CONGRESS SEEN UNLIKELY TO BACK INDUSTRY CALL FOR LNP FORBEARANCE

Levin and other panelists at OPASTCO event said Verizon and wireless industry interests had engaged in lobbying effort on Capitol Hill for FCC forbearance. Dingell believes such policy shift would be unwise, and will push for eventual implementation of wireless LNP, Levin said. Although there are many carriers and price plans available to consumers, some users are reluctant to choose competitive alternatives because they don’t want to change their phone number, Levin said: “It is a very important competitive issue.”

Reg Leichty, aide to Sen. Nelson (D-Fla.) agreed Congress was concerned with burdens placed on industry in pursuit of many policy goals. Compliance with both wireless LNP and with Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is critical, he said: “We don’t want such a burden that none of these important goals are reached.” He said that although FCC was likely to grant another wireless LNP waiver, lifting Nov. 24 deadline “without additional contingencies… would be problematic” for Nelson. Christian Fjeld, aide to Rep. Luther (D-Minn.), said Luther supported recent push by Tauzin and Dingell to delay deadline while other regulatory requirements were met: “On this particular issue, he is sympathetic.”

NARUC Legislative Dir. Jessica Zufolo said association was against further delays in LNP implementation. She disagreed with industry contentions that software needed for LNP either wasn’t available or was too expensive: “NARUC feels that [LNP] is a really important tool for number conservation” and agrees with N. American Numbering Council that immediate action is needed to prevent number shortage.

Panelists were generally in agreement that hearings were needed to address issue of advanced services unbundling and resale exemption for small rural carriers. Legislation (HR- 3142) by Rep. Radanovich (R-Cal.) would provide such exemption, and is supported by OPASTCO. Leichty said Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Hollings (D-S.C.) had been reluctant to hold hearings on issue. He said Nelson thought “the legislation should at least be considered,” since it could provide “greater regulatory flexibility” for rural companies. Levin said he understood issue was important to OPASTCO member companies, but House Commerce Committee had been focused on other advanced service issues such as recent House passage of Tauzin-Dingell data deregulation bill (HR-1542). Fjeld agreed hearings should be held on rural exemption, but said Luther tended to be reluctant to diminish state regulatory authority. Zufolo said NARUC hadn’t taken position on it, and suggested OPASTCO members express to NARUC their interest in having NARUC consider it at its upcoming policy meetings.

Fjeld said universal service caps “apparently have been imposed by the FCC by regulatory fiat” and said need for hearings could help facilitate congressional understanding of issue. Leichty said Nelson had no position on whether to lift caps on how much universal service support individual carriers could receive. He said there hadn’t been much interest shown by Senate Commerce Communications Subcommittee members in holding hearings. Zufolo said NARUC took up resolution at its July 2000 meeting, but when “it was brought up for discussion… sparks flew.” She said Tex. and N.Y. members were vehemently opposed to addressing cap, so “we took it out of the resolution because there was so much controversy over it.”

FCC Comr. Copps told OPASTCO it was “vitally important” to express concerns to lawmakers about “continuing urgency of rural development issues.” He emphasized he was prevented by law from encouraging Hill lobbying on specific issues, but expressed concern about “challenges and difficulties… of getting telecommunications services to rural America.” He said “when it comes to innovation and job creation,” small businesses such as OPASTCO companies always would be significant drivers of economy, and policy therefore should focus on that area.

Copps lauded OPASTCO companies for their dedication to successful businesses as well as to their communities: “You bring the communications revolution not just to customers but to friends and neighbors.” He said part of his job as commissioner was to enable companies to accomplish that task, and reiterated his dedication to making decision based on whether Commission actions were in public interest: “Congress put the public interest concept at the heart of the FCC’s mission.” He said Telecom Act used phrase “public interest” 112 times, indicating “the seriousness of that mission.” He rejected concept that determining what constituted public interest was impossible. “If we stop making decisions based on the public interest, we would be breaking the law.” He said such emphasis shouldn’t be viewed as antibusiness, and consistency in aiming for public interest would make it easier to carry out business.

Copps said “major and unfinished task before the Commission this year is homeland security… the ultimate public service criterion.” He said that following Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telecom and media communications industry “performed admirably, even heroically.” He said remaining task was to “identify which parts of network work, and which don’t work so well” in interoperability and redundancy. He cautioned that Commission must heed congressional direction on that policy subject, but said “we are the agency that has the expertise” to act on public safety issues so it must act “very aggressively” in ensuring safety by keeping “everyone connected.”