In case with implications for development of competition in rural...
In case with implications for development of competition in rural telephony, OPASTCO and AT&T offered strongly divergent views Tues. on petition for rulemaking by Alaskan ILEC ACS Fairbanks (CC Doc. 96-45, DA 02-1853). ACS petition sought ruling that unbundled…
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.
network element (UNE)-based competitive telcos couldn’t get high-cost universal service loop support unless price they paid for UNEs exceeded 115% of national average loop cost. OPASTCO said: “ACS has convincingly demonstrated that when a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier’s (CETC) loop costs knowingly fall below the Commission’s high-cost standard, providing the CETC with [ILEC]-based universal service support gives the competitor a windfall of unneeded support that violates [Sec. 254 of Telecom Act.]” OPASTCO urged agency to “put a halt to this occurrence” by ruling that “high-cost loop support should be based on the CETC’s per-line UNE-based costs, rather than on the actual costs of ILEC.” OPASTCO said there was no basis for theory that CETCs and ILECs had same costs or were eligible for same level of universal service support. ACS petition stems from its relationship with competitor General Communications, which leases loops from ACS at prices below what it’s eligible to receive in high-cost support, ACS said in filing. AT&T said ACS petition “would deny its competitors what the Commission has determined to be necessary for local competition to develop in rural jurisdictions -- portable high-cost loop support.” AT&T said FCC’s rules “are clear” on issue: “A… CETC that wins a customer from an incumbent LEC is eligible to receive the same amount of federal universal service support that was received by the incumbent ILEC formerly serving that line.” AT&T urged FCC to deny ACS petition “because it would undermine the procompetitive goals of the 1996 Act and would reverse well-established Commission policy, which has been fully upheld by federal courts.”