CAL. AND ORE. PUCs SPLIT ON 90-DAY UNBUNDLED SWITCHING CASES
The neighboring state commissions of Cal. and Ore. drew exactly opposite conclusions on whether they needed to conduct the 90-day case to challenge the FCC’s presumption that unbundled switching isn’t essential for local competition in the “enterprise” market for large business customers served by DS-1 or larger loops. Meanwhile, several other states set deadlines for CLECs to request a challenge to the FCC’s presumption.
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.
The Cal. PUC became the 2nd state group to decide against challenging the FCC in the enterprise market. A PUC administrative law judge concluded there was no point in preparing a case to rebut the FCC’s enterprise market presumption because no party at the prehearing conference for the 90-day proceeding expressed an interest in a challenge.
Instead, the ALJ said the PUC should focus on the 90-day transition period during which any CLECs using unbundled switching for enterprise customers must be moved to other service arrangements. The ALJ directed the parties to file by Oct. 1 on the status of negotiations on the amendments to interconnection agreements necessary to remove enterprise unbundled switching from interconnection agreements. The Fla. PSC earlier in Sept. was the first state commission to decide against a challenge to the FCC’s position on the enterprise market.
But in Ore., the PUC opened a docket to examine impairment in the enterprise market without access to unbundled switching after CLECs Oregon Telecom and Unicom said they would suffer impairment if enterprise switching no longer were available. The CLECs must file their testimony Oct. 13, with incumbent telcos’ replies due Nov. 3. Hearings will be Nov. 13, final briefs filed Nov. 24 and the PUC will decide by Dec. 29.
The PUC said it wouldn’t address impairment issues of DS-1/DS-3 transport or dark fiber unless it received petitions asking it to do so. The FCC said impairment would exist without access to unbundled high-capacity circuits, but said carriers could challenge that presumption on a route-by- route basis. The Mass. Dept. of Telecom & Energy (DTE) plans hearings Nov. 12-14 in its TRO docket (Case DTE 03-59) on enterprise switching for large business customers, with final briefs Dec. 4.
Elsewhere, petitions from CLECs asking states to challenge the FCC’s national presumption are due Oct. 2 in Ky. and N.M., Oct. 3 in N.C. and W.Va., Oct. 6 in Iowa, Oct. 9 in Colo. If no CLECs file to challenge the FCC presumption, the states said they may not take any further action on the 90-day case.
In other TRO cases, the Mich. PSC called for comments by Oct. 3 in its docket (Case U-13796), focusing on how the agency should define the relevant market areas where the need for unbundled switching would be evaluated. The FCC said states must define at least 2 market areas within their borders but otherwise left the geographic determination to each state commission.
The Fla. PSC will hold a procedural conference Oct. 6 to outline the issues to be addressed in its mass-market switching and local transport TRO dockets. The PSC said it planned hearings Feb. 24-27 in its 9-month docket (Case 030851-TP) to address the need for unbundled switching in the mass market. The PSC also will hold hearings Jan. 28-30 on market-by-market need for unbundled DS-1 and DS-3 transport and dark fiber (Case 030852-TP).
The W.Va. PSC set up a TRO implementation collaborative, consisting of consumer advocates and incumbent and competitive carriers to address the 9-month mass market UNE docket (Case 03-1507-T-GD). The group is to file a list of initial recommendations by Oct. 23 for mass market unbundling and will set the rest of the docket’s procedural schedule.
The Tex. PUC set an Oct. 9 deadline for parties to file issue lists needing attention in the agency’s 9-month mass market UNE case. That also is its deadline for parties to propose protective orders and to register as intervenors in this case (Projects 27470 and 28607). The PUC wants to have a preliminary order on the scope of the case completed by Oct. 23.
The N.J. Board of Public Utilities set an Oct. 15 prehearing conference to address both the 90-day and 9-month TRO proceedings, and procedural orders will be issued Oct. 22. Intervenors must register by Oct. 3. If there is to be a 90-day proceeding, hearings will begin Nov. 10. Hearings in the 9-month mass-market UNE proceeding will open Feb. 23.