E( EAVE Mr.Mr
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WOODWARD,WOODWARD, COTHRANCOTHRAN &RHERNDONHERNDON AttorneysAttorneys atatLawLaw EDWARDEDWARDM.M.WOODWARD,WOODWARD, JR.JR. 12001200MAINMAIN STREET,STREET,SUITESUITE600600 DARRADARRAw.W.COTHRANCOTHRAN POSTPOSTOFFICEOFFICEBOXBOX1239912399 EDWARDEDWARDM.M.WOODWARD,WOODWARD, SR.SR. WARRENWARREN R.R.HERNDON,BERNDON, JR.JR. COLUMBIA,COLUMBIA, SOUTHSOUTH CAROLINACAROLINA 2921129211 (1921-2000)(1921-2000) TELEPHONETELEPHONE (803)(803)799-9772799-9772 FACSIMILEFACSIMILE(803)(803)799-3256799-3256 DecemberDecember 21,21,20052005 REGULAR MAIL VIAVIA REGULAR MAIL S8 O,I' PUBLNOPURLlC SERVICESEfVCECOMMISSIONCQMMfSS(0t( E( EAVE Mr.Mr. CharlesCharles L.A.L.A. TerriniTerrini ChiefChief Clerk/AdministratorClerk/Administrator DECDEC 22 88 20052005 SouthSouth CarolinaCarolina PublicPublic ServiceService CommissionCommission ECEIVEi_ SynergySynergy BusinessBusiness Park,Park, TheThe SaludaSaluda BuildingBuilding 101101 ExecutiveExecutive CenterCenter DriveDrive EQ'EIVE. Columbia,Columbia, SouthSouth CarolinaCarolina 2921029210 Re:Re: PetitionPetition ofof MCImetroMCImetro AccessAccess TransmissionTransmission Services,Services, LLCLLC forfor ArbitrationArbitration ofof CertainCertain TermsTerms andand Conditions ofof ProposedProposed AgreementAgreement withwith HorryHorry TelephoneTelephone Cooperative,Cooperative, Inc.Inc. ConcerningConcerning InterconnectionInterconnection andand ResaleResale underunder thethe TelecommunicationsTelecommunications Act ofof 1996,1996,Docket No.No. 2005-188-C2005-188-C Petition ofof MCImetroMCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC forfor Arbitration ofof CertainCertain TermsTerms and Conditions of Proposed AgreementAgreement with Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc.,Inc., Home Telephone Co.,Co., Inc.,Inc., PBT Telecom,Telecom, Inc. and Hargray Telephone Company, Concerning InterconnectionInterconnection and ResaleResale under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. 2005-67-C Dear Mr. Terrini: This is to advise the South Carolina Public Service Commission (the "Commission""Commission") ) of a recent development regarding the above-referenced dockets. The parties' testimony and post-hearingpost-heating briefs inin the above-referenced proceedings cited a decision of thethe Iowa Utilities Board, InIn re Arbitration ofSprint Communications Company, L.L.P.P. v. AceAce CommunicationsCommunications Group,Group, etet al.al.,, DocketDocket No. Arb-05-2, 2005 WL 1415230, Order Granting Motions toto DismissDismiss (May(May 26, 2005). The Commission reliedrelied on that decisiondecision inin itsits Order Ruling onon Arbitration,Arbitration, CommissionCommission OrderOrder No. 2005-544, pp. 12-13,12-13, dated October 7, 2005, in DocketDocket No.No. 2005-67-C.2005-67-C. On NovemberNovember 28,28, 2005,2005, thethe IowaIowa UtilitiesUtilities Board issuedissued itsits Order onon Rehearing, reversingreversing itsits previousprevious decision.decision. AA copycopy ofof thethe OrderOrder onon RehearingRehearing isis attached.attached. ItIt cancan alsoalso be foundfoundat:at: htt://www.http:llwww.state.ia.uslgovernmentJcomlutillstate. ia.us/ overnment/com/util/ privatelOrders1200511128_arbO52.pdfrivate/Orders/2005/1128 arb052. df InIn thethe casecase beforebefore thethe IowaIowa UtilitiesUtilities Board,Board, SprintSprint CommunicationsCommunications Company,Company, L.L.P.P. ("("Sprint"),Sprint" ), likelike MCI,MCI, seeksseeks interconnectioninterconnection inin orderorder toto provideprovide switching,switching, numbernumber portability,portability, 911911 circuitscircuits andand otherother servicesservices toto aa carriercarrier customer.customer. NotwithstandingNotwithstanding thatthat SprintSprint wouldwould provideprovide differentdifferent networknetwork configurationsconfigurations forfor eacheach entityentity thatthat intendsintends toto useuse Sprint'sSprint's servicesservices (p.(p. 7),7), andand thatthat eacheach contractcontract withwith eacheach carriercarrier customercustomer wouldwould reflectreflect "a"a lotlot ofof materialmaterial differences"differences" (p.(p. 8),8), Mr.Mr. CharlesCharles L.A.L.A.TerriniTerrini DecemberDecember 21,21,20052005 PagePageTwoTwo SprintSprint holdsholds itselfitself outout toto serveserve allall potentialpotential usersusers indiscriminatelyindiscriminately -- i.e.,i.e., SprintSprint isis willingwilling toto provideprovide wholesalewholesale servicesservices toto anyany "last-mile""last-mile" retailretail serviceservice provider,provider, includingincluding cablecable companies,companies, thatthat wisheswishes toto useuse Sprint'sSprint's servicesservices inin Iowa.Iowa. (p.