| 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 mid- August and mid-September 1999. TRA state filings may be viewed at TRA's internet web site. Arizona—US West Communications, Inc.’s Compliance with Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Docket No. U-0000-97-238, T00000A-97-0238) August 20, 1999 A Statement of Position was filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission under the Commission’s investigation into US West Communications, Inc’s (“US West”) compliance with §271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. TRA argued that US West does not provide nondiscriminatory access to its OSS, unbundled network elements, or resold services, nor has it demonstrated that its interLATA market entry is in the public interest. TRA urged that CLEC experience with US West must be a major consideration in the Commission’s investigation. September 3, 1999 A subsequent letter was filed with the Commission responding to the Commission’s request for comment regarding the Commission’s proposed bifurcation of its §271 investigation between OSS and non-OSS issues. TRA stated that it did not oppose bifurcation of the §271 investigation, but stressed that non-OSS and OSS issues must ultimately remain inextricably bound for the purposes of determining US West’s compliance with the Act. California—Rulemaking 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); Investigation on the Commission’s Own Motion into Open Access and Network Architecture Development of Dominant Carrier Networks (Docket No. I.93-04-002) August 16, 1999 Comments were filed with the California Public Utilities Commission regarding Pacific Bell’s July 16, 1999 section 271 Compliance Filing. TRA utilized anecdotal information provided by members to argue that Pacific Bell has not met its obligations for in-region interLATA market entry. TRA argued that Pacific Bell’s policies and practices continue to unreasonably impair the ability of resellers to compete in the local exchange market, and that fundamental resale policies must be resolved before Pacific Bell may be permitted to enter the in-region interLATA market. TRA urged the Commission to implement a three month “road test”, as adopted in Texas, to evaluate Pacific Bell’s sustained compliance with the Act. California—Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Intervenor Compensation Program; Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Intervenor Compensation (Docket No. 97-01-009/97-01-010) September 13, 1999 A Letter was filed with the President and other Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission opposing a Draft Decision which would require associations whose members include California-jurisdictional utilities, to pay intervenor compensation awards to consumer-based intervenors in proceedings in which associations participate. TRA urged rejection of the Draft Decision, noting that the burden of such a requirement would severely limit, if not preclude, TRA from participating in proceedings before the Commission. TRA argued that, by creating a significant economic roadblock to participation in proceedings before the Commission, the Draft Decision would violate TRA’s First Amendment rights of expression. Colorado—In The Matter of the Joint Application for Merger Of Qwest Communications Corporation and US West Communications, Inc. (Docket No. 99A-407T) September 17, 1999 A Petition to Intervene was filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission seeking authority to intervene in the Commission’s U S West Communications, Inc.’s / Qwest Communications Corporation’s merger proceeding. Connecticut –Application of the Southern New England Telephone Company to Offer Undbundled Loops, Ports and Associated Interconnection Arrangements—Discount Rate (Docket No. 95-06-17RE02) August 30, 1999 An Initial Brief was filed with the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control in the Department’s proceeding to establish appropriate wholesale discount rates in Connecticut. TRA argued in favor of setting the wholesale discount at 30.33%, as established by TRA member CTC’s economic witness. TRA noted that the Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET) had failed to support its position that the permanent wholesale discount rate should be set at 17.8%. Florida—Joint Complaint by Association for Local Telecommunications Services, Commercial Internet Exchange Association, Competitive Telecommunications Association, ACSI Local Services, Inc. d/b/a e.spire Communications, Inc., Florida Competitive Carriers Association, Florida Internet Service Providers Association, and Telecommunications Resellers Association Against Bell South Telecommunications, inc. regarding promotional practices and petition for expedited relief (Docket No. 990970-TP) September 1, 1999 A joint Reply to Bell South’s Motion to Dismiss, Strike, or for Summary Judgment was filed by TRA, the Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS), the Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel), the Florida Competitive Carriers Association (FCCA), and others, with the Florida Public Service Commission, asking the Commission to deny Bell South’s Motion to dismiss the joint petitioner’s request that Bell South cease tying unregulated internet services with regulated basic local services (reported in the August Board Report). The joint Reply noted that Bell South’s mere disagreement with the allegations contained in the Petition does not demonstrate the falsity of those allegations. Illinois—Illinois Commerce Commission on its Own Motion vs. Illinois Bell Telephone Company Investigation into Specified