[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE INDEPENDENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 3850
__________
JULY 20, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-141
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-905CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa TOM SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHRISTOPHER COX, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JAMES E. ROGAN, California RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois TOM SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Cole, David, Vice President of Operations Support, CenturyTel 28
Darby, Larry, Economist, Darby Associates.................... 17
Mattey, Carol, Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau;
accompanied by James Bird, Senior Counsel, Office of
General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission......... 10
Mueller, Jack, President, Cincinnati Telephone Company/
Broadwing.................................................. 23
Sumpter, John, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Pac-West
Telecommunications, Inc.................................... 32
Material submitted for the record by:
Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, letter
dated August 24, 2000, enclosing material for the record... 54
Mattey, Carol, Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, letter
dated September 14, 2000, enclosing response for the record 56
(iii)
THE INDEPENDENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:15 p.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. W.J. ``Billy''
Tauzin (chairman), presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Oxley, Gillmor,
Deal, Largent, Cubin, Shimkus, Markey, Gordon, Eshoo, Luther,
and Sawyer.
Staff present: Kelly Zerzan, majority counsel; Cliff
Riccio, legislative analyst; and Andy Levin, minority counsel.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair apologizes. The meeting will come to
order.
Welcome to today's legislative hearing on H.R. 3850, the
Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of
2000, which has been introduced by my colleague, Congressman
Cubin--Congresswoman Cubin, excuse me, 4 years ago.
After our struggle to pass the Telcom Act, it is clear that
our efforts have indeed paid off. We are truly in a new and
changed telecom environment. The industry has seen an explosion
of new entrants, new participants, and increased competition.
In fact, we have some mid-sized carriers here today who
will surely tell us that competition is so vibrant that many
FCC regulations are no longer necessary to protect the
consumer.
I, as one, believe that some of the FCC regulations are too
burdensome particularly for mid-sized carriers. For instance, I
understand that mid-sized carriers must complete voluminous
reports which cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars when
the usefulness of such reports is easily debatable. A Paper
Reduction Act here may be indeed a good measure.
However, whether competition in the areas served by mid-
sized carriers is so robust as to warrant the reduction of FCC
oversight, indeed we ought to talk about that and that is why
we are here today.
The central debate of this bill is an old one, and frankly
one that has always been difficult to answer. At what point is
the marketplace strong enough to replace the government
regulator?
I hope to hear some of the answers to that question today.
I want to thank Representative Cubin for introducing the
important issue to this subcommittee, and we indeed look
forward to hearing the witnesses that have assembled today.
Again, my apologies for starting a little late, Barbara,
and to all of you who have gathered to be with us today.
The Chair will yield to my friend from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer,
for an opening statement.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is some water there for you, if you need it.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sawyer. I have a longer statement, but just let me
summarize it by saying that it is rare that one size fits all,
except maybe for Spandex.
Mrs. Cubin. And even not then.
Mr. Sawyer. I really do not have much first-hand
experience, so having said that, it is currently being argued
that some of our telephone companies are burdened by an ill-
fitting regulatory regime, and we are here today to talk about
whether or not a more tailored regulatory treatment would be
appropriate.
I look forward to hearing everybody's comments on that
question. I yield back.
Mr. Markey. It is rare that one size really fits all.
Except, of course, for Spandex. And certainly for
telecommunications regulations one policy should not fit all.
However, this is sometimes the case for local exchange
telecommunications carriers. Companies with vast differences in
number of customers and in size of revenues too often play by
the same rules. FCC regulations that apply to the large
Regional Bell Operating Companies sometimes must be followed by
smaller mid-sized carriers. These regulations are
disproportionately burdensome and often unnecessary for these
carriers.
For example, mid-sized carriers assert that the cost
allocation manual [CAM] reporting requirements costs them up to
$3 per customer while it costs Regional Bells just 4 cents per
customer. Proponents of this legislation also point out the FCC
rarely uses these reports from mid-sized carriers.
H.R. 3850, the Independent Telecommunications Consumer
Enhancement Act of 2000 addresses this problem by creating a
separate class for incumbent local exchange carriers [ILEC]
that have less than 2 percent of the Nation's subscriber lines,
and by directing the FCC to adopt regulations that account for
their limited resources. Although 2 percent carriers would
still be subject to FCC regulations, the bill's intent is to
ensure that any regulation must be reasonable for mid-sized
carriers.
In addition to modifying costly and unnecessary reporting
requirements, H.R. 3850 would also allow 2 percent companies to
integrate its telecommunications operations. As a result, these
companies could offer additional services such as wireless or
broadband without setting up separate subsidiaries. While large
Regional Bells can afford the additional costs associated with
creating a subsidiary, these costs can be prohibitive for
smaller carriers. Lifting this burden should spur 2 percent
companies to offer a full range of services, bringing
additional competition to the ILEC market.
Congress has already recognized the unique needs of 2
percent carriers by requiring less burdensome interconnection
requirements in the 1996 Telecom Act. More recently, the FCC
eliminated rules which are disproportionately costly for these
2 percent carriers. However, additional unnecessary regulations
still remain. By removing these barriers, 2 percent carriers
can use those resources to roll out additional services or
invest in their infrastructure.
Those who oppose lifting or modifying the regulations claim
that this bill severely weakens the FCC's ability to protect
consumers. I understand that the FCC is concerned that it lacks
the resources to carry out some of the provisions of this bill.
While I appreciate that the FCC may be troubled by some of the
oversight issues, I believe that currently the mid-sized
telephone companies are burdened by an ill-fitting regulatory
regime and deserve tailored regulatory treatment.
I look forward to vetting these issues with the FCC today
and trying to find a balanced approach to ensuring fair
competition.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, sir.
I will now yield to the author of the legislation for her
statement, Congresswoman Cubin.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also thank you for holding this hearing. It really is
important to rural areas like mine, especially.
H.R. 3850 is legislation that will modify regulatory
burdens on small and mid-sized telephone companies, allowing
them to shift more of their resources to deploying advanced
telecommunications services to consumers in all areas of the
country.
Small and mid-sized companies really are truly that. While
the more than 1200 small and mid-sized companies serve less
than 10 percent of the Nation's lines, they cover a much larger
percentage of rural markets and they are located in or near
most major markets in the country.
Some of these telephone companies are mom and pop
operations, typically serving rural areas of the country where
most other carriers fear to tread, in high-cost places where it
is much less profitable than in more populated areas.
In 1996 this committee wrote, and the Congress passed,
historic legislation in the form of the Telecommunications Act.
Section 706 of the Act sent a clear message to the American
people and to the Federal Communications Commission that the
deployment of new telecommunications services in rural areas
around the country must happen quickly and without delay.
Unfortunately, the FCC has not made it any easier for small
telephone companies to deploy advanced services in rural areas.
In some cases they have actually made it more difficult.
The reason is that the FCC, more often than not, uses a
one-size-fits-all model in regulating all incumbent local
exchange companies.
This type of model may be fine for the big companies that
have the ability to hire legions of attorneys and staff to
interpret and ensure compliance with the regulations, but the
small and mid-sized companies do not have the resources
available to them to complete the paperwork requirements put
forth in these outmoded and preponderous reports.
These are the instructions, over 900 pages. These are just
the instructions for filling out the CAM and ARMIS reports that
are required annually.
Now I want to show you another thing. You should have to
carry that around. I didn't. Here are CAM and ARMIS reports
required annually that have to be filed, and these are by very
small and mid-sized companies. These things cost from $300,000
to $500,000 to fill out and, in many cases, are not even
reviewed; they are not even looked at.
Now I do not want them to be totally useless. So what I am
going to do is sit on it so that I can see you better and you
can see me better and know I am the one here in charge. They
have to be good for something.
Now I would like to offer one of these--these are other
reports. These are not CAM and ARMIS, but these are reports
that will have to be filed anyway even if these are not, under
my bill. Here they are. Mike, you can have one.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Billy, you can have one. Everyone can have one.
These reports, separately, the CAM and ARMIS again, they
cost about $500,000 to compile and would equate to a small
company installing a de-slam or other network infrastructure to
provide highspeed Internet data access to customers in rural
areas.
Just to give you an example of how burdensome these are, I
showed you. This is over 900 pages long, and those are the
instructions for filling out the reports.
More often than not, the FCC does not refer to, and in some
cases simply ignores the data filed by the mid-sized companies.
The bill, however, I want to make this very clear, does
absolutely nothing to restrict the Commission's authority to
request any of this or all of this at any time. The Commission
absolutely retains that authority under my bill.
Nevertheless, the FCC should be commended I believe because
they have made efforts to bring some of these reporting
requirements down to a reasonable level, and I want to make
that very clear, that I acknowledge that and appreciate it.
In fact, it is reported to me that the FCC may be issuing a
notice of proposed rulemaking on the agency's reporting
requirements for 2 percent companies sometime this fall.
The problem, though, is that the agency's timeframe on
issuing these proposed rules has changed like the Wyoming
winds. I do not know how many of you have been to Wyoming, but
they blow in a circle.
It is time that those obligations are met. This legislation
would solidify what the FCC has already promised to do for a
long time.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to state for the record
what this legislation does and what it does not do. The bill
does not re-open the 1996 Act.
It does not fully deregulate 2 percent carriers.
And it does not impact regulations dealing with large local
carriers.
It would, however, be the first free-standing legislation
that would modernize regulations of 2 percent carriers. It
would accelerate competition in many small to mid-sized
markets; accelerate the deployment of new advanced
telecommunications services; and benefit many consumers by
allowing 2 percent carriers to redirect their resources from
regulatory burdens to network investment and new services.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this legislation is critical for
rural areas such as Wyoming where these small companies
operate.
Without this bill, these 2 percent companies will continue
to be burdened with this one-size-fits-all regulatory approach
that has kept them from providing rural areas with the services
they need in order to have a share of the new economy.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I truly thank you for having this
hearing today, the other members for being here, and I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes the ranking minority member, my friend
from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
There are a number of issues raised by legislative
proposals before the committee, including whether there is
sufficient competition in identified markets to warrant
elimination of certain ratepayer protections, whether certain
regulations have outlived their usefulness, whether provisions
are targeted to affect truly small companies or rural markets;
and whether elimination of reporting requirements will increase
rates or cause universal service subsidies to become even more
bloated.
The FCC has already taken many steps to relieve regulatory
burdens on so-called 2 percent companies and the FCC is poised
to consider even more relief.
