Responses to the Petition
SBC, Verizon, a group of small LECs,1 and Roseville Telephone Company (Roseville) filed comments opposing AT&T's petition. The Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) filed joint comments.
SBC and Verizon comment that AT&T's request to reduce access charges to cost ignores the Commission's long-standing policy of pricing intrastate access charges to promote universal service. AT&T would eliminate this subsidy from access charges to local basic rates but proposes no way to subsidize local service from another source.
SBC and Verizon contend that the Telecommunications Act does not require access charges to be based on TELRIC. They argue that the FCC has found that the Act preserves the legal distinction between long distance access charges and charges for UNEs.2 SBC and Verizon cite a decision of the Eighth Circuit Court that upholds the FCC's findings in this regard to preserve certain rate regimes already in place.3 The LECs argue that the Commission is within its discretion to determine how it will ensure affordable local service.
SBC contends that AT&T has not proposed a way to ensure that IECs will pass along the savings associated with lower access charges to their customers. It believes access charge reductions will only benefit AT&T shareholders. Verizon contends that AT&T fails to propose ways to offset a rate reduction through increases in other LEC rates, in contravention of Commission policy articulated in D.94-09-065. The small LECS and Roseville raise similar arguments to those presented by SBC and Verizon.
TURN and ORA oppose the petition on the grounds that access charge reform is not a high priority because other regulatory proceedings will provide more immediate ratepayers benefits, among them, the NRF review, the service quality review, review of UNE prices, the line sharing proceeding, and a review of universal service mechanisms adopted in D.96-10-066.
1 The small LECs that filed jointly were Calaveras Telephone Company, Cal-Ore Telephone Company, Ducor Telephone Company, Evans Telephone Company, Foresthill Telephone Company, Happy Valley Telephone Company, Hornitos Telephone Company, Kerman Telephone Company, Pinnacles Telephone Company, The Ponderosa Telephone Company, Sierra Telephone Company, The Siskiyou Telephone Company, Volcano Telephone Company, and Winterhaven Telephone Company. 2 First Report and Order, In the Matter of Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96-262, 12 FCC Rcd. 15,982, para. 1033 et seq. (May 16, 1997). 3 Competitive Telecommunications Association v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997).
