Level 3 Communications opposed USTelecom’s petition for an FCC ru...

include ILECs under the provisions of Sec. 224 of the Communications Act guaranteeing access to poles and conduit at prescribed rates. If the FCC agreed to USTelecom’s petition and set limits on what ILECs paid for access to conduit, conduit owners “would have very little incentive to grant access to ILECs” and could refuse to do so because “ILECs have no statutory right to access a utility’s conduit,” Level 3 said. Granting USTelecom’s petition “would actually harm competition,” Level 3 said in reply comments filed Dec. 19. AT&T and other ILECs supported the USTelecom petition. AT&T disputed arguments by electric utilities that ILECs have a significant bargaining position with pole owners so there’s no need for regulatory intervention: “Whenever possible the Commission should rely upon market forces and arms'-length negotiations between commercial entities [but] in rare instances… market forces break down and Commission intervention is required.” AT&T said “the parity that ILECs once enjoyed with electric utilities has long since disappeared and ILECs, as attaching entities, ought to have the same rights as any other carrier to invoke the Commission’s authority to resolve disputes where market forces do not operate effectively.” USTelecom also disputed opposition expressed by electric utilities during the first round of comments, saying the utilities made “weak and unpersuasive arguments.” USTelecom said statutory language doesn’t bar extension of Sec. 224 to ILECs and joint use agreements between electric utilities and ILECs “are irrelevant with respect to the requested rulemaking.”