DoJ QUESTIONS VERIZON'S SEC. 271 FILING IN MASS.
For 2nd time, Dept. of Justice concluded Wed. that Verizon’s Sec. 271 filing in Mass. hadn’t demonstrated carrier was providing nondiscriminatory DSL access to competitors. When Verizon filed first application for long distance authority in Mass. in Sept., DoJ also raised questions about its provision of unbundled DSL loops. In 2nd run, after Verizon withdrew application in Dec. and resubmitted new one last month, DoJ said new filing contained additions that made it stronger. But in formal comments filed with FCC as part of Sec. 271 process, Justice said “the record still fails to provide a clear demonstration of nondiscriminatory performance.” Its detailed evaluation referred to factual disputes about Verizon’s performance raised by competitors in comments and said that in some cases “significant questions” remained.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
“Ensuring that competitors have nondiscriminatory access to DSL lines is important to the development of competition in broadband services,” said John Nannes, acting asst. attorney gen. for antitrust: “The department has been unable to find that Verizon has clearly demonstrated that it has provided such access to its competitors.” FCC gives significant weight to DoJ evaluation, but Justice findings don’t preclude Commission from deciding to allow Bell company into long distance in given state. FCC faces April 16 deadline to act on Mass. petition.
Justice evaluation highlighted several changes since Verizon filed first petition. But DoJ also said that in several cases, commenters had raised “factual disputes” with Verizon over validity of its performance data and quality of its performance. “In some areas, most notably with respect to line-shared DSL loops, there is very little evidence reflecting the results of commercial experience with Verizon’s provisioning process,” DoJ said.
DoJ reflected on difficult judgment calls that regulators face when sifting through technical performance records. Comments said “some judgment is required in assessing the amount of data and the duration of performance at an ‘acceptable’ level that are needed to establish a suitable performance benchmark.” On Mass. filing, Justice cited “number of significant” questions on Verizon’s provision of access to DSL-capable loops that hadn’t been answered in record. While DoJ said it couldn’t conclude Verizon had shown ability to provide nondiscriminatory DSL access, it also didn’t recommend that FCC reject petition.
“DoJ in their evaluation does acknowledge that there is a substantial amount of competition in Mass.,” Verizon spokeswoman said. “They acknowledge that this application is stronger than before and they acknowledge that we have made improvements in our performance.” Spokeswoman said that while Justice raised concerns about some of individual metrics associated with DSL performance, policymakers also urged Commission to look at full record. “We are confident that when they do so, they will recognize the strength of our application.”
DoJ evaluation said Verizon reported “multiple versions of certain data” to lay out its performance in providing standalone DSL loops and line-sharing loops to its competitors. It said CLECs had objected to some types of data excluded by Verizon in several updated performance reports. Areas of concern Justice cited included: (1) Percent of DSL orders completed within 6 days, with reports showing fewer lines completed within that period for CLECs than for Verizon. Verizon’s performance has gotten better, but falls “substantially short” of completing 95% of CLEC orders in 6 days. (2) Percentage of DSL orders completed on time is improving but also falls below 95% standard. (3) Percentage of installation troubles on DSL lines within 30 days, with figure having improved in revised performance results of Verizon. DoJ said CLECs still had greater rate of installation problems and that revised measure used by Verizon “appears to be flawed.” (4) Percentage of missed DSL repair appointments, measure that showed that Verizon’s track record had been “inconsistent.”