| FEDERAL REPORT
|
| RE: FEDERAL REGULATORY REPORT DATE: MAY 11, 1999 ______________________________________________________________________________ Set forth below is the Federal Regulatory Report for the May l1, 1999, meeting of the Board of Directors of the Telecommunications Resellers Association: Major Occurrences: • Slamming: The “TPA saga” continues. As reported in last month’s Federal Regulatory Report, TRA has joined with other interexchange carriers and associations in petitioning the FCC to waive certain of its new carrier change regulations to allow for the establishment of an independent third party administrator to centralize receipt and resolution of slamming complaints. The TPA structure would address some of the thornier problems created by the Commission’s new rules, providing, for example, for impartial, as opposed to an interested party, adjudication of slamming complaints, and replacing the Commission’s unwieldy bill re-rating requirement with an easy to administer proxy system. In response to a recent FCC call for public comment, consumer groups and states attorneys general filed generally supportive submissions. Unfortunately, state regulators were vehement in their opposition, going so far as to urge the Commission to leave slamming enforcement exclusively to the states. The reactions of incumbent local exchange carriers were mixed, with GTE being the most open to discussion and USTA, SBC and U S WEST being the most antagonistic. The FCC appears to like the TPA structure, but has been less enthusiastic about staying its new rules for six months. In fact, the Enforcement Division of the Commission’s Common Carrier Bureau has been trying to broker a settlement between the IXC and LEC communities. With the exception of Senator McCain, Capitol Hill does not appear to be particularly interested. D-Day is approaching, as the FCC’s new carrier change rules are scheduled to take effect on May 17. • Judicial: TRA is back before the U.S. Supreme Court. This time TRA has joined with AT&T, MCI and CompTel/ACTA in opposing an Ameritech petition seeking Supreme Court review of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upholding the FCC’s designation of shared transport, and accompanying routing tables, as an unbundled network element. Elsewhere, the Supreme Court put the final nail in the Lawrence Tribe’s (and Joe Kendall’s) theory that the Section 271 restrictions on Bell Operating Company activities constituted an unconstitutional bill of attainder, declining to review the last of three appellate court decisions rejecting the theory. And in the Circuit Courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held oral argument on the legality of the “teaming” arrangements by which Ameritech and U S WEST attempted backdoor entry into the in-region, intraLATA market only to be stopped by the FCC. • Advanced Telecommunications Services: TRA has filed another salvo in its ongoing effort to secure for its members the right to obtain advanced telecommunications services, such as digital subscriber line services, at wholesale rates for resale. TRA prepared and filed a white paper with the FCC making the case that not only is xDSL resale required by Section 251(c)(4) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but that making xDSL services available for resale at wholesale rates would help to drive a mass market for such services, enhance local competition, and foster market participation by small Internet service providers. • Network Unbundling: As reported in last month’s federal regulatory report, the FCC has initiated a rulemaking proceeding to address concerns expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court that the Commission failed to properly assess (i) whether “access to such network elements as are proprietary in nature is necessary,” and (ii) whether “the failure to provide access to such network elements would impair the ability of the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it seeks to offer.” Because the FCC appears to have overreacted to a relatively narrow Supreme Court mandate, signaling its intent to undertake a de nova review of “the specific elements the Commission should require incumbent LECs to unbundle under Section 251(c)(3),” TRA has commissioned a report by the Competitive Communications Group to demonstrate the unavailability from alternative sources of local switching, the most vulnerable of the unbundled network elements. Comments in this proceeding are due on May 26. • Mandatory CICs: TRA is leading the fight against an FCC proposal to require all resale carriers, including non-facilities-based providers, to obtain and fully deploy carrier identification codes. TRA has demonstrated that this proposal, if implemented, could decimate the ranks of small resale carriers, arguing that it is not only unnecessary, but that it runs directly counter to express Congressional dictates and the public interest. Among the large IXCs, MCI WorldCom, AT&T and Qwest joined TRA in opposing this dangerous proposal. Unfortunately, Sprint, Cable & Wireless and IXC Communications supported it. Over the last six weeks, TRA made the following filings with the FCC: • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on May 7, 1999, memorializing a “working meeting” attended by TRA, the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Division of the FCC’s Common Carrier Bureau and various members of the interexchange and incumbent local exchange carrier communities regarding waiver of the Commission’s Rules to allow for the establishment of an independent third party administrator to centralize receipt and resolution of slamming complaints, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Reply Comments, filed with the FCC on May 4, 1999, in which TRA responded to comments urging the Commission to require all non-facilities-based resale carriers to acquire and load carrier identification codes or to assign pseudo-CICs to such carriers, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Report, filed with the FCC on April 27, 1999, in which TRA urged the Commission to mandate the resale at wholesale rates of advanced telecommunications services, such as digital subscriber line service, Deployment of Wireline Service Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Joint Reply, filed with the FCC on April 26, 1999, in which TRA joined with other parties advocating the establishment of an independent third party administrator to act as a clearinghouse and initial adjudicator of slamming complaints in responding to oppositions to associated petitions for waiver and stay of the Commission’s new anti- slamming safeguards, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on April 20, 1999, memorializing a “working meeting” attended by TRA, the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Division of the FCC’s Common Carrier Bureau and various members of the interexchange and incumbent local exchange carrier communities regarding waiver of the Commission’s Rules to allow for the establishment of an independent third party administrator to centralize receipt and resolution of slamming complaints, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on April 19, 1999, memorializing meetings with Legal Advisors to Commissioners Powell and Furchtgott-Roth regarding waiver of the Commission’s Rules to allow for the establishment of an independent third party administrator to centralize receipt and resolution of slamming complaints, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 94-129. • Comments, filed with the FCC on April 12, 1999, in which TRA urged the Commission, in developing rules and policies to govern inter-carrier compensation for traffic delivered to Internet service providers, to adopt national pricing and other guidelines to mitigate the gross disparity in bargaining power between incumbent LECs and new entrants, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on April 7, 1999, by which TRA transmitted materials distributed at a meeting with Commissioner Ness 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. