State Regulators Say FCC Shouldn’t Drop ‘ARMIS’ Reporting

AT&T has asked the FCC to “forbear” from enforcing a 20- year-old mandate that incumbent phone companies submit four “ARMIS” reports on service quality, customer satisfaction, infrastructure deployment and “operating data,” including matters like call volume. AT&T terms the reports unnecessary and burdensome. AT&T seeks forbearance only for its incumbent LECs, but at least one smaller company, Cincinnati Bell, asked the FCC to do likewise for all price cap companies. ARMIS (Automated Reporting Management Information System) refers to the way the reports are filed.

The service quality report “allows states to ensure that ILECs continue to provide high quality service,” said the Texas Public Utility Commission. The commission uses the data “to compare the level of service quality delivered in Texas to that of other states,” it said. The infrastructure report, on the extent of outside plant and switching facilities, sees use by states to devise “forward-looking infrastructure” policies, said the Texas PUC. “Requiring ILECs to report infrastructure deployment data is important to evaluate the effects of competition,” it said. The FCC could change it by removing requirements to report on “outdated technologies such as electro-mechanical switches” and add requirements to report on new technologies like VoIP- based switches, the PUC said. Texas regulators said they use the operations data report on call volumes and billed access minutes “in setting the input parameters” for universal service fund “cost models.” They don’t use the report on customer satisfaction, they said.

The Michigan Public Service Commission called ARMIS reports “vital for state commissions” to “access and analyze industry data.” For example, state commissions “have little authority to require providers to submit detailed infrastructure information,” making the ARMIS infrastructure report “a very significant tool for state commissions in that a large amount of detailed information is readily available to them.” AT&T recommended that the FCC change another report, known as Form 477, to collect data on network infrastructure, but data on that form are confidential, Michigan regulators said. “While Form 477 data is available to state commissions under non-disclosure agreements, there is considerable delay between the time the data is filed with the FCC and when it is compiled and available to the states for review,” the Michigan PSC said. Form 477 data are useful but not a substitute for ARMIS reports, the PSC said.

The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates contested AT&T’s claim that competition renders the reports needless. “That may be true, but only in relative terms, given the minimal competition the ILECs faced in 1990” when the reports came into being, said NASUCA. The reports “remain vital” because incumbent AT&T phone companies “remain dominant in their local markets, especially for residential service,” NASUCA said. ARMIS reports “assume even more importance in cases where states have decreased, or eliminated entirely, in-state reporting requirements, opting instead to rely upon reports submitted by carriers to the FCC,” NASUCA said.

“The competitive environment today is far different from that of 20 years ago, when the reports at issue were first adopted,” said the U.S. Telecom Association. ARMIS reports “have long outlived their intended purpose, are unduly burdensome and are inequitably applied,” USTelecom said. The two reports on infrastructure are filed only by AT&T, Verizon and Qwest, with “only a slightly larger number” of companies submitting the other two, USTelecom said.

“Although AT&T requests forbearance only for its ILEC affiliates, the Commission should grant forbearance from these reporting requirements for all ILECs under price cap regulation,” said Cincinnati Bell. “Competition is robust throughout the country and the continuation of the reporting requirements is not in the public interest,” it said. The Bell said it agrees with AT&T “that if the Commission believes there is a benefit to be realized in gathering network infrastructure information, the Commission should gather the desired information from all carriers.” The reports “no longer serve any valid regulatory purpose and they impose burdens” on price cap regulated incumbents, Embarq said. “There is virtually no chance that the incumbent local exchange carriers under price cap regulation… would reduce service quality or choose not to make network investments because the long-term losses from encouraging competitive entry would more than outweigh any short-term gains,” Embarq said.