Bell blinked and temporarily withdrew its proposal for measured service on Thursday rather than suffer a telco version of the recent Rogers fiasco. It is hard to imagine that Bell would have risked the wrath of the regulator and stepped down if the great cable rebellion of 1995 had not occurred. In a letter to Stuart MacPherson, Executive Director of the CRTC telco division, Richard Tropea, Bell's Director of Regulatory Affairs plays down the extent of the backlash, euphemistically referring to "certain concerns expressed by customers". He reinforces Bell's commitment to pay-as-you-go pricing and indicates that the needed revision to the application is the inclusion of a flat-rate option. The CRTC, taking the role of a disapproving parent, granted the request but demanded that the new application be submitted in 60 rather than the requested 90 days. Perhaps more painful was the Commission's categorical denial of Bell's plea that the access banding application be allowed to proceed according to the original schedule independent of the TelecomLink (measured service) application. Access banding removes a longstanding practice of equalizing rural and urban rates. Rural areas would pay considerabley more than urban areas under this proposal. No way, said the Commission, clearly annoyed by this self serving suggestion. It intends to adhere to its original decision to hear these two applications together. All proceedings are cancelled until both applications can be considered at the same time. Once the new application is received, the Commission will notify Bell and all parties who registered as participants about the procedure to be followed. Bell's original plans had the TelecomLink initiative up and running by July 1, 1997. In an curious twist, Bell's request was filed with the Commission "in confidence" a full 48 hours before the public was advised of the new developments. "This short delay will allow the Company time to adequately brief and prepare its customer contact personnel to respond to enquiries." It doesn't seem appropriate to have withheld this information so that Bell could get its damage control operation in gear. The high level of public concern about this application should have made it imperative that the information be released immediately for both common courtesy and public relations reasons. But then, neither the communications industries nor the regulator have really figured out that communication is no longer a one way street. ***************************************************************************** THE PUBLIC-INFORMATIOH HIGHWAY ADVISORY COUNCIL co-organized by Marita Moll Shawn W. Yerxa aa319@freenet.carleton.ca ai435@freenet.carleton.ca **************************************************************************** -- Marita Moll Ottawa, Ontario aa319@freenet.carleton.ca