article

Regulatory News – State Rulings on SBC 271s Expected This Year

Posted:  03/2000

Regulatory News

State Rulings on SBC 271s Expected This Year
BY KIM SUNDERLAND

SBC has several other Sec. 271 applications pending in the states and hopes to have the
majority of them approved this year.

"All of our states currently have proceedings before them," says Paul M.
Mancini, vice president and assistant general counsel for SBC. "We’re anxious to work
with all of the other states [besides Texas] to get approvals."

Mancini adds that SBC will "wait for the Texas approval from the FCC before filing
any of the other state applications."

In February 1998, SBC filed in Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma. The Kansas Corporation
Commission (KCC, www.kcc.state.ks.us) concluded
hearings in June 1998 determining that SBC’s SWBT had met six of the 14 competitive
checklist requirements. A November 1998 interim report concluded that SWBT had fulfilled
three checklist items and was close to satisfying six more. The KCC and SWBT continue to
work closely together to resolve outstanding issues, and a decision is expected this year.


Chart: Activity of Competitive
LEC’s in SWBT’s Service area in Texas

SBC also expects a decision this year from the Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC,
www.psc.state.ar.us) on its 271 application there. The PSC conducted hearings in June 1998
and in August 1998, and it found that SBC had fulfilled eight of the 14 checklist items.
SBC says it continues to work with the PSC on outstanding OSS and performance measures
issues.

Following the Bell’s filing with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC, www.occ.state.ok.us), the OCC’s administrative law
judge ruled in May 1998 that SBC had fulfilled eight of the 14 checklist items. A state
ruling also is expected here this year.

SBC filed its in-region long-distance bid in March 1998 with the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC, www.cpuc.ca.gov). In
December 1998, the CPUC granted SBC’s Pacific Bell (PacBell, www.pacbell.com) conditional
approval of its 271 application pending the resolution of certain network issues. The CPUC
now is conducting third-party testing of PacBell’s OSS. The testing is expected to be
completed in April.

In January, a PricewaterhouseCoopers (www.pwcglobal.com)
audit indicated that PacBell’s performance measurements OSSs were "substantially in
compliance." The auditors noted recommendations to improve the OSS performance
measure reporting processes in two areas and PacBell is working to implement those.

A CPUC decision could come in April.

SBC filed a 271 application with Missouri (www.ecodev.state.mo.us/psc/)
regulators in November 1998. Hearings were conducted during the first quarter of 1999, and
a decision is due sometime this year.

To date, SBC has not filed a 271 application in Nevada. In its Ameritech Corp. (www.ameritech.com) states, SBC executives say
discussions with regulators have begun on what needs to happen in that region to
successfully acquire interLATA approval.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The ID is: 68401