ILECs WIN LNP FIGHTS IN NEB., OHIO AGAINST WIRELESS CARRIERS

Robert Nelson, chmn. of the NARUC Telecom Committee and a Mich. regulator, told us it would “help immensely” if the FCC finished the transport order. “It has been pretty hectic [in the states] on this issue,” he said. “The FCC got dismayed when some of the states started granting delays… but it has largely happened in rural states that are concerned about the impact on small carriers.”

The FCC has repeatedly made clear it expects carriers to comply with LNP guidelines and state commissions to carefully scrutinize petitions seeking a delay of the deadline. The FCC Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has advised that “states should remain mindful of the tremendous customer benefits that porting generates.” Despite those warnings, about 1/2 the states have looked at requests to suspend parts of the nationwide LNP mandate, which went into effect May 24. Some states, like Mich. and N.Y., refused to grant delays. Colo., Utah, and W.Va. commissions approved orders similar to Ohio and Neb. Others, like Ind., granted only temporary relief. Industry officials who monitor LNP say tracking the changing landscape can prove difficult.

The Neb. PUC ordered a delay of porting requirements from LECs to wireless carriers through Jan. 2006. The commission found that “intermodal LNP is technically infeasible” and that wireless carriers had failed to prove otherwise. The PUC said it sided with ILEC testimony that they “do not currently have a duty to construct transport facilities for the purpose of transporting wireline-wireless traffic outside of their local exchange service areas.”

The PUC also observed that the FCC has yet to release an order on who must pay transport costs. “Thus, at this point, irrespective of the amount of transport costs to be recovered, it is not possible to conclude whether such costs may be included in the end user surcharge.”

The Ohio PUC said it would grant a delay based in part on its understanding that the FCC may issue a 2nd further notice of proposed rulemaking to assess the effect of the mandate on rural carriers. The PUC said rural ILECs had failed to prove that implementation of the intermodal LNP mandate is “technically infeasible.” Still, the commission said, “in light of the current uncertainty relative to the economic burden of small, rural, local exchange companies, the commission believes that it is appropriate to grant a temporary waiver.”

Ken Pfister, vp-strategic policy for Neb.-based Great Plains Communications, told us the order was a major victory for rural ILECs in the state. “Between ILECs and wireless companies there have been ongoing disputes about whether traffic can be carried on common trunk routes to tandem switches and then routed out to the wireless customer,” he said. “This commission has found that without a direct connection… facilities aren’t in place on the existing network that allow for routing of this traffic.”

A CTIA spokesman said Wed. wireless carriers just want rural ILECs to have to follow rules mandated by the FCC. A wireless carrier source agreed that the FCC could help by clarifying who must pay transport costs. But at the same time, the source noted, LECs didn’t object in 25 states where the requirement has gone into effect.

“The problem is the states like Ohio and Neb. that are giving blanket relief without saying what LECs have to do,” the source said. “All the little LECs in Cal., N.Y., Pa. -- none of them got waivers and as far as we know they're porting… We're concerned where we're seeing these other states like Neb. and Ohio where they're saying we're not sure you have to do it all.”