| FEDERAL REPORT
|
| RE: FEDERAL REGULATORY REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 ______________________________________________________________________________ Set forth below is the Federal Regulatory Report for the September 30, 1999, meeting of the Board of Directors of the Telecommunications Resellers Association: Major Occurrences: • Responding to the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court, the FCC has revisited its original list of seven unbundled network elements to determine which elements are in fact “necessary” for competitors to provide local service and which elements would “impair” the ability of competitors to provide such service if unavailable on an unbundled basis. While the text of the FCC’s order has not been released, the information that is available suggests a generally pro-competitive outcome with several unfortunate exceptions. The FCC elected to maintain six of the seven original elements, expanding the scope of two and limiting the availability of another, but removed both operator services and directory assistance from the list of available UNEs. Unfortunately, the Commission declined to require incumbent local exchange carriers to make either packet switches or digital subscriber line access multiplexors, available on an unbundled basis, other than in limited circumstances. The most troublesome aspect of the FCC’s decision are the limitations it placed on the availability of unbundled local switching. So long as they provide non-discriminatory, cost-based access to enhanced extended links consisting of a combination of unbundled loops, multiplexing/concentrating equipment and dedicated transport, incumbent LECs will not be required to offer unbundled access to local circuit switching (i) within the densest areas (i.e., Zone 1) of the 50 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (ii) for use in serving business customers with 4 or more lines. Hence, absent action by individual states, the UNE platform will not be available for use in the most concentrated sections of any of the major markets other than for the purpose of serving the smallest business, as well as residential, customers once extended loops become available. The logic of the FCC’s thinking appears to be that the availability of EELs will render switch deployment economically possible for most, if not all, carriers, EELs allowing for the deployment of fewer, centrally-located switches. Although limiting the availability of unbundled local switching, the FCC expanded loop unbundling to include unbundled access to “high-capacity lines, xDSL-capable loops, dark fiber and inside wire owned by the incumbent LEC,” as well as sub-loops, and enlarged the transport element to encompass dark fiber optic transport. Unbundled access to shared transport must still be offered where unbundled local switching is provided to a competitor. Packet switching will be available on an unbundled basis only when competitors are unable to install DSLAMs at incumbent LEC remote terminals and the incumbent LEC provides packet switching for its own use. Directory assistance and operator services will need to be provided on an unbundled basis only when an incumbent LEC does not provide competitors with customized routing for directing traffic to alternative providers of these services. The FCC has scheduled further proceedings to address potential substitutes for special access services and has indicated that it will reexamine the new list of UNEs in three years. The Commission has deferred consideration of incumbent LEC combination of elements not already combined in the network pending consideration of this issue by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. While the Commission believes that it has “remov[ed] a major uncertainty surrounding the unbundling obligations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,” the reconsideration and appellate phases of this proceeding will likely extend for years. • The FCC, in implementing Section 222(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has directed all local exchange carriers, including incumbent and competitive LECs, to provide subscriber list information regarding their telephone exchange service customers, including updates reflecting service changes, to directory publishers upon request. The FCC stopped short, however, of requiring incumbent LECs to pass along to directory publishers the subscriber list information of competitive LECs, unless otherwise directed to do so by a state commission. A LEC must provide subscriber list information according to the delivery schedule, at the level of unbundling, and in the format the directory publisher requests, if its internal systems permit and it has been provided at least 30 days’ notice, although a LEC need not change its internal systems simply to accommodate such requests. The FCC identified as presumptively reasonable charges for the provision to directory publishers of base file subscriber list information and updated subscriber list information, the per-listing rates of $0.04 and $0.06, respectively. A LEC, however, must provide subscriber list information to directory publishers at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions that it provides such information to itself, its directory publishing affiliate or another directory publisher. The FCC has called for additional comment on issues relating to Internet directories, national directory assistance and non- carrier directory assistance providers, with submissions due on October 13. Following the last Board Meeting, TRA made the following filings with the FCC: • Comments, filed with the FCC on September 24, 1999, in which TRA argued that the resale obligations of Section 251(c)(4) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 apply to the provision of xDSL-based advanced services by incumbent local exchange carriers, In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on September 23, 1999, in which TRA memorialized a meeting with the legal advisor to Commissioner Powell on common carrier matters at which TRA urged the Commission not to permit the merged SBC Communications/Ameritech to use a separate subsidiary to avoid its statutory resale obligations with respect to xDSL-based advanced services, Ameritech Corporation, Transferor, and SBC Communications Inc., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Authorizations Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules, CC Docket No. 98-141. