With Comrs. Copps and Adelstein dissenting and Comr. Martin concu...
With Comrs. Copps and Adelstein dissenting and Comr. Martin concurring, the FCC announced late last week expiration of the Sec. 272 separate affiliate requirement for SBC in Kan. and Okla. Sec. 272 of the Telecom Act requires a Bell…
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.
company to provide in-region long distance service through a separate affiliate for 3 years after obtaining Commission approval to do so, unless the FCC extends that period. SBC was awarded Sec. 271 authorization in Kan. and Okla. Jan. 22, 2001. In a joint statement, Copps and Adelstein said they were “troubled” that the Commission’s decision wasn’t supported by analysis of either state market. “The Commission… does nothing here to determine whether there is a continuing need for these safeguards in either Kansas or Oklahoma,” they said. “This is unfortunate.” The FCC last year made a similar announcement about the N.Y. and Tex. separate affiliates for SBC (CD July 3 p9). “Just as we were troubled by these earlier failures to analyze the continuing need for Section 272 safeguards, we are troubled here,” Copps and Adelstein said: “As before, we are left wondering how the Commission can justify sunset while it leaves unresolved the development of alternative safeguards in its performance measurements docket.” They also expressed concern about the Commission’s having moved forward with its decision, leaving incomplete its proposed rulemaking on carrier classification following the Sec. 272 sunset. Comr. Martin expressed concerns that the FCC allowed the Sec. 272 requirements to sunset through a public notice rather than an order responding to questions raised on the record: “I would have preferred that we affirmatively set forth, in a separate Commission order, our analysis and justification for granting the relief… rather than remain silent.”