| STATE REPORT
|
| The following is a summary of State regulatory documents filed, and
State regulatory action performed, on behalf of Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA) between early-May and mid-June 1999. Twenty-four filings were made in nineteen states. If you have any questions or would like a copy of any document discussed below, contact Andrew Isar, Harbor Consulting Group Inc., at 253.265.3910. Many TRA state filings may be viewed at TRA’s Internet web site, http://www.TRA.org. FILINGS Arizona—In The Matter of Plan to Implement Toll Carrier Presubscription System Based on State Rather Than LATA Boundaries, Docket No. RT-00000J-99-0095 May 27, 1999 An Application for Leave to Intervene was filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission seeking active party status for the purpose of submitting a brief regarding the Commission’s proposed dissolution of LATA boundaries in Arizona. California—Rulemaking and Investigation on the Commission’s Own Motion to Govern Open Access to Bottleneck Services and Establish a Framework for Network Architecture Development of Dominant Carrier Networks (Docket No. R.93-04-003/I.93-04-002). June 4, 1999 Comments were filed with the California Public Utilities Commission in response to the Proposed Decision (PD) of Administrative Law Judge McKenzie regarding Pacific Bell’s delivery of unbundled network elements (“UNEs”) to competitors. The PD would direct Pacific Bell to continue providing UNEs “to any carrier with whom Pacific Bell had entered into an interconnection agreement prior to January 25, 1999.” TRA raised concern that under the proposed language, carriers who had not entered into interconnection agreements with Pacific prior to the January 25th date could be precluded from obtaining UNEs. TRA urged the Commission to modify the PD to require Pacific Bell to provide UNEs to and CLEC without limitations. California—Notice of Intent to File Section 271 Application Of SBC Communications, Inc., Pacific Bell and Pacific Bell Communications, Inc., for Provision Of In-Region, InterLATA Services in California (Docket No. R.93-04-003 et al.) June 15, 1999 TRA joined the California Telecommunications Coalition Motion in urging the California Public Utilities Commission to take no action on an anticipated Pacific Bell section 271 “compliance filing” pending completion of independent Pacific Bell operations support system testing scheduled to begin in July. The Motion argued that Pacific’s anticipated July compliance filing would be incomplete and premature and its review would entail an unnecessary expenditure of industry and Commission resources. California—In the Matter of the Petition of Pacific Bell for arbitration of an interconnection agreement with Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. pursuant to Section 256(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Docket No. 98-11-024 May 25, 1999 A Letter was filed with the California Public Utilities Commission opposing Commissioner Neeper’s Proposed Alternate Decision in California’s reciprocal compensation proceeding. The Proposed Alternate Decision would find that calls terminating to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are jurisdictionally interstate and not subject to reciprocal compensation. TRA argued that Pacific Bell does not warrant the interim reciprocal compensation payment relief awarded by the Proposed Alternate Decision. TRA urged the Commission to adopt the administrative law judge’s Proposed Decision, which maintains the current reciprocal compensation policy for ISP calls pending future deliberation. California—Rulemaking and Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion to Consider Adoption of Rules Applicable to Interexchange Carriers for the Transfer of Customers Including Establishing Penalties for Unauthorized Transfer (Docket No. R97-08-001/97-08- 002) May 5, 1999 A Joint Motion was filed by TRA and the California Association Of Competitive Telecommunications Companies (CalTel) with the California Public Utilities Commission requesting that a Pre-hearing Conference and Hearing be conducted regarding a Commission proposal to prohibit local exchange carriers from disconnecting customers' local service for non-payment of long distance charges and other non-local service related charges. The Associations argued that a prehearing conference and hearing were necessary to determine whether any party intended to offer evidence in support of the Commission’s proposal before Commission action was taken, and urged the Commission to schedule a hearing if any party wishes to offer such evidence. Colorado—In The Matter Of Proposed Amendments To Rules On Local Calling Area Standards, 4 CCR 723-2-17.3 (Docket No. 99R-128T). May 5, 1999 A letter was filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission regarding proposed amendments to the Commission’s rules governing local calling area standards. These amendments would establish the principles, standards, and the process for the development and/or amendment of incremental extended service areas. TRA urged the Commission to consider a more pro-competitive approach to the broadening of local calling areas which relies on competition to create cost-effective calling options for the public. Florida—In re: Petition to Initiate Rulemaking, pursuant to Section 120.54(7), F.S., to incorporate “Fresh Look” requirements in all incumbent local exchange company contracts, by Time Warner AxS of Florida, L. P., d/b/a Time Warner