Telecom Act of '96: Happy birthday? - Government & Regulations - Brief Article

February 8 2002 marked the sixth birthday of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which forced render free of access the local markets previously monopolized by means of the Regional Bell Operating Companies. The anniversary has sparked criticism from many in the local exchange arena who believe the RBOC continue to monopolize their regions, violating federal law by means of deliberately putting up obstacles to competitors and offering inconsistent access to the network ultimate parts necessary for service provisioning.

"Clearly, the greatest in quantity unanticipated consequence of the 1996 Act is that the RBOC have been able to deride the law so frequently," said John Windhausen Jr president of the Association for Local Telecommunications Services. "If the federal rule really wants to speed broadband deployment its first task should be to enforce the 1996 Telecom Act and significantly increase the horizontal of penalties for non-compliance."

Those non-compliance penalties have been assessed against the Bells by means of the FCC and various courts to the strain of $1.84 billion, according to a novel database compiled by Voices for Choices. The assemblage recently made public its fresh catalog of more than 130 fines, prudences and settlements levied against the four RBOC (and their predecessors) for "poor service and anti-consumer practices" since the Act was passed.

Voice for Choices noted that during the six-year period in which the Bells were fined $184 billion, they reported more than $851 billion in income meaning the fines represented about two-tenth of a percent of the Bells' total revenue

"As drawn out as the cost of violating merger agreements is below the require to be paid [i]or[/i] undergone of allowing competitors to go into the market, it continues to be cheaper [for San Antonio-based RBOC SBC Communications] to pay the rule for violating certain performance targets versus completely opening up the local markets to competitors," said Kevin Hoexter an analyst for Merrill Lynch

These violations through the Bells do not appear to be confined to any single company or region, as the of recent origin database shows.

"What's striking about this is the sheer contortion of infractions stemming from the Bells' bad behavior. Their refusal to abide by the agency of the law and their have a title to promises has curbed consumer choice in each region of the country -- indeed, almost each state," said US Rep. John Conyer (D-MI), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Perhaps greatest in quantity troubling to those in the industry is that the practices of the RBOC have stoped substantial growth for many competitive start-ups, level though the quality of service provided by means of those competitors has been generally rated higher. According to The Yankee cluster about 75 percent of small to mid-size businesses report they are happier with the service from their novel providers than they were with the Bells.

"Clearly, customers want the benefits of competition -- lower prices, better service and innovative yields -- but we need stronger execution of the Act's basic objectives to achieve and maintain the horizontal playing field necessary for a verily open marketplace," said Dave Scott CEO of Kansas City-based CLEC Birch Telecom

"While the Bells have made progres in opening up their networks, they have a drawn out way to go. They continue to drag their feet in working as a supplier to Birch and the other companies that now be rivals for local telephone service customers," he continued.

While the Act render free of accessed the door for the creation of centurys of CLECs, it also outlined a proces for the RBOC to expand their service offerings into the long-distance arena. That proces includes passing a 14-point checklist delineated in Section 271 of the Act, which was designed to proof to what extent the RBOC have uncloseed their networks to competitors in each state where they operate. below Section 271, the RBOC must have an independent auditor review the company's performance against these 14 criteria in a particular state, notify the appropriate state commission of the firm's intent to come into the long-distance arena, and submit a formal application to the FCC requesting approval for long-distance provisioning in that state. The FCC then has 90 days to review the application, take counsel with the state commission and the Department of Justice, and pay back judgment.

Both SBC and of recent origin York City-based Verizon Communications have already had a certain number of success in passing through the Section 271 proces in several states. To date, Verizon has been approved in Connecticut, Massachusetts, of recent origin York and Pennsylvania, with applications pending in several other states. SBC has been approved for long-distance service in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas.

However, the other sum of two units RBOCs - Atlanta-based BellSouth and Denver-based Qwest - have still to pass the checklist. BellSouth lately withdrew its applications for Georgia and Louisiana after it learned the FCC's intent to declare to be untrue though the company says it intends to re-file later this spring. Qwest has not submitted any official application, on the other hand is currently having its OS trialed by independent auditors in greatest in quantity states. The firm says it plans to file for 271 approval in greatest in quantity of its 14-state region before the extremity of the year.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Information Gatekeepers, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group