Colo. PUC Comr. Raymond Gifford had hard words for AT&T as he dis...
Colo. PUC Comr. Raymond Gifford had hard words for AT&T as he dismissed what he called carrier’s “overwrought” objections to Gifford’s recent fact-finding report to PUC that Qwest had satisfied certain key Telecom Act requirements for interLATA long distance…
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.
entry. Gifford reported in Feb. that Qwest had demonstrated existence of residential and business local competition as required by Track A provisions of Sec. 272. He said record (Case 97I-198T) also demonstrated that Qwest’s long distance entry would be in public interest, as Sec. 271 requires, particularly given last winter’s adoption of Qwest Colo. wholesale performance assurance plan. AT&T objected to report’s conclusions in March 22 filing, alleging high Qwest access charges coupled with high unbundled network element (UNE) rates would allow Qwest to squeeze out both long distance and local exchange competitors after interLATA entry. Gifford dismissed AT&T’s claims, saying carrier had raised no new legal issues and offered no supporting facts or credible economic analysis to back up what he termed its “strident” price-squeeze assertions. Gifford took AT&T to task for “ill-advised aggressiveness and overwrought pleading [that] served to devalue the credibility of its position, particularly because of the hypocrisy it betrays as to the public interest standard. AT&T equates its interest with the public interest. These are 2 distinct things.”