WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission ruled last week that a personal communications services operator cannot necessarily be considered a facilities-based local competitor when determining whether a regional Bell telephone company can enter the long-distance market.
The ruling was part of the FCC’s rejection of BellSouth Corp.’s application to provide long-distance service in Louisiana.
The 1996 telecom act does not allow a Baby Bell to rely on the presence of cellular carriers to satisfy the requirement for a facilities-based competitor in the state where the Bell company seeks to offer long-distance service, but is silent on PCS carriers.
“Although PCS providers appeared to be positioning their services offerings to become competitive with wireline service,” stated the FCC, “they are still in the process of making the transition from a complementary service to a competitive equivalent to wireline services.”
The suggestion is that while PCS might not be a substitute for local telco service today, there may come a time in the future when a Baby Bell can rely on a PCS carrier’s presence to justify long-distance entry.
BellSouth argued in its Louisiana long-distance application that, despite having 2.25 million telephone lines in that state, it faces local telco competition from PrimeCo Personal Communications L.P. and Sprint Spectrum L.P. Both are PCS providers.
Bell entry into long distance, in which the PCS question arose, has become a lightening rod for escalating controversy on Capitol Hill and within the new FCC itself on the implementation of the 1996 telecom act.
House telecommunications Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) was quoted as saying, “At some point the guessing game has got to end. The FCC needs to clearly and unequivocally spell out what it is going to take for the local phone companies to break into the long-distance market.”
In addition to denying BellSouth’s long-distance application, the FCC and Justice Department have rejected similar requests from SBC Communications Inc. and Ameritech Corp.
Yet a federal court in Texas recently ruled SBC, U S West and Bell Atlantic Corp. could offer long-distance service in their local markets.
Meanwhile, a schism appears to have developed in the newly comprised FCC over implementation of the 1996 telecom act.
The New York Times reported harsh criticism by new FCC member Harold Furchtgott-Roth of the proposed FCC biennial regulatory review required under the 1996 telecom act.
Furchtgott-Roth, a Republican and former chief economist for the House Commerce Committee, believes the proposed regulatory review is far too modest.
“I don’t think it’s there (the review mandate) just to do a paper shuffle,” Furchtgott-Roth told the Times. “It’s there for a purpose. Aside from simply following the law because that’s what we have to do, I think there’s a real public policy reason for that section to be there. And I’m afraid that there’s just a selective review of a few regulations were not following to the letter or spirit of the law.”
Within that review, the FCC plans to streamline commercial and private wireless regulations and re-examine the 45 megahertz commercial mobile radio service spectrum cap.
Furchtgott-Roth said he wasn’t invited to provide input on proposed regulatory review, a perspective that FCC Chairman Bill Kennard disputed in the Times. Kennard told the paper the regulatory review needs to be focused or the effort will become unwieldy and ultimately unproductive.
The other new Republic FCC member, Michael Powell, recently went public with complaints about the hurdles faced by Baby Bells in getting into the lucrative long-distance market.
