WASHINGTON-The Personal Communications Industry Association is joining with MCI Worldcom Inc. to urge the Federal Communications Commission to establish by declaratory ruling nationwide standards of review of adopted interconnection agreements.
“This filing fits squarely in PCIA’s overall interconnection strategy that wireless carriers must have the tools to enter into fair interconnection agreements and that the FCC has a real and direct role in developing the tools to nurture interconnection agreements,” said Angela Giancarlo, PCIA director of federal regulatory affairs.
Wireless carriers and competitive local exchange carriers are allowed under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to tell incumbent LECs that they want to adopt a previously accepted interconnection agreement. Under this procedure, the ILEC is supposed to allow the interconnection arrangement without delay.
MCI Worldcom, in a petition filed last month at the FCC, said that while the law appears clear and FCC rules seem to bolster the argument, ILECs-it specifically mentions Ameritech Corp.-try to delay the immediate acceptance and implementation of agreements.
The states, MCI further said, have assisted in the delay by creating procedures that require state review of the adopted agreements. MCI said, and PCIA agreed, that no state review is necessary when a carrier is wishing to adopt an already accepted agreement.
The problem for the states appears to be that there is a general belief that rarely does a carrier want to adopt the exact agreement. “If there is any change [the states can review it]. It is rare that it is exactly the same,” said James Bradford Ramsay, general counsel for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
NARUC did not file comments in the proceeding but is expected to lobby on the state regulators’ behalf either through in-person meetings or a conference call, Ramsay said.
This interconnection issue coincides with an issue PCIA has been lobbying on for some time. For the last two years paging carriers have been awaiting a decision regarding interconnection complaints.
Even before MCI filed its petition, the FCC attempted to determine what role, if any, state regulators should play in adopting interconnection agreements.
PCIA believes there is a role for the states but does not think the states need to review every agreement.
“Certainly the act contemplates a role for the states … the goal is to give consumers more competition … We don’t want to see competition delayed … State commissions need not review each and every agreement. That is ultimately unfair to the consumer. My point is not to deny a state role,” Giancarlo said.
The FCC should also develop procedures for it to review adopt-in agreements in addition to whatever it determines to be a proper role for the states. This process should be “fast, applicable across technologies, clear and easy,” said Giancarlo.
Interconnection policy also was an issue in a forum on the proposed merger of MCI and Sprint Corp. held by the FCC’s Common Carrier Bureau last week. “The real issue is interconnection,” said Andrew Morley, senior vice president for global marketing and sales for Level 3 Communications.
It did not appear likely, however, that interconnection issues will play a large role in how the FCC views the proposed merger. “Certainly the FCC has spent a lot of time on interconnection issues in the traditional telephone market and has expressed a strong desire to not get into that black hole for the Internet,” said Robert Atkinson, CCB deputy bureau chief. This was agreed to by CCB Chief Larry Strickling who even suggested that yet another regulatory body would need to be created to regulate interconnection issues on the Internet.
The FCC does not officially review mergers but does review the transfer of licenses considered to be a key part of any merger.
