| FEDERAL REPORT
|
RE: FEDERAL REGULATORY REPORT DATE: MARCH 24, 1999 ______________________________________________________________________________ Major Occurrences: • IntraLATA Presubscription: In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of the Commission’s general jurisdiction to implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC, as advocated by TRA, has moved to ensure the prompt implementation of intraLATA toll dialing parity in the 11 states in which it is not currently available. The Commission directed all local exchange carriers (both incumbent and competitive LECs) with state- approved dialing parity plans to implement intraLATA toll dialing parity by May 7. Carriers which have not yet filed such plans must do so by April 22, with state approval required by June 22, and intraLATA toll dialing parity implemented within 30 days following state action. Carriers whose plans have not received state approval by June 22 must file intraLATA toll dialing parity plans with the FCC by that date, with implementation required within 30 days following FCC approval. • Expanded Collocation Opportunities: In an effort to reduce the costs and delays currently associated with collocation by competitors in incumbent local exchange carrier central offices, the FCC, as advocated by TRA, has directed incumbent LECs to provide “cageless” and “shared” collocation, as well as, where technically feasible, collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures. Any collocation method which has been used by one incumbent LEC or mandated by one state commission will be presumed to be technically feasible for all incumbent LECs. Critically, the Commission will also permit competitors to collocate in incumbent LEC central offices all equipment necessary for interconnection, including equipment with switching and/or enhanced services functionalities. In addition, the FCC will require incumbent LECs which claim that collocation space has been exhausted in a given cental office both to remove obsolete, unused equipment and to permit competitor “walk throughs” to verify the space exhaustion claims. • Reciprocal Compensation: Applying the same analysis it recently used in classifying high-speed, dedicated connections between Internet service providers and end users as jurisdictionally interstate, the FCC reached a like conclusion with respect to switched “dial-up” traffic delivered to ISPs. The Commission, however, went to great pains to minimize the impact of its jurisdictional ruling on the right of competitive local exchange carriers serving ISPs to receive reciprocal compensation. Aware of the severe adverse impact that the loss of this revenue stream could have on competitive LECs, the FCC left undisturbed provisions in existing interconnection agreements which provide for the payment of reciprocal compensation. The Commission further ruled that its jurisdictional holding would not override the roughly two dozen existing state decisions requiring the payment of reciprocal compensation with respect to switched “dial-up” traffic delivered to an ISP. And the Commission authorized (but did not direct) other state commissions to adopt reciprocal compensation as an interim compensation mechanism for switched “dial-up” Internet traffic and permitted parties to future interconnection agreements to voluntarily elect to do likewise. • Rate Disclosure: In an effort to mitigate some of the adverse impacts of its mandatory detariffing policy, the FCC has directed all long distance carriers to make their rates, as well as their terms and conditions of service, available for public inspection at at least one location, as well as on line, if they maintain Internet websites. Although adopted as a means of enhancing consumer awareness of available rate options, the Internet posting of rates and service offerings should better enable resale carriers to guard against discrimination by allowing them to compare the rates and services they are being offered to those being provided large corporate users. Because the FCC’s mandatory detariffing policy has been stayed pending judicial review, the new public disclosure requirements will not go into effect until the multiple appeals of that policy have been completed. • Merger Mania: The U.S. Department of Justice has approved the proposed $62 billion dollar merger of SBC Communications and Ameritech. The Department required only that the companies divest themselves of overlapping cellular properties in Chicago, St. Louis and 15 other Illinois, Indiana and Missouri markets. SBC and Ameritech must still secure the approval of the FCC and state commissions in Illinois and Ohio. Given the Justice Department’s approval, it is highly unlikely, however, that the FCC will decline to approve the merger when it acts on the SBC Communications/Ameritech application this summer. The Commission may, however, impose a number of pro-competitive conditions on its approval. In a related matter, a new wrinkle has been introduced into the FCC’s consideration of the GTE/Bell Atlantic merger. GTE and Bell Atlantic have petitioned the Commission for a waiver of the in-region, interLATA prohibition as it applies to data services that would be provided by the merged entity. This issue will likely delay FCC action on the GTE/Bell Atlantic merger beyond the summer. • Bell Audits: The long-awaited FCC audits of the Bell Operating Companies uncovered at least $5 billion in central office equipment which was either missing or otherwise unverifiable. Broken down by carrier, the missing equipment totaled $566.7 million for Ameritech, $1.564 billion for Bell Atlantic, $430.2 million for BellSouth, $1.672 billion for SBC Communications, and $597.2 million for US WEST. The auditors’ report recommended that the BOCs write off