ME. EXAMINER SAYS TRO STAY DOESN'T STOP 90-DAY PRELIMINARIES
Some states continued to move ahead while incumbent telcos, CLECs and their attorneys attempted to straighten out the legal tangle over whether a federal appeals court in N.Y. had the legal authority to issue its temporary stay of the FCC Triennial Review Order (TRO) presumption that unbundled switching wasn’t necessary for effective local competition in the enterprise market.
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.
A hearing examiner for the Me. PUC concluded that the Oct. 9 stay order by the 2nd U.S. Appeals Court, N.Y., didn’t preclude the state from determining whether it wanted to challenge the FCC on local unbundled enterprise switching in the large business market. The FCC had given state commissions until Dec. 30 to decide whether they would challenge that presumption in their markets, but the 2nd Circuit’s stay order left states in confusion. The examiner (Case 2003-629) said the stay might preclude the PUC from proceeding with the substantive analysis of enterprise switching required by the TRO, but didn’t prevent the state from determining whether it should hold a 90-day enterprise proceeding. The examiner said CLECs still must file by Oct. 21 on whether they wanted to contest the FCC’s presumption.
The Mass. Attorney Gen. said the Mass. Dept. of Telecom & Energy (DTE) should hold full hearings in the 90-day case to determine the need for such switching. The AG said there were several CLECs in the state with enterprise impairment concerns, and the DTE shouldn’t rule out a 90-day proceeding until it had heard from CLECs on the issue.
In Colo., 3 CLECs asked the PUC to begin a 90-day proceeding on unbundled enterprise switching. The CLECs said their ability to compete in the state would be impaired without switching. The PUC will be setting a procedural schedule once it determines how to move forward with the 90- day proceeding (Case 03M-417T).
The La. PSC said it wouldn’t take further action on a 90-day case to rebut the FCC unless CLECs by Nov. 4 had filed for a review to challenge the FCC position. The PSC also opened 9-month dockets on unbundled mass-market switching (Case U-27571) and unbundled high-capacity transport (Case U- 27572). Motions to intervene in those dockets also are due Nov. 4.
Elsewhere, Qwest and its major local competitors AT&T and WorldCom agreed on the form and content of a model protective order for safeguarding sensitive market information state commissions would be reviewing as they made their TRO evaluations of the need for unbundled switching and other UNEs. The parties will be proposing their model protective order to each of the Qwest states. They also are working on a model process for making hot cuts in large batches that would be addressed through the change in management processes of Qwest’s operation support systems. (Hot cuts are the process whereby customers are transferred from incumbent switches to CLEC switches.) The 3 carriers also are working on a model list of discovery questions common to multiple Qwest states.
The Tex. PUC plans an Oct. 21 prehearing conference to set the procedural schedule in its 9-month mass-market unbundled switching case. Some parties (Case 28607) have proposed severing the market definition issue from other issues in the case. The main case would start discovery Nov. 3, hearings Feb. 17, final briefs April 1 and final order July 1. If there were a separate docket on market definition, in that case discovery would start Nov. 10, hearings Dec. 8, preliminary order Dec. 12 and final order Dec. 30.
The Wash. Utilities & Transportation Commission in its mass-market TRO case called for filing initial testimony Dec. 19 from CLECs that wanted continued unbundled switching and from Qwest, which didn’t want it to continue. All parties (Cases UT-033025 and UT-033044) must address how markets are defined, and the various triggers and criteria states must use in determining whether competition would be impaired without unbundled mass-market switching. Responses are due Jan. 30 and surrebuttals, if needed, Feb. 20. The WUTC plans to hold a workshop to address hot cuts Nov. 12-13 unless a regional hot cut workshop has been scheduled. Hearings will be March 1-5 and a 2nd session March 15-19, with final briefings in April.
The Ohio PUC plans a collaborative workshop Nov. 5-6 to examine whether existing hot cut processes of major incumbents need to be changed and what aspects need to be modified or replaced. The workshop also will address whether Ohio should work with other Great Lakes states on developing standardized processes for handling large batches of hot cuts in the mass market for residential and small-business service. The workshop also will address ways to expedite the 9-month process for determining whether mass-market competition in Ohio requires continued unbundled switching. CLECs have until Oct. 17 to advise the PUC whether mass market competition would be impaired without unbundled switching.
The Ky. PSC in its mass-market TRO docket gave incumbent telcos until Oct. 31 to provide data on whom they provided UNEs to, price charged and revenue generated for each UNE, as well as the number of customers in each wire center served by UNE platforms. The PSC (Case 2003-00379) also called for comments by that date on whether incumbent telcos needed to implement a batching process for making hot cuts and how many loops should make up a batch.
The Tex. PUC set an Oct. 20 deadline for parties to register for participation in its TRO case on dark fiber, DS- 1 and DS-3 loops and dedicated transport. The PUC (Project 27470) has until next June to determine whether competition would be impaired if CLECs didn’t have access to those facilities.