COMPETITORS, BUSINESS USERS PROPOSE SPECIAL ACCESS STANDARDS

Group of competitive telcos teamed up with business user group Tues. to propose that FCC adopt set of special access standards they had devised as consensus approach. “The entire competitive industry as well as business users have joined together to present what we believe is an appropriate set of measurements,” WorldCom Vp Donna Sorgi said in press teleconference. Calling itself Joint Competitive Industry Group (JCIP), coalition said special access was lifeblood of competitive telcos and long distance companies because it gave them last-mile access to business customers. And yet, they said, there was little regulatory oversight of how quickly and fairly ILECs provided that service to them.

Group’s filing was made as FCC gathered comments on its proposal to set up performance measurement regime to evaluate how well ILECs provided special access (CD Nov 21 p1). Comments were due Tues., with replies due Feb. 12, on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that FCC issued Nov. 19 (CC Doc. 01-321). JCIP members also filed separate comments with FCC Tues. because, although they agreed on set of 11 measures, they appeared to have differed on what penalties should be prescribed if ILECs didn’t meet standards. For example, WorldCom proposed that FCC revoke ILEC’s Sec. 271 authority if it didn’t meet special access standards.

Carriers in group include AT&T, Broadview Networks, Cable & Wireless, Choice One, Focal Communications, Global Crossing, McLeodUSA, Network Plus, NewSouth Communications, PaeTec Communications, Time Warner Telecom, XO Communications, WorldCom. Group also includes 2 associations -- ALTS and CompTel -- and eCommerce & Telecom Users Group (eTUG), representing businesses that are large users of telecom.

Group said its standards would meet 2 goals -- improving provisioning of special access and deterring what they called ILEC discrimination. Special access is dedicated pipe from customer premises to competing carriers’ or long distance companies’ network. Sorgi said that as Bell companies gained authority to enter long distance business they would have even more incentive to discriminate against other full- service carriers. Despite its importance to competitors, special access isn’t on 14-point checklist that ILECs must meet before gaining Sec. 271 entry and, in general, tends to be “off the regulatory screen,” XO Communications Senior Vp Gerald Salemme said. ETUG Gen. Counsel Brian Moir said standards proposal actually was deregulatory because it should discourage violations and thus “lessen the burden on the FCC.” NewSouth Vp Jake Jennings said later that he expects action on special access plan by summer because FCC Chmn. Powell promised CLEC CEOs last summer that he would act quickly on issues that impeded CLEC competition.

Proposed standards would govern ordering, providing, maintenance and repair. Group proposed, among other things, that ILECs be required to install special access facilities within 7-14 business days, depending on type of line. ILECs would have to keep records on how often they met deadline and how many days they were late. Other measurements would look at such things as: (1) Quality of installation by requiring ILECs to report rate of trouble reports on new circuits. (2) How long it took to restore circuits when problem developed. Group tried not to make standards “overly burdensome,” Time Warner Telecom Vp Kelsi Reeves said.

Facilities-based carriers are particularly dependent upon those dedicated lines to interconnect their networks and offer competitive data, IP and other high-bandwidth services to business customers, group said in material distributed to news media. They said special access generally was provided over same ILEC facilities as were used to provided loops and transport as unbundled network elements (UNEs). However, unlike UNEs, “the provision of special access service generally is not subject to any state or federal performance monitoring plan,” group’s background material said. It said ILEC provisioning and maintenance of special access “has been poor and erratic over the past several years” and as Bells obtained long distance approval and began offering long distance services to business customers “they will have a growing incentive to [discriminate] against competitive carriers in the provision of special access.”

Meanwhile many parties were filing comments with FCC on special access NPRM late Tues., including Verizon, which urged Commission not to adopt special access performance measures. Verizon said competitiveness of special access market made measures unnecessary. Although eTUG’s Moir argued in news conference that market wasn’t competitive, Verizon said “the special access market is a competitive success story, with numerous facilities-based competitors vying to serve sophisticated customers who possess considerable bargaining power.” Long distance companies, CLECs, ILECs, competitive access providers (CAPs) and even end users themselves “all compete with one another,” Verizon said. “There is no legitimate justification for -- and there would be no appreciable benefit from -- adopting these burdensome new requirements,” it said. “Moreover, existing carrier-to-carrier problem resolution procedures, backed up if necessary by the Commission’s complaint process, are sufficient to address whatever isolated problems arise,” carrier said. If FCC still decides to adopt performance reports, “they must apply equally to all competitors, whether CLECs, CAPs or ILECs,” Verizon said. “In this competitive marketplace, imposing disparate reporting obligations upon ILECs would be inequitable and of dubious legality,” it said.

N.Y. State Dept. of Public Service (NYDPS) said it supported federal measurements and standards for interstate special access but encouraged FCC to adopt N.Y.’s guidelines as model. “The NYSDPS has spent considerable time and resources overseeing a collaborative process to establish special services guidelines in New York,” agency said. “With federal enforcement of these interstate services, the problems we have witnessed should be remedied.” American Petroleum Institute (API) said intervention by FCC “is essential to a fully competitive interexchange data communications services market.” API said its member companies “have endured significant, continuing delays and problems in the provisioning of interstate special access services by… ILECs.”