IOWA SAYS QWEST BROKE LAW BY NOT FILING ALL PACTS WITH CLECS
Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) tentatively concluded Qwest violated Sec. 251/252 of Telecom Act by not filing certain agreements it made with interconnecting CLECs that subsequently dropped their opposition to Qwest regulatory initiatives. Board said Telecom Act, FCC rules and IUB rules all made it clear that “any binding agreement or understanding” between interconnecting parties “about any aspect” of services provided or business relationships between parties was interconnection agreement that must be filed for state approval and made available for opt-in by other carriers. IUB’s tentative conclusion will become final June 18 unless Qwest or another party requests hearing.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Qwest contended amendments to interconnection agreements that settled disputes or addressed administrative mechanics of business relationships between parties didn’t need to be filed. But IUB (Case FCU-02-2) dismissed that argument, saying “there are no exceptions” to mandatory filing requirements for interconnection agreements or for “any modifications or amendments” to those agreements that in any way bind or obligate parties to act, refrain from action, or change any terms or conditions.
Board said plain reading of FCC and IUB rules on filing requirements made clear framers’ intent that broadest possible definition be applied to term “interconnection agreement.” Allowing exceptions from filing for certain types of incumbent-CLEC agreements, IUB said, could allow parties to conceal anticompetitive understandings such as agreements not to compete in certain markets or for certain customer classes.
IUB examined 2 unfiled Qwest pacts with McLeod USA and one with Covad Communications that company produced in response to AT&T’s Feb. complaint that Qwest was making unfiled preferential agreements with selected CLECs to buy their silence during its Sec. 271 interLATA long distance entry proceedings and other regulatory initiatives. IUB said all 3 should have been filed with state.
IUB said pact with Covad obligated Qwest to meet specific quality standards in providing DSL, ISDN and DS-1 services to Covad and obligated Covad in return “to withdraw its opposition to Qwest’s long distance entry.” Qwest billing agreement with McLeod settled billing squabble by replacing local reciprocal compensation with bill-and-keep and changing rates for resold and unbundled services, while its administrative agreement with McLeod established plan specific to McLeod for resolving any future disputes. In return, IUB said, McLeod agreed to drop its opposition to Qwest-U S West merger. IUB said terms in those agreements “would have been of interest to other CLECs negotiating with Qwest then and even now,” because they made substantive changes in service quality, billing and dispute resolution provisions in previously approved interconnection agreements.
IUB directed Qwest to submit all other nonfiled interconnection agreements and amendments with any other competitive local provider in state within 60 days. Board didn’t propose penalty for Qwest’s violation as long as it complied with filing order, but made it clear that any future violations of filing requirements would be punished.
Qwest said it was disappointed by IUB’s finding but hasn’t decided whether to request hearing. Order stressed that requests for hearing must be based on substantive grounds that IUB overlooked or misinterpreted material facts or laws, rather than just reflecting that someone was unhappy with board’s conclusion. Qwest said it had petition pending at FCC for clarification on which sorts of agreements between incumbents and CLECs were subject to public filing and state approval but conceded it was unlikely FCC would reach decision before IUB’s findings became final. IUB denied Qwest’s request to stay its order until FCC ruled.
AT&T praised Iowa finding and said IUB was first state commission to formally rule that Qwest’s failure to file all agreements with CLECs was unlawful. AT&T has filed similar complaints across Qwest’s region and has joined with Minn. consumer advocates in their complaint about Qwest’s agreement filings. AT&T said it expected IUB’s ruling would be of great interest to FCC and other Qwest states as they addressed issue.