Records of Bell companies in providing services to CLECs and RBOC...

Bell company arguments for legislative relief on Sec. 271 requirements could be “undercut by their own performance” as service quality issues become more prominent in policy debates this year. At NARUC winter meeting that starts Sun. in Washington, Salemme said he also expected call for split in retail and wholesale operations of Bell companies to be hot topic. Recent bill in Md. House (HB-597) would impose structural separation regime similar to that ordered by Pa. PUC for Verizon. Structural separation is “a nice, easy, clear way that isn’t regulatory” to ensure Bell companies meet market-opening requirements under Telecom Act, he said. Salemme said he expected talk at NARUC meeting to turn to retail/wholesale split as possible “model.” He stressed importance of both Congress and FCC focusing on enforcement “to make sure the Bell companies and ILECs feet are held to the fire” when it comes to meeting Telecom Act commitments, he said. “We need to have rules enforced and penalties have to be strong and harsh enough that it’s not just a cost of doing business,” Salemme said. Asked about FCC Chmn. Powell’s recent statement that deregulation shouldn’t be “dessert” that’s given only after full competition, he said he didn’t interpret that to mean that FCC would alter review process for Sec. 271 applications. He said he didn’t see any signs that Commission would be “lowering the bar” for how applications were evaluated. Meanwhile, he said XO had been focusing on putting in place its own DSL access multiplexers (DSLAMs) to provide its own DSL service with providers such as Northpoint filing for bankruptcy, he said. Asked whether XO would be interested in buying such financially troubled DSL providers, he said: “We always look at everyone.”