Covad conceded broadband deregulatory bill House Commerce Committ...
Covad conceded broadband deregulatory bill House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) and ranking Democrat Dingell (Mich.) were expected to reintroduce soon “probably will get through” House but, along with ALTS and CompTel, it hasn’t relented in efforts to educate…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Hill members on CLECs’ regulatory needs and legislative ideas, which run counter to Tauzin-Dingell plan, Covad Vp-Regulatory Affairs Susan Davis said in interview Fri. Davis said Covad and Competitive Broadband Coalition members were pressing House and Senate members to consider drafting legislation that would result in “more and better enforcement” of existing ILEC obligations and would affirm ability of CLECs to seek remedies to patterns of anticompetitive behavior via antitrust laws. Passage of similar version of Tauzin-Dingell’s HR-2420, expected to be introduced in next few weeks (CD March 2 p4), wouldn’t be “as big as a win” as last year’s passage in light of Sec. 271 application approvals in 4 states and anticipated endorsements this year in additional states, Davis said. That sentiment was expressed earlier last week by Competition Policy Institute (CD March 21 p7), which said approvals could reduce necessity of legislation. Despite likely passage in House, Davis doubted Senate would approve Tauzin-Dingell bill. Covad, third largest DSL provider behind SBC and Verizon, maintains stance that HR-2420 is call for “remonopolization” of Bell companies and “isn’t about helping competition,” she said. Removing interLATA restrictions on data services would eliminate ILEC incentives to open their networks to competition and erode requirement of Sec. 271 of Telecom Act that ILECs open local markets to competition prior to receiving interLATA relief, she said. On another topic, Davis said success of Pa. PUC order requiring separation of some Verizon operations (CD March 23 p1) would rest on how well it was enforced. Under PUC order, separation is behavioral rather than structural and is premised on employees’ following “code of conduct,” she said. For example, certain services can’t be marketed as bundled packages, and accounting rules must be followed to keep 2 operations separate. Asked about Verizon’s view that action wouldn’t cause any major changes in operations, Davis said that would be true unless regulators carefully monitored Verizon’s adherence to code: “It will be business as usual for Verizon if there is no enforcement.” Best part of order, she said, is that Pa. PUC Chmn. John Quain finally “told the world what CLECs go through” in criticizing Verizon’s tactics.