texaltel conference - december 2005 stability of the t2a2 agreements: term, change in law, and opt...
TRANSCRIPT
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Stability of the T2A2 Agreements:
Term, Change in Law, and Opt InBradford W. Bayliff
Casey, Gentz & Magness, L.L.P. [email protected]
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Stability of the T2A2 Agreements:
Term, Change in Law, and Opt In
What is different from the T2A? Term of the Agreements Intervening Law/Change in Law
What is a Change in Law? What is the Change in Law process? What federal law changes could affect the T2A2? Will changes in Texas law affect these agreements?
Opting In May a CLEC opt into a agreement that is different from its
initial agreement? What are the opt in procedures?
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
What is different from the T2A?
Term of the Agreements The T2A term was less than 4 years New agreements range from 3 – 5 years
Intervening Law/Change in Law Original T2A had no formal Change in Law provision
It did have an amendments provision The new agreements include Change in Law provisions
and a process for Change in Law amendments Opting In
Different process for amended agreements
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Term of the Agreements
CLEC Coalition, KMC, and Xspedius 3 years and 90 days
Birch 3 years
CLEC Joint Petitioners 5 years
MCI 5 years
Superseding Amendment affects Recip Comp, POIs, and Trunking Terms Expires June 30, 2007
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Intervening Law/Change in Law
What is a change in law? Legally binding decision by a court of competent
jurisdiction Amendment of the FTA Amendment of PURA or other applicable Texas statute Federal or state regulatory action, rule regulatory action Other legal action that materially revises, reverses,
modifies or clarifies the meaning of the Act, an applicable Texas statute or any of the rules, regulations, Orders, or judicial decisions which otherwise materially affect the Agreements.
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Intervening Law Process
CLEC Coalition and CJP Legally binding decision by a court of competent jurisdiction
The relevant action has not been stayed No request for a stay is pending Any deadline for requesting a stay has passed
Renegotiation Either party may request if it believes a Change in Law has occurred Request must be in writing
Negotiations end if Renegotiation is not concluded within 90 days after notice The parties don’t negotiate for a period of 15 business days The non-requesting party refuses to renegotiate on the ground that there
has been no Change in Law sufficient to require renegotiation If negotiations are not successful
Dispute resolution procedures will apply
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Intervening Law Process
MCI Intervening laws may not modify or supersede the
Superseding Amendment If an action invalidates, modifies, or stays the enforcement
of laws or regulations that were the basis or rationale for any provisions of the agreement, the affected provision(s) are invalidated, modified or stayed upon the written request of either party The MCI ICA does not include a legally binding requirement
The parties have 60 days to negotiate conforming modifications
If the parties are unable to agree, disputes shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution process in the agreement
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Changes in Federal Law
What federal law changes may affect the T2A2? House IP and Broadband Services Bill Recip Comp FNPRM VoIP NPRM TRRO Appeal Qwest Forbearance Petition
The Qwest Petition will not affect the T2A2 A similar AT&T or Verizon Petition could affect the T2A2
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
House IP and Broadband Services Bill
What has been said about updating the FTA? Rep. Joe Barton, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee "Our nation’s telephone laws are based upon the principles of
common carriage and the belief that only incumbents can truly own the facilities that connect Americans."
"The notion behind America’s cable laws is that competition doesn’t exist, and since no competitive forces check the actions of a monopoly distributor of multichannel programming in many markets, that responsibility must fall to government."
"That is what brings us here today. The advance of technology has left the law behind. The statute no longer reflects the technological and competitive reality. Congress has a responsibility to update our communications laws and to ensure that Americans benefit from competitive forces and innovation."
"Updating the communications laws is one of my highest priorities."
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
House IP and Broadband Services Bill What has been said about updating the FTA?
Ed Whitacre, Chairman and CEO, SBC Communications, Inc. "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let
them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using."
"Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts."
Earl Comstock, President and CEO, COMPTEL "The proposed House bill remains fundamentally flawed. The revised draft
legislation released last week resolved previous ambiguities in a way that will create Internet gatekeepers. As SBC's Ed Whitacre made perfectly clear in a recent Business Week article, the Bell companies have every intention of extracting a fee for Internet content sent over their networks. The Bells and cable companies have a long history of blocking competitive access to their facilities. Allowing this proposed bill to advance any further will undermine the Internet and pave the way for the Bell companies to remonopolize the nation's communications networks."
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
House IP and Broadband Services Bill
Committee Staff has circulated a proposed staff discussion draft for comment
The draft creates three new regulatory regimes Broadband internet transmission services (BITS) Voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services Broadband video services (BVS)
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
House IP and Broadband Services Bill
The staff discussion draft creates common regulatory definition for broadband Internet transmission services (BITS) which includes Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Cable modems Other broadband services.
