MASS. ATTORNEY GEN. URGES FCC TO DENY VERIZON ENTRY

Verizon shouldn’t be allowed to enter Mass. long distance market because Mass. Dept. of Telecom & Energy (MDTE) hasn’t set permanent rates for unbundled network elements (UNEs) based on forward-looking TELRIC (total element long-run incremental cost) methodology, Mass. Attorney Gen. said in comments to FCC Feb. 6. Filing said rates didn’t meet one of Telecom Act’s checklist requirements. It also said that until MDTE can review Verizon’s performance assurance plan (PAP), filed Jan. 30, there was no proof that Verizon wasn’t discriminating against its data competitors in favor of its separate affiliate. Attorney Gen. said Verizon’s PAP didn’t include enough DSL performance measures to assure compliance with Act. Filing said DSL competition in Mass. was dwindling, making need to monitor and remedy poor DSL performance greater to ensure consumers have choices.

In solid support of entry, however, MDTE said nothing Verizon filed in supplemental application caused it “any concern” and actually supported and further confirmed conclusions DTE reached last year. MDTE filing said independent studies supplied in Verizon’s supplemental filing showed that provision and repair of DSL loops was nondiscriminatory. MDTE said that Verizon also included modified performance metrics, as adopted by N.Y. PSC, and that procedures for providing Verizon Advanced Data line-sharing matched procedures for provision to CLECs. MDTE said Verizon’s UNE rates were at same levels approved by N.Y. PSC, which FCC has found to be consistent with TELRIC principles. MDTE reaffirmed findings in last year’s evaluation and said supplemental application addressed all issues raised by then-Chmn. Kennard Dec. 18.

This was Verizon’s 2nd application for Mass. entry. Company withdrew first one Dec. 18 (CD Dec 19 p2), telling FCC it wanted to “address procedural concerns.” FCC Common Carrier Bureau had sought more input from competitors on whether Verizon provided DSL carriers with nondiscriminatory access to its loops. Latest application was filed Jan. 16.

WorldCom said in separate comments that Verizon’s UNE pricing still was inflated above cost and well above level to allow viable competition in local market. It said MDTE pricing proceeding remained unresolved, declaring that just because MDTE had opened price proceeding didn’t mean pricing problem had been settled. Mass. Consumer Coalition said Verizon didn’t “treat ISPs fairly” on UNE rates charged to competitors that offered DSL. Coalition also said Verizon had “caused systemic failures” in Mass. DSL market since ISPs couldn’t get wholesale circuits in reasonable time.

Assn. of Communications Enterprises (Ascent) opposed Sec. 271 authorization, saying: (1) Verizon didn’t make available advanced services for resale in accordance with Sec. 251(C)(4). (2) Rates for unbundled network elements couldn’t be justified. (3) Verizon hadn’t demonstrated its OSS systems could handle large volumes of UNE-P orders and OSS problems persisted. CompTel said Verizon’s access services performance was unsatisfactory and if granted approval it would discriminate in favor of its affiliate. CompTel urged FCC to require Verizon and all other applicants to report special access performance before they could receive 271 authority. It attached affidavit of Cable & Wireless official who said there had been extended delays in installation of special access services.

Commercial Internet Exchange Assn.(CIX), representing 125 ISPs, said it was interested in proceeding because ISPs relied on Verizon to provide their CLEC partners with DLS loops in timely manner, but since Verizon didn’t, both ISPs and CLECs lost. Assn. said ISPs needed to know that service requested would be provided on date certain, which it said Verizon still failed to do. Global Crossing said Verizon was unable to provide both UNE transport and access services simultaneously. It urged FCC to adopt performance measurements for Verizon’s provision of special access services and add financial penalties for nonperformance.

ALTS, Focal Communications and XO Communications in joint filing said: (1) Verizon overcharged for electrical power to operate colocated equipment in central offices, which amounted to discriminatory access to DSL-capable loops. (2) Verizon entry into long distance in Mass. wasn’t in public interest since company continued to ignore merger conditions, specifically ignoring CLEC opt-in rights. (3) Verizon didn’t provide preorder loop qualification systems that CLECs needed to provide DSL. Global Naps went so far as to say Verizon had total disregard of interconnection agreements and failed to pay reciprocal compensation on ISP-bound traffic.