FCC'S MARTIN BIDS NASUCA GET MORE INVOLVED IN FEDERAL DEBATES

There’s been some “migration of authority” to federal level since Telecom Act passage, Martin said, with FCC being more dominant partner in federal-state partnership. But he said court decisions since 1996 also had made it clear that “hard and fast distinctions remain” between federal and state jurisdictions that must be accommodated when FCC made national policy..

Martin said he personally saw workable federal-state partnership as one where FCC developed broad “operational framework” of policy, and states took that policy “down to the next level of detail that evaluates market-by-market differences.” He said states fought successfully against FCC mandates compelling use of specific TELRIC costing model even as they adopted TELRIC models suited to particular conditions in their markets. State utility commissions individually and through NARUC have been successful at getting their voice heard in Congress and at FCC, Martin said. He said consumer advocate agencies and NASUCA historically had focused on state-level policymaking, but they “also need to get more involved at the federal level” to ensure interests of their constituencies are represented directly.

In current proceedings on unbundled network elements and platforms (UNE-Ps), Martin said FCC’s role was to set ground rules that were consistent with recent court decisions, with states as partners in implementing rules. “Talk of preempting the states on UNEs is premature. We're still creating a framework of analysis for justifying the rules we adopt. The states have been good partners with us and we want that partnership to continue.” He said courts had told FCC to justify extent of its unbundling: “We're asking states to do the same.” Legal question facing both jurisdictions, he said, “is whether it’s necessary to access every UNE in every circumstance.” He said incumbents’ performance in making “hot cuts” of residential loops to CLEC-owned switches was issue FCC and states had to address in evaluating need for UNE-P.

In response to questions, Martin said intermodal competition, such as involving wireless, cable and landline, was emerging around edges of telecom market. But until intermodal alternatives are complete substitutes for one another, they don’t represent competitive constraint sufficient to justify full deregulation. He said until there were viable alternatives to local loop in all markets, “last mile” of network must continue to be regulated. Internet telephony isn’t viable form of intermodal competition today because vast majority of consumers must rely on telcos’ local loops to access Internet, Martin said.

On question of what FCC could do about accounting to help states in tracking costs and revenue, Martin said there were broad legal questions that had to be answered first: “To what extent can we justify keeping rules we don’t use anymore? The Telecom Act requires us to get rid of unnecessary rules, but does that mean unnecessary for us or unnecessary for anybody? Do we have authority to impose rules only to help the states? These are fundamental issues we'll need to address” through Joint Conference on Accounting and other venues.

NASUCA adopted policy resolution on UNE-P during meeting, saying state commissions, not FCC, were in best position to analyze whether presence or absence of particular UNE was essential to competition in that state’s local markets. Resolution said even if competitive switching alternatives were available, difficulties with hot cut process could make it necessary to retain UNE-P. Resolution supported continued availability of UNE-P at TELRIC-based rates as something essential to continued development of residential and small business telecom competition.