Ensures network neutrality to prevent broadband providers from blocking subscriber access to lawful content
Provides a uniform, federal regulatory framework for BITS, VoIP, and BVS providers Except in some areas where state or local rules still apply, such as rights-of-way
Authorizes the FCC to determine that VoIP providers can be required to contribute to the Universal Service Fund
Develops a streamlined franchising process for broadband video providers Applies many current cable video requirements to broadband video providers Allows municipalities to develop and deploy BITS, VoIP and BVS
Municipalities cannot provide preferential treatment for these services Must comply with all regulations governing private-sector providers.
Ensures that VoIP subscribers have access to 9-1-1
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Recip Comp FNPRM
CC Docket No. 01-92 The FNPRM seeks comment on reform proposals or
principles submitted by the telecommunications industry and interest groups The FNPRM begins the process of replacing the myriad
existing intercarrier compensation regimes with a unified regime designed for a market characterized by increasing competition and new technologies
Likely to address access charges and recip comp
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Recip Comp FNPRM
The FCC stated that any new approach to Intercarrier Compensation should Promote economic efficiency
Encourage the development of efficient competition Preserve universal service Be competitively and technologically neutral Address the impact on network interconnection
rules How and where carriers interconnect Allocation of responsibilities for facilities to interconnect
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
VoIP NPRM
WC Docket No. 04-36 The NPRM asks broad-reaching questions about
IP-enabled services Categorization of IP-enabled services Jurisdiction over such services Regulatory classification of such services
Other regulations that would be impacted Universal service Access to telecommunications for the disabled Access charges
VoIP issues that may affect the T2A2 ICAs VoIP Interconnection with the PSTN Carrier Compensation
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
TRRO Appeal
DC Circuit 05-1095 CLECs are appealing
Impairment test for high-cap loops Elimination of unbundling for DS1 Nationwide finding of non-impairment for mass
market local switching Local switching rate increase
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Qwest Forbearance Petition
WC Docket 04-233 Qwest sought relief from statutory and regulatory obligations that
apply to it as an ILEC Relieved of Section 251(c)(3) unbundling obligations for
transmission facilities where intermodal deployment is extensive Relieved Qwest of the obligation to provide UNEs to competitors
in 9 of Qwest's 24 wire center service areas in the Omaha MSA Six-month transition period permits carriers that use UNEs in the 9
wire centers to migrate existing customers to alternative facilities or arrangements
Retained other Section 251(c) requirements Interconnection Interconnection-related collocation obligations
Retained Section 271 obligations to provide wholesale access to local loops, local transport, and local switching at just and reasonable prices
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Changes in Texas Law
Will changes in Texas law affect these agreements? Revisions to PURA
Recent revisions to PURA will not require amendments PUC Rule Revisions and Orders
Rule revisions unlikely to require amendments unless they are implementing FTA revisions
Interpretation Orders unlikely to require amendments Appeals of Docket No. 28821
Cbeyond, CJP, Logix, and XO all have pending appeals
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Opting In
A CLEC may file a "short form" adoption of one of five ICAs that were approved in Docket No. 28821 The "short form" is available on CLEC Online Provide general CLEC info
Name, OCN, notices, etc. Identify which ICA is being adopted Identify which Recip Comp option is selected
MCI contract has option of Superseding Amendment The CLEC must take the ICA in its entirety If the CLEC has a Superseding Amendment, it must be
incorporated into the adopted ICA for the duration of the Superseding Amendment
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Opting In
This "short form" process shall apply to each of the five 28821 ICAs for so long as the ICA remains as originally approved by the Commission If an ICA is subsequently amended, the ICA will
no longer be available under the "short form" process
AT&T will process an adoption request for those ICAs using its standard contract processing guidelines and Commission rules
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Opting In
May a CLEC opt into an agreement that is different from its initial agreement? A CLEC with a T2A2 may opt into another ICA If a CLEC has executed a Superseding
Amendment, the amendment must be incorporated into the ICA it opts into for the duration of the Superseding Amendment
TEXALTEL Conference - December 2005
Internet Resources
House Broadband Bill http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/09152005_1642.htm http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/11092005hearing1706/
hearing.htm Recip Comp FNPRM
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.pdf FCC VoIP NPRM
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-28A1.pdf Qwest Forbearance Petition
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-170A1.pdf Triennial Review Resources
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/triennial_review/triennialremand.html PUC Rulemaking Projects
http://www.puc.state.tx.us/rules/rulemake/index.cfm CLEC Online
https://clec.sbc.com/clec/