In my view, removing regulations after markets have become
fully competitive makes imminent sense, yet the bill before the
committee not only removes arguably unnecessary regulatory
requirements--which I would support--but also removes certain
requirements that help to make smaller markets more
competitive.
In addition, the legislation contains a number of
provisions that may have adverse implications for consumer
rates.
The legislation appears to eliminate the ability of the FCC
to review interstate access rates for reasonableness once
competition arrives in a 2-percent company's market.
The problem here is that competition may arrive that, while
providing competition in certain markets, may not provide
competition for certain types of access rates such as
terminating access charges.
This could leave interconnecting companies with no means to
challenge such rates, thus forcing them to charge higher rates
elsewhere to compensate them.
If rural Americans want to inhibit the growth of
competition in their rural markets or put rural consumers at
risk of rate increases, that is one thing, and that is their
prerogative to advocate such positions and to take such risks.
I believe we would do better by rural Americans to revise
the legislation to keep in place those provisions that foster
competition while focusing solely on those provisions that are
unnecessary to the promotion of competition or to consumer
protection.
With respect to rates that affect urban consumers, however,
I do not support putting urban consumers at the risk of
increased subsidies simply because rural companies seek relief
from competitive provisions and requirements.
I support universal service. I do not want to see people in
North Dakota, or Alaska, or Wyoming, or any rural community pay
$240 a month for local phone service.
I believe rural consumers should pay reasonable rates. I
believe it is important for urban ratepayers to help out in
this endeavor, which my family has been doing for my entire
life in the city of Boston, helping out rural Americans.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
Mr. Markey. And we like doing it. We like you people. You
are good people.
Mrs. Cubin. And we think the same of you.
Mr. Tauzin. And the cows will come home when you call them.
You know that.
Mr. Markey. But I'm an Easterner. What do I know? What do I
know about cows, you know?
My father delivered the milk; we didn't milk it.
That's an udder story. I believe it is important for urban
ratepayers to help out in this endeavor.
Mr. Tauzin. Keep milking it----
Mr. Markey. I don't believe--keep milking it--I don't
believe, however, it is fair to ask urban consumers to pay $24
a month for phone service so that rural Americans can pay $16.
Mrs. Cubin. I agree.
Mr. Markey. That doesn't sound right--there you go. We're
going to write the bill right now.
And permit rural telephone companies to build moats around
their phone networks which isolate them from competitive
practices.
I continue to believe that the current universal service
system is in dire need to revamping because it is bloated to
the tune of billions of dollars.
Competition can help bring down subsidy costs and we should
try to drive competition as far out into rural America as
possibly we can, and I hope that would be our goal.
Having said that, there are certain areas again where we
can and should relieve regulatory burdens. I look forward to
hearing from the FCC so that we can do more work, and I hope at
some point we can hear from the State regulators and state
consumer councils so that we can have their perspective as
well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Markey. I suspect 1 day Mrs.
Cubin will cow you into an agreement.
We will now hear from the vice chairman of the committee,
Mr. Oxley, from Ohio.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am moo'vd by the
generosity of the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Tauzin. You are ``moo'vd'' by it?
Mr. Oxley. Moo'vd, yes.
We want to try to make this a pun-free zone at least for
the next hour or so.
Mr. Tauzin. I am un udder amazement over here.
Mr. Oxley. There you go again.
Let me welcome Mr. Jack Mueller, president of what used to
be Cincinnati Bell and is now Cincinnati Telephone/Broadwing.
We are glad to have you here.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you.
Mr. Oxley. I am a proud co-sponsor of this legislation with
Mrs. Cubin. Clearly relief is necessary for many of these small
and mid-sized companies.
I am particularly interested in the testimony from the FCC
and the Common Carrier Bureau because I will give credit to the
FCC for taking some action in several areas in reducing
auditing requirements for mid-sized carriers and the like, and
was also pleased to have them indicate that they are preparing
to recommend further regulatory reductions for mid-sized
carriers.
I know that the FCC does have some issues with this
legislation, but that is really what a hearing is all about.
But clearly from my discussions with some of my constituent
companies and others throughout the country there is a crying
need for some common sense regulatory relief here as it relates
to the incredible paperwork that the gentlelady from Wyoming so
graphically brought before us.
For that reason I think it is very important that this
hearing be held, and for that I thank the chairman and I yield
back.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Borden--Gorden.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you----
Mr. Tauzin. Just another pun. You missed it.
Mr. Gordon. [continuing] Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. All of us are worrying about the growing
imbalance between the urban and rural America's access to
advanced telecommunications services.
My home State of Tennessee is a good example of the effects
of the so-called Digital Divide. Tennessee currently ranks 43rd
in households with Internet access.
While broadband is coming to larger cities such as
Nashville, it is not coming to the smaller cities and rural
areas of middle Tennessee any time soon.
In fact, households in rural areas are half as likely as
those in urban areas to have Internet access. Mrs. Cubin and I
have realized that most people have overlooked one of the chief
assets we have in closing the Digital Divide. That is, the
1200-plus independent communications companies across America.
These are the small and mid-sized companies that have less
than 2 percent of the Nation's access lines. Two percent
companies are ideally positioned to close the Digital Divide
because they already serve small cities and rural areas.
They have a track record of providing Long Distance
service, Highspeed Data, and other advanced services to these
smaller markets. But they are being held back by this one-size-
fits-all FCC regulation.
Small and mid-sized telephone companies spend a lot of
resources dealing with ill-suited regulations that were
originally written for the big Bell Companies.
As Mrs. Cubin pointed out earlier, the FCC requires mid-
sized companies to file both ARMIS and CAM reports on an annual
basis. Collecting this data costs mid-sized companies $300,000
to $500,000 a report on the average, yet the FCC we understand
rarely ever looks at this information.
Two percent companies are also required to maintain
Separate Affiliates for Long Distance and Wireless services.
Ironically, the 1996 Act sunsets the Separate Affiliates
provision for the Bell Companies 3 years after entry into the
Long Distance market, while 2 percent companies who have always
been able to offer Long Distance services are prohibited from
integrating these services.
Other complaints include petitions, waivers, and merger
reviews that sometimes languish for years at the Commission
without a decision because the focus is on the larger companies
and the 271 proceedings.
Ultimately these regulatory costs are passed on to
customers. One company estimates it spends $25 per customer
complying with Federal regulations alone. This time and money
could better be spent on bringing the Digital Divide in our
Nation to the rural areas.
Reducing the regulatory burden placed on America's
independent telephone companies will free up these small
companies to spend more of their resources deploying advanced
competitive services and less time filing paperwork in Federal
regulations.
H.R. 3850 represents a small, practical step Congress can
take to close the Digital Divide in rural areas.
Once again I want to state my understanding that the
Commission is working on some of these issues, and I applaud
their efforts, and hopefully this legislation was something of
a prod that helped bring this forward.
I look forward to hearing this panel's comments.
Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank my friend.
The Chair will now yield to the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing, to the witnesses who are here, and certainly to the
gentlewoman from Wyoming who is a good friend for her good work
on this.
The legislation we are considering today addresses a
segment of the telecommunications industry that, because of its
size, is hindered from making advances in service and
technology.
While the goal of the legislation is something that, the
intent is something that I generally support, I think we need
to take a close look at what it means if in fact it is enacted.
I think that there seems to be a consensus that some
regulations on carriers may place inequitable burdens on
smaller carriers. If true, then a careful examination is
appropriate both of the means this legislation takes to
alleviate the burdens as well as the measures that are already
underway at the FCC which may reach the same end without
Congressional intervention.
I certainly hope that happens. I know that two of my
colleagues--maybe more--but two that I paid close attention to
have already mentioned this.
As always, I think that we need to be wary of unintended
consequences. Do we re-regulate only to find that we have
shifted the burdens elsewhere?
I usually describe that as putting the punch in a pillow
and thinking we put a dent in something and then something else
pops up as a result of it.
Does the elimination of some of the reporting requirements
deprive the FCC, or the Congress for that matter, of
information necessary to the evaluation of the Telecom Act's
effectiveness?
If we relax rate regulations for 2 percent carriers, will
we be faced with me-too arguments from another segment of the
industry in the very near future?
As I am saying this out loud I am thinking, well, maybe
that is what Members of Congress are supposed to do, be
referees in all of this. But I still think it is important to
pose the questions.
Also, will mergers that would otherwise not have been
approved be completed simply because they were not acted upon
within the 45-day period established by the legislation?
And on a more practical level, if we demand that the FCC
act faster on merger applications involving these carriers, are
we able or prepared to provide them with the resources and the
manpower to do so?
So I think that these are all important questions which I
hope we are going to answer and begin to address today in this
hearing.
And I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing
and for my good friend, Barbara Cubin, for bringing this
forward.
I yield back.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady.
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this legislative hearing on
H.R. 3850, the Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act
of 2000.
As my colleagues well know, I have fought long and hard for
competition. The cornerstone of the 1996 Act was to bringcompetition to
local telephone markets. This Committee carefullydrafted those
provisions to make certain that consumers would have the same choice
and innovation in local services that they had in all other telecom
markets.
In order to foster competition, we decided to exercise some
influence over the incumbent carriers to ensure that all Americans
would have access to low rates and quality service. These efforts were,
in fact, successful. I do not intend to support any action that
reverses this course.
However, while regulation is designed to replicate a competitive
marketplace, regulation is still an imperfect surrogate for full-
fledged competition. As competition continues to grow in the provision
of telephone service, the need for government intervention decreases.
Whether competition is robust enough to discontinue regulation for
certain carriers, in this case the 2% or mid-size carriers, is
something we are here to learn. This legislation is a good starting
point for this Committee to debate this important issue.
I look forward to learning more about the bill before us today. As
always, I remain interested in finding ways to benefit the consumer by
encouraging strong and healthy competition.
I thank today's witnesses in advance for their thoughtful testimony
and I thank Mr. Tauzin for holding this hearing this morning. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair is now pleased to welcome our first
panel. By unanimous consent, all members' written statements
are made a part of the record, as well as are the written
statements of our panel, without objection.
In saying that, let me remind you that we operate under the
5-minute rule. We have little timers in front of you, and as we
put them on we will ask you to watch them carefully. When the
yellow comes on, try to wrap up for us.
To do that, you probably have to summarize, not read to us.
So if you can, summarize your points and we will get into Q&A
as quickly as we can.
