SBC filed in-region interLATA bids with state regulators in Nevada and Arkansas and hopes to ask the FCC (www.fcc.gov) for approval in those states by December. While the states don't have authority to grant the requests, their recommendations to the FCC are highly regarded in the federal agency's investigation into whether the incumbent's local networks are open to competitors.
SBC filed petitions last week with both the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (www.state.nv.us/puc) and the Arkansas Public Service Commission (www.state.ar.us/psc).
Doing business as Nevada Bell Long Distance, SBC requested that the PUC review and conduct hearings on its proposed application to the FCC for provision of in-region interLATA services in the state, according to the PUC. The company also submitted to Nevada regulators its draft FCC Section 271 application and affidavits supporting the draft application. Nevada regulators now seek comment on SBC's filing on or before Aug. 16.
"Specifically, petitioner states that [it] intends to file the application with the FCC on or after Dec. 1," according to the Nevada PUC. Once state regulators make their recommendations to the FCC and SBC has filed its application with the federal agency, the FCC would have 90 days to act on them.
In making its case for a positive recommendation, SBC says that in Nevada:
¨ SBC has entered one or more binding interconnection agreements with unaffiliated competitive providers of telephone exchange service;
¨ SBC has received approval from the Nevada PUC for one or more binding interconnection agreements between SBC and competitive providers pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and;
¨ One or more interconnected, unaffiliated competitors offer telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers either exclusively over their own facilities or predominantly through resale.
In its Nevada filing, SBC alleges that it has fully implemented the 14-point competitive checklist under Sec. 271 of the Telecom Act and seeks to offer long-distance service as a way to bring its customers a package of bundled services.
Competitors such as AT&T Corp., however, disagree that the local market is open in Nevada and contend that SBC's request is premature because the incumbent still retains 98 percent of the local service market.
"At a time when SBC/Nevada Bell is seeking authority to compete in the long-distance market, they boldly defy Nevada law by refusing to lower the prices they charge to long-distance companies for access to their network," said Jim Endres, assistant vice president of AT&T law and government affairs in Nevada, in a statement.
"They claim they have opened up their market to competition. That's hogwash," Endres added. "Access to their network is not only closed, it is controlled by SBC/Nevada Bell even if it means defying Nevada law. All of the state is negatively affected by this arrogant behavior. Nevadans deserve more."
In light of these charges, AT&T and WorldCom Inc. (www.wcom.com) filed a joint complaint last week with the Nevada PUC against SBC for allegedly violating state law that says SBC can't charge long-distance companies more to access its network to complete in-state calls than it does for state-to-state calls. Both competitors want to be refunded for these reported overcharges.
But Cynthia Brinkley, president of Southwestern Bell Arkansas, assures the industry that SBC is ready to provide long-distance service in both states.
"Southwestern Bell's local markets are fully open to competition and companies have meaningful opportunity to compete in the marketplace," she said.
For instance in Arkansas, SBC's entry into the long-distance business would create 9,400 jobs over 10 years, Brinkley added, with roughly 12,000 new jobs being created in 10 years if its application is granted in Nevada.
SBC hopes to capitalize on the success it's having in Texas, where, according to company statements, some 150,000 customers signed up for long-distance service in the first eight business days after launching service.
The only other Bell company approved by the FCC to offer in-region long-distance service is Verizon Communications (www.verizon.com) in New York, the incumbent formerly known as Bell Atlantic Corp. Competitors still contend there are local exchange problems in that state with Verizon, but that the company is attempting to rectify them on an ongoing basis.
