CLECs BLAST QWEST 5-STATE APPLICATION FOR LONG DISTANCE ENTRY

Qwest underwent lengthy multistate review and state regulators told FCC they were generally satisfied with its performance. However, several recommended post approval monitoring to make sure company continued to meet procompetition requirements. Ida. PUC said that “with the vast numbers of issues in the extensive record created during the past 2 years… it is possible to find less than perfect compliance by Qwest.” Ida. PUC recommended FCC approve application and pledged to “continue to monitor Qwest’s record” after it enters long distance market. Neb. PSC said it had been evaluating Qwest’s checklist compliance for 4 years and supported its FCC application. However, Neb. PSC Chmn. Anne Boyle in separate statement said: “This recommendation is forwarded with ongoing concerns regarding Qwest’s commitment and willingness to cooperatively work to maintain existing markets as well as encouraging additional markets.” She said her statement “is not meant to impede Qwest’s application, but only to point out that ongoing regional oversight is essential to maintain and improve competition.”

CLECs took far stronger approach, saying FCC shouldn’t approve Qwest’s entry in first place for reasons such as lack of nondiscriminatory access to its facilities by competitors and possible illegal long distance activities in advance of Sec. 271 approval. AT&T told FCC: “No prior Sec. 271 applicant can match Qwest’s long and shameful record of blatant Sec. 271 violations -- violations that defy Qwest’s express representations to the Commission, that began the minute Qwest swallowed U S West and that continue unabated today.” AT&T accused Qwest of “leading a double life, claiming full compliance with the statute while entering patently discriminatory secret deals to silence critics and evade informed state Commission, [FCC], and third party review.”

WorldCom said that despite “well-executed” multistate review of Qwest’s operations support systems (OSS), there had been no commercial testing. “It is completely unknown whether Qwest’s [OSS] can perform adequately at true commercial volumes,” WorldCom said. Application relies almost entirely on 3rd-party tests and company “has almost no commercial experience in processing basic unbundled network platform (UNE-P) migration orders, the only order type that can serve as a viable means of ubiquitous entry,” WorldCom said. It said that as it began to submit residential UNE-P orders and line-sharing DSL orders for business customers in Qwest territory, “serious OSS deficiencies exist.” Other WorldCom concerns: (1) “Pricing errors contained in Qwest’s benchmarking methodology result in excessive rates that prevent competitors from offering residential service to the mass market on a statewide basis.” (2) “Qwest refuses to provide customized routing as requested by WorldCom for purposes of carrying operator services/directory assistance traffic.”

Covad said “substantial, competitively significant defects persist in several aspects of its application, including loop pricing, OSS, performance in providing competitors with nondiscriminatory access to UNEs and performance reporting.” Covad complained, for example, that “Qwest’s pricing for line-shared loops in Colorado bears no relation to the Commission’s TELRIC [Total Element Kong-Run Incremental Cost] pricing principles.” Echelon Telecom said it would be “premature” for FCC to approve application because “Qwest needs to improve its commercial performance in the local market before entering the in-region interLATA market.” Sprint complained that Qwest’s application used “overstated” data to describe amount of competitive traffic in 5 states up for approval. “Qwest’s methodology improperly inflates the CLECs’ line estimates by including CLECs’ high- speed data lines and local lines which are not used for competitive local service,” Sprint said. CompTel said Qwest hadn’t developed “an adequate change management process that notifies competitors of revisions to Qwest’s products and processes.” Group of payphone providers urged FCC not to approve application until Qwest played more fair with them. In joint comments, Ariz. Payphone Assn., Colo. Payphone Assn., Minn. Independent Payphone Assn. and Northwest Public Communications Council said: “It is not in the public interest to grant Qwest’s Sec. 271 application when Qwest continues to leverage the benefit of its local exchange market power to benefit its own payphone division and exclude competition.”

Touch America, which bought Qwest’s in-region long distance operation when it merged with U S West, accused Qwest of continuing to provide in-region long distance service behind scenes: “Unlike prior 271 applications that have come before the Commission, it may be Qwest’s ‘extracurricular’ 271 activities… that most strongly compel the rejection of the application… Qwest has repeatedly sought out ways to circumvent the process by engaging in prohibited in-region, long distance activities.” Touch America has criticized Qwest in past for masking long distance service in product called “lit capacity IRUs (indefeasible right of use).” New Edge Networks said Qwest “is already providing in-region interLATA services in violation of Sec. 271” through its agreement with unnamed “large ISP” that receives DSL from Qwest in manner that resembles interLATA services. “Audits of the Qwest-U S West merger conditions show that Qwest has provided in-region interLATA services in violation of Sec. 271 for more than 2 years,” CompTel said.