Here is Kevin Werbach’s reply (in email) to the speculation that I repeated here, that the FCC’s reversal on providing competitive access to telephone networks might have something to do with national security. Says Kevin, a former FCC wonk:

I’m pretty confident, based on my personal knowledge of the FCC and Michael Powell, that this isn’t what’s going on. I’m not a defender of what the FCC is doing. But they are removing one mechanism for competitors to use Bell company networks, which has only been in existence for three years or so, not eliminating the right of competitors to interconnect and buy unbundled elements from the Bells (which is mandated by the 1996 Telecom Act).

Whatever Poindexter and his cronies may be cooking up, I don’t believe the FCC is deliberately trying to limit the number of carriers. The closest thing one could claim is that the FCC thinks some of the competitors exist only because of un-economic artificial subsidies.

There was a lively debate post-9/11 about whether what happened in Lower Manhattan proved that we need to strengthen the monopoly local carriers (Verizon’s argument) or just the opposite, because diversity of networks allowed for greater resiliency and faster disaster recovery (the CLEC argument). It’s important to continue fighting this battle. But the arguments will get much less credence if they are couched in terms of the TIA bogeyman.

Categories: Uncategorized dw