Communications, Docket No. 980253-TX April 29, 1999 Responsive Comments were filed through the Florida Competitive Carriers Association (FCCA) regarding Time Warner’s Petition to initiate a fresh look rulemaking. FCCA and TRA urged the Commission to find that Bell South’s and GTE’s restrictive policies prohibiting CLECs from assuming long-term customer contracts without payment of termination policies are contrary to the public interest. FCCA and TRA further urged the Commission to adopt fresh look rules giving consumers an opportunity to be released from contractual obligations with the incumbent provider without undue penalties. Illinois—Joint Application for approval of the reorganization of Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a Ameritech Illinois, and the reorganization of Ameritech Illinois Metro, Inc. in accordance with Section 7-204 of The Public Utilities Act and for all other appropriate relief (Docket No. 98-0555). June 11, 1999 A Letter was filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission responding to Ameritech and SBC’s (“Joint Applicants”) Motion for Leave to File an Amended Joint Application; Motion to Re-Open the Record; And Motion for the Commission to Set an Expedited Schedule. TRA argued that the proposed Amended Application does not conform to Commission directives that the Companies provide specific compliance data, but merely offers further illusory promises, which could be verified only after the merger was approved. TRA urged the Commission to deny the Joint Applicant’s Motion and reject the merger application. Alternatively, TRA urged the Commission to set a procedural schedule, which allows sufficient time for industry and Commission analysis and comment before a final determination is made. Indiana—In The Matter Of The Investigation On The Commission’s Own Motion Into Any And All Matters Relating To Local Telephone Exchange Competition Within The State Of Indiana (Cause No. 39983) May 27, 1999 Comments were filed with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission urging the Commission to adopt proposed streamlined certification and tariffing procedures with minor amendments. TRA supported the proposed streamlined requirements noting that in so doing, the Commission will eliminate a potential regulatory entry barrier while offering a valuable incentive for CLECs entry in Indiana’s local market. TRA stressed that the Commission would retain its full jurisdiction over new entrants and in no way dilute or undermine its effectiveness in protecting the public interest. Kansas—In the Matter of a General Investigation Into Issues Related to Long Term Contracts, Docket No. 99-GIMT-706-GIT. May 6, 1999 Comments were filed with the Kansas Corporation Commission regarding resale of long term contracts and fresh look issues. TRA urged the Commission to find that SWBT’s policy of prohibiting CLECs from assuming long-term customer contracts without payment of termination policies is contrary to the public interest. TRA further urged the Commission to adopt fresh look rules which would provide Kansas consumers the opportunity to be released from existing contractual obligations without undue penalties. Maine—Rulemaking: Selection of Primary Interexchange and Local Exchange Carriers (Chapter 296, Docket No. 98-725) May 13, 1999 A Letter was filed with the Maine Public Utilities Commission in response to the Commission’s proposed slamming rules. TRA commended the Commission on its proposed rules that are entirely consistent with the FCC’s current slamming rules. TRA urged the Commission to ensure that its rules are swiftly enforced. Maryland—In the Matter of the Inquiry into Certain Unauthorized Changes in Telephone Service Providers (Case No. 8776) May 21, 1999 A Brief was filed with the Maryland Public Service Commission addressing whether, or if, Bell Atlantic – Maryland, Inc. (“BA-MD”) should be authorized to implement its proposed Local Service Provider (“LSP”) Freeze Service. TRA argued that BA-MD maintains both the capability and incentive to engage in anti-competitive behavior by relying on its LSP Freeze Service to unfairly lock in and retain captive customers. TRA urged the Commission to prohibit BA-MD from implementing its LSP Freeze Service until such time as the local market is deemed competitive, unless BA-MD unequivocally demonstrates that its LSP Freeze Service is in full compliance with FCC and Commission rules. Alternatively, TRA urged the Commission to require BA-MD to tariff its LSP Freeze Service subject to final Commission approval. Massachusetts—Petition of AT&T Communications of New England, Inc. to Establish a Mediated Collaborative Process to Resolve Problems in the Wholesale Provisioning of Loops, Number Portability, and Other Elements or Services by Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts (D.T.E. 99-20) May 26, 1999 Comments were filed with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy in support of an AT&T proposal for establishment of a Collaborative Process in Massachusetts associated with Bell Atlantic – Massachusetts’ (BA- MA) interLATA market entry bid. TRA argued that only through a Collaborative Process can the Department ensure that BA-MA’s operational capabilities achieve requisite standards on a consistent basis, at commercial levels and over a reasonable period of time. Michigan—In the matter, on the Commission’s own motion, to consider revisions to the procedures designed to prohibit switching of an end user of a telecommunications