Minn. PUC hearings on allegedly secret and preferential agreement...
Minn. PUC hearings on allegedly secret and preferential agreements between Qwest and selected CLECs are to resume next month. PUC Administrative Law Judge Allan Klein plans hearings Aug. 6-8 to examine additional unfiled oral agreements that Minn. Dept. of…
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.
Commerce in June said it had uncovered. New agreements differed from those that already were part of case record, Commerce said, and would shed further light on allegations. New discoveries caused original procedural schedule to be suspended. Commerce in Feb. filed complaint (Case P-421/C-02-197) alleging Qwest made secret deals with certain CLECs, giving them preferential rates and terms in return for CLECs’ dropping their opposition to Qwest regulatory initiatives such as its merger with U S West and its Sec. 271 interLATA long distance entry bid. Qwest denied improper conduct, saying agreements at issue didn’t have to be filed because they dealt with dispute settlements and administrative mechanics. Qwest had petition pending at FCC asking whether its interpretation of filing laws was correct. Final Minn. briefing cycle will conclude around end of Aug., with ALJ’s recommended decision expected in mid-Sept. In related matter, Minn. Dist. Court, Ramsey County, is to hold July 26 hearing on Qwest motion seeking information from Minn. Commerce Dept. about its relationships with AT&T. Qwest charges that state Commerce Dept. has been biased toward AT&T in major cases involving Qwest. It submitted data request to Commerce in March under state’s open govt. law but said agency hadnt responded fully, say many requested documents contained proprietary trade secrets, so Qwest filed suit in May to compel disclosure. Qwest said Commerce then changed grounds for withholding documents, saying they related to active investigation as well as containing trade secrets. Qwest said Commerce had taken positions that deprive carrier of its statutory right-to-know basis for Commerce’s adverse positions against Qwest in at least 2 major cases. First was 2001 case in which AT&T alleged Qwest had violated interconnection agreement by not allowing AT&T to test Qwest’s unbundled network element platforms. That case ended in May with Qwest being fined $900,000. Second case was Feb. complaint by Commerce about unfiled Qwest interconnection agreements.