STATES SEE INCUMBENTS START TO PINPOINT MARKETS FOR TRO ANALYSIS
State regulators are seeing the first filings from incumbent telcos identifying the markets where they believe network unbundling isn’t required for effective local competition, as they continue to address unbundling issues from the FCC’s Triennial Review Order (TRO). Meanwhile, more Qwest states said they would participate in a regional TRO- related forum proposed by Qwest to develop a uniform process for handing batch hot cuts in all its states.
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.
SBC identified for Wis. regulators the 7 metro markets where it believed unbundled mass-market switching wasn’t needed for effective local competition -- Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Oshkosh, Racine, Janesville and Joliet. SBC (Cases 05-TI-908-10) said those markets would require batch hot-cut processes for transferring local customers en masse from one provider’s switch to another. SBC said it planned to unveil its proposed batch hot-cut process by Nov. 21. SBC in Ohio identified 193 dedicated transport routes where it contended unbundled dedicated transport wasn’t required for effective local competition, and 5 wire centers where it said CLECs didn’t need access to high-capacity digital loops or dark fiber in order to compete for big business customers. Those were selected by SBC (Case 03-2041-TP-COI) from thousands of transport routes and hundreds of wire centers in Ohio. SBC said it selected the places based on availability of alternative wholesale providers or feasibility that CLECs could deploy their own facilities economically. The PUC gave SBC until Dec. 2 to file data in support of its contentions. Hearings will begin Feb. 24.
The Neb. PSC became the latest Qwest state to agree to participate in the multistate forum proposed by Qwest, AT&T and MCI to develop a uniform process for performing batch hot cuts in all Qwest states. The Ia. Utilities Board (IUB) said it also would participate, but reserved the right to quit the forum later if it believed it might hurt the board’s ability to carry out its TRO duties. The IUB expressed concern at the lack of detail in the forum proposal but said it wanted to express its support and preserve the option for a regional approach to hot cuts. Several other Qwest states also have agreed to participate, with Wash., N.M. and Wyo. among the most recent. The first forum meeting is planned for Dec. 1-3 in Denver.
CLECs in Wash. asked state regulators for an additional layer of protection for CLECs that submitted sensitive data in the Utilities & Transportation Commission’s TRO proceedings. The CLECs said their highly confidential data shouldn’t be seen by anyone other than the commissioners and staff. Further, CLECs would be identified only by code numbers and their names wouldn’t appear on their data. The Wash. CLECs said their plan had been proposed in other Qwest states, including Ore. and Minn., without objection.
The Nev. PUC said it would take initial testimony Dec. 15 in its 9-month TRO case addressing unbundled mass-market switching, dedicated transport and enterprise loops. The testimony (Case 03-2019) is to address incumbent telcos’ batch hot-cut processes. CLEC testimony on hot cuts is due by Jan. 12. Hot-cut hearings will be Jan 20-21. On switching and transport, incumbents must file a status report by Jan. 9 and direct testimony by Feb. 27, with CLEC testimony due March 22. Hearings on switching and transport will begin April 19, with final briefs due May 14 and final reply briefs May 28.
The Tex. PUC divided its TRO 9-month case into 2 phases (Cases 28607, 28744-45). The first will address the specific geographic markets for a competitive impairment analysis and whether incumbents should be relieved of unbundling obligations in particular markets because the FCC’s trigger tests had been met for CLEC alternatives to the incumbent’s unbundled switching, dedicated transport and enterprise loops. The 2nd phase will involve the need for unbundling in markets where the FCC’s trigger tests hadn’t been met. In that phase, CLECs will identify the markets where they claim significant barriers to entry would exist without unbundling, spell out the barriers and explain why they prevented market entry. Procedural schedules will be set later.
The Conn. Dept. Of Public Utility Control will hold a preliminary hearing Dec. 16 in its 9-month case on mass- market switching, dedicated transport and enterprise loops. The hearing will address steps needed to evaluate the competitive need for unbundling. That date also is the deadline for initial written comments on the proceeding (Case 03-09-01PH01).