4 MORE STATES SAY UNBUNDLED ENTERPRISE SWITCHING IS UNNECESSARY
State regulators in N.C., Ida., N.D. and Me. say they agree with the FCC’s Triennial Review Order (TRO) conclusion that unbundled switching isn’t required for effective local competition in the enterprise market for large business customers, but left open windows for CLECs to contest that conclusion. Meanwhile, Qwest told all its state commissions that it planned to challenge the need for unbundled switching in the mass market for residential and small business customers.
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 N.C. Utilities Commission tentatively agreed with the FCC presumption against unbundled enterprise switching. It said evidence provided by BellSouth, Verizon and Sprint showed only 4 CLECs ordered unbundled switching on a total of 16 DS-1 loops, which it said indicated negligible demand for such services. But it gave CLECs until Oct. 10 to contest its tentative conclusion, otherwise it will close the 90-day docket (Case P-100, Sub 133p) on Oct. 13.
The Idaho PUC tentatively concluded the FCC was correct in its presumption that lack of unbundled switching wouldn’t impair local competition in the “enterprise” market for large business customers served by DS-1 and higher loops. The PUC (Case GNR-T-03-22) gave CLECs until Oct. 10 to challenge the PUC’s tentative conclusion. If no one challenges, the PUC said it wouldn’t address the FCC finding.
The N.D. PSC said it had no plans to open a docket to rebut the FCC’s presumption and advised carriers that take issue with it to take their case directly to the FCC. The PSC said the TRO allowed the FCC to step into the role prescribed for the states if a state commission didn’t exercise its authority. The PSC said it didn’t have the time or resources to conduct parallel 90-day and 9-month proceedings.
A Me. PUC hearing examiner advised the PUC not to challenge the FCC’s presumption unless CLECs by Oct. 8 could make a convincing showing that they could rebut the FCC’s no- impairment presumption. CLECs (Case 2003-629) must specify the market at issue and include a detailed summary of their arguments to keep unbundled enterprise switching.
The Minn. PUC assigned an administrative law judge to handle both the 90-day enterprise switching case and the 9- month mass market switching case after 2 CLECs said they would be impaired in the enterprise market without unbundled switching. The PUC directed the ALJ to file a recommended decision on enterprise switching (Case P999/CI-03-960) by Dec. 15. Prehearing conference on the 9-month mass-market investigation (Case P999/CI-03-961) will be Dec. 1.
The Ohio PUC opened a docket (Case 03-2040/2041-TP-COI) to address the need for unbundled high-capacity loops and switching in the enterprise market. CLECs challenging the FCC presumption must file with the PUC by Oct. 17. Challenges favoring unbundled high-capacity enterprise loops are due by Nov. 3. Incumbents wanting to challenge the presumption also must notify the PUC by that same date.
Enterprise switching challenges must be filed by Oct. 7 in Ala. and Oct. 18 in Hawaii.
In the 9-month case, Qwest told its state commissions that it planned to challenge the need for unbundled mass- market switching in all of its states and might challenge the need for loop and transport unbundling in the enterprise markets of Ariz, Minn., Colo. Ore., Wash. and Utah. Qwest and its competitors said they would meet to discuss a plan for state consideration of batch hot cuts and indicated that that issue might best be addressed on a collaborative basis among multiple Qwest states. The S.D. PUC told incumbent telcos to file by Oct. 10 their intent to challenge the FCC presumptions. The PUC (Case TC03-181) also asked parties to suggest how its review should be conducted in order to meet the FCC’s tight timetable.
The Ill. Commerce Commission split its TRO investigation into 4 parts. The first 2 (Cases 03-0593 and 03-0594) will address unbundled switching for enterprise and mass-market customers, the 3rd (Case 03-595) will look at high-capacity loops and dedicated transport and the 4th (Case 03-596) will address batch hot cuts. Each part will be assigned to a different administrative law judge who will set the procedural schedule.
The Iowa Utilities Board told CLECs to file by Oct. 20 their comments on which specific markets would suffer impaired local competition without unbundled switching for serving residential and small-business customers. The board (Case INU-03-1) also told all incumbent telcos to file details of their batch hot cut processed by the same date.