IT GOES BOTH WAYS

Competitive carriers won a rare victory with the FCC's decision to prohibit Verizon from redacting — or hiding — portions of the Bell company's public Section 272 audit report for New York that it deemed “competitively sensitive information.” Although Verizon has asked the commission to reconsider the matter, we predict the ruling will stand — as it should. Section 272 — which states Bell companies must undergo a biennial, independent audit to maintain their status as in-region long-distance carriers — is fairly clear in mandating public disclosure of the results. Full disclosure of the audit allows for better-informed public comment and, perhaps more important to CLECs, gives them more ammunition against the Bell companies. But CLECs should know that the Telecom Act historically has not been kind to those that win disputes. For instance, Bell companies lobbied hard to get reciprocal compensation included in the law, but CLECs turned the stipulation into an ISP-friendly loophole that spawned a lucrative business financed by Bell companies. In the 272 debate, Verizon brings up an interesting point about public disclosure of sensitive information. Obviously, when the customer is Verizon's retail arm, competitors want full disclosure. But do these competitors really want the results of their own negotiations with the Bell companies publicized? Given the current argument, few would sympathize with any CLEC suggesting that the release of sensitive information about its deals with Bell companies would undermine its competitive stance. As the old truism goes, “Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.”