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on September 23, 1999, memorializing a meeting attended by TRA and other representatives of the interexchange industry with the Chief and Associate Chief of the FCC’s Common Carrier Bureau and various representatives of the Bureaus’s Enforcement Division regarding a rulemaking petition which would provide 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 September 22, 1999, in which TRA memorialized a meeting with the legal advisor to Chairman Kennard on common carrier matters at which TRA urged the Commission not to permit the merged SBC Communications/Ameritech to use a separate subsidiary to avoid its statutory resale obligations with respect to xDSL-based advanced services, Ameritech Corporation, Transferor, and SBC Communications Inc., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Authorizations Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules, CC Docket No. 98-141. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on September 22, 1999, in which TRA memorialized a meeting with the legal advisor to Commissioner Tristani on common carrier matters at which TRA urged the Commission not to permit the merged SBC Communications/Ameritech to use a separate subsidiary to avoid its statutory resale obligations with respect to xDSL-based advanced services, Ameritech Corporation, Transferor, and SBC Communications Inc., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Authorizations Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules, CC Docket No. 98-141. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on September 22, 1999, in which TRA memorialized a meeting with Commissioner Ness and her legal advisor on common carrier matters at which TRA urged the Commission to require incumbent local exchange to make xDSL-based advanced services available at wholesale rates for resale Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on September 22, 1999, in which TRA memorialized a meeting with Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth and his Legal Advisor on common carrier matters at which TRA urged the Commission not to permit the merged SBC Communications/Ameritech to use a separate subsidiary to avoid its statutory resale obligations with respect to xDSL- based advanced services, Ameritech Corporation, Transferor, and SBC Communications Inc., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Authorizations Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules, CC Docket No. 98-141. • Comments, filed with the FCC on September 3, 1999, in which TRA addressed various petitions seeking stay or waiver of the Commission’s “Truth-in-Billing” directives, Truth- in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98-170. • Ex Parte Letter, filed with the FCC on September 1, 1999, in which TRA memorialized a meeting with the legal advisor to Chairman Kennard on common carrier matters at which TRA urged the Commission to require incumbent local exchange to make xDSL-based advanced services available at wholesale rates for resale Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Comments, filed with the FCC on August 31, 1999, in which TRA supported further initiatives proposed by the Commission to promote facilities-based local competition, Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets, WT Docket No. 99- 217, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Comments, filed with the FCC on August 23, 1999, in which TRA urged the Commission to impose resale, network unbundling and other open access requirements on its grant of AT&T Corp.’s application for authority to acquire MediaOne Group, Inc., MediaOne Group, Inc., Transferor, and AT&T Corp., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Authorizations, CS Docket No. 99-251. Following the last Board Meeting, TRA made the following filings with the Federal Appellate Courts: • Final Joint Reply Brief of Petitioners and Supporting Intervenors, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 7, 1999, in the multiple interexchange carrier appeals of the Commission decision revisiting payphone compensation levels, American Public Communications Council v. FCC, Case No. 99-1114 (and consolidated cases). • Final Joint Brief of Petitioners and Supporting Intervenors, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 7, 1999, in the multiple interexchange carrier appeals of the FCC decision revisiting payphone compensation levels, American Public Communications Council v. FCC, Case No. 99-1114 (and consolidated cases). • Final Joint Brief of Long Distance, Paging and Consumer Intervenors, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 7, 1999, in the multiple pending payphone service provider appeals of the FCC decision revisiting payphone compensation levels, American Public Communications Council v. FCC, Case No. 99-1114 (and consolidated cases). • Reply