Let me introduce the panel, first:
Ms. Carol Mattey, the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau
of the Federal Communications Commission. She is accompanied
today by Mr. James Bird, the Senior Counsel of the Office of
General Counsel. We want to welcome you both and thank you for
coming.
Next is Mr. Larry Darby, Economist and, by the way, Chinese
chef extraordinare.
And who also, coincidentally, married far above himself.
Darby Associates, Communications Consultants.
His wife is a darling--here in Washington, DC.
Mr. Jack Mueller, the President of Cincinnati Telephone
Company, who was introduced by my friend Mr. Oxley. Welcome,
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. David Cole, the Vice President of
Operations Support for Century Tel, Monroe, Louisiana.
Wonderful State, I might add.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Who also enjoys universal service support.
And Mr. John Sumpter, the Vice President of Regulatory
Affairs at Pac-West Telecommunications, Incorporated, of
Stockton, California. Indeed a very renowned panel of experts
who can tell us a little bit about whether all that paperwork
is necessary and what is happening at the FCC to take it down.
So we will start with the FCC and Ms. Carol Mattey. Your 5
minutes are on. Welcome, Ms. Mattey.
STATEMENTS OF CAROL E. MATTEY, DEPUTY CHIEF, COMMON CARRIER
BUREAU; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BIRD, SENIOR COUNSEL, OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; LARRY F.
DARBY, ECONOMIST, DARBY ASSOCIATES; JACK MUELLER, PRESIDENT,
CINCINNATI TELEPHONE COMPANY/BROADWING; DAVID COLE, VICE
PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS SUPPORT, CENTURYTEL; AND JOHN SUMPTER,
VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, PAC-WEST
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Ms. Mattey. Good morning, Chairman Tauzin, and members of
the subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity to appear
today to discuss H.R. 3850, the Independent Telecommunications
Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000.
This legislation is directed at reducing the burdens of
regulation on those local exchange carriers with less than 2
percent of subscriber lines, which includes all local companies
in the country with the exception of the Regional Bell
Companies and SPRINT.
I am appearing today on behalf of the Common Carrier Bureau
and, as noted, with me today is James Bird from the Office of
General Counsel who can answer specific questions relating to
the merger aspects of the bill.
I would like to begin by expressing the Bureau's strong
support for the overall goal of this legislation. The Bureau
agrees that it is necessary to remain sensitive to the impact
of regulation on smaller carriers and lighten those regulations
where appropriate.
With that in mind, the FCC has already taken significant
steps to reduce regulatory burdens on the smaller carriers, and
the FCC will be considering additional measures in the future.
At the same time, the Bureau believes that the regulation
of common carriers in some areas advances significant goals of
the Communications Act.
The Bureau believes that H.R. 3850 as drafted raises a
number of questions that should be explored further to consider
the possibility of unintended consequences.
I would like to highlight several examples discussed more
fully in my written testimony.
In some areas it is critical that we gather information
from all carriers and not just the RBOCs. For example, Section
706 requires the FCC to consider whether advanced
telecommunications capabilities are being deployed on a
reasonable and timely basis.
Smaller carriers are playing a large role in the deployment
of broadband. Our ability to monitor what is happening across
America and report to Congress on broadband deployment would be
greatly hindered if the Commission were precluded from
gathering the same information from all carriers.
Likewise, there are certain goals of the Act, such as the
protection of consumers, that should apply equally to all
carriers. Section 281 of the draft legislation could be
interpreted as requiring the FCC to reduce the obligations of 2
percent carriers to comply with the Commission's Truth In
Billing and Slamming Rules.
The Bureau feels strongly that consumers in Golden Meadow,
Louisiana, should receive bills that are easy to understand and
should be protected against unauthorized changes in their
provider just like consumers in New York or California.
Mr. Tauzin. How do you know where Golden Meadow, Louisiana,
is?
Ms. Mattey. I don't know precisely, but I have to tell you
my mother lives in Louisiana, so I will have to ask her where
it is.
Anyway--she lives in Shreveport--I also would like to point
out----
Mr. Tauzin. That's Yankee country compared----that's way up
there.
Ms. Mattey. Okay, okay. Well, whatever.
I also would like to point out that certain of the timing
aspects of the legislation may be problematic.
For example, the requirement that decisions on mergers be
made within 45 days or be deemed granted is hard to reconcile
with Section 309(d)'s requirement that the Commission provide
parties with a minimum of 30 days from the time of public
notice of the application to file petitions to deny.
The requirement that all petitions for reconsideration
filed by 2 percent carriers be resolved in 90 days would be
difficult to implement, particularly in light of the
Administrative Procedures Act requirement that we seek comment
and consider such comments thoroughly before acting on such
petitions.
Finally, it may be difficult for the Bureau to meet these
statutory deadlines while meeting other statutory deadlines
such as acting on Section 271 applications.
To conclude, the Bureau supports the goal of reducing
regulatory burdens for carriers with less than 2 percent of the
Nation's subscriber lines, and we would like to work with you
as you consider this legislation further.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Carol E. Mattey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carol E. Mattey, Deputy Chief, Common Carrier
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
Good morning Chairman Tauzin, and members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify
regarding H.R. 3850, the ``Independent Telecommunications Consumer
Enhancement Act of 2000.'' This legislation is directed at reducing the
burdens of regulation on those local exchange carriers with fewer than
2% of the nation's subscriber lines, which includes all local companies
in the country with the exception of the Regional Bell Operating
companies and Sprint. I am appearing today on behalf of the Common
Carrier Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
With me today is James Bird, Senior Counsel in the Commission's Office
of General Counsel.
I would like to begin by expressing the Bureau's strong support for
the overall goal of this legislation. The Bureau agrees that it is
necessary to remain sensitive to the impact of regulation on smaller
carriers and lighten such regulatory burdens where appropriate. With
that in mind, the FCC has already taken significant steps to reduce
regulatory burdens on smaller carriers in a number of areas, and the
FCC will be considering additional measures in the future. At the same
time, the Bureau believes that regulation of smaller carriers in some
areas advances significant goals of the Communications Act (Act). The
Bureau believes H.R. 3850, as drafted, raises a number of questions
that should be explored further to consider the possibility of
unintended consequences. The Bureau would like to work with you as you
consider this legislation.
Actions the FCC Has Taken:
Accounting and Reporting Requirements: The vast majority of 2%
carriers--1300 carriers nationwide--are not subject to the FCC's
Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) reporting or
cost allocation manual (CAM) filing requirements today. Rather, these
requirements currently apply to only those companies with more than
$114 million in revenue, the so-called mid-size carriers. In several
recent proceedings, the FCC has recognized that mid-sized carriers have
different regulatory needs than their larger counterparts. For example
in May of 1999, the FCC released ARMIS Reductions Report and Order,
which eliminated several ARMIS filing requirements for mid-sized
carriers. The FCC noted that staff analysis and usage of the data
provided in the ARMIS tables had mostly been limited to the largest
carriers because they have the greatest opportunities and incentives
for shifting costs between services. Similarly, in the May 1999
Accounting Reductions Report and Order, the FCC allowed mid-sized
carriers to account at a reduced level of accounts and to submit a
streamlined CAM. We also reduced their auditing requirement from once a
year to once every two years.
Numbering Administration Reporting: In the FCC's recently adopted
Numbering Resource Optimization Order, the Commission adopted rules to
more efficiently allocate and monitor the use of the nation's
telecommunications numbering resources. After consideration of the
burdens that such monitoring would place on small carriers, the FCC
adopted rules that imposed a lesser reporting obligation on rural
carriers. The FCC also gave states the authority to further reduce the
burden on small carriers at their discretion.
Truth in Billing: In it's Truth-in-Billing proceeding, the FCC
adopted various rules to make telephone bills more understandable for
consumers. In implementing those rules, the FCC has taken the needs of
smaller carriers into account. For example, a number of smaller
carriers requested, and received, additional time to come into
compliance with the Commission's truth-in-billing requirements because
they had computer programming concerns arising out of preparations for
Y2K.
Regulatory Reductions Under Consideration:
Accounting and Reporting Requirements: The FCC continues to work
towards even more streamlined accounting requirements for all carriers.
To that end, the Bureau has held public meetings in preparation for
initiation of the second phase of its wholesale accounting reform
proceeding. Representatives from mid-size companies were in attendance
at all five meetings held in April and May of this year, and one of
those meetings was specifically designated to address issues of concern
to mid-size carriers. In the near future, the Bureau plans to recommend
to the Commission that it start a rulemaking to consider more
significant reductions in accounting requirements for mid-sized
carriers. Moreover, the Bureau believes the Commission should consider
raising the indexed revenue threshold so that fewer carriers would be
subject to these requirements in the first place.
Potential Unintended Consequences
In a number of areas, the Bureau has questions about the breadth
and intent of the legislation as drafted.
Section 281/Reporting to Congress: One provision in the bill,
section 281, could potentially impact the FCC's ability to monitor the
extent of broadband deployment in the United States. This year, the FCC
launched a formal data collection program to gather standardized
information from all providers of advanced telecommunications
capability to enable the FCC to report to Congress on whether advanced
telecommunications capability is being deployed on a reasonable and
timely basis as required by section 706 of the Act. In particular, any
carrier (whether wireline, wireless, cable, or satellite provider) with
more than 250 broadband customers in a state is required to report such
data to the FCC on a semi-annual basis. If section 281 of the
legislation is read as requiring the FCC to adopt a less burdensome
reporting requirement, or waive this requirement, for the 2% carriers--
the FCC only would receive information about the BOCs and Sprint, which
would leave large gaps in knowledge about the extent of broadband
deployment by wireline carriers. This is an example of an area where,
because smaller carriers are playing a large role in the deployment of
advanced telecommunications capability, it is important for the FCC to
collect the same information from all carriers, both large and small.
Such information is necessary for the FCC to make an accurate
assessment for its report to Congress.
Consumer Protection: The FCC promulgates rules that are directed at
protecting consumers. These rules establish the minimum protections to
which consumers are entitled. Most recently, the FCC has acted to
prevent unauthorized changes in telephone carriers--known as slamming--
and to require that telephone bills be understandable. For example, the
Commission's Truth-in-Billing rules require that carriers highlight
changes in service or service providers on customer bills so that
consumers can more easily see whether an unauthorized change has
occurred. Section 281 of the legislation could be interpreted as
requiring the FCC to lift such requirements for smaller carriers.
