PUC, COMPETITORS WEIGH IN ON VERIZON SEC. 271 PETITION FOR CONN.
As expected, state regulators offered support while most competitors opposed Verizon’s request to offer long distance service to its small customer base in Conn. Only surprise in comments filed with FCC Mon. came from AT&T, which told agency it wouldn’t object to application as long as Verizon was held to its promise to maintain same rates, terms and conditions in Conn. as it offered in N.Y. state. Verizon serves only 2 communities in Conn., both using equipment located in N.Y. state, where carrier already has received Sec. 271 long distance approval from FCC.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
“Given these special circumstances and assuming that Verizon operates its Connecticut business as an integral part of its New York operations, AT&T does not oppose this application,” AT&T said in 3-page letter to FCC. However, AT&T emphasized all N.Y. terms must be adhered to, citing 3 issues in particular: (1) “To the extent that Verizon’s New York wholesale rates are modified as a result of the ongoing review of rates in that state, its Connecticut wholesale rates must be contemporaneously modified to remain consistent.” (2) FCC should make sure Verizon stuck by its promise that “the Connecticut UNE [unbundled network element] tariff will continue to mirror the New York tariff.” (3) FCC should make sure Verizon offered same terms on “new” unbundled network platforms (UNE-Ps). N.Y. regulators require Verizon to provide UNE-P combinations to CLECs, even if those combinations weren’t available beforehand, AT&T said. “Because CLECs competing against Verizon in Connecticut must compete against ‘New York’ type service arrangements, it is both necessary and appropriate that similar arrangements be available there as well,” AT&T said. AT&T said in footnote it continued to believe Verizon hadn’t adequately met Sec. 271 requirements, even in N.Y., but it recognized that FCC had approved Verizon’s entry.
Other competitors offered more predictable opposition. Sprint said more investigation was needed because Conn. Dept. of Public Utility Control (DPUC) relied too much on N.Y. PSC’s findings when it ruled in favor of Verizon application. “Despite its relatively small number of circuits in Connecticut, [Verizon’s] application should be subjected to rigorous investigation by both the DPUC and the FCC,” Sprint said. Covad said Verizon was guilty of same “discriminatory conduct” in Conn. as it was in Mass., which recently was approved by FCC. Company, which offers data CLEC services, said it raised concerns about Verizon’s behavior but FCC relied on Verizon’s “promises of future performance improvements.” Similar concerns were raised about SBC’s lack of access in Tex. and FCC rejected them and approved subsequent applications for Kan. and Okla., Covad said. Covad said it was raising same issues again in Conn. application “in the hopes that the passage of even a small amount of time -- and harsh reality of the death of competition in the local marketplace -- will give the Commission pause in evaluating this latest application.”
Assn. of Communications Enterprises (ASCENT) urged FCC to deny Verizon’s Conn. application because company hadn’t met checklist item 14, requirement that ILEC make its facilities available for resale. Restrictions placed on availability of resold x-DSL services “have eviscerated the competitive value of the resale offering,” ASCENT said. Verizon, which sells x-DSL through its affiliate, restricts competitors to reselling DSL service “only to consumers who take voice service from Verizon.” That means competitors aren’t allowed to provide resold DSL-based advanced services to their current voice customers.
Conn. DPUC told FCC it “fully supports” Verizon’s application. It said it relied “primarily” on N.Y. PSC’s investigation in making that recommendation because Verizon conducted its Conn. operations out of N.Y. However, in practical terms, there’s lot of similarity between services Verizon offers in N.Y. and Conn., DPUC said. It said it frequently had approved Verizon’s requests “to offer various services in its Connecticut service territory that mirrored those that were approved by the N.Y. PSC and offered in New York.”