provider to another provider without the authorization of the end user (Case No. U-11900) June 9, 1999 A Joint Response was filed by TRA and the Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) addressing other party Petitions for Reconsideration of the Michigan slamming rules. The Associations concurred with the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by AT&T, MCI, GTE, Ameritech, Qwest, and Frontier, which argued that the Commission’s new registration and underlying carrier liability provisions were promulgated without industry comment of supporting evidence. TRA and CompTel urged the Commission to grant the parties’ Petitions for Reconsideration and Rehearing and to reopen the matter for further industry comment. June 10, 1999 Information was filed with the Michigan Public Service Commission Staff regarding an informal Staff evaluation into potential adoption of a state Third Party Administrator (TPA) to oversee slamming complaints as an added method for curbing slamming. TRA provided copies of TRA’s comments before the FCC which support adoption of a national TPA. TRA expressed reservations over establishment of a separate state TPAs, primarily due to the potential for duplication of effort, creation of widely divergent yet overlapping state and federal TPA functions, and the relative costs of maintaining separate state and federal systems. Missouri—In the Matter of the Petition of MCI Telecommunications Corporation to Require Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to Implement IntraLATA Presubscription No Later Than February 8, 1999 (Docket No. TA-99-125) June 4, 1999 A post-hearing brief was filed with the Missouri Public Service Commission addressing issues raised by MCI Telecommunications Corporation’s (“MCI”) Petition for implementation of intraLATA toll dialing parity (ILP) in Missouri. TRA urged the Commission to implement toll dialing parity immediately, and not to allow cost issues and amendments to the Commission’s existing Primary Toll Carrier (“PTC”) plan to further delay implementation of intraLATA presubscription. New Jersey—In the Matter of the Joint Application For Consent And Approval For a Change of Control Filed by GTE Corporation and Bell Atlantic Corporation (Docket No. TM 98-101125) June 16, 1999 Comments were filed with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in response to the joint application for consent and approval for a change of control filed by GTE Corporation and Bell Atlantic Corporation. In its comments, TRA urged regulators to adopt a public interest standard for approval of the merger similar to that adopted by the New York Public Service Commission in its evaluation of the Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merger. TRA recommended that tough pre-merger conditions be adopted to compel the incumbents to open their local markets to competition. TRA’s comments mirrored those previously filed on this issue in other jurisdictions. New Jersey—Local Competition Technical Solution Facilitation Team (TSFT) Process (UNE-P) (Docket Nos. TX 98010010, TX95120631, TX 96070519, TO98010035, TO98060343) May 10, 1999 Comments were filed with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in response to a Staff Recommendation that availability of Unbundled Network Elements (“UNEs”) to CLECs be limited to those serving residential and small business subscribers. Staff’s Recommendation suggested that such limitations were appropriate to “jump start” facilities-based competition. TRA took exception to Staff’s unsupported, underlying premise, that facilities-based competition is the “preferred competitive alternative.” TRA argued that no such limitations existed in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and urged the Board to recognize that effective competition will develop from a variety of approaches. TRA urged the Board to adopt only those policies that will enable competition to develop naturally without prejudgment and any artificial constraints such as those proposed by Staff. New York—Petition of New York Telephone Company for Approval of its Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions Pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Draft Filing of Petition for InterLATA Entry Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Docket No. 97-C-0271) June 3, 1999 Responses to Bell Atlantic – New York’s (BA-NY) Information Requests regarding TRA’s Affidavit in the New York Public BA-NY 271 proceeding (see May, 1999 Board Report) were submitted to the company. BA-NY requested evidence corroborating TRA’s position that BA-NY’s support of competitors was deficient. Ohio—In the Matter of the Amendment of the Minimum Telephone Service Standards, Case No. 96-1175-TP-ORD; In the Matter of the Application of Ameritech Ohio to Revise its Ameritech Tariff, P.U.C.O. No. 20 to Add Minimum Telephone Service Standards Terms and Conditions (Case No. 97-1279-TP-ATA) May 28, 1999 Reply Comments were filed with the Ohio Public Utilities Commission regarding Ameritech Ohio’s April 5, 1999 Compliance Tariff to implement the Commission’s Minimum Telephone Service Standards substandard performance recourse provisions. TRA argued that the procedures proposed by Ameritech were overly cumbersome, and urged the Commission to reject Ameritech’s tariff proposal in favor of an alternative process. Oregon—In The Matter Of The Petition Of US West Communications, Inc. To Exempt From Regulation Us West’s IntraLATA Toll Services (Docket No. Ux 22) May 27, 