these amounts. • Toll Free Vanity Numbers: The FCC has directed the administrator of the toll free number database to release all unclaimed “888" vanity numbers which had been designated as “unavailable” to address concerns regarding potential misuse of “888" numbers which mirror “800" vanity numbers – e.g., “1-888-FLOWERS.” The roughly 140,000 redesignated numbers should come available on April 5 between noon and 6:00 p.m. • Supreme Court Fallout: The FCC is preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reevaluate its mandatory list of seven unbundled network elements as directed by the U.S. Supreme Court. TRA is lobbying the Commission to retain its current list of UNEs. The incumbent local exchange carriers are attempting to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to withhold issuance of the mandate reinstating all of the FCC rules upheld by the Supreme Court. TRA, in conjunction with other parties, is actively opposing these efforts. Subsequent to the last Meeting of the Board, TRA made the following filings with the FCC: • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on March 23, 1999, by which TRA transmitted materials distributed at a meeting with the Chief, Deputy Chief and staff of the Policy and Program Planning Division of the Commission’s Common Carrier Bureau which address the Commission’s reassessment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996's “necessary” and “impair” standards and their application to the current minimum list of seven unbundled network elements, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Opposition, filed with the FCC on March 19, 1999, in which TRA opposed a Bell Atlantic petition for forbearance from regulation as a dominant carrier for high capacity services in twelve states and the District of Columbia, Petition of Atlantic Telephone Companies for Forbearance from Regulation as Dominant Carriers in Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, D.C., Vermont and Virginia, CC Docket No. 99-24. • Comments, filed with the FCC on March 18, 1999, in which TRA opposed several additional mechanisms proposed by the Commission to combat slamming on the grounds that they would have a potentially devastating impact on small carriers, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Ex Parte Materials, utilized at a March 15, 1999 meeting with the Chief of the Enforcement Division of the Commission’s Common Carrier Bureau, outlining a proposal for creation of a industry-funded third-party administrator to adjudicate slamming complaints, Implementation of Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Opposition, filed with the FCC on March 12, 1999, in which TRA opposed a petition of the RBOC/GTE/SNET Payphone Coalition seeking to impose payphone call tracking and direct compensation obligations on “switchless” resale carriers that utilize their own carrier identification codes to route traffic, Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on March 11, 1999, by which TRA transmitted materials distributed at a meeting with the Deputy Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau and the Chief, Deputy Chief and staff of the Common Carrier Bureau’s Policy and Program Planning Division which address the resale at wholesale rates of advanced telecommunications services, Deployment of Wireline Service Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on March 10, 1999, by which TRA transmitted materials distributed at a meeting with the Senior Legal Advisor to Chairman Kennard which address the resale at wholesale rates of advanced telecommunications services, Deployment of Wireline Service Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Comments, filed with the FCC on March 8, 1999, in which TRA addressed Bell Atlantic’s compliance with the conditions imposed by the Commission on its merger with NYNEX, Bell Atlantic’s Progress Report on Compliance with the Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Merger Order Conditions, File No. AAD 98-24. Subsequent to the last Meeting of the Board, TRA made the following filings with Federal Appellate District Courts: • Motion to Intervene, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 23, 1999, in which TRA signaled its intention to participate in appeals of the FCC’s latest payphone compensation order, American Public Utilities Council v. FCC, Case No. 99-1114. • Response of Intervenors, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit on March 18, 1999, in which TRA joined with other parties in supporting a motion to reinstate the FCC rules mandating combination by incumbent local exchange carriers of unbundled network elements, Iowa Utilities Board, et al., v. FCC, Case No. 96-3321. • Intervenor’s Response, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit on March 15, 1999, in which TRA joined with other parties in opposing a motion of U S WEST to withhold issuance of the mandate required by the U.S. Supreme Court, People of the State of California, v. FCC, Case No. 96-3519. • Letter, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit on March 15, 1999, in which TRA joined with other parties in opposing a backdoor request for stay filed by a group of incumbent local exchange carriers, Iowa Utilities Board, et al., v. FCC, Case No. 96-3321. • Motion to Intervene, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 11, 1999, in which TRA signaled its intention to participate in appeals of the FCC’s classification of xDSL traffic delivered to Internet service providers as jurisdictionally interstate, The Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v. FCC, Case No. 99-1094. • Intervenor’s Response, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit on March 5, 1999, in which TRA joined with other parties in opposing a motion filed by