FCC should deny Verizon’s Sec. 271 application for Va. because co...

Allegiance said Verizon made “liberal use of the ‘no facilities’ excuse” for not providing UNEs to competitors even when there were available simple fixes such as adding “a line card or simple electronics.” Allegiance told FCC: “To the extent that Verizon makes similar minor adjustments to accommodate its own retail customers’ requests for service, its failure to make the adjustments to accommodate CLEC requests for unbundled loops is clearly discriminatory.” Also commenting on Va. application, Sprint said local markets hadn’t been “opened fully and irreversibly to competitive entry” as required by Telecom Act. “Although Verizon claims that meaningful competition exists, competition in the residential market is de minimis,” Sprint said. “In this application, Verizon estimates that competitors in Virginia provide service to approximately 228,000 residential lines [which] equates to approximately 8 percent of the residential lines in Virginia,” Sprint said: “While this percentage may exceed those in other states in which the RBOCs have received Section 271 approval, it nevertheless indicates that competitors are not willing to make a sizeable investment in the residential market.” Alliance for Public Technology, proponent of deployment of broadband services to consumers, supported Verizon’s petition, taking position it had in past -- that eliminating Sec. 271 restrictions and letting Bells enter long distance service would speed broadband deployment.