STATES ENCOUNTER ODD ISSUES AS TRO CASE PRELIMINARIES WIND UP

The Va. Corporation Commission (VCC) called for comment by Jan. 9 and replies Jan. 23 on whether its jurisdiction could be compromised by hearing Verizon’s TRO challenge. Verizon and Verizon South (Case PUC-2003-00170) notified the VCC that they were challenging the need for unbundled mass market switching in metro markets and the need for unbundled dedicated transport on selected routes. The VCC asked parties to comment on whether it was lawful for the FCC to delegate UNE review authority to the states, and whether a VCC decision would be self-executing or would require subsequent FCC action. The VCC also sought comment on the path of appeal for any final Commission order and whether the outcome of TRO court appeals might change its rulings.

The Ohio PUC denied a motion by a group of CLECs to dismiss SBC’s TRO petition on the ground that it was vague about the wire centers and routes covered by its challenge to the need for unbundling of dedicated transport and high- capacity enterprise loops. Instead, the PUC told SBC to file its initial briefs by Jan. 5, with replies Feb. 2. Hearings will open Feb. 23. SBC said it was challenging the need for enterprise loop/transport unbundling in 5 wire centers. The PUC told SBC that its final ruling would address only the high-cap loop locations and dedicated transport routes specifically identified in the petition. The agency said that if SBC wanted to add other routes and locations, it must make a formal amendment to its petition.

The Colo. PUC ruled that discovery requests in Qwest’s TRO case would be limited to FCC findings that Qwest had chosen to challenge. The PUC (Case 03I-478T) said its staff had recommended revising its previous position that discovery requests could be issued on any matter delegated to the states by the TRO. Qwest said it would challenge only the need for unbundled mass market switching and had no plans to rebut the competitive need for unbundled enterprise loops and transport, so the PUC concluded there would be no need for discovery on those matters. The PUC directed Qwest to file by Dec. 15 its list of the specific markets where it planned to challenge the need for unbundled switching. CLECs had complained that previous filings were vague about the geographic scope of Qwest’s challenge.

A Cal. PUC administrative law judge set a Dec. 15 workshop on hot-cut issues in another try to reach a consensus and keep the PUC on schedule to meet the FCC’s TRO decision deadline next summer. CLECs said SBC in Nov. workshops hadn’t proposed any specific solution of the issues, particularly those involving split or shared loops, while Verizon simply proposed scaling up its existing hot-cut processes to anticipated migration volumes without demonstrating such an approach could be workable. The ALJ told SBC to file a complete and detailed proposal for its batch hot-cut process by the Dec. 15 workshop, while Verizon by that date must fill in the details of how its current manual processes could be scaled up. The ALJ said any more significant delay might make it impossible for the PUC to rule by June as the TRO required. CLECs said that without an acceptable batch hot-cut process, unbundled mass market switching must be retained. Meanwhile, the Tenn. Regulatory Authority set a Dec. 18 workshop on batch hot cuts, addressing the volume of migrations to be expected and the ability of incumbents to meet those volumes in an efficient manner.

The Mo. PSC decided to split its TRO case into 3 separate phases addressing market definitions, mass market switching and loop/transport issues. The market definition phase calls for briefs to be filed Dec. 18 and hearings Jan. 27. Briefs in the enterprise loop/transport phase are due Jan. 12 with hearings to open April 13. Briefs on the need for unbundled mass market switching, including hot-cut issues, are due Feb. 23 with hearings April 26.

The Mass. Dept of Telecom & Energy split its Verizon TRO case (DTE 03-60) into 2 parts. The first part will address whether the FCC’s competition impairment triggers have been met in Verizon’s markets. The FCC said incumbents’ unbundling of mass-market switching, enterprise loops and transport wouldn’t be needed if a CLEC had 2 other wholesale or 3 other retail providers available to it. Verizon told the DTE it would base its entire case on whether the triggers had been met and that it would concede the need for unbundling in markets where the triggers weren’t met. Verizon is to file its briefs Dec. 19, with CLECs to respond by Jan. 22. Hearings will open March 22 with final briefs due May 3. The 2nd phase will address hot-cut issues, with Verizon to file its testimony by Dec. 17. CLEC responses are due Jan. 22, with hearings March 22 and final briefs May 10.

The Alaska Regulatory Commission (ARC) set a Jan. 14 date for carriers planning to challenge the competitive need for unbundled mass market switching, enterprise loops and transport. The ARC (Case R-03-7) said it was advised that Alaska Communications Systems (ACS) planned to challenge the FCC presumption that switching and enterprise loops were needed for competition. The ARC said carriers filing challenges must identify the markets and routes covered by their challenges. Comments on the challenges are due Feb. 26.