Intrastate Access Charge Reform Questions Still Split New York Telcos
Reply comments on intrastate access charge reform before the New York State Public Service Commission continue to show a sharp split among parties. The divide is between AT&T and Sprint Nextel, which both argue for settling the reform through litigation, and a November joint proposal. Verizon, the PSC staff, cable companies, smaller telcos, tw telecom and Level 3 argued in the proposal that the reform should wait on FCC proceedings. The proposal from 13 entities urges for status quo consideration of intrastate access charges and has been a source of contention for months, most recently in initial comments earlier this month (CD Jan 8 p7).
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!
AT&T pointed to its financial stake, in reply comments due Friday. “AT&T and other carriers have been overcharged for in-state access service for far too long, and had negotiated in good faith as part of the Phase II Settlement Agreement a path to rectify this injustice in Phase III proceedings,” the telco said (http://xrl.us/bobvgz). It dismissed the other stakeholders’ proposal and said the PSC shouldn’t wait on the FCC. These other parties “attempt to create a fiction” that issues can be resolved by consensus, AT&T said. It insisted that all parties knew throughout last year that the question of originating access would need to be litigated. Other companies “distort the facts” and ignore the companies most harmed by the lack of access charge reform, it added. Sprint, the other opponent of the proposal, didn’t file a reply.
AT&T and Sprint’s take on these issues would cause “unnecessary litigation, foster industry disruption, and create a serious potential for conflict with the measures ultimately adopted by the FCC,” Verizon said (http://xrl.us/bobvhf), defending the joint proposal. It insisted that the question of reform is not whether to enact it but how, noting that AT&T and Sprint “preach to the choir in asserting the strong public interest in reforming switched access rates, including the rates applicable to call origination.” States shouldn’t pioneer their own individual reforms now that the FCC has voiced its desires to do so, Verizon said. The FCC November 2011 USF order changed how Verizon saw this issue, the telco said.
In July 2012, when that FCC order was implemented, “the difficulty in transitioning nationally applicable concepts into state level details emerged,” the PSC staff said (http://xrl.us/bobvii). Problems “could be compounded if intrastate originating access reform preceded the FCC’s pending action,” it said. The staff said they considered how any potential reform it implements “might have to be dismantled” depending on what the FCC chooses to do. Any New York reform now would be muddled, as it would “probably require compiling a second record and, therefore, would result in inefficiency as well as industry disruption as carriers filed multiple and different tariffs as part of access reform implementation,” staff said.
Smaller ILECs disputed AT&T and Sprint’s insistence that earlier agreements demanded litigation (http://xrl.us/bobvix). Time Warner Cable referred to the “diverse nature of this broad-based coalition” in support of the joint proposal (http://xrl.us/bobvkg). T-Mobile reiterated its “non-opposition” to the joint proposal while clarifying its positions (http://xrl.us/bobvgt).