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on April 7, 1999, by which TRA transmitted materials distributed at a meeting with Chairman Kennard’s Legal Advisor 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 . • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on April 5, 1999, by which TRA transmitted materials distributed at a meeting with Commission Powell 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. • Opposition, filed with the FCC on April 1, 1999, in which TRA opposed an Ameritech request to be relieved of dominant carrier regulation in its provision of high capacity within the Chicago LATA, 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. • Petition for Waiver, filed with the FCC on March 30, 1999, in which TRA joined with other interexchange carriers in urging the Commission to waive certain of its 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, filed with the FCC on March 30, 1999, in which TRA joined with other interexchange carriers in urging the Commission to stay the effectiveness 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. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on March 29, 1999, by which TRA transmitted materials distributed at a meeting with Commission Furchtgott-Powell 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 Over the last six weeks, TRA made the following filings with the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Appellate District Courts: U.S. Supreme Court • Brief in Opposition, filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28, 1999, in which TRA joined with AT&T, MCI, and CompTel/ACTA in opposing Ameritech’s effort to obtain Supreme Court review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s decision upholding the FCC’s designation of shared transport, and associated routing tables, as an unbundled network element, Ameritech Corporation v. FCC, Case No. 98-1381. U.S. Courts of Appeal • Motion to Intervene, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 9, 1999, in which TRA signaled its intention to participate in the multiple pending appeals of the FCC’s new anti-slamming safeguards, MCI WorldCom Inc. FCC, Case No. 99-1125 (and consolidated cases). • Intervenor’s Opposition to Petition for Writ of Prohibition, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit on April 1, 1999, in which TRA joined with other parties in opposing a petition by U S WEST urging the Court to prohibit the FCC from mandating implementation of intraLATA toll dialing parity, People of the State of California, v. FCC, Case No. 96-3519 (and consolidated cases). Upcoming (in May/June) Filings with the FCC: • Ex Parte Letter reemphasizing TRA’s opposition to the merger of SBC Communications and Ameritech and recommending pro-competitive conditions that should be imposed on the merged entity if the merger is approved, Application of SBC Communications, Inc. and Ameritech Corporation for Transfer of Control of Ameritech Corporation to SBC Communications, Inc., CC Docket No. 98-184. • Opposition to petition for clarification regarding carrier responsibility for payphone compensation tracking and payment, RBOC/GTE/SNET Payphone Coalition Petition for Clarification Regarding Carrier Responsibility for Payphone Compensation Payment, CC Docket No. 96-128. • 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 issues raised in the FCC’s reassessment of unbundled network elements in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision questioning the Commission’s interpretation of the statutory “necessary and impair standards,” Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Comments addressing multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the FCC’s reduced payphone compensation levels, Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128. • Reply Comments responding to comments of other parties addressing issues raised in the FCC’s reassessment of unbundled network elements in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision questioning the Commission’s interpretation of the statutory “necessary and impair standards,” Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Comments addressing multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the FCC’s classification of switched dial-up traffic delivered to Internet service providers as jurisdictionally interstate, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Comments addressing FCC proposals regarding spectrum sharing on subscriber loops, Deployment of Wireline Service Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Comments addressing multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the FCC’s grant of expanded collocation opportunities for competitive local exchange carriers, Deployment of Wireline Service Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Comments responding to the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry on the results of Commission audits of Bell Operating Company central office facilities, Continuing Property Records Audit, CC Docket No. 99-117. • Comments addressing multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the FCC’s reinstatement of its requirement that interexchange carriers make their rates publicly available on the Internet and at a central location, Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, CC Docket No. 96-61. • Comments in support of a petition seeking an FCC ruling that termination penalties imposed by incumbent local exchange carriers on customers transferring service to a competitive provider are unlawful, KMC Telecom Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 99-142. • Opposition to Bell Atlantic Application for In-region, InterLATA authority in the State of New York. Upcoming (in May/June) TRA Filings with the Federal Courts of Appeal: • Intervenors Brief in support of petitioners in the multiple interexchange carrier appeals of the FCC decision revisiting payphone compensation levels, American Public Utilities Council v. FCC, Case No. 99-1114. • Motion to Intervene in multiple appeals of the enhanced collocation opportunities recently afforded competitive carriers by the FCC. * * * * * * * * * Please feel free to call if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the above-referenced matters. |