The Ohio PUC took the unusual step of publishing a point-by-point...

The PUC said it acted because Competition Ohio “has been misleading Ohio’s telephone consumers” about who they are and engaging in “scare tactics to enlist consumers” in fighting any SBC UNE increase. The PUC said Competition Ohio “isn’t a consumer advocacy group” but is funded by AT&T and other CLECs. The PUC disputed claims about the UNE increase causing spiraling local rates, saying there have been no retail local rate changes attributable to UNE rate changes, and that SBC in any event can’t raise basic local rates because of its price cap plan. The PUC also said it stayed the interim increase until it decided on pending petitions for reconsideration so those rates currently aren’t in effect. The PUC said the UNE increase won’t destroy local competition. It will reduce CLECs’ profit margins, the PUC acknowledged, but not to an extent that would force CLECs out of the market. The PUC said the group ignored the fact that CLECs have about a 20% share of Ohio’s local markets, and said the group misleadingly attributed perfectly proper SBC retail rate changes for optional and discretionary services to increased UNE rate levels. The PUC also said SBC isn’t gouging CLECs to fatten its bottom line, like Competition Ohio alleged, but is claiming a need to recover costs incurred in the course of serving CLECs. The PUC also said there’s no reason to believe the group’s claims that every CLEC will be forced to raise local rates because of UNE rate increases. Some may raise rates, the PUC said, but others may not.