STATE REPORT


STATE MONTHLY SUMMARY REPORT- October  2000

Following is a summary of State regulatory documents filed and State regulatory action
performed on behalf of ASCENT between September 21, 2000 and October 16, 2000. Seventeen
filings were made in twelve states. If you have any questions or would like a copy of any
document discussed below, please contact us. Many state filings may be viewed at ASCENT’s
web site, http://www.ascent.org.

FILINGS


Alabama—Implementation of the Universal Service Requirements of Section 254 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Docket No. 25980)

October 13, 2000: Comments were filed through the Southeastern Competitive
Carriers Association (SECCA), of which ASCENT is a member, before the Alabama Public
Service Commission regarding proceedings to establish incumbent unbundled network element
(UNE) prices. SECCA argued that the portions of the Eighth Circuit Court decision
abandoning Federal Communications Commission’s Total Long Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC)
structure had been stayed, pending a Supreme Court appeal of the matter, and there is thus
no basis for abandoning TELRIC pricing in the instant docket.


Arkansas—Application of SWBT for Authorization to Provide In-Region InterLATA Services
Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and for Approval of the
Arkansas 271 Interconnection Agreement (Docket No. 00-211-U)

October 3, 2000: ASCENT’s intervention in Southwestern Bell’s Arkansas application
for interLATA entry proceeding was withdrawn, due to Commission requirement that ASCENT
present a witness for cross-examination of any ASCENT submissions. ASCENT remains a party
to the proceeding and is authorized to submit comments.


Colorado—Investigation Into Modification of Commission tariff Practices and Policies
for Regulated Telecommunications Providers (Docket No. 00I-493T)

September 21, 2000: A letter was submitted to the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission in response to the Commission’s rulemaking governing potential modification or
elimination of tariff regulation. ASCENT opposed mandatory detariffing; stressing that
mandatory detariffing would impose unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on competitive
carriers. The Association advocated adoption of a permissive detariffing approach.


Colorado—In the Matter of the Proposed Amendments to Telecommunications Rules and The
Rules of Practices and Procedure (Docket No. 00R-480T)

September 28, 2000: Comments were filed with the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission regarding the Commission’s proposed streamlining of its competitive
telecommunications service provider rules. ASCENT generally supported the proposed
amendments to the Commission’s rules. ASCENT did urge the Commission to publish notice of
new applications for operating authority rather than require applicants to serve other
telecommunications entities, and reiterated its support of permissive rather than
mandatory detariffing.


Connecticut—Application of The Southern New England Telephone Company for Approval To
Transfer Assets to Its Affiliate SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (Docket No. 00-02-02)

September 27, 2000: A response to Southern New England Telephone Company’s (SNET)
Motion to Strike ASCENT’s September 11, 2000 Comments regarding SNET’s proposed asset
transfer to its advanced services affiliate, SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI) was
submitted to the Department of Public Utility Control. ASCENT had urged the Commission to
ensure that ASI assume and remain subject to the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s resale and
interconnection obligations. SNET argued that ASCENT submitted factual evidence in the
matter without providing SNET an opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal. ASCENT
countered that its comments raised policy considerations regarding the regulation of ASI
after the asset transfer, that ASCENT had followed Department established procedures in
submitting its comments, and that SNET’s arguments were misplaced. The Department
ultimately denied SNET’s Motion and accepted ASCENT’s comments in the record.


Minnesota—In the matter of the Planned Amendment to Rules Governing the Regulatory
Treatment of Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Docket No. P999/R-98-1081)

September 20, 2000: ASCENT joined the Minnesota Department of Commerce and Office
of Attorney General, and competitive carriers including Eschelon Telecom, Global Crossing,
and McLeod USA, in filing comments before the Minnesota Public Utilities commission in the
Commission’s proposed adoption of rules specifically intended to foster competition in
Minnesota’s local telecommunications market. The comments applauded the Commission’s
proposed rules, noting that they provide elements essential to a developing competitive
market, including a complaint-based regulatory structure, clear and uniform standards, and
regulatory flexibility.

Missouri—In the Matter of the Application of Southwestern Bell to Provide Notice of
Intent to File an Application for Authorization to Provide In-Region InterLATA Services in
Missouri Pursuant to §271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Case No. TO-99-227)

October 2, 2000: A Motion to Be Excused from personal appearance at the Missouri
Public Service Commission’s October 11, 2000 hearings regarding Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company’s application for Missouri interLATA market entry was filed with the
Commission. ASCENT explained that an in personum appearance would be costly and of little
countervailing benefit to the Commission, and offered instead to make a witness available
telephonically for the hearing.


Montana—Qwest Regional Performance Assurance Plan

September 27, 2000: A letter was filed with Commissioner Bob Rowe, Montana Public
Service Commission Commissioner and National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners President, regarding development of a region-wide Qwest post-§271
performance assurance plan (PAP). ASCENT stressed that the PAP’s performance measurements
and penalties must be substantial, so Qwest does not look upon such penalties as a mere
cost of doing business, and must not be diluted by arbitrary limitations and conditions.
ASCENT’s letter was circulated to participating state regulators.


