FCC protections for ISPs seeking services from Bell operating com...

should open proceeding on how to better enforce them. “If anything, there is more reason for concern about BOC anticompetitive conduct today than there was in 1998,” last time FCC solicited comments on subject, Information Technology Assn. of America (ITAA) said. “The BOCs have not complied with the safeguards to date, so it makes no sense to eliminate or relax any of the safeguards,” eVoice said. Bell companies are required to create Open Network Architecture (ONA) for competing ISPs, less onerous regime for BOCs than previously required structural separation for Bell ISP subsidiaries. ITAA said FCC still hadn’t justified lifting structural separation requirements to satisfaction of 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco, and arguments against structural separation were weaker than ever because costs were lower and many Bells were separating themselves anyway to meet long distance requirements. It said Commission recently pointed to use of structural separation for Bell company long distance affiliates as reason to grant long distance applications, and FCC “must explain why structural separation is well-suited to prevent BOC discrimination against [competing phone companies], but is not the appropriate method to prevent similar BOC discrimination against ISPs.” FCC should put teeth in ONA rules, eVoice said. It said Bell companies typically didn’t meet requirement of responding to ISPs within 120 days of being asked to provide service, and in some cases took more than year. ONA rules require Bells to provide service unless it’s not economically or technically feasible, and eVoice said Bells should have to make better showing before claiming such exemptions, and then submit quarterly reports on their progress toward providing such services.