| STATE REPORT
|
| Arizona—In the Matter of the Generic Review of Procedures for
Competitive Telecommunications (Docket No. RT-00000D-00-0694) October 17, 2000: Comments were submitted to the Arizona Corporation Commission in support of joint comments filed by AT&T, WorldCom, Teligent, and Cox Arizona Telecom, regarding what Commission action should be taken by the in light of the Arizona Supreme Court’s findings that all rates must be based on the “fair market value” of company assets. ASCENT supported the competitors’ position urging the Commission to take no immediate action pending further appeals. Arizona—In the Matter of US West Communications, Inc.’s Compliance with §271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Docket No. T-00000A-97-0238) October 17, 2000: A letter was submitted to the Arizona Corporation Commission, regarding the Commission’s proposed participation in 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. Arkansas—In The Matter of the 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 27, 2000: Comments were filed with the Arkansas Public Service Commission regarding the Commission’s review of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company’s application for interLATA entry under Section 271 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. ASCENT opposed adoption of SWBT’s proposed Arkansas271 interconnection agreement (A2A), arguing that the A2A is rife with anticompetitive provisions and must undergo substantial amendments if it is to maintain any semblance of an equitable, usable agreement. ASCENT argued further that the A2A cannot serve as a foundation for a factually supportable Commission recommendation for approval of SWBT’s 271 application lieu of a state-specific evaluation of SWBT’s OSS and demonstrable sustained performance, measured by Arkansas-specific performance measures, contrary to SWBT’s claims. Minnesota—Qwest’s Refiling of its Proposed Tariffs Regarding Termination Liability Assessments as Applied to Resale Arrangements (Docket No. P421/AM-00-1165) October 25, 2000: A Petition to Intervene was filed in the Minnesota Commission’s investigation into Qwest’s tariff filing to implement termination liability provisions on resellers who assume, then lose Qwest retail contracts. ASCENT noted the potential impact on its members of such penalties, and the particularly unfair nature of such penalties when resellers lose customers back to Qwest. October 25, 2000: Comments were filed before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in the Commission’s review of Qwest’s tariff filing to implement termination liability provisions on resellers for the loss of assumed Qwest retail contracts. ASCENT argued that termination liability provisions should not apply to contracts that are assumed by resellers and subsequently won back by Qwest. Imposition of termination penalties in such instances, ASCENT stressed, only serves to give Qwest an unearned windfall, as the it loses no revenue when winning back a former customer. New Hampshire—Petition of Verizon New Hampshire of the Transfer of Advanced Services Operations to a Structurally Separate Affiliate (Docket No. DT-000-185) October 26, 2000: A Petition to Intervene was filed with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, seeking party status in the Commission’s investigation of Verizon- New Hampshire’s proposed asset transfer to its data services affiliate, Verizon Advanced Services (VAD). Washington—Rules Relating to Commission General – Tariffs: Chapter 480-80 WAC (Docket No. UT-991301) October 20, 2000: Comments were filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission regarding the Commission’s proposed price list and contract rules. ASCENT supported the rules, but urged the Commission to make web site posting of rates, terms, and conditions optional rather than mandatory. ASCENT also urged the Commission to presume company price lists to be effective on one day’s notice, and argued that companies who are not competitive classified, but who provide competitive services, such as incumbent local exchange carriers, should be required to file actual prices, rather than maximum prices, with the Commission. Vermont—Re: Regulation of Non-domiant Telecommunications Carriers (Undocketed) October 20, 2000: A letter was filed with the Vermont Public Service Board in response to the Board’s solicitation of proposals to reduce or streamline Vermont competitive regulation. ASCENT pointed to models in states such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas, as examples of successful streamlined regulatory regimes. In particular, ASCENT urged elimination of Board scrutiny of competitor tariffs, and making such tariffs effective on one day’s notice. ASCENT further argued that any regulatory forbearance should apply only to competitive carriers that are unaffiliated with incumbents, and that the Board should create a presumption of non-dominance for such carriers. |