(p. 14.)14.) Consequently,Consequently, thethe IowaIowa UtilitiesUtilities BoardBoard foundfound thatthat "[w]hile"[w]hile SprintSprint doesdoes notnot offeroffer itsits servicesservices directlydirectly toto thethe public,public, itit doesdoes indiscriminatelyindiscriminately offeroffer itsits servicesservices toto aa classclass ofofusersusers soso asas toto bebe effectivelyeffectively availableavailable toto thethe"public,public, thatthat classclass consistingconsisting ofof entitiesentities capablecapable ofof offeringoffering theirtheir ownown last-milelast-mile facilities."facilities. (Id.)(Id.) Accordingly,Accordingly, thethe BoardBoard determineddetermined thatthat Sprint isis aa "common"common carrier,"carrier, " and,and, therefore,therefore, aa "telecommunications"telecommunications carrier"carrier" entitledentitled toto interconnectioninterconnection underunder 4747 U.S.C.U.S.C. §§)$251251(a)(a) &&,(b).(b). Likewise,inin thethe proceedingsproceedings beforebefore thethe Commission,Commission, thethe undisputedevidenceevidence isis thatthat thethe servicestoto be providedbyby MCIMCI areare not limitedlimited toto thosethose providedprovided forfor thethe benefitbenefit ofofTimeTime WarnerWarner ' CableInformationInformation Services,Inc ("TWCIS").I("TWCIS"). MCI seeksseeks toto offer itsits servicesservices toto otherother customerscustomers similarly situatedsituated toto TWCIS. Thus, as isis the casewithwith Sprint,MCI isis aa "commoncarrier" andand "telecommunicationscartier,"carrier, "becauseit "holds"holds itself to serveserve indifferentlyindifferently all potentialpotential users,"users, " and"allows customerstoto 'transmitintelligenceintelligence of theirtheir own designand choosing.choosing. '''2'" In theIowa case,theBoardalso acknowledgedthat: there appears to be an underlying concern in the RLEC [i.e.,[i.e., the rural ILEC] position that Sprint and MCC [i.[i.e.,e., its carrier customer]are insisting upon this particularbusiness model inin order to achieve someas-yet-unspecifiedadvantage. For example, the RLECs argued that if they are required to enter into an interconnection agreement with Sprint, rather than MCC, thethe RLECs might be denied some rightsrightsunder (§ 251. During the course of this proceeding, Sprint was able to respondrespondto each ofof thetheconcerns raisedraisedby the RLECs, but the RLECs may still be concerned. The Board will notnotreject Sprint'sSprint'spreferred business model onon thethe basis of unspecifiedunspecifiedconcerns,concerns,butbut thethe Board emphasizes that if any anti- competitive problems develop asasaaresultresultofof thisthisapproach,approach,thetheRLECsRLECsmay filefile anan appropriateappropriatecomplaintcomplaint with thethe Board. (pp.(pp. 15-16.15-16.)) (Transcript(Transcript references omitted.omitted.)) SeeSeethethetranscripttranscriptofofhearing,hearing,T.T.185,185,220-22,220-22,ininDocketDocketNo.No.2005-67-C.2005-67-C.TheTheCommissionCommissiontooktookjudicialjudicial noticenoticeofofthatthatproceedingproceedingininDocketDocketNo.No.2005-188-C;2005-188-C;seeseetranscripttranscriptofofthatthathearing,hearing,atatT.T.14.14. 2 TriennialTriennialReviewReviewOrder,Order,$¶152,152,citingcitingNationalNational Ass'nAss'n ofof RegulatoryRegulatory UtilityUtility CommissionersCommissioners v.v. FCC,FCC, 533533 F.F.2d2d 601,601,608-09608-09 (D.(D.C.C. Cir.Cir. 1976).1976). Mr. CharlesL.A.L.A. Terrini December21,2005 PageThree Likewise,theILECsin theproceedingsbeforethethe CommissionhavespeculatedthatMCI may or may not engage in activities that have not occurred and may not occur, and concerning which MCI in every respect has provided numerous assurances of its good conduct and intentions, even to the extent of stipulating that VolPVoIP or IP-enabledIP-enabled traffictraffic will be treatedtreated similarly to other voice traffic covered by the parties' agreement, including the determination' of the jurisdictionjurisdiction of this traffic for purposes of billing for intercarrierintercarrier compensation. 3 If MCI breaches the agreement, or otherwise engages inin conduct thethe ILECs deem inappropriate, the ILECsILECs have recourse toto complaint procedures for redress.redress. InIn summary, the IowaIowa Utilities Board's Order on Rehearing provides analysis and authorityauthority that merits a decision by the Commission toto adopt MCI's proposed contract language. IfIf you need further information,information, please do not hesitate toto contact me or Kennard B. Woods, on behalf of MCI. Very trulytruly yours, WOODWARD, COTHRAN & HERNDON Darra Cothran [email protected]@wchlaw. corn DWC/bjd Enclosure. cc:CC: Kennard B. Woods, Esquire Dulaney L. O'Roark, III, Regional Director, MCI Law & Public Policy Joseph Melchers, Esquire Margaret M. Fox, Esquire John M. Bowen, Jr.,Jr., Esquire Florence P. Belser, Esquire Shannon Bowyer Hudson, Esquire Frank R. Ellerbe, III, Esquire 3 See §) 1.61.6 of the parties' interconnection agreement