition, “SBC and the other Bells could have shut off their networks to all competing ISPs and VoIP providers, killing broadband innovation,” the association said.