Consumers in Golden Meadow, Louisiana should receive easy to understand
bills, just like consumers in New York or Los Angeles. H.R. 3850, by
virtue of how broadly it is drafted, may have the unintended
consequences of limiting the protections to which the customers of the
2% carriers are entitled.
Universal Service: The proposed legislation raises two additional
questions regarding the Commission's ability to satisfy its statutory
duty to preserve and advance universal service. First, section 282's
elimination of the ARMIS requirements for 2% carriers may affect the
Commission's ability to collect sufficient cost data for its high-cost
support mechanisms. Because ARMIS data filed by mid-size and larger
carriers is used in the Commission's new high-cost support mechanism
for non-rural carriers, the absence of data for a particular class of
carriers could unintentionally affect the support amounts provided to
all carriers.
Second, section 283 would prohibit the Commission from requiring 2%
carriers to have separate books of account for different operations.
However, section 254(k) prohibits carriers from using non-competitive
services to subsidize competitive services. It also directs the
Commission to establish any necessary cost allocation rules, accounting
safeguards, and guidelines to ensure that services included in the
definition of universal service bear no more than a reasonable share of
the joint and common costs of the facilities used to provide those
services. We must make sure that the Commission still has the tools it
needs to enforce section 254(k).
Pricing Flexibility: While the goal of this legislation is clearly
to encourage competition in areas served by 2% carriers, granting
pricing flexibility based on the existence of a single competitor in
that carrier's service territory--as required under section 287 of the
legislation as drafted--may unintentionally have the opposite effect.
It is important to consider that even 2% carriers may have market power
within their service area. While these carriers provide service to only
10% of the nation's subscriber lines, they often cover expansive
geographical regions, particularly in western states.1
Competitive entry in one part of a 2% carrier's service area,
particularly by a reseller, may not be relevant to whether there is
sufficient competition in the area to warrant pricing flexibility. If
such carriers are entitled to pricing flexibility prior to the
existence of competition, this could have the unintended effect of
reducing the likelihood of competition ever arriving in much of their
service area. In addition, a grant of pricing flexibility to rate-of-
return carriers without the implementation of protections comparable to
those adopted by the FCC with regard to price cap carriers could be
particularly problematic. Rate-of-return regulation would allow such
carriers to raise rates on other customers sufficiently to maintain the
authorized level of return while they lower prices for contract
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We have attached a map that plots the territory served by
incumbent local exchange carriers that own less than 2% of the U.S.
access lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate Regulation: As noted above, even 2% carriers have market power
within their service areas. As drafted, the legislation states that the
FCC would have no authority to regulate rates for interstate services
of a 2% carrier after another carrier has engaged in facilities based
entry within the 2% carrier's service area. This legislation could have
the effect of making the rates of 2% carriers subject to even less
regulation than the rates of long distance carriers and competitive
local exchange carriers. Under FCC rules, all common carriers,
including long distance carriers and competitive local exchange
carriers, are still subject to sections 201-205 and 208, so complaints
can be filed alleging that the rates charged by such carriers are
unreasonable. An unintended consequence of the legislation as drafted
could be to exempt the 2% carriers from this minimal oversight. Without
such oversight, a 2% carrier could lower its retail rates sufficiently
to compete vigorously with the encroaching carrier and make up a
portion of the difference by raising its terminating access rates. If
such rates are not governed by sections 201-205 and 208, this will
leave the long distance carriers that pay those terminating access rate
with no means to challenge the reasonableness of such rates. As only
one local exchange carrier serves each line to which a call is
terminated, the existence of facilities based competition in a
particular service area does not provide competition to constrain
terminating access rates.
Mergers: The FCC reviews applications to transfer
telecommunications licenses or authorizations associated with mergers
under sections 214 and 310 of the Act and must determine whether the
requested transfers serve the public interest. The Commission has
identified four factors in its public interest analysis: Would the
proposed transaction result in a violation of the Communications Act?
Would it result in a violation of the Commission's rules? Would it
substantially frustrate or impair the Commission's enforcement of the
Communication's Act or interfere with the objectives of that Act? And
whether the transaction promises to yield affirmative public interest
benefits.
Reviews of transfer applications are public proceedings, and the
Communications Act and the Commission's regulations provide 30 days
after public notice for the public to file comments and/or petitions to
deny the applications, and the applicant is normally allowed a shorter
time to reply. The Commission must consider any comments or petitions
and issue a written decision addressing them. The Commission may not
deny an application to transfer a license subject to section 310(d)
without holding an evidentiary hearing.
The proposed legislation has two provisions relating to mergers of
2% carriers. First, it would add a new subsection (f) to section 310 of
the Act to place a time limit of 45 days, from the date an application
is submitted, for the Commission to act on transfer applications under
section 310(d) related to mergers between 2% carriers or their
affiliates. This provision raises several questions. Forty-five days is
a short time, particularly since section 309(d) allows the public a
minimum of 30 days from public notice to file petitions to deny
applications under section 310, and the applicants are normally given
at least 15 days to respond to such petitions. In addition, it takes
several days to put an application on public notice. Thus, the forty-
five day period would likely expire even before the applicant had had a
chance to respond to any petition to deny, much less provide time for
the Commission to consider the issues raised by the parties and prepare
a written decision. Furthermore, the FCC cannot deny applications under
section 310 without holding an evidentiary hearing, which would take
far longer than 45 days, yet the legislation provides that any
application not acted on in 45 days will be deemed approved. Finally,
it is not clear how a court would review an appeal of such a default
approval--i.e., whether the legislation would in such cases effectively
replace the FCC review with a more burdensome and lengthy court review.
The second provision addressing mergers of 2% carriers is proposed
section 285, which would remove any FCC authority ``to approve,
disapprove, delay, condition, or modify the terms of any merger''
between 2% carriers or their affiliates if the resulting entity is
still a 2% carrier, ``[e]xcept as required by section 310(f)'' This
provision could be interpreted in several different ways and could have
unintended consequences. For example, it might be interpreted to
insulate from any review ``terms'' of a merger that violate either the
Communications Act or FCC rules that are otherwise applicable. The
proposed section 310(f) itself merely imposes a time limit, rather than
a standard for review, and there is no reference to section 214, which
may be at least as relevant to these mergers as section 310.
Implementation Difficulties
Other timing requirements of the legislation as drafted may prove
difficult to implement or have unintended consequences. The requirement
that all petitions for reconsideration filed by 2% carriers be resolved
in 90 days would be difficult to implement, particularly in light of
the Administrative Procedures Act requirement that we seek comment and
consider such comments thoroughly prior to resolution of such petitions
in rulemaking dockets. Moreover, given current FCC staffing levels, it
may be difficult to meet such a requirement while also meeting other
statutory deadlines, such as acting on Bell Company section 271
applications within 90 days. This is of particular concern, given that
the Commission anticipates receiving additional section 271
applications in the coming months.
Conclusion
As I stated at the outset, the Bureau supports the goal of reducing
regulatory burdens for carriers with less than 2% of the nation's
subscriber lines. To this end, the FCC would like to offer to work with
you as you consider this legislation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. The Bureau looks
forward to working with the Subcommittee as it addresses this important
issue. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5905.001
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Ms. Mattey.
Next, Mr. Larry Darby, an economist with Darby and
Associates here in DC. Larry?
STATEMENT OF LARRY F. DARBY
Mr. Darby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee, for hearing my views this afternoon.
My complete testimony addresses the consumer benefits of
beginning seriously to reform or eliminate some of the tens of
thousands of rules accumulated during the precompetitive era in
telephony and how H.R. 3850 begins to advance that cause.
I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee,
for your leadership in considering the role of less regulation
not more as a means of improving consumer welfare in this
country.
The ``d'' word, ``deregulation,'' is controversial. It
evokes more words than thoughts, more fear than faith, and more
speculation than analysis.
The mere suggestion that government should forebear
extending, and in fact should reduce its presence in governing
incumbent telephone companies is seen as revolutionary. Too
soon. Like drinking wine before its time.
I have a sense of deja vu this afternoon about this
hearing, having testified here nearly 25 years ago to promote
another heretical notion. the ``c'' word, ``competition.''
There were naysayers then as now. It will never work.
Service will decline. Rates will go up. Innovation will have
come to a halt. Network will be harmed. Chaos. The full
catastrophe.
But events have converted those naysayers, those
disbelievers, as they will eventually transform opponents of
the ``d'' word, deregulation.
Deregulation, or unregulation, or regulatory reform, all
suggest pulling back in some measure part of the government's
enormous presence in these dynamic markets.
By whatever name, deregulation, whatever, it means opening
up markets and promoting competition, and it is the inevitable
result of steps we have already taken. Both technological
trends and economic change support the presumption that market
forces are increasingly adequate and that government can and
should step aside and out of the way.
There is no denying the value to consumers of regulation
generally. I fully support those, and in fact participated in
putting a lot of these rules in place over the years. No
question about it.
But many regulations have clearly outlived their
usefulness. Many do not address any particular market failure.
Others should be calibrated more carefully to current
conditions. Most importantly, none of these are costless.
These are recurring themes in my prepared testimony.
Regulation is not free and the cost to consumers who bear them
are too important to ignore.
My statement catalogues a variety of different costs we
have to pay to get the benefits of regulation. First, the
direct cost to taxpayers which have grown substantially,
ironically enough, during this period of deregulation and
competition.
Then there is the substantial cost of compliance, which
Mrs. Cubin has been referring to. And I emphasize, while these
are incurred in the first instance by private firms, they are
shifted ultimately to consumers.
My testimony documents a number of hidden, less visible
invisible costs such as the cost of delay, the cost of
uncertainty, regulatory risk that adds to investment cost and
discourages investment in both rural and urban areas, hidden
cost of inefficiency foregone, and slowed innovation, and very
importantly the cost of reduced competition resulting from
constraints on market conduct of incumbent firms.
The costs of complying with regulations are particularly
burdensome to medium- and small-sized carriers. We should look
I think for ways to apply the time-tested market principles and
objectives to government regulation.
Much is made of the need for efficient markets, but there
is lamentably little discussion of efficient regulation.
Regulation should be able to pass, I think, a reasonable
cost/benefit test. A private firm that routinely made decisions
or continued past practices whose costs exceeded their benefits
would go belly up, and rightfully so. But there is no such
built-in restraint on bad government regulation.
H.R. 3850 begins to address some of these problems. I have
to add, I am certainly impressed by the questions that have
already been posed by members of the panel because those go to
the very heart of the need for cost/benefit regulation.
