Far fewer stakeholders weighed in to Congress on...

white paper were due earlier this month. The House Communications Subcommittee posted the 44 responses online recently (http://1.usa.gov/1pHdC0v); the previous three white papers produced an average of 85 responses per white paper, said Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., at an event last month (CD July 17 p17). In the latest responses, NASUCA told Congress to “maintain the interconnection obligations set forth in the 1996 Telecom Act” and to maintain the state role. Public Knowledge argued that “policymakers must also retain authority to ensure interconnection agreements are not being used to stifle competition or diminish service in hard-to-reach rural areas” and that state regulators “should also be able to collect information about interconnection agreements and ensure interconnection disputes do not harm consumers or competition.” The American Cable Association backs interconnection obligations of sections 201 and 251, which “recognize the key need to interconnect to further the public interest, provide for additional oversight of networks providers with market power, and enable deregulation where market power no longer exists,” in addition to granting state regulators “an important role where negotiations between incumbents and competitors break down.” The Competitive Carriers Association judged that “preserving interconnection obligations throughout and beyond the ongoing transition to all-IP networks is a cornerstone in supporting competition in the digital age,” hailing the importance of some kind of regulatory backstop.