Nevada—In the Matter of Review and Approval of The Draft Application by SBC, Nevada
Bell, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, d/b/a Nevada Bell Long Distance, For
Provision of In-Region InterLATA Services in Nevada (Docket No. 00-7031)

September 20, 2000: A Motion for Reconsideration of the Nevada Public Utilities
Commission’s denial of ASCENT’s Petition to Intervene in the Commission’s investigation
into Nevada Bell’s compliance with interLATA market entry requirements of §271 of the 1996
Telecommunications Act was filed with the Commission. ASCENT argued it has a direct and
substantial interest in this matter due to members’ status as current and future
competitors of Nevada Bell. ASCENT further argued that barring its participation in this
matter would result in a less complete and “open” record for Commission consideration in
reaching a decision regarding Nevada Bell’s interLATA entry. Separate conversations were
held with Staff to address the need for ASCENT’s involvement.

September 28, 2000: An affidavit in support of ASCENT’s Motion for Reconsideration
of the Commission’s denial of ASCENT’s intervention was filed with the Commission. The
Affidavit was intended to demonstrate ASCENT’s standing in the proceeding, as the basis
for Staff support.


New Jersey—An Act Concerning the Regulation of Local Exchange Telecommunication
Companies In Certain Cases And Amending P.L.1991, c.428 (Senate Bill 1611)

October 4, 2000: ASCENT expressed formal support for New Jersey Legislation that
would require Verizon-New Jersey to comply with the Section 271 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 prior to any consideration of an alternative form of regulation. The act
would amend the state’s 1992 Telecommunications Act by allowing the Board of Public
Utilities to approve Verizon’s Alternative Regulation Plan only after the Federal
Communications Commission grants the company authority to enter New Jersey’s long distance
market under Section 271 of the Act.


North Carolina—In the Matter of Quality of Service Objectives for Local Exchange
Companies (Docket No. P-100, Sub 99)

October 10, 2000: A Motion for Reconsideration of the North Carolina Commission’s
recent imposition of reporting requirements on all service providers was filed before the
Commission by a group of industry representatives, including ASCENT, Covad, Birch Telecom,
ITC^DeltaCom, and others. Joint Movants asked the Commission to exempt competitive
providers from the new reporting requirements or clarify that the requirements apply only
to residential services.


North Carolina—In the Matter of Petition to Revise Application and Certification
Process for Competing Local Providers and Amend Rule R17 (Docket No. P-100, Sub 133)

October 11, 2000: A Motion for Reconsideration of the North Carolina Commission’s
order imposing mandatory detariffing of all services was filed before the Commission by a
group of competitive carriers and associations, including ASCENT, Time Warner Telecom, and
AT&T. Joint Movants asked the Commission stay its mandatory detariffing order, which also
withdrew all tariffs on file with the Commission, and consider instead imposition of
permissive detariffing. Alternatively, Joint Movants asked the Commission to grandfather
current tariffs until expiration.


Ohio—Investigation of Existing Local Competition Guidelines (Case No. 99-998-TP-COI);
Review of Regulatory Framework for Competitive Services (Case No. 99-563-TP-COI)

October 4, 2000: ASCENT joined a group of competitive providers (the Competitive
Carriers Group, or CCG) in filing comments before the Ohio Public Utilities Commission
regarding the Commission’s overhaul of Ohio’s competitive telecommunications regulations.
CCG argued that Commission Staff’s preliminary proposed amendments go too far in removing
regulatory obligations from incumbent providers, such as interconnection obligations,
collocation standards, and unbundled network element provisioning obligations, while
imposing numerous burdensome requirements on competitors.


Ohio—SBC/Ameritech Customer Service Problems (Undocketed)

October 6, 2000: A letter was sent to the members of the Ohio General Assembly
through the Ohio Coalition for Customer Choice, of which ASCENT is a member, regarding SBC
Corporation’s subsidiary Ameritech’s customer service problems in the state of Ohio. The
letter urged the Assembly to resist the company’s efforts to become a deregulated entity
in Ohio. The letter pointed to two bills currently before the Assembly through which
Ameritech is trying to free itself of all regulatory oversight and obligation, and urged
the Assembly to vote down both measures.


Virginia—In Re: Investigation of the Appropriate Level of Intrastate Access Service
Prices (Case No. PUC000003); In Re: Investigation of the Appropriate Level of Intrastate
Access Service Prices of Verizon Virginia, Inc. (Case No. PUC 000242)

September 25, 2000: Comments regarding a proposed access charge settlement
agreement between Verizon Virginia and the Virginia State Corporation Commission were
submitted by the Association. ASCENT argued that allowing Verizon to set access charges
through a negotiated settlement that does not tie the access charges to Verizon’s costs
and is implemented over a five-year period, as proposed, creates the potential for the
perpetuation of inflated access charges. ASCENT urged the Commission to reject the
settlement.


Virginia—Third Party Testing of Operations Support Systems for Bell Atlantic-Virginia,
Inc. (Case No. PUC 000035)

October 16, 2000: Comments were filed with the Virginia Corporation Commission in
response to Verizon Virginia’s (f/k/a Bell Atlantic Virginia) motion to remove certain
products it classified as “low or declining volume” from the Master Test Plan for testing
of Verizon’s Virginia operations support systems. Among the services Verizon asked to
remove from the MTP were resale advanced services, which the company argued it would no
longer be offering after a planned asset transfer to an advanced services affiliate.
ASCENT did not object to the removal of these services from the MTP, but urged the
Commission to ensure, in the scope of any future asset transfer, that the advanced
services affiliate be regulated as an incumbent for the purposes of resale obligations.