1999 A Petition For Leave To Intervene was filed with the Oregon Public Utility Commission seeking active party status for the purpose of submitting a brief regarding US West’s Petition for a regulation exemption for its intraLATA toll services. Pennsylvania—Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Generic Competitive Safeguards and Imputation Requirements for IntraLATA services (Docket Nos. L-00990141 and M-00960799) May 25, 1999 Comments were filed with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in response to a request for comment regarding whether additional incumbent local exchange carrier affiliate safeguards are necessary. TRA urged the Commission to adopt both accounting and structural safeguards to ensure that transactions between incumbents and their affiliates are conducted on an arm’s length basis, and are appropriately valued to ensure that rate-payers do not subsidize such transactions. TRA further urged the creation of information disclosure requirements that would allow evaluation of incumbent local exchange carrier safeguard compliance and would protect against potential discrimination. Texas—Investigation Of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company’s Entry Into The Texas InterLATA Telecommunications Market (Project No. 16251) May 28, 1999 Comments were filed with the Texas Public Utility Commission in response to Southwestern Bell Telephone’s (SWBT) Memorandum of Understanding and Proposed Interconnection Agreement (PIA) which memorialize the Company’s compliance commitments with section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. TRA argued that the PIA is an amalgam of contradictory and confusing provisions, and should be considered a work in progress, as its current form does not meet the requirements of 271(c) for a negotiated or arbitrated interconnection agreement. Vermont—CTC v. Bell Atlantic – Vermont (Docket No. 6121) June 4, 1999 A letter was filed with the Vermont Public Service Board in response to a Bell Atlantic – Vermont May 21, 1999 letter outlining its changed contract service arrangement (CSA) assignment practice for competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) resellers. TRA expressed concern that BA-VT’s CSA assignment policy, which is believed to mirror a confidential settlement agreement with TRA member CTC Communications Corp., lacked specificity and could limit the availability of BA-VT CSAs. TRA noted that BA-VT had failed to seek formal Board approval and that its CSA assignment practice should be tariffed, subject to final Board approval. LEGISLATIVE ACTION Connecticut – SB 1299 TRA joined a state coalition of competitive companies and associations in urging passage of a pro-competition bill that would, inter alia require comprehensive testing of Bell Atlantic OSS, and competitive safeguards for RBOC affiliated transactions. The bill is awaiting the Governor’s signature. New York—SB 3498/AB 8185 June 10, 1999 Letters were sent to members of the New York Senate and Assembly urging opposition to a Bell Atlantic-New York (“BA-NY”) backed voice mail deregulation bill. TRA argued that, if enacted, the bill will provide BA-NY with a loophole to bypass federal statutory obligations to resell retail voice mail services while promoting a perpetuation of BA-NY’s monopoly dominance and control over New York’s telecommunications markets. Texas—House State Affairs Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 560/HB1701 May 6, 1999 Letters were sent to members of the Texas House State Affairs Committee urging rejection of a bill that would allow SWBT to bypass the Act’s interconnection and resale obligations and SWBT’s commitments to the Commission. TRA noted that, among its several harmful provisions, SB560/HB1701 would give SWBT the legal right to rely upon affiliated interests to bypass the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s interconnection and resale obligations. TRA urged the Committee to reject the Act. May 24, 1999 A Letter was sent to Governor George W. Bush, urging veto of SB 560, once passage of the bill appeared imminent. MEMBER ADVISORIES California – Pacific Bell Section 271 Compliance Filing June 8, 1999 TRA California CLEC members were informed that Pacific Bell had notified the California Public Utilities Commission of its intent to file a compliance filing demonstrating compliance with section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for interLATA entry subsequent to the Commission’s December 1998 compliance decision. Members were solicited for information regarding their experiences with Pacific Bell for incorporation into TRA’s anticipated response. Massachusetts—Bell Atlantic – Massachusetts Application for In-Region InterLATA Market Entry May 28, 1999 Members were notified of Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts’ (BA-MA) May 24, 1999 application for in-region interLATA market entry pursuant to section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE). To maximize TRA’s effectiveness in representing TRA members in this proceeding, members who provide local services in Massachusetts were asked provide TRA with critical information regarding their experiences with BA-MA. New York— Bell Atlantic – New York Application for In-Region InterLATA Market Entry May 19, 1999 Members were notified of the New York Public Service Commission’s scheduled technical conferences to review BA-NY’s compliance with Section 271 of the Act. Members were encouraged to attend and participate. |