FCC PROPOSES $6 MILLION FINE AGAINST SBC

SBC strongly disputed FCC’s claim, saying it had met requirements. “At the time of the SBC-Ameritech merger, Ameritech was not providing competitors with shared transport,” it said. However, SBC agreed to provide it in Ameritech region as merger condition because company already was doing so in Tex. SBC Senior Vp Priscilla Hill-Ardoin said issues surrounding shared transport had been very complex and SBC hadn’t had opportunity to explain them to Commission. Two different divisions of FCC Enforcement Bureau are looking at issue and one of them still is reviewing it, she said. “The irony is that while the Enforcement Bureau is leaping to conclusions on very technical matters in the name of protecting competitors, vigorous competition continues to intensify in our territory,” she said.

FCC said SBC had 30 days to either pay fine or respond to it in writing. In Notice of Apparent Liability, Commission said Enforcement Bureau had asked SBC to submit written responses to series of questions last year and “based on SBC’s responses, we conclude… that SBC apparently violated this condition in each of the 5 former Ameritech states by refusing to offer shared transport to be used to provide intraLATA toll.” Merger condition required that SBC offer shared transport in manner similar to terms it offered in Tex. as of Aug. 27, 1999. FCC added: “SBC asserts that the restrictions it sought to impose are not less favorable than its August 27, 1999, offering in Texas. We disagree. On Aug. 27, 1999, SBC had at least 2 interconnection agreements in Texas pursuant to which it offered CLECs the option of using shared transport to route intraLATA toll calls, without restriction, between their end-user customers and customers served by SBC. In the Ameritech states, by contrast, SBC has opposed carriers’ requests for agreements that would permit them to use shared transport for intraLATA toll traffic.”

AT&T spokesman disputed SBC’s contention that it hadn’t had opportunity to respond to charges. “For them to suggest this issue has not been fully heard is irresponsible and inaccurate,” he said. “The FCC made very clear way back in August 1997 that the Bells must provide shared transport to competitors.”

ALTS is “pleased that the Commission has proposed the maximum allowable penalty,” Pres. John Windhausen said, “but at the end of the day we would want performance more than penalties.” Windhausen accused Bell companies of being “as bad as serial killers” because “they have become addicted to bad behavior.” CoreComm, which filed complaint with FCC in Aug. alleging same violations highlighted by Commission, said it hoped agency’s action “will bring about an end to SBC’s repeated refusal to provide competitors, including CoreComm, with fair and non-discriminatory access to SBC’s shared transport network.” Z-Tel Vp Tom Koutsky said “it is about time that the FCC forced SBC to face the music on this issue.” Z-Tel also had filed complaint.

FCC said “substantial proposed forfeiture is warranted” because of SBC’s “apparent willful and repeated failure to comply.” Fine represents maximum penalty of $1.2 million multiplied by 5 Ameritech operating companies. Commission said SBC’s obligations in Tex. were “abundantly clear” and yet company “continued to argue to state commissions, and to this Commission, that the Texas Arbitration Award imposed only new obligations, despite the fact that the order states clearly that it was interpreting existing obligations.” SBC’s actions “forced other carriers to expend time and resources in state proceedings trying to obtain what SBC was already obligated to provide,” agency said in order.