 |
         |
 |
 |
| Association
of Communications Enterprises |
1401 K
Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 |
Phone:(202)
835-9898 Fax:(202) 835-9893 | |
 |
Contact: Celeste Powers Director of Public Affairs (202) 835-9898, ext.3015 cpowers@ascent.org | ||
| ALTS, COMPTEL and TRA Praise FCC on
Policy-Setting but See Need for Stronger Enforcement |
| WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 16, 1999 - The Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS), the leading national organization representing facilities-based competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), today joined with CompTel/ACTA, the principal national industry association representing 315 competitive telecommunications carriers and their suppliers, and TRA in applauding the FCC's record of setting pro- competitive policy under the Telecommunications Act - but they urged the Commission to take a stronger position on enforcement. The three associations voiced their views on the eve of the scheduled hearing on March 17, 1999, concerning the reauthorization of the Commission. "The CLEC industry has enjoyed tremendous success since Congress passed the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996," said John Windhausen, Jr., ALTS President. "When the Act was passed, CLECs served about one-half of one percent of the nation's telephone consumers, but today they serve approximately 3 percent of the market. As further evidence of the CLECs' success, these companies have raised almost $20 billion in three years, and in 1998 the CLECs' investment in local infrastructure was approximately 20 percent of total investment in telecommunications infrastructure." "Much of this success can be attributed to strong policy established by the FCC, but enforcement is another story," said Russell Frisby, CompTel/ACTA President. "Whereas the FCC has adopted pro-competitive policies in interpreting the 1996 Act, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision it is now time to take vigorous enforcement actions to ensure that its policies are implemented." "The FCC needs to take firm measures to beef up its enforcement of the Act to assure that ILECs toe the line on opening their local markets competition," said Ernie Kelly, TRA President. "Too often, the FCC has the right intention with policy, but falls short on enforcement measures to make that policy a reality." ALTS, CompTel/ACTA and TRA cited specific policy successes of the FCC: - The FCC's August 1996 Local Competition set the basic framework for network interconnection provisions, thus arming competitive carriers with many of the rights they needed to provide competitive local telephone and data services; - The FCC adopted a forward-looking pricing approach for unbundled network elements. Even though the FCC's pricing rules were not in effect until recently, the FCC's theory in favor of this pricing approach was adopted by most state commissions. Forward- looking pricing promotes efficient network investment, and is essential to reducing competitors' costs of interconnection with the local telephone network and advances local telephone competition. - The FCC has held firm on enforcing section 271 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, refusing to let the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) into the long distance market until they have opened their networks to competitors; - In 1998, the FCC confirmed that the interconnection provisions of the 1996 Act apply equally to data services as to voice services. This decision is essential to the growth of competitive high-speed data services such as DSL; - In February 1996, the FCC confirmed the enforceability of local interconnection agreements that require incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to pay reciprocal compensation to CLECs for terminating local calls to Internet service providers (ISPs). This decision will allow CLECs to continue to launch advanced data services to Internet providers and consumers. - The FCC is about to issue rules to reduce the costs and delay of collocation. The Telecommunications Act requires ILECs to allow competitors to lease space in the ILEC central office in order to provide competitive telephone service using the ILEC's loops. Yet the ILECs often refuse to provide collocation space to CLECs, (citing unwarranted "security concerns" or "space limitations") or charge CLECs enormous amounts of money (up to $400,000) to locate equipment in the central office. The FCC's rules will substantially reduce the costs of collocating and thus will speed the growth of local competition. Despite these pro-competitive decisions, the FCC has been unable to follow through on its pro-competitive policies with effective enforcement measures designed to ensure that its policies are implemented, given that the Eighth Circuit ruling questioned its authority. Now that the Supreme Court has restored the FCC's authority, however, there is no reason for the FCC to refrain from enforcing its rules to the fullest extent. Examples of the FCC's reluctance to enforce its policies and rules include: - In August 1996, the FCC released its seminal decision interpreting sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act. Most states incorporated the FCC's views into their arbitration decisions. Some states, however, have not adopted the FCC's views. Instead, these states adopted policies inconsistent with the 1996 Act and the FCC's rules. The FCC, however, should now take a strong position enforcing its rules on these states; - Section 253 of the 1996 Act requires the FCC to preempt state and local government actions that have the effect of preventing any telecommunications carrier from providing service. The FCC has used its authority on a few occasions to preempt state laws and municipal ordinances that explicitly bar competition. The FCC has failed, however, to enforce section 253 when a state or local government places such onerous regulations on new entrants that it effectively prohibits them from entering a market. Many competitors have been forced to take their complaints directly to the courts on a case-by-case basis because the FCC has not guided state and local governments concerning what actions are permissible and which are not; - The FCC and the states need to quickly and forcefully adopt rules that establish performance measures and standards to ensure that the ILECs comply with all Section 251 and 252 requirements and to ensure that Operation Support Systems (OSS) are in place and fully functional. FCC rules require that local telephone companies provide non-discriminatory access to their OSSs by January 1, 1997. Despite this requirement, no incumbent local telephone company is yet providing such non-discriminatory access;. - Several carriers filed complaints concerning the ILECs' compliance with local competition rules over two years ago, and as yet there has been no action by the FCC. The FCC must resolve these complaints expeditiously; - The FCC has failed to enforce the pro-competition conditions that it required Bell Atlantic to perform as a condition for approval of its merger with NYNEX; - The FCC has failed to enforce rules to promote access to buildings by CLECs. While the majority of landlords view the availability of CLEC services as an additional service to their tenants and have been reasonable in allowing CLECs access to their buildings, other landlords are denying new carriers reasonable access to the roofs, the pathways to the NID and the inside wire. Some landlords simply refuse access altogether; more often than not, however, the landlord charges very high nonrecurring and rental fees or some sort of free or reduced service; - The FCC has not taken action to enforce its geographic deaveraging rules. In its August 1996 decision, the FCC ordered that loop rates be deaveraged into three geographic zones. Geographic deaveraging will help to align prices with their actual costs, promote efficient investment, and promote residential telephone competition. Now that the Supreme Court has restored the FCC's authority to implement pricing rules, the FCC should reaffirm its geographic averaging requirement; - The FCC has not taken action to enforce intraLATA dialing parity. In its August 1996 decision the FCC ordered that states must implement intraLATA dialing parity. Now that the Supreme Court has restored the FCC's authority to implement these rules, the FCC should reaffirm intraLATA dialing parity. ALTS, CompTel and TRA recommended steps to the FCC and Congress to improve implementation of the Act and the spread of local competition: - Strong enforcement to speed resolution of complaints and ensure that ILECs and CLECs fulfill their responsibilities under the 1996 Act, potentially with the creation of an Enforcement Bureau that is fully empowered to enforce all FCC rules and regulations in implementing the 1996 Act; - Coordination with state regulatory agencies to ensure that complaints are processed immediately and in a timely fashion. For instance, the FCC Enforcement Bureau should have a list of contact people from each ILEC, CLEC and state regulatory commission to resolve complaints informally. |
 Association of Communications Enterprises (ASCENT) - http://www.ascent.org/ - is the leading trade organization of entrepreneurial communications firms and their suppliers. ASCENT member companies provide a full range of communications services utilizing narrowband, broadband and wireless technologies. They share a common desire for new business opportunities, technological innovation, managerial excellence, and adherence to high ethical standards. ASCENT's mission is to open all communications markets to full and fair competition and to help member companies design and implement successful business plans. Formerly the Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA), ASCENT was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. |