Mich. PSC directed Verizon to explain by Aug. 11 why it wasn’t ac...
Mich. PSC directed Verizon to explain by Aug. 11 why it wasn’t actively competing in local exchanges outside its territory and why there seemed to be little competition from other carriers in its exchanges. Directive grew out of petition…
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!
by Verizon this spring seeking adjustment of boundary between its territory and Ameritech territory north of Lansing, with Ameritech’s consent. Verizon withdrew application in May, but petition raised questions among some PSC members as to why competitive market forces weren’t working in Verizon’s service area. PSC asked Verizon: (1) Why isn’t Verizon competing in Ameritech’s territory? (2) Why have competitors not entered Verizon’s exchanges? (3) Why hasn’t Verizon made possible in Mich. wide choice of local service providers that its affiliates made available in N.Y. and Mass.? (4) When will Verizon start competing in Detroit metro area, as required by FCC order approving Bell Atlantic-GTE merger that formed Verizon? (5) What can Verizon do to facilitate greater local competition in its territory? PSC said it wanted to give Verizon opportunity to explain how its conduct to date in Mich. had been consistent with procompetition mandates of state law.