H.R. 3850 is consistent with the principles I have spelled
out. My statement contains a fuller discussion of these points,
and I would be happy to try to answer your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Larry F. Darby follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry F. Darby, Darby Associates
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I
am happy to share with you my views on the importance of beginning to
eliminate some of the thick, multiple layers of regulation that now
unnecessarily constrain markets for telecommunications services and,
more specifically, about how H.R. 3850 advances that cause.
I want to commend the leadership of the committee for launching
this initiative and taking the necessary next step in letting markets,
not government, be the arbiter of managerial decisions.
The Telecom Act of 1996 had four main goals: increased competition,
enhanced universal service mechanisms, increased innovation and
deregulation. Of these, deregulation has been accorded the least
attention by the Federal Communications Commission. This lack of
progress is notable, given the fact that members of Congress who passed
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Administration, FCC
Commissioners and senior staff all speak frequently and favorably of
deregulation as an important and discrete goal of national
telecommunications policy.
This contrast between intent and desire on the one hand and
progress on the other makes clear that it is time to recharge and
reinvigorate the deregulatory process. H.R. 3850 is good start in that
direction.
deregulation is the logical result of competitive entry
My statement is in two parts. The first goes to the importance and
processes of deregulation, while the second addresses the specifics of
HR 3850 in those contexts.
The ``D'' word, deregulation, has come to be quite controversial.
It generally evokes more words than thought; more fear than faith; and,
more conjecture than analysis. The mere suggestion of peeling back
regulatory control of incumbent telephone companies is regarded by some
as revolutionary; wrongheaded; and too soon, like drinking wine before
its time.
But, while preparing my statement, I had a sense of deja vu. Almost
twenty five years ago I testified before this subcommittee to defend
and promote another heretical notion. Then, it was the ``C'' word--
competition. Then as now, there were naysayers. Rates will go up;
innovation and service quality will go down; economies of scale will be
sacrificed; the public switched network will suffer technical damage;
and on and on. Aunt Minnie will be irreparably harmed and in
unimaginable and unspeakable ways, railed the critics.
However, events have converted the disbelievers, as they will in
the future transform many of today's opponents of deregulation. It is
time to begin to peel away the unneeded outer layers of the regulatory
onion, much as was done in the early years by the Interstate Commerce
Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Federal Power
Commission.
Deregulation should and will not come at once. Regulation--the
accumulation of rules--has been an evolutionary process. So it will be
with deregulation and unregulation, as rules are modified and stripped
away, one by one, line by line. Deregulation is a process of selective
relaxation, modification and elimination of rules imposed at another
time for other, sometimes forgotten, reasons.
H.R. 3850 does not totally deregulate services of incumbent
telephone companies. Indeed, given the scope of that sector, this bill
is a pretty modest undertaking. It applies only to a small subset of
smaller carriers and to only a handful of rules.
Selective reform of existing rules for incumbents is the logical
next step after opening markets to competition. The question is not
whether the enormous inventory of rules and regulations should be
reduced, but when. I believe now is the time to begin that process and
H.R. 3850 does so.
the benefits of regulation are not free
I am eager to recognize the considerable historical contributions
of regulation to consumer welfare, but there can be no serious
objection to my conclusion that many regulations are unnecessary and
lead to higher cost, long delay and increased uncertainty, while
reducing both the opportunity and incentives for investment. The result
is to deny consumers new services now and tomorrow. For consumers,
regulation today is a mixed bag.
FCC orders tend to be dominated by reference to the putative
benefits of regulation and how they serve a very general notion of the
``public interest'' by their intervention in markets. But there is
substantial literature demonstrating that regulations are not costless.
The cost of regulation takes several forms, each of which has been
the object of considerable research over the years. The Landis Report,
a study of regulatory processes undertaken on behalf of President-elect
John F. Kennedy almost forty years ago, detailed the administrative
burdens and costs of regulatory processes imposed in both the public
and private sectors. Its main conclusions were corroborated two decades
later by the Ash Commission initiated by the Nixon Administration. Both
documented what has now become unanimously accepted: administrative
regulation, like that imposed by the FCC, can if misapplied result in
delay, uncertainty, unnecessarily complex and extensive rules, wasteful
use of scarce resources and other costs. Regulatory benefits must be
measured against these costs.
In addition to the administrative costs of regulation, economists
have catalogued a long list of economic costs attributable to common
carrier regulation. Dozens of books and hundreds of articles are
devoted to measuring the drain on our economic potential of various
forms of regulation and specific rules--disincentive effects,
inducements to waste, costs of misallocation and inefficiencies,
failure to innovate and others.
I cannot in the time allowed do even rough justice to the task of
characterizing fully this diverse literature. My intent is more
modest--to call the Committee's attention to it and to report my
conclusions from it.
the costs of regulation are not trivial
The costs of availing ourselves of the benefits of regulation are
not trivial. However, it has been difficult to estimate accurately the
size and distribution of the burden of regulatory costs. For many of
the same reasons that regulatory benefits are vaguely named and seldom
quantified, analysts have struggled to quantify the costs of regulation
by state and federal agencies; of different regulatory schemes; and, of
specific regulations.
The problem common to measuring both regulatory costs and benefits
is the difficulty of specifying what would exist or materialize in the
absence of particular regulations. A growing body of theoretical and
comparative empirical studies of markets ``before and after'' or ``with
and without'' regulation have turned up significant costs from several
sources.
Agency costs. Regulation requires regulators whose support requires
significant government funding. For the telecommunications sector these
costs have grown dramatically at both the state and federal levels
during the period of increased competition, reliance on market forces
and deregulation. Fewer rules mean less monitoring, administration and
enforcement.
Direct costs of compliance. Filing reports, keeping accounts,
conducting studies and analyses, representing ones interests in
regulatory proceedings and otherwise complying with the requirements
set out in thousands of rules is an expensive undertaking. I have just
reviewed a study suggesting regulatory compliance costs growing nearly
twenty percent a year and summing, in the most recent study year, to
about sixteen percent of total costs or two months of customer billings
per year. This rural carrier estimated that the recurring costs of
regulatory compliance come to almost $25.00 per customer line per year.
Another carrier estimated the cost of complying with one FCC rule (the
FCC's ARMIS reporting requirements, which are addressed by H.R. 3850
and discussed below) at about $2.00 per access line.
These legal, accounting, operations, administrative and other costs
are generally passed through and born directly by consumers. To the
limited extent that they may in the first instance be borne by
shareholders, they are ultimately shifted to users in the form of
higher capital costs. These costs represent deadweight losses, unless
there is some specific, identifiable public benefit associated with the
specific regulatory activity from which they are derived.
The resources applied by the companies directly are complemented by
a vast regulatory apparatus of lawyers, consultants, accountants,
economists and other professionals in the private sector. On balance,
since their respective efforts are largely mutually offsetting, they
create little demonstrable value for consumers.
Costs of delay. The costs of regulatory lag and delay are well
documented in the regulatory economics literature, even though it is
difficult to get a firm estimate of the overall cost. Due process takes
time. Time is money and benefits delayed are benefits lost.
Practitioners in gaming regulatory processes get paid by the clock, so
there is generally little incentive to get things done quickly.
Costs of uncertainty and added risk. These factors increase capital
costs. They are ultimately borne by consumers--whether directly through
higher rates or indirectly through higher prices for the goods and
services they buy from business users. Investors understand markets
better than they understand regulatory processes. Most reports by
securities analysts have long sections describing risks associated with
different regulatory action and inaction.
Costs of inefficiency and resource misallocation. Regulation leads
to several kinds of static and dynamic inefficiencies. Regulation may
lead to high cost carriers winning business at the expense of lower
cost carriers; or use of inputs in the wrong proportions; or rates that
are purposefully set at levels that do not reflect costs. Several
studies have documented the resource waste from inefficiencies
occasioned by regulation.
Costs of foregone innovation. Regulation can and does stall
innovation--innovation in the introduction of new services; innovation
in the introduction of new rate making schemes; and, innovation in the
introduction of new technologies and production methods. The delay in
the introduction of cellular services is often cited, but there are
others as well.
Costs of reduced competition. Regulation of incumbent carriers is
frequently designed to constrain their conduct in competitive markets
to guard against predatory behavior. However, a byproduct of meeting
that goal is to suppress competition that would otherwise serve
consumers' needs. It is difficult to calibrate regulations to prevent
only ``undesirable'' competition and the unavoidable result is that
otherwise healthy market rivalry is sacrificed in pursuit of that goal.
regulatory costs are especially burdensome for smaller carriers
Much of the current regulatory scheme applied to medium-sized
carriers (MSCs) was formulated and imposed in an earlier technological
era and in market environments wherein the expected costs and benefits
of regulation vis-a-vis market forces were much different. Both costs
and benefits of regulation are changing with changes in the speed of
technology development, the evolution of user needs and with the
proliferation of computers and digital networks. The growth of actual
and potential competition is also instrumental in intensifying the need
to reevaluate how well existing regulations fit the new circumstances.
In addition to being subject to regulations designed for different
technological and market circumstances, many of the regulations being
applied to MSCs were designed primarily for applications to the largest
local exchange companies. The regulations are premised implicitly on
the presumption that one regulatory scheme fits all carriers,
irrespective of size, market position and particularized requirements--
all without regard to the value of customizing regulations to conform
more closely to diverse market circumstances and user needs.
As discussed earlier, the additional resource requirements for
regulated companies are substantial. Since the total burden of the
costs of regulatory schemes is sometimes invariant with respect to firm
size, customers of smaller firms are disproportionately burdened. Like
any fixed fee imposed uniformly across the board, these costs impose
relatively greater burdens on economically smaller entities. The
overhead cost of regulation must be spread across a smaller number of
customers, thereby leading to higher burden per customer. The FCC has
long recognized this fact and has tailored and pared back its
regulatory programs for very smallest regulated firms.
The current ``one regulation, one burden for all'' has the
characteristics of a ``poll-type'' tax that imposes the same burden on
all and without regard to ability to pay. An important example of this
kind of cost is the administrative burden associated with the Cost
Allocation Manual (CAM), a matter to which I will return.
congress should insist on ``efficient'' regulation
The effectiveness of market competition depends on the efficiency
of regulation. Inefficient regulation spawns inefficient market
processes and together they lead to waste and resource misallocation.
