Last resort

In the vein of competition and changing landscape for networks, I caught an article in the AJC this morning (http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/0711bizbellsouth.html) that discusses how BellSouth is attempting to get out of its obligations as 'provider of last resort'.

According to the article, the encumbent provider currently has a responsibility to provide service to any one who wants it regardless of the economic viability of said service. This, I believe, is intended to ensure universal coverage and not 'cherry picking' service to the wealthy. But with the increase in competition for these 'cherries' BellSouth is finding it may not have the advantages it once enjoyed and now has to deal with other companies that may not have the last resort encumberance.

BellSouth is particularly fighting as new developments (apartments, planned cities, 'hoods, etc.) are at the forefront of the battle for new subscribers and developers are negotiating up front deals for their developments. If BellSouth doesn't become the prefered provider, it is arguing that it shouldn't have the last resort requirement in that area.

It appears that their first line of attack has been to throw a bit of FUD directly at the developers, as the article notes regarding one letter sent out by BellSouth: "Please be aware that the presence of these types of arrangements with alternate communications providers or infrastructure providers may affect BellSouth's provision of service."

Apparently a law in Florida (supported by BellSouth) passed this year that provides an out for the encumbent in certain circumstances. I'd bet we'll see more of these bills being introduced around the states in the near future...

Kipp