a group of incumbent local exchange carriers to withhold issuance of the mandate required by the U.S. Supreme Court, Iowa Utilities Board, et al., v. FCC, Case No. 96-3321. • Letter, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit on February 23, 1999, in which TRA joined with other parties in opposing a motion filed by a group of incumbent local exchange carriers to withhold issuance of the mandate required by the U.S. Supreme Court, People of the State of California, v. FCC, Case No. 96-3519. Upcoming (in March/April) Filings with the FCC: • Opposition to an Ameritech request to be relieved of dominant carrier regulation in its provision of high capacity in the Chicago metropolitan area, Petition of Ameritech for Forbearance from Dominant Carrier Regulation of its Provision of High Capacity Services in the Chicago LATA, CC Docket No. 99-65. • Reply Comments addressing comments of other parties on Bell Atlantic’s progress report on its compliance with the conditions imposed on its merger with NYNEX, Report of Bell Atlantic on Compliance with Merger Conditions, File No. AAD 98-24. • Ex Parte materials distributed in meetings with the Chairman, Commissioners, and/or their legal advisors which address the Commission’s reassessment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996's “necessary” and “impair” standards and their application to the current minimum list of seven unbundled network elements, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Reply Comments addressing comments of other parties supporting additional mechanisms proposed by the FCC to combat slamming which would have a potentially devastating impact on small carriers, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Reply Comments addressing comments of other parties supporting a Bell Atlantic petition for forbearance from regulation as a dominant carrier for high capacity services in twelve states and the District of Columbia, Petition of Atlantic Telephone Companies for Forbearance from Regulation as Dominant Carriers in Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, D.C., Vermont and Virginia, CC Docket No. 99-24. • Comments in the FCC’s rulemaking addressing inter-carrier compensation for traffic delivered to Internet service providers, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Comments in the FCC’s investigation of the lawfulness of Ameritech’s and GTE’s tariffed charges for recovery of carrier-specific long-term number portability costs, Long- Term Number Portability Tariff Filings, CC Docket No. 99-35. • Comments in the FCC’s investigation of the lawfulness of Pacific Bell’s and Southwestern Bell’s tariffed charges for recovery of carrier-specific long-term number portability costs, Long-Term Number Portability Tariff Filings, CC Docket No. 99-35. • Reply Comments addressing comments of other parties in support of an Ameritech request to be relieved of dominant carrier regulation in its provision of high capacity in the Chicago metropolitan area, Petition of Ameritech for Forbearance from Dominant Carrier Regulation of its Provision of High Capacity Services in the Chicago LATA, CC Docket No. 99-65. • Reply Comments in the FCC’s rulemaking addressing inter-carrier compensation for traffic delivered to Internet service providers, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Petition for Reconsideration of the FCC’s new payphone compensation levels, Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128. • Petition for Reconsideration of the FCC’s jurisdictional treatment of switched “dial-up” traffic delivered to Internet service providers, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. • Ex Parte submission addressing the legal requirements for and the public policy considerations supporting resale at wholesale rates of advanced telecommunications services, Deployment of Wireline Service Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Comments addressing multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the FCC’s newly- adopted anti-slamming safeguards, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Comments addressing a request by Bell Atlantic and GTE for a waiver of the in- region, interLATA prohibition as it would apply to the merged Bell Atlantic/GTE, Application of GTE Corporation and Bell Atlantic Corporation for Transfer of Control of GTE Corporation to Bell Atlantic Corporation, CC Docket No. 98-184. • Petition for Waiver of the FCC’s newly-adopted anti-slamming safeguards to permit establishment of a industry directed and funded third party administrator to act as a clearinghouse and initial adjudicator of slamming complaints, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Petition for Stay of the FCC’s newly-adopted anti-slamming safeguards to permit establishment of a industry directed and funded third party administrator to act as a clearinghouse and initial adjudicator of slamming complaints, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Comments on the FCC’s proposal for federally-mandated line sharing, Deployment of Wireline Service Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. Upcoming (in March/April) TRA Filings with the Federal Courts of Appeal: • Motion to Intervene in the multiple appeals of the enhanced collocation opportunities recently afforded competitive carriers by the FCC. • Motion to Intervene in the multiple appeals of the FCC’s newly-adopted anti- slamming safeguards. • Intervenors’ Brief in support of the FCC’s total element long run incremental cost pricing of interconnection and unbundled network elements to be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board et al. v. FCC, Case No. 96-3321. * * * * * * * * * Please feel free to call if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the above-referenced matters. |