Verizon Disputes CLEC Calls for FCC Action on 'Special Construction' Charges
Verizon opposed FCC intervention and defended its “special construction” practices against competitor allegations that ILECs are overcharging for adding facilities to provide special-access business services. Responding to customer concerns, Verizon revised its procedures and “substantially reduced the volume of special-construction…
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.
quotes” for service over DS1 circuits while giving customers more information, the telco said in a filing posted Friday in docket 05-25 noting it absorbs many construction costs. Verizon took issue with a recent Windstream filing that elaborated on -- and urged ILEC compliance with -- a May proposal by Incompas (formerly Comptel) for allowing special-construction charges in certain situations. “Disguised as a clarification of Incompas’s proposal, Windstream’s latest proposal materially changes the Incompas proposal,” Verizon said. “Windstream adds to the Incompas proposal many scenarios under which an ILEC could never charge special construction, regardless of facilities availability or a willingness to certify to no future re-use for retail.” Verizon said Windstream and others want to shift construction costs onto ILECs for delivering “deregulated Ethernet facilities,” which they don’t ask of cable providers. Verizon also said ethernet special construction isn't a common-carrier service, disputing Incompas arguments to the contrary. Noting its 2006 ethernet forbearance relief, Verizon said it’s under no obligation to provide ethernet services under any circumstances. Verizon said it was irrelevant that it didn’t specifically mention special construction in its ethernet forbearance requests. “If Verizon can turn down requests for service even where it maintains facilities, it certainly may do so where it has no facilities,” the telco said. “If it decides it wants to offer Ethernet services where it does not have facilities, Verizon offers them on a privately negotiated commercial basis, can condition that offer on the customer’s payment of some or all of the construction costs, and can negotiate with the customer concerning an acceptable price.” Verizon said special-construction charges had never been tariffed, so the FCC “cannot have greater authority to regulate these prices following forbearance than it had before.” In its filing, Windstream suggested the FCC issue a public notice or declaratory ruling to provide guidance. “Unjustified ILEC special construction charges erect an unduly high cost barrier to competitive carriers’ and their customers’ migration to new services, and often cause customers to forego orders with competitive carriers,” Windstream said. CLECs believe an ILEC “cannot assess special construction charges on the purchasing CLEC (or its end-user customer) that the ILEC would not assess on its own retail customer requesting the same service for the same location,” Windstream said. Verizon said it applies the same special-construction policies to retail and wholesale customers.