Brief of Petition and Supporting Intervenors, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 2, 1999, in the multiple pending competitive carrier appeals of the FCC’s classification of switched “dial-up” calls to Internet service providers as jurisdictionally interstate, Bell Atlantic v. FCC, Case No. 99-1094 (and consolidated cases). • Brief of Petition and Supporting Intervenors, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 2, 1999, in support of the FCC in the multiple pending competitive carrier appeals of the Commission’s classification of switched “dial-up” calls to Internet service providers as jurisdictionally interstate, Bell Atlantic v. FCC, Case No. 99-1094 (and consolidated cases). • Joint Brief of Intervenors in Support of Respondent, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 2, 1999, in the multiple pending incumbent local exchange carrier appeals of the FCC’s classification of switched “dial-up” calls to Internet service providers as jurisdictionally interstate, Bell Atlantic v. FCC, Case No. 99-1094 (and consolidated cases). Upcoming (in October) TRA Filings with the FCC: • Reply Comments, to be filed with the FCC on October 1, 1999, in which TRA will counter incumbent local exchange carrier arguments that Section 251(c)(4) resale obligations do not extend to the provision of xDSL-based advanced services by incumbent local exchange carriers, In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147. • Comments, to be filed with the FCC on October 4, 1999, in which TRA will discuss the impact of the acquisition of IXC Communications by Cincinnati Bell on the wholesale market for interexchange services, IXC Communications, Inc., Transferor, and Cincinnati Bell Inc., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Authorizations, DA 99-1806. • Joint Request for Expedited Rulemaking, to be filed with the FCC in early October, in which TRA will join with other members of the interexchange community in urging the Commission to endorse, and require participation in, an industry-funded and directed third party administrator to serve as a clearinghouse for the receipt and adjudication of slamming complaints, Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No.94-129. • Comments, to be filed with the FCC on October 12, 1999, in which TRA will address a Commission Notice of Inquiry concerning regulatory actions necessary to ensure reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to rights-of-way, buildings, rooftops, and facilities for multiple tenant environments, Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets, WT Docket No. 99-217, CC Docket No. 96-98. • Comments, to be filed with the FCC on October 13, 1999, in which TRA will address Commission inquiries on issues relating to subscriber list information, directory listings and directory assistance, and convergence of directory publishing and directory assistance, Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-115, CC Docket No. 96-98, CC Docket No. 99-273. • Reply Comments, to be filed with the FCC on October 20, 1999, in which TRA will respond to comments of other parties addressing the Commission Notice of Inquiry involving the impact of flat charges on low-volume users of interstate long-distance service, Low-Volume Long Distance Users, CC Docket No. 99-249. • Opposition, to be filed with the FCC in late-October, 1999, in which TRA will oppose Bell Atlantic’s petition for in-region, interLATA authority for the State of New York. • Reply Comments, to be filed with the FCC on October 28, 1999, in which TRA will address comments of other parties regarding Commission inquiries on Commission inquiries on issues relating to subscriber list information, directory listings and directory assistance, and convergence of directory publishing and directory assistance Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-115, CC Docket No. 96-98, CC Docket No. 99-273. • Comments, to be filed with the FCC on October 29, 1999, in which TRA will address an integrated package of interstate access charge reforms jointly proposed by AT&T, Sprint and a number of incumbent local exchange carriers, Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96- 262. • Comments, to be filed with the FCC on October 29, 1999, in which TRA will address terminating access services provided by competitive local exchange carriers, as well as a variety of issues arising out of the Commission’s recent decision affording incumbent LECs additional pricing flexibility for access services, Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96- 262. • Comments, to be filed with the FCC on late October, 1999, in which TRA will address pending petitions for reconsideration of the Commission’s recent decision affording incumbent LECs additional pricing flexibility for access services, Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96-262. Upcoming (in October) TRA Federal Appellate Court Filings: • Joint Briefs of Intervenors supporting Respondent, to be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on November 1, 1999, in the multiple pending incumbent local exchange carrier appeals of the expanded collocation opportunities the FCC provided competitive local exchange carriers, GTE v. FCC, Case No. 99-1176. • Motion for Leave to Intervene, to be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in mid October, 1999, in the multiple pending appeals of the FCC grant of additional access charge pricing flexibility to price cap local exchange carriers, MCI WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC. * * * * * * * * * Please feel free to call if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the above-referenced matters. |