It is widely recognized that inefficient firms and market practices
undermine the public interest and diminish economic welfare. Less
recognized is the fact that inefficient regulatory agencies, programs
and practices have the same destructive effects.
Unnecessary and unproductive regulations are increasingly corrosive
and indefensible in the evolving competitive marketplace. In the quiet
world of rate base, rate of return, regulated monopoly where market
competition was the rare exception, the costs of regulation could be
hidden and passed along to users with negligible market consequence.
However, in an increasingly technology driven, competitive market
environment, distortions borne of unnecessary, costly regulations will
have serious impacts on resource allocation and tend to undermine the
very legitimacy of market processes.
The very same arguments adduced and widely accepted in favor of not
extending legacy telephone regulations to the Internet, or to cable
companies, or wireless companies or to new technologies more generally,
also apply forcefully in the case for making regulation of medium sized
telephone companies more efficient.
By adding additional expenses for compliance, regulations hamper
the ability of firms to become the lowest cost provider in the
marketplace and may assist less efficient firms to win the business.
This outcome is especially likely if regulations slow the ability of
firms to respond in the marketplace to rivals' initiatives.
Unlike in the old days of cost plus regulation of protected
monopolies, the costs of regulation cannot be hidden and assumed to
have no allocative or efficiency consequences. Nor are we free to
assume, without investigation and analysis that they are trivial and
with negligible consequences. These costs influence the structure of
penalties and rewards and thereby influence a wide range of management
decisions--from pricing, to new service introduction and old service
improvement, to product and process innovation, to the most fundamental
decision of all, whether to invest in innovation and network
modernization.
The time has passed, if it ever was, for the Commission simply to
assume--without investigation or analysis--that it and the regulations
it promulgates are completely benign forces in the marketplace. The
facts suggest otherwise. Regulations matter and they matter a lot.
regulations should pass a reasonable cost benefit test
The pursuit of efficient rules will necessitate that they should be
subjected prospectively and from time to time retrospectively to a
systematic review of their costs and benefits in the context of
dynamically changing technological and market environments. Section 10
(a) of the Telecom Act of 1996 contains language indicating that
stripping away old rules or declining to extend new ones--regulatory
forbearance--is appropriate if a particular provision or regulation is
inconsistent with the public interest. The proper test of ``consistency
with the public interest'' is a more systematic analysis of the costs
and benefits occasioned by individual regulations.
There is no basis in the Act or in common sense for the Commission
to impose regulatory costs without creating corresponding and
substantially greater public benefits. The presumption has been (should
be) that markets work and that Commission interference and regulations
must be justified. Cutting back unneeded, unnecessary and unproductive
regulations is just as much in the public interest as are rules that
compensate for market imperfections and which generate benefits in
excess of their costs.
Regulation is inefficient to the extent that the rules occasion
costs in excess of benefits. Inefficient regulation is just as damaging
to the public interest as insufficiently competitive markets. Efficient
regulations should not impose unnecessary costs. The intrusion of
efficient regulations into private decision making processes should be
no more than required to effect specific, identifiable regulatory
benefits.
h.r. 3850 is a limited first step
H.R. 3850 will help accelerate the process of ``unregulation'' by
eliminating or reducing for medium-sized carriers selected rules
designed for general applicability that manifest on the margin more
costs than benefits for consumers and the public interest. It
selectively targets regulations for which social costs exceed social
benefits and which are particularly burdensome for smaller carriers. It
will reduce regulatory cost burdens, thereby freeing resources for
meeting consumer needs rather than the convenience of regulators. H.R.
3850 will also reduce delay and uncertainty, thereby reducing capital
costs and increasing the propensity to invest in the sector.
The specific provisions of H.R. 3850 are consistent with the need
for and principles of deregulation I have spelled out above. Time has
not permitted me to do the kind of analysis of costs and benefits of
the provisions that I would have liked, but I can spell out some
general impressions of the bill's main provisions.
Section 281 would require the Commission to take notice of the
relatively greater burden of its regulations on smaller carriers and to
tailor them accordingly. Implementation of that section would lead to
greater care and more analysis by the Commission of the specific costs
and benefits of applying regulations designed at other times, for other
purposes and other carriers. The result would be a more efficient
regulatory regime going forward. The need for and process of tailoring
new regulations to reflect their relative cost burden might usefully be
applied as well during the process of reviewing the applicability of
current regulations--a matter that is addressed in other parts of H.R.
3850.
Section 282 would exempt subject carriers from filing cost
allocation manuals and those reports required under ARMIS--the
Automated Reporting and Management Information System. Those reports
are particularly extensive and costly to prepare and maintain. They are
especially burdensome for smaller carriers.
Section 283 would allow MSCs to take full advantages of the
economies of integrating operations and other market activities. Doing
so would eliminate the wasteful duplication of staff and activities now
required by the Commission's separate affiliate requirements.
Separation sacrifices synergies and cost savings, thereby denying their
value to consumers. ``Convergence''--the implosion of different
technologies and markets--is the name given to one of the dominant
supply side trends brought about by technological and market change.
Concurrently, there is increasing evidence of heightened consumer
demand for ``one stop shopping''. Unnecessary corporate separation
requirements thwart both of those trends. It is important to note in
this context that the Commission has several times in the past found
the public interest adequately served by using other means than
structural separation.
Section 284 would allow MSCs to ``unbundle'' regulatory
requirements and to free themselves from the ``all or nothing'' options
respecting participation in tariff pools and the form of earnings
restrictions applied to them. The economics of pooling, in the case of
the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) Pools, are driven in
large part by size and size-related costs. Larger operations find
advantage in filing their own tariffs, while smaller ones save costs
and prefer to pool and average costs with other small entities. Section
284 would allow MSCs with multiple operating companies to ``optimize''
their regulatory structure to conform to the pooling economics of their
larger and smaller operating entities.
A similar situation exists with respect to the choice, by carriers,
of the form of earnings control--price caps versus traditional rate of
return regulation. Some MSCs find that the economics favor having some
affiliates under one scheme and others under the alternative. However,
existing rules require all or nothing choices, thereby preventing MSCs
from mixing their regulatory regimes to match the underlying economic
differences among different operating companies. The requirement to
choose a single company-wide form of earnings constraint dictates that
some operating companies will be under the wrong regulatory scheme. The
result is that the advantages of tailoring regulation to individual
circumstances--the basis of the Commission's dual regulatory approach--
are denied to some MSC customers . Section 284 would eliminate that
anomaly.
Section 286 would reduce the delay in the introduction of new
services. New service introduction, along with rate reductions, is the
principal means whereby the benefits of new technology and market
competition are conveyed to consumers. Delay in either simply defers
realization of consumer benefits. Frequently the source of delay in
approving the roll out of new service favored by users is concern
expressed by competitors or other special interests.
Section 287 mirrors 286 by extending flexibility and reduction of
delay from service introduction to rate reductions. One of the
artifacts of the old monopoly, pre-competition, regulatory regime is
concern that rates might be too low. While it may be theoretically
possible that rate reductions hurt consumers, the occasion for that in
the real world is increasingly rare. By allowing rate deaveraging,
Section 287 would bring rates more into line with costs and allow
consumers to benefit from competition initiated not only by entrants
but also incumbents. Section 287 (b) specifically provides for far more
pricing discretion in response to entry by a large local exchange
carrier--in particular one that is located adjacently and may be
tempted to pick off large, high margin customers of the MSC.
Sections 5 and 6 require the Commission to speed up their review
processes for both merger reviews and for MSC petitions for
reconsideration or waiver. These sections address a serious problem of
regulatory delay and, absent some very special circumstances, the
Commission should have little trouble in complying with them. Such
delays are particularly burdensome to managers, since they defer
consideration of other options. Many firms prefer a negative decision
to no decision or one subject to unknown delay, since any decision
allows them to proceed with other options and courses of action.
summary and conclusion
The case for accelerating regulatory reform of incumbent
telecommunications carriers is compelling. Unregulation--peeling away
layers of rules accumulated at other times and under different techno-
economic conditions--offers the promise of increasing consumer welfare.
By freeing carriers from unnecessary restrictions, government can
reduce direct costs, increase rate competition and speed the
introduction of new services. All will be to the advantage of end
users. It will create value for consumers if regulations--new and
continued--are rationalized more carefully on the basis of marginal
costs and benefits to users. There is no doubt that many legacy
regulations no longer serve the public interest.
H.R. 3850 is a good first step in the process. The Congress has
already found a specific public interest in tailoring regulations
carefully for medium sized carriers and wrote that preference into the
1996 Act as Section 10 (a). H.R. 3850 provides additional guidance to
the Commission in that direction. The specific provisions of H.R. 3850
are designed to pare back regulations that appear to occasion more
costs than benefit.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Larry. Poetic for an
economist at times. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Jack Mueller, President of Cincinnati Telephone
Company/Broadwing. What's the slash all about?
Mr. Mueller. Broadwing is the parent company, that's all,
since Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company is a subsidiary of
Broadwing.
Mr. Tauzin. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF JACK MUELLER
Mr. Mueller. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee:
Thank you for allowing me to present my company's
perspective on H.R. 3850. Before discussing the reasons why
Cincinnati Bell supports this legislation, I will provide some
background on Cincinnati Bell.
Cincinnati Bell serves the greater Cincinnati marketplace
providing local exchange services for some 1.1 million access
lines, as shown on chart No. 1.
[Chart shown.]
Cincinnati Bell is one of the oldest telephone companies.
Although once part of the Bell System, it has never been owned
by nor affiliated with a Regional Bell Operating Company.
Since 1873, Cincinnati Bell has had a reputation for
providing innovative high-quality service. Most recently,
Cincinnati Bell has been in the forefront in bringing advanced
services to its customers.
A DSL service is currently available to 75 percent of our
customers. The provision of innovative service has been crucial
to maintaining customer satisfaction, the cornerstone of our
business.
Although Cincinnati Bell is extremely proud of its heritage
and reputation, it must move beyond its traditional boundaries
to remain a player in the competitive market mandated by the
1996 Act.
The first important step in this expansion occurred last
year when Cincinnati Bell Telephone's holding company acquired
IXC Communications.
IXC's state-of-the-art fiber network and Cincinnati Bell's
operational expertise created a powerhouse in the Internet-
backbone marketplace.
The new company, Broadwing, is an integrated communications
provider, or ICP, that delivers voice, data, wireless, and
Internet services nationwide.
[Chart shown.]
