| STATE REPORT
|
| Following is a summary of State regulatory documents filed and State
regulatory action performed on behalf of ASCENT between November 3, 2000 and December 4, 2000. Twelve filings were made in eight 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 Florida—BellSouth Performance Assurance Plan Penalties (Docket 000121-TP) November 13, 2000: A response to Staff comments regarding BellSouth’s proposed Florida Performance Assurance Plan (PAP). ASCENT generally supported the Staff’s recommendations, noting that meaningful performance measures and penalties for non- performance will serve as a strong compliance incentive for BellSouth. ASCENT specifically supported Staff’s refusal to cap or otherwise limit penalties for BellSouth noncompliance under the plan, noting that the lack of caps creates less likelihood that BellSouth will view noncompliance penalties as a cost of doing business. ASCENT urged the Commission to adopt Staff’s proposed recommendations. Georgia—In the Matter of Universal Access Fund Transition to Phase II Pursuant to OCGA 46-5-167 (Docket No. 5825-U) November 13, 2000: Comments were filed through the Southeastern Competitive Carriers Association (SECCA), of which ASCENT is a member, regarding the Georgia Public Service Commission’s investigation into adoption of a Universal Service Fund (USF) in Georgia. The comments argued that there is no need at present for a Georgia USF. The comments urged adoption of competitors adjustments to the incumbents’ plans, noting that the size of the fund proposed by the incumbents does not accurately reflect service costs, does not account for all revenues, and would impose assessments far higher than those required for USF provisioning in Georgia. Michigan—In the Matter, on the Commission’s own Motion, to Consider Ameritech Michigan’s Compliance with the Competitive Checklist in Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Case No U-12320) November 9, 2000: Comments were filed with the Michigan Public Service Commission in response to Ameritech-Michigan’s filing of a proposed Performance Assurance Plan (PAP). ASCENT strongly opposed the penalty caps proposed by Ameritech in its PAP, noting that the caps would enable Ameritech to game noncompliance to the detriment of Michigan competitors. ASCENT urged the Commission to assist in the development of a PAP and associated performance penalties that would provide necessary compliance incentives for Ameritech. 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) November 3, 2000: Joint comments were submitted with the Minnesota Department of Commerce and Office of the Attorney General, Global Crossing, Echelon, McLeodUSA, and others, before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in the Commission’s proceeding to streamline Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) regulations. The joint comments supported the Commission’s proposed amendments to the CLEC regulations including the exemption of incumbent carriers from more streamlined regulation. November 13, 2000: Reply Comments were submitted together with the foregoing parties in response to incumbent carrier arguments in opposition to the Commission’s proposed CLEC regulation streamlining. The comments argued that, contrary to incumbent claims, the proposed rules do not exceed the Commission’s statutory authority. Further, as CLECs will continue to be regulated under the proposed rules, the comments argued, the proposed rules do not conflict with Minnesota statutes requiring CLEC satisfaction of specific obligations. New York—In the Matter of Staff’s Proposal to Modify the Commission’s Certification Requirements for Telephone Companies (Case 00-C-1459) November 9, 2000: Comments were filed in the New York Public Service Commission’s proceeding to streamline competitor certification processes. ASCENT supported the Commission’s proposed competitive certification streamlining, noting that the current process imposes unnecessary costs and burdens on competitive providers and the Commission alike. In connection with its streamlining efforts, ASCENT urged the Commission to implement an Internet-based application process. ASCENT further argued in favor of further modification of the certification requirements to require disclosure of out-of- state consumer complaints resulting in legal or regulatory actions, as opposed to disclosure of any complaint filed, as currently required. 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) November 20, 2000: Reply Comments were filed with the North Carolina Utilities Commission by ASCENT, Allegiance Telecom, AT&T, CompTel, Connect South, ITC, Time Warner, and others, in the Commission’s proceeding to streamline competitive carrier regulation. The Reply Comments specifically urged the Commission not to instituted mandatory detariffing in North Carolina, as the Commission had proposed. The Reply Comments noted the significant detrimental impact of immediate mandatory detariffing, including competitor administrative burdens, increased competitor expenses, and competitive inequities created if the Commission were to detariff competitor, but not incumbent services. The Commission disregarded the joint comments and proceeded to impose mandatory detariffing in its November 29, 200 Order. (See discussion, supra.) Tennessee—Proposed Service Quality Rules (Docket No 00-00873) November 14, 2000: Comments were filed with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority regarding the Authority’s proposed service quality rules. ASCENT supported the majority of the proposed rules as consistent with the needs of an emerging competitive telecommunications market. However, ASCENT urged the Authority to ensure that the proposed rules did not inadvertently penalize non-facilities-based service providers for noncompliance with technical network service quality standards beyond the service provider’s control. ASCENT further urged modification of rules requiring Web site postings to apply only to companies already maintaining a Web site. Tennessee—Complaint by AT&T Regarding the Provisions of Calling Name Delivery By BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (Docket No. 00-00971) November 8, 2000: A Petition to Intervene was filed through the Southeast Competitive Carriers Association (SECCA), of which ASCENT is a member, in the Tennessee Regulatory Authority’s investigation of an AT&T complaint alleging discriminatory provisioning of calling name services. Tennessee—Universal Service for Rural Areas—The Generic Docket (Docket No. 00-00523) November 9, 2000: A brief was filed through the Southeast Competitive Carriers Association (SECCA), of which ASCENT is a member, in the Tennessee Regulatory Authority’s investigation into universal service mechanisms for the state of Tennessee. The brief argued in favor of requiring rural local exchange carriers to open their markets to competition prior to allowing them to avail themselves of the benefits of a universal service fund, and urged Commission consideration of toll settlement agreements between BellSouth and rural ILECs in the scope of universal service matters. Virginia—Application of Verizon Advanced Data for Certifications of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Local Exchange and IntraLATA Interexchange Telecommunications Services Throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia (Case No. PUC000181) November 14, 2000: Comments were filed in the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s proceeding to consider Verizon Advanced Data (VAD) application for certification of public convenience and necessity to provide local exchange and intraLATA interexchange services, including advanced services, in Virginia. ASCENT urged the Commission to condition any approval of VAD’s application on continued compliance with the wholesale requirements of Sections 251 and 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with respect to any services, such as advanced services, that VAD assumes to the exclusion of its parent company, Verizon. |