VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Ms. Magalie Roman Salas
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-B-204
Washington, DC 20554
| Re: |
CC Docket No. 00-176, Application by Verizon New England, Inc. Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance, NYNEX Long Distance Company, (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions and Verizon Global Networks, Inc.), for Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Massachusetts |
Dear Ms. Salas:
Forwarded herewith are the Reply Comments of the Alliance For Public Technology in the above-noted docket.
Sincerely
/s/
Pace A. Duckenfield
| cc: |
Chairman William E. Kennard
Commissioner Susan Ness
Commissioner Michael Powell
Commissioner Gloria Tristani
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth
|
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
| In the Matter of |
) |
| |
) |
| Application by Verizon New England |
) |
| Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, |
) |
| Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), |
) CC Docket No. 00-176 |
| NYNEX Long Distance Company |
) |
| (d/b/a Verizon Global Networks Inc., for |
) |
| Authorization To Provide In-Region, |
) |
| InterLATA Services in Massachusetts |
) |
REPLY COMMENTS OF THE ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTING VERIZON NEW ENGLAND INC'S REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LONG DISTANCE SERVICE IN MASSACHUSETTS
November 3, 2000
Introduction
The Alliance for Public Technology ("APT") submits the following reply comments in response to views expressed by some of the more than 100 commenters that have participated thus far in the above captioned inquiry.
Among the comments, an issue of particular concern to the Alliance is the importance of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) obligation under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) to encourage the "reasonable and timely" deployment of "advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans."1
While the comments express divergent viewpoints on the status of deployment, most of them reflect the competitive interests of the telecommunications industry. APT, however, offers a unique perspective on behalf of the broad diversity of consumers who comprise its membership. They include, for example: rural and urban residents; older Americans; ethnic and racially diverse groups; low-income and working families; health care providers; educators; people with disabilities; and small business owners. A leading proponent of equitable access to advanced telecommunications capability, the non-profit organizations and individuals represented by APT have as a unifying purpose:
to make available as far as possible, to all people of the United States, regardless of race, color, national origin, income, residence in rural or urban area, or disability, high capacity two-way communications networks capable of enabling users to originate and receive affordable and accessible high quality voice, data, graphics, video and other types of telecommunications services.2
I. Expeditious Approval Under Section 271 Serves the Public Interest
The Alliance has previously stated that "Section 271's interLATA prohibitions constrain the widespread deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure and therefore undermine Section 706, which seeks to promote investment in ubiquitous high-speed networks."3 APT maintains that expeditious approval under Section 271 serves the public interest and further contends that such prompt action eliminates a significant barrier to investment in high-speed telecommunications networks that reach all communities.4 APT, therefore, strongly concurs with the comments of The National Association For the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that state: "Verizon's entry into the Massachusetts long-distance market will help in narrowing the digital divide by creating an additional competitive entity in the telecommunications services available to the people of Massachussets"5; and the joint comments of Keep America Connected, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Association of Commissions for Women, National Puerto Rican Coalition, National Urban League, and the United Homeowners Association, that state: "Massachussets consumers deserve the opportunity of choice for their local, long distance and advanced telephony services. It is not in the public interest to delay or deny for any considerable period of time, the entry of a new and major competitor for long distance services in Massachussetts. As in New York, Massachussetts consumers will recognize immediate benefits from competition, once Verizon begins to offer long distance service in the state."6
II. Debate Over Verizon Massachusetts Meeting its Section 271 Obligations
Some commenters, such as WorldCom, Inc., have argued that the Massachussetts market is not "the least bit like New York, where the state commission has aggressively challenged Verizon's cost proposals and insisted that rates based on cost models with serious defects be promptly corrected."7 To the contrary, the Massachussetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE), like the New York Commission, has stringent standards to correct rate deficiencies. If the Department determines that the rate, term or condition complained of is not reasonable, it may prescribe a reasonable rate, term or condition and may:
(1) terminate the unreasonable rate, term or condition; and
(2) substitute in the attachment agreement the reasonable rate, term or condition established by the Department.8
This section clearly permits the Department to determine the reasonableness of the current rate, terminate that rate if found to be unreasonable, and substitute a new rate.
Similarly, The Association For Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) has argued that, "Verizon cannot bootstrap the Commission's grant of Section 271 authority in New York into a similar approval for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."9 As part of its § 271 proceeding, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE) approved a Performance Assurance Plan (PAP) for use in evaluating Verizon Massachusetts' (VZ-MA) wholesale performance. The purpose of the PAP is to ensure that the local exchange market will stay open to competition once VZ-MA obtains § 271 approval. The PAP accomplishes this by creating incentives for VZ-MA to achieve the Department's service standards. The DTE noted in it's comments that the FCC has stated that "the fact that a BOC will be subject to performance monitoring and enforcement mechanisms would constitute probative evidence that the BOC will continue to meet its section 271 obligations and that its entry would be consistent with the public interest."10 Furhtermore, the DTE concluded that "the Department is confident that the approved PAP in this proceeding provides a sound and systematic means to report performance, deter anti-competitive behavior, and provide a reliable safeguard against backsliding."11
III. Conclusion
As Verizon deploys its broadband networks, APT implores the Commission to do all that it can to remove the interLATA barriers that inhibit the widest possible extension of these networks to help all Massachusetts residents enjoy the benefits of advanced telecommunications capability. Therefore, APT respectfully recommends that the Commission authorize Verizon to provide long distance service in Massachusetts.
Respectfully requested,
Pace A. Duckenfield
Counsel
Alliance For Public Technology
919 18th Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C.
1 47 USC 157 note.
2 Principles for Implementing the Goal of Advanced Universal Service, Alliance for Public Technology, 1995 at p. 2.
3 Alliance for Public Technology, October 16, 2000 Comments in CC Docket No. 00-176.
4 See, e.g., Comments of the Alliance for Public Technology, In the Matter of Petition of Bell Atlantic for Relief from Barriers to Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Services, CC Docket No. 98-11, Petition of US WEST for relief from barriers to Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Services, CC Docket No. 98-26; and Petition of Ameritech for Relief from Barriers to Investment in Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-32 (April 6, 1998) at 2.
5 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, October 16, 2000 Comments in CC Docket No. 00-176.
6 Keep America Connected, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Association of Commissions for Women, National Puerto Rican Coalition, National Urban League, United Homeowners Association, October 16, 2000 Joint Comments in CC Docket No. 00-176.
7 WorldCom, Inc., October 16, 2000 Comments in CC Docket No. 00-176.
8 Complaint of Greater Media, Inc., D.P.U. 91-218 (1992).
9 Association For Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS), October 16, 2000 Comments in CC Docket No. 00-176.
10 Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy, October 16, 2000 Comments in CC Docket no. 00-176 at 2.
11 Id. At 9.