Competitive Tariffs to Determine Propose Classification of the Tariffs and to Determine Whether Refunds are Appropriate (Docket No. 98-0860); Establishment of Filing Requirements for the Reclassification of Noncompetitive Services as Competitive Services (Docket No. 98-0861) August 16, 1999 A Petition to Intervene was filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission seeking authority to intervene in the Commission’s proceeding regarding proper classification of competitive and non-competitive services by Ameritech Illinois. Illinois—SBC Communications Inc., SBC Delaware Inc., Ameritech Corporation, Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a Ameritech Illinois, And Ameritech Illinois Metro, Inc.; 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). August 17, 1999 A Post-Hearing Brief on Exceptions was filed in the Illinois Commerce Commission’s reopening of the SBC/Ameritech merger proceeding responding to the Hearing Examiner’s Proposed Order (HEPO) which would approve the merger. The HEPO ostensibly adopted the original March 29, 1999 HEPO, approving the merger, with only minor changes. TRA particularly excepted to the HEPO’s finding that the merger would have no adverse effect on competition, noting that the HEPO ignored the extensive evidence submitted in the reopened hearings, which demonstrated the real threat to competition posed by the proposed merger. TRA urged the Commission to find that the merger fails to meet the mandate of the Illinois law that a merger not have a significant adverse effect on competition. Massachusetts—Inquiry by the Department of Telecommunications and Energy pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into the Compliance Filing of New England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts as part of its application to the Federal Communications Commission for entry into the in-region interLATA (long distance) telephone market (D.T.E. 99-271) September 1, 1999 TRA joined MCI WorldCom, Inc., RCN-BECOCOM, LLC, Sprint Communications Company, RNK, INC., and Telenergy in filing a Petition for Appeal with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy seeking reconsideration of the Department Hearing Officer’s August 19, 1999 Decision which rejected the petitioners’ request that CLEC input regarding OSS testing be allowed and that Bell Atlantic be held to the same minimum commitments made by the company in the New York 271 proceeding. Minnesota—An Investigation Regarding USWC’s Entry into InterLATA Services Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Docket No. P-421/CI-96-1114); In the Matter of the Quality Standards and Incentives in US West Communications, Inc.’s Interconnection Agreements with AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. (Docket No. P-421 et al./CI-97-381) September 3, 1999 A Response to Minnesota Public Utility Commission Staff Interrogatories regarding US West Communications, Inc.’s OSS was filed with the Commission. TRA noted that for US West to be found in full compliance with the Act’s “competitive checklist” requirements for interLATA market entry, it must provide competitors with fully functional, non-discriminatory OSS access at parity with the OSS US West itself relies upon. TRA argued that the only way to determine whether US West is offering non-discriminatory OSS access is to establish independent third party OSS testing, followed by an evaluation of US West performance in supporting actual CLECs. Minnesota—In The Matter of the Joint Application for Merger Of Qwest Communications Corporation and US West Communications, Inc. (Docket No. P3009, 3052, 5096, 421, 3017/PA- 99-1192) September 17, 1999 A Petition to Intervene was filed with the Minnesota Public Utility Commission seeking authority to intervene in the Commission’s proceeding regarding US West Communications, Inc.’s and Qwest Communications Corporation’s Joint Application for Merger. Montana—In The Matter of the Joint Application of Qwest Communications Corporation, et al., and US West Communications, Inc., for Approval of the Merger of Parent Corporations, Qwest Communications International Inc. and US West, Inc. (Docket No. D99.8.200) September 17, 1999 A Request to be placed on the service list for the purpose of receiving Commission notices and Order in the Commission’s US West Communications, Inc.’s /Qwest Communications Corporation’s merger was filed with the Commission. New Jersey—Petition of Global NAPs, Inc. for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms, Conditions, and Related Arrangements with Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc. (Docket No. TO98070426) August 12, 1999 TRA and the Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) filed joint comments with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in support of a Global NAPs, Inc. Petition for Reconsideration seeking Board reconsideration of a July 12, 1999 finding that calls terminating to Internet service providers (ISPs) are not eligible for reciprocal compensation. The Associations urged the Board to rule that ISP-bound calls should be treated as local calls, entitling competitive local exchange carriers to reciprocal compensation payment from Bell Atlantic. Ohio--In the Matter of the Commission Investigation Into the Treatment of Reciprocal Compensation for Internet Service Provider Traffic (Case No. 99-____-TP-UNC) August 18, 1999 A Joint Petition to Investigate and Decide the Treatment of Reciprocal Compensation for Internet Service Provider Traffic was filed with Time Warner Telecom of Ohio L.P., ICG Telecom Group, Inc., and CoreComm Newco, Inc., before the Ohio Public Utilities Commission. The