The next chart shows the current Broadwing companies and
its fiber network. Although Cincinnati Bell and Broadwing are
proud of what we have accomplished in the past 9 months, we
cannot stop here.
Unfortunately, Broadwing is disadvantaged relative to other
ICPs because of restrictions placed on its telephone company.
I believe that the time is right to lift the restrictions
that hinder Cincinnati Bell and other mid-sized companies in
their quest to provide alternatives to consumers throughout the
country.
H.R. 3850 is a step in this direction. As the mid-sized
carriers open their traditional markets, there is no need for
the FCC to oversee our every move.
In short, the 1996 Act is working. Cincinnati Bell has
complied with all of the market opening provisions in Section
251.
[Chart shown.]
As the next chart shows, the Cincinnati marketplace is one
of vibrant competition.
[Chart shown.]
And as the final chart shows, SBC and Verizon will have
entered the market by the end of next year. Yet, despite
mounting competition from huge companies, mid-sized companies
are still subject to the regulatory paradigm that existed prior
to competition.
At the same time, competitors enter our market with little
regulatory oversight. It is time for the regulatory structure
to better reflect market realities for the mid-sized companies.
While I am not suggesting what the regulatory regime should
be for other ILECs, I believe that the public interest demands
that the mid-sized companies be considered separately.
The provisions of H.R. 3850 specifically address the fact
that one-size-fits-all regulation of incumbent telephone
companies does not meet the needs of today's marketplace.
H.R. 3850 proposes a regulatory framework for 2 percent
companies founded on the principles of choice, fairness, and
independence.
So in closing let me sum up:
First, H.R. 3850 will enhance consumer choice by
eliminating unnecessary costs to our businesses so that we can
move more easily--so that we can more easily invest in the
latest technologies and bring advanced services to more
Americans.
It also promotes consumer choice by providing 2 percent
companies with greater flexibility and through the introduction
of new services.
H.R. 3850 will allow mid-sized companies to offer new
services in the same fashion as their competitors. In order to
successfully compete, we must be as fast, if not faster, in
bringing new products and services to our customers.
Second, with regard to fairness, H.R. 3850 will provide
additional pricing flexibility for 2 percent companies by
allowing for the de-averaging of interstate access rates and
the ability to enter into contractual arrangements with
customers for specific needs.
Furthermore, it will provide full pricing deregulation on
interstate services when a large incumbent local exchange
carrier enters our service area.
In providing this flexibility, H.R. 3850 provides an
opportunity for policymakers to access how do regulatory
initiatives foster increased competition.
Finally, H.R. 3850 seeks to promote independence, an
increasingly rare attribute in an environment where continuing
consolidation of the industry has decreased the number of
competitors.
While there is no doubt that each company's success is its
own responsibility, today's inappropriate one-size-fits-all
regulation tilts the competitive landscape against 2 percent
companies.
H.R. 3850 promotes independent telephone companies by
providing an appropriate level of regulatory oversight while
eliminating unnecessary, costly, and time consuming regulatory
burdens that impede innovation and ultimately our success.
H.R. 3850 doesn't give the 2 percent companies special
treatment. It simply rectifies regulatory inequities by
creating an appropriate level of regulation for 2 percent
carriers.
The regulatory flexibility found in H.R. 3850 would allow
us to invest in the latest technologies, pursue out-of-
territory opportunities, and provide consumers with an
outstanding choice of telecommunications services.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Jack Mueller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack Mueller, President, Cincinnati Bell
Telephone
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Jack Mueller, and I am President of Cincinnati Bell Telephone.
Thank you very much for allowing me to present my company's perspective
on the importance of HR 3850 and the reasons this legislation is
significant to our nation's telecommunications consumers.
My perspective on HR 3850 is not from the point of view of a
regulatory specialist but rather as one charged with managing the
operational aspects of a mid-size local exchange telephone company.
Before discussing the specific reasons why Cincinnati Bell supports
this legislation, I believe it would be helpful to provide some brief
background on Cincinnati Bell.
Cincinnati Bell Telephone serves the Cincinnati, Ohio marketplace,
providing local exchange services for some 1.1 million access lines in
southwestern Ohio, northern Kentucky, and southeastern Indiana. Founded
in 1873, Cincinnati Bell is one of the oldest independent telephone
companies in the nation. As the ``Bell'' in the name suggests,
Cincinnati Bell was once part of the Bell System. After divestiture,
however, AT&T sold its minority interest in the company and, along with
the Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET), Cincinnati Bell
became one of the two independent companies that emerged from the AT&T
breakup. After SNET's acquisition by SBC, Cincinnati Bell became the
sole remaining independent company of the former Bell System. Most
importantly, Cincinnati Bell has never been owned by nor affiliated
with a Regional Bell Operating Company.
Throughout its 127 years Cincinnati Bell has had a reputation for
providing innovative, high quality service. For example, Cincinnati
Bell was the first Bell company to become 100% dial in 1952 and the
first company in the nation to deploy SONET rings in 1992. More
recently, Cincinnati Bell has been in the forefront in bringing
advanced services to its customers via its extensive ADSL network.
Under the product name of ZoomTown.com, this service is available to
75% of our customers--the highest level of ADSL availability anywhere
in the United States. The provision of innovative, high quality service
has been crucial to maintaining customer satisfaction that is the
cornerstone of our business. Most recently Cincinnati Bell's reputation
in this area is supported by its rank as one of the top three
telecommunications companies in the country in customer satisfaction
according to J. D. Power and Associates.
Although Cincinnati Bell is extremely proud of its heritage and
reputation for quality and innovative services in the Cincinnati
market, it can no longer be content to serve a single market. To be a
player in the competitive telecommunications marketplace encouraged by
the '96 Act and to provide the services consumers demand, Cincinnati
Bell must move beyond its traditional boundaries. The first important
step in this expansion occurred last year when Cincinnati Bell
Telephone's holding company, Cincinnati Bell, Inc., acquired IXC
Communications, Inc. IXC's state-of-the-art fiber network, combined
with the operational expertise and customer-oriented focus of
Cincinnati Bell, created a powerhouse in the Internet backbone
marketplace. The new company, Broadwing Inc., is an integrated
communications provider (ICP) that delivers voice, data, wireless and
Internet services nationwide and is now considered a major Internet
backbone provider.
Although Cincinnati Bell and Broadwing are proud of what we have
accomplished in the past nine months, we cannot stop here. But to
realize our full potential, we must be able to compete on the same
terms as our competitors. Unfortunately, Broadwing is disadvantaged
because of the restrictions placed on Cincinnati Bell Telephone. Unlike
Broadwing, other ICPs operate relatively free of burdensome regulatory
constraints in their provision of local, long distance, and advanced
services. I believe that the time is right to lift the restrictions
that unnecessarily hinder Cincinnati Bell and other mid-size companies
in their quest to provide competitive alternatives to consumers
throughout the country. We are not asking for special treatment, only
equal treatment. As we open our traditional markets, there is no need
for the FCC to oversee our every move.
As Adam Smith said more than 200 years ago, ``Every man, as long as
he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to
pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring his industry and
capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men.''
I believe Cincinnati Bell and the telecommunications environment in
Cincinnati embody Mr. Smith's beliefs and the vision for competition
that Congress intended in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Cincinnati Bell Telephone currently has interconnection agreements
with 44 different companies and is actively competing with 9 full-
service telecommunications providers, 4 resellers, and 6 wireless
companies. By the end of the year another 13 full-service providers
will be operational in Cincinnati.
Competitors are collocated in 35 of Cincinnati Bell's 56 Central
Offices. Interim pricing for unbundled network elements as well as
permanent resale discounts are in place. I would also like to add that
the Cincinnati market was included in the initial implementation of
local number portability, which the company successfully rolled out on
schedule. In short, Cincinnati Bell has complied with all of the
market-opening provisions in section 251 of the '96 Act.
Today, competitors in our marketplace include such well-known
companies as AT&T, Worldcom, Time Warner, Intermedia Communications,
and Global Crossing.
The future holds even more major competitors for the Cincinnati
marketplace. By the end of next year Cincinnati Bell Telephone will be
facing competition from the two largest local telephone companies in
the United States--SBC and Verizon. Both of these companies are
required to compete in Cincinnati for business and residential
customers as a condition to the approval of their respective mergers.
It is worth noting, too, that each company already has a major presence
in the Cincinnati wireless market, a market in which each has proven to
be a formidable competitor. While many of Cincinnati Bell's competitors
are much larger, SBC and Verizon each have over 50 times more access
lines than Cincinnati Bell.
As you can see, the '96 Act is working. The Cincinnati marketplace
is one of vibrant competition for telecommunications services.
Yet, in spite of the mounting competitive entry from huge
telecommunications companies, mid-size companies are still subject to
the regulatory paradigm that existed prior to competition. In fact,
since the passage of the '96 Act, the FCC has imposed regulatory
requirements on mid-size telephone companies that did not previously
exist. At the same time, our competitors--some of the largest
telecommunications providers in the world--enter our market with little
regulatory oversight. It is time for the regulatory structure to
reflect market realities for the mid-size companies. While I do not in
any way want to suggest what the regulatory regime should be for other
ILECs, I do believe that in today's telecommunications marketplace the
public interest demands that the mid-size companies be considered
separately.
The provisions of HR 3850 specifically address the fact that ``one-
size-fits-all'' regulation of incumbent telephone companies does not
meet the needs of today's telecommunications marketplace. HR 3850
proposes a regulatory framework for two-percent companies founded on
the principles of choice, fairness, and independence.
First, with regard to choice, HR 3850 will assist mid-size
companies in eliminating unnecessary costs to our businesses so that we
can more easily invest in the latest technologies and bring advanced
services to more Americans. By investing in our networks and rolling
out new services, we will enhance consumer choice in the marketplace.
This legislation also promotes consumer choice by providing two-
percent companies with greater flexibility in the introduction of new
services. HR 3850 will allow companies like Cincinnati Bell to offer
new services in the same fashion as our competitors so that consumers
reap the benefits of innovation more quickly. In order to successfully
compete we must be as fast, if not faster, and more innovative in
bringing products and services to customers. In providing this
flexibility, HR 3850 provides an excellent opportunity for public
policy makers to assess how deregulatory initiatives foster increased
competition and consumer benefits.
