AT&T Accuses Verizon of Flip-Flopping on BDS With 'New CLEC-Like Tune'

The debate over how the FCC should treat special access services heated up further Thursday, as a top telco accused another of "doublespeak." In a blog post, AT&T used Verizon's own words to criticize Verizon's joint proposal with Incompas for a new business data service regulatory framework (see 1606270058). Verizon said it was disappointed, while a special access regulation advocate said AT&T's slam was "silly." AT&T Wednesday criticized the FCC on special access, as initial comments arrived in the BDS rulemaking (see 1606280058 and 1606290045).

AT&T Thursday cited various pro-ILEC statements made in the BDS proceeding. They included: “[T]here is no basis on which to increase regulation of ILEC business broadband services, including legacy special access and Ethernet. [T]here is no evidence supporting a finding that ILEC rates for traditional TDM-based special access services (e.g., DS1 and DS3) are unjust and unreasonable. There is no factual basis to support a finding of market power or market failure in the business broadband marketplace."

"None of those are AT&T’s words," AT&T wrote. "In fact, all of those statements were written by Verizon this year and submitted to the FCC in this proceeding before they teamed up with INCOMPAS (a CLEC trade group currently, emphasis on currently, opposing their pending acquisition of the assets of XO Communications before the FCC). Verizon is no stranger to doublespeak. Remember, this is the company that appealed the 2010 net neutrality decision only to argue ten months later to re-enact the same rules on the same legal basis which it had successfully appealed."

"But the BDS policy Verizon is now advocating will result in lower incentives for all carriers to invest in fiber infrastructure in this country. It may be that Verizon’s current business plans actually call for lower capital investment having just sold off vast amounts of their wireline infrastructure, but the fact remains that a 'less fiber investment' policy is not one the FCC should be pursuing," said AT&T, citing more negative consequences as likely. "This serious potential fallout from unwise FCC action remains, despite the fact that Verizon is whistling a new CLEC-like tune. As the FCC moves to examine the comments recently filed in this proceeding, they should remember that Verizon was for pro-investment policies before they were against them."

A Verizon spokesman emailed this response: "From the outset, our goal has been to work towards a principled and fair policy framework for Business Data Services that applies regulation based on whether there is meaningful competition and that is technology-neutral and provider-neutral. As part of this effort, we are working with various industry players to reach a balanced middle ground that will benefit consumers and the industry. It’s disappointing that some players still want to fight the same old battles rather than try to find workable solutions. Policy positions should evolve as the industry and marketplace evolve so that they keep pace with the needs of our customers and the rapidly changing marketplace. We will continue our work towards a reasonable policy framework in this space."

Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld called the AT&T criticism of Verizon "silly." He emailed: "We want people to respond to changed circumstances. We want people to be innovative and try to reach deals. Hell, AT&T started this whole thing with a Petition back when they were a CLEC. No one imagines for a minute that any company takes an advocacy position on anything other than because they see how it ultimately serves their business interest and it fits their political calculation."