Petition requests that the Commission initiate an investigation to address the treatment of reciprocal compensation for Internet service provider (“ISP”) traffic. The Petition argues that §251(d)(3) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs states to establish a policy allowing access and interconnection to the incumbent’s ISP network facilities, and section 261 of the Act allows the Commission to apply state law to ensure that reciprocal compensation applies to ISP traffic. Ohio—In the Matter of the Applications of NOW Communications, Inc., Telstar Telecom Company, L.L.C., Annox, Inc., and Phone Reconnect of America, Inc., for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Local Exchange Telecommunication Services in the State of Ohio (Case Nos. 98-1466-TP-ACE, 98-1480-TP-ACE, 99-326-TP-ACE, 99-524-TP-ACE) August 6, 1999 A Motion to Intervene was filed with the Ohio Public Utilities Commission seeking authority to intervene in the Commission’s investigation regarding whether it would allow provision of prepaid local telephone service in Ohio. Vermont—Investigation into Service Quality Standards, Privacy Protections, and Other Consumer Safeguards for Retail Telecommunications Services (Docket No. 5903 September 17, 1999 Comments were filed with the Vermont Public Service Board regarding whether the Board’s July 2, 1999 Service Quality Order applies to all telecommunications service providers, or solely to local exchange carriers. TRA urged the Board not to apply network-related service quality standards to non-facilities based providers that cannot practically meet those standards. TRA urged the Board to clarify that network-based service quality standards do not apply to non-facilities based carriers requiring non-facilities based providers to seek ad hoc rule waiver requests. Washington--In the Matter of Telecommunications Carriers’ Obligation to Serve (Docket No. UT-990301) September 14, 1999 Comments were filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission regarding telecommunications companies’ obligation to serve the public. TRA urged the Commission to impose the obligation to serve requirements exclusively on incumbent carriers. TRA argued that until the Commission finds the local market to be meaningfully competitive, the incumbents’ obligation to serve requirements should be imposed on both basic features and advanced services. TRA noted that obligation to serve requirements do not act as a barrier to competition for incumbents, but would serve as a significant entry barrier for competitors. Washington—In The Matter of the Joint Application for Merger Of Qwest Communications Corporation and US West Communications, Inc. (Docket No. 991358) September 17, 1999 A Petition to Intervene was filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission seeking authority to intervene in the Commission’s proceeding regarding the US West Communications, Inc.’/Qwest Communications Corporation proposed merger. MEMBER ADVISORIES Ohio—Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Minimum Telephone Service Standard (MTSS) Review (Case No. 95-845-TP-COI) September 17, 1999 TRA invited Ohio CLEC members to share their concerns regarding Ohio’s Minimum Telephone Service Standards (MTSS) for incorporation into TRA’s comments to be filed as part of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission’s comprehensive review of its 1997 MTSS. The Commission’s MTSSs govern certification/registration of new entrants, tariffing, pricing standards, unbundled network elements, resale, “fresh look” contract requirements, interconnection, and consumer safeguards, among local service requirements. Ohio—Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Review of Local Exchange Competition Guidelines (Case No. 99-998-TP-COI) August 30, 1999 Ohio Members were notified that the Ohio Public Utilities Commission has undertaken a review of its three year old local competition guidelines to determine how these guidelines should be amended in light of today’s emerging competitive environment. Input from members was solicited as to what changes members believe should be made to the guidelines. Oregon—Notice of Agreement Between State Commissions and US West Communications To Conduct a Collaborative Test of US West’s OSS and Notice of Opportunity to Participate (Oregon PSC Docket No. AR 324) September 7, 1999 Oregon Members were notified that CLECs operating in US WEST Communications Inc’s (US WEST) fourteen-state service territory have been invited to participate in a region-wide collaborative test and evaluation of U S West’s Operational Support Systems (OSS) with the State Commissions of thirteen of the fourteen states served by US WEST. Members were encouraged to register electronically through the Montana Public Service Commission’s website to participate in this proceeding. PLANNED FILINGS The following TRA State regulatory filings are planned for late-September and beyond: September 23, 1999 Indiana—Comments Re: Access Charge Reforms/PICC Charges September 27, 1999 Oregon—Comments Re: US West IntraLATA Exemption September 30, 1999 Connecticut——Exceptions to Decision Due: Wholesale Discount Rate Due October 11, 1999 Texas-Comments Re: Proposed Local Disconnect Rules October 15, 1999 Ohio—Comments Re: Local Competition Guidelines October 15, 1999 Connecticut—Comments Re: Telco Business Specification/Rules (anticipted) October 21, 1999 Massachusetts—Initial Briefs on BA Interconnection, Operator and Directory Assistance Rates Early October, 1999 Alabama—Briefs Due: Proposed Cramming Rules Late-October, 1999 Nebraska—Post Hearing Briefs Re: SWBT 271 Application |