QWEST, RIVALS PROPOSE UNIFORM MULTISTATE TRO HOT CUT PROCESS

Qwest and its main rivals agreed that a standardized hot-cut process for switching large numbers of customers would provide the most efficient and workable operating environment for Qwest and CLECs alike. The 3 carriers also proposed establishment of a multistate forum for all participating stakeholders to achieve agreements on certain multistate hot-cut issues that would become part of the record for each state’s individual TRO review. State commissions of Colo., Ida. and N.D. said they would be willing to participate in such a forum.

Qwest would set the agenda for each meeting and document the binding agreements reached during the sessions. Issues that couldn’t be settled in the forums would be referred to the individual state commissions for litigation. The parties proposed a time line that called for Qwest to file its proposal for batched hot cuts by Nov. 11, including a detailed description of the process. CLECs would file their responses by Nov. 18. The first forum meeting would be held Dec. 1-3, with weekly conference calls until mid-Jan. Stipulated agreements would be filed by Jan. 20 along with briefs on issues still in dispute. Replies on disputed issues would be due Feb. 15.

The N.M. Public Regulation Commission said it wouldn’t hold a 9-month case on the competitive necessity for unbundled enterprise loops and transport because no one had challenged the FCC’s finding that CLECs must have access to DS-1 loops and transport in order to compete effectively for large business enterprises. The PRC also said it wouldn’t conduct a 90-day case on enterprise switching because no CLECs said they required it to compete. The PRC set a Dec. 4 deadline for all parties to respond to a set of discovery questions on the competitive need for unbundled mass-market switching.

The Ind. Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) said it would split its 9-month TRO case into 3 parts to address: (1) Mass-market switching. (2) DS-1 enterprise loops and transport. (3) Batch hot cuts. The IURC said SBC had advised the agency that it planned to challenge the FCC’s presumption that effective local competition required CLEC access to mass market switching and enterprise loops and transport. The IURC gave SBC until Dec. 1 to identify the specific markets where it planned to mount challenges and spell out their basis. In the mass-market switching portion (Case 42500), SBC will file testimony by March 5, with hearings April 26. In the enterprise loop/transport phase (Case 42500-S1), SBC must file its initial briefs Dec. 29, with hearings April 5. On the batch hot-cut portion (Case 42500-S2), where Ind. is participating in a regional collaborative, the agency directed SBC to file a progress report by Dec. 16 on issues resolved through the collaboration and those that remained in dispute. SBC’s hot- cut testimony is due March 1, with hearings April 12.

The Ark. PSC said it wouldn’t open a 90-day case on unbundled enterprise switching because no CLECs had challenged the FCC’s conclusion that it wasn’t needed to compete for large business enterprises. In its 9-month docket (Case 29054) on unbundled mass-market switching and enterprise loops/transport, the PSC said initial briefs were due Jan. 20 and hearings would open April 5. The Ark. PSC said it intended to adopt the batch hot-cut process SBC was developing in Tex. The Tex. PUC will examine SBC’s proposals in a Nov. 13 workshop (Project 27605) that will address incumbents’ record in performing hot cuts, what CLECs want in a hot-cut process and possible ways for improving the process. Other SBC states also are considering adopting the Tex. rules.

The Me. PUC told Verizon to file by Nov. 14 a motion specifying the markets where it planned to challenge the FCC’s presumptions favoring unbundled mass market switching and enterprise loops/transport (Case 2003-629). It also must propose a procedural schedule for addressing its challenges, including whether to adopt the same discovery processes to be used in N.Y. The PUC set the same date for comments on whether there was a need to develop a batch hot-cut process for the state or whether it simply could adopt whatever process was approved for N.Y.

The Ariz. Corporation Commission gave Qwest and other incumbent telcos until Dec. 12 to identify the markets and locations where they planned to challenge the FCC’s findings that unbundled mass market switching and enterprise loops/transport were needed for effective competition. Comments on the market definitions are due Dec. 22 and on all other issues Jan. 9. The ACC staff (Case T-00000A-03-0369) will file its comments Jan. 30. Replies are due Feb. 20, except that the staff has until March 2 to reply. Hearings will be held between March 8 and 19. Final briefs will be filed by April 30.

A W.Va. TRO industry-regulator task force urged the PSC to accept the FCC’s conclusion that unbundled switching wasn’t needed for the enterprise market but was necessary for the mass market (Case 03-1507-T-PC). The group said it was unable to reach consensus on how to address the issue of batch hot cuts and said it planned further meetings on the subject over the next few weeks and would report to the PSC again Dec. 1. The Mo. PSC gave incumbent telcos until Nov. 12 to identify the markets where they planned to challenge the FCC’s mass market switching and enterprise loop/transport conclusions (Case TW-2004-0149). SBC is to file its proposal for addressing batch hot cuts today (Nov. 10). A prehearing conference will be held Nov. 18.

The Ida. PUC gave parties until Jan. 19 to identify the markets where they planned to challenge the FCC’s mass market switching and enterprise loop/transport findings, along with a detailed explanation of their arguments for each market. Rebuttals are due March 29, with hearings May 24-28. The Ky. PSC in its 9-month case gave incumbent telcos until today (Nov. 10) to respond to initial discovery requests on types and locations of UNEs they provided to CLECs, along with their plans for processing batch hot cuts. An informal workshop session is planned for Dec. 3 where parties will present cost models and other information. Formal briefs are due Feb. 11 with hearings to open April 26.