Second, with regard to fairness, HR 3850 will provide additional
pricing flexibility for two-percent companies by allowing for the
deaveraging of interstate access rates, the ability to enter into
contractual arrangements with customers for specific needs, and one-day
approval of tariffs just like our competitors. Furthermore, HR 3850
will provide full pricing deregulation on interstate services when a
large incumbent local exchange carrier enters our service area.
Finally, HR 3850 seeks to promote independence, an increasingly
rare attribute in an environment in which continuing consolidation of
the industry has decreased the number of competitors. I believe that
the interests of our nation are better served in a telecommunications
market where multiple telecommunications providers are fighting every
day for the privilege of serving customers.
In an industry that is moving at light speed, mid-size telephone
companies like Cincinnati Bell must be able to move quickly to continue
to provide reliable service. While there is no doubt that each
company's success or failure in the marketplace is its own
responsibility, today's overreaching regulation tilts the competitive
landscape against two-percent companies and in favor of the large
players entering our markets. HR 3850 promotes independent telephone
companies by providing an appropriate level of regulatory oversight
while eliminating unnecessary, costly and time-consuming regulatory
burdens that impede innovation and ultimately our success in the
marketplace.
HR 3850 doesn't give the two-percent companies special treatment.
It simply rectifies regulatory inequities by creating an appropriate
level of regulation for two-percent carriers. The regulatory
flexibility found in HR 3850 would allow us to invest in the latest
technologies, pursue out of territory opportunities and provide
consumers with an outstanding choice of telecommunications services.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Mueller.
Next is a man who I know knows where Golden Meadow is, Mr.
David Cole, Vice President of Operations Support, CenturyTel of
Monroe, Louisiana. Also, by the way, way up north, the home of
Delta Airlines.
Mr. Cole.
STATEMENT OF DAVID COLE
Mr. Cole. Yes. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:
Thank you for your interest in the issues that we are
discussing today, and thank you also for inviting CenturyTel to
participate in this process.
My name is David Cole and I am Senior Vice President of
Operations Support for CenturyTel headquartered in Monroe,
Louisiana.
CenturyTel is a leading provider of integrated
telecommunications services in primarily rural and smaller
metropolitan markets.
We serve small markets throughout Louisiana, Ohio,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Texas. We
also serve Pinedale, Big Piney, Larson, and Medicine Bow in
Wyoming, and we are especially appreciative of the leadership
of Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Barrett in
introducing H.R. 3850.
Many of our markets may be rural and small but our
customers demand and they deserve the highest quality
telecommunications services available.
I am proud to say that CenturyTel has made this commitment
to serve these markets by working to provide the same variety
of high quality services that area available here in
Washington.
We have already deployed broadband digital subscriber line
service in Ohio, Wisconsin, Texas, Montana, and the State of
Washington, and we plan to spend about $20 million more to make
DSL service available to over 40 percent of our access lines by
the end of this year.
I would like to spend just a few minutes today on some of
the provisions of this legislation that are most important to
CenturyTel. the merger review, price cap, and pooling waiver
provisions.
Last summer, CenturyTel by itself and in partnership with
Spectra Communications Group and Telephone USA of Wisconsin
signed agreements with GTE to purchase approximately 460,000
access lines in the States of Arkansas, Missouri, and
Wisconsin.
These are exchanges that GTE decided they no longer wanted
to serve and that closely complemented CenturyTel's existing
operations.
Once we are able to begin serving these exchanges, we plan
to spend millions of dollars upgrading the facilities in these
states and launching new services, including dialup and
broadband Internet access, but also including some very common
services that these customers currently do not have.
These new services include the offering in these
communities for the first time in many cases of voice mail,
call waiting, caller ID, and other services that you and I have
enjoyed for many years.
Today as we speak three of the four acquisitions we have
filed at the FCC this past spring are still pending FCC
approval. One of these transactions will actually create the
Nation's first African American-owned local exchange carrier
operating in the State of Missouri.
These past few months have been expensive ones for
CenturyTel. We have assembled a team of well over 100 employees
to make these transactions a reality.
Both companies are ready to close, and all State approvals
have been received. However, we and our future customers still
wait.
In order to complete these transactions we must also seek
and obtain Commission approval for a set of rule waivers,
including waivers of the price cap, common line pooling, and a
study area of boundary rules.
These waivers are routinely granted to all applicants
because they raise no substantial policy for legal issues.
Although routine, this process normally takes a number of
months to complete and the FCC has no established deadlines
within which to complete this review.
Therefore, we have been unable to close on any of these
transactions largely because of regulatory delays. Rapid
approval of transactions such as this--and there will be more
of them if the RBOCs further divest rural properties, are in
the best interest of consumers.
Also, apart from the transactional context the Commission's
rules prohibiting CenturyTel to elect price cap regulation for
individual operating companies are outdated and deny the
benefits of price caps to hundreds of thousands of mid-sized
carriers customers.
Although price cap regulations will not work for all of
CenturyTel's companies, it would make sense for some. However,
the Commission's current rules prevent us from implementing
price caps in this manner.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I
urge you to press forward with the regulatory and FCC reform
efforts reflected in the legislation before you today. These
changes we would make are essential to permit carriers like
CenturyTel to compete in today's new world of
telecommunications and to deploy DSL Internet access and other
advanced communications services to our customers.
I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
appear before you today and look forward to responding to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of David Cole follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Cole, Senior Vice President of Operations
Support, CenturyTel, Inc.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you
for your interest in the issues we are discussing today and thank you
for inviting us to participate.
My name is David Cole. I am Senior Vice President of Operations
Support for CenturyTel, headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana. CenturyTel
is a leading provider of integrated telecommunications services in
mostly rural and small metropolitan markets. Our employees provide
wireline, wireless, long distance, Internet, security and data services
to more than 2 million customers in 20 states throughout the country.
introduction
Our markets include many small markets throughout Louisiana, Ohio,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Texas. We also serve
Pinedale, Big Piney, Farson and Medicine Bow, Wyoming and are
especially appreciative of the leadership of Ms. Cubin, Mr. Pickering,
Mr. Gordon and Mr. Barrett in introducing HR. 3850.
All of CenturyTel's telephone operations are ``rural telephone
companies'' as defined by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Most of
our service areas are extremely rural in nature, being characterized by
relatively low customer densities and difficult geographic
environments. Thus, CenturyTel is well acquainted with the problems and
challenges of building, maintaining and enhancing advanced
telecommunication services in small towns throughout America. We
specialize in providing top-notch service in these very markets.
Many of our markets may be rural and small, but our customers
demand and deserve the highest quality telecommunications services
available. I am proud to say that CenturyTel has made the commitment to
serve these markets by providing the same variety of high-quality
services that are available to you here in downtown Washington.
We have already deployed broadband digital subscriber line service
in Ohio, Wisconsin, Texas, Montana, and Washington state, and we plan
to spend about $20 million more to deploy DSL services to over 40
percent of our markets this year. For us, this rollout doesn't just
make good business sense, it also reflects our commitment to serve our
markets with the most advanced and highest quality services available
today. These services ensure that our rural residential consumers have
high-speed access to the Internet. In addition, we make sure that the
few businesses we do serve can have access to the 21st Century
communications products they need to grow and flourish in the
information economy.
the need for h.r. 3850
Which brings us to why we are here today. As much as we are
currently doing to deploy broadband and launch competitive ventures,
like other mid sized carriers, we are experiencing what I would term,
``regulatory drag'' working within today's framework of outdated and
duplicative FCC regulatory requirements. One of the fundamental goals
of the 1996 Act was to stimulate investment and innovation. Another
goal was to deregulate. The question that we should be asking is not
whether new services should be deployed, but how quickly they will be
deployed to all Americans, regardless of where they live. There is a
direct correlation between speed of deployment and deregulation of the
type contained in H.R. 3850--one that demonstrates that regulation is
not always in the best interests of our customers.
We believe the FCC should adopt reasonable interpretations of the
Communications Act that avoid prescriptive restraints on companies
willing to make the commitment to serve rural markets. HR. 3850
provides the proper legislative vehicle to remove archaic regulatory
rules designed for the largest telephone companies when they were
operating in a legally-sanctioned monopoly environment.
Today, Congress has an opportunity to remove those regulatory
barriers by passing legislation that allows midsize and smaller
carriers to focus on those things that are most important to their
customers: investing in infrastructure to deliver new and improved
services; and launching new out-of-region competitive ventures; rather
than spending customer dollars to comply with duplicative and outdated
FCC rules.
In considering this legislation, I would ask that you examine the
simple facts.
Rural markets depend on modern telecommunications services for
economic development.
The cost to provide services to these markets is high with
little interest shown by larger carriers to provide services
there.
Midsize and smaller companies, such as CenturyTel, have the
experience to serve these markets, and are willing to make the
investment necessary to do so.
There is no gain in consumer benefits, competition, or
innovation associated with the regulatory burdens that H.R.3850
would lift.
Critical investment dollars should be directed toward
deploying infrastructure and introducing new services, rather
than toward regulatory compliance.
I want to spend just a few minutes on some of the provisions of
this legislation that are most important to CenturyTel--merger review;
and price cap and pooling waivers.
Merger Review: Sixty percent of CenturyTel's growth has taken place
within the last four years through acquisition of telephone access
lines. Many of these lines have been, and will continue to be, acquired
from Bell operating companies and the former GTE. Last summer,
CenturyTel, by itself and in partnership with Spectra Communications
Group and Telephone USA of Wisconsin, signed agreements with GTE to
purchase approximately 460,000 lines from GTE in Arkansas, Missouri and
Wisconsin. These are exchanges that GTE no longer wants to serve, and
that closely complement CenturyTel's existing operations.
Once we are able to begin serving these exchanges, they will be
among the highest-priority areas in which we plan to launch DSL-based
broadband Internet access services. We have hired 900 new employees to
respond quickly to customer needs in these states. We plan to spend
literally millions of dollars upgrading the facilities in these states
and launching new services, including dial-up and broadband Internet
access, but also including some very common services that these
customers currently cannot access. These new services include the
offering in these communities--for the first time, in many cases--of
voice mail, call waiting, caller ID, and other services that you and I
have enjoyed for years.
Today as we speak, three of the four acquisitions we filed at the
FCC this past spring involving more than two hundred twenty thousand
access lines are still waiting for FCC approval. One of these
transactions will create the nation's first African-American-owned
local exchange carrier, and it will operate in Missouri.
These past few months have been expensive ones. To date, we have
assembled a team of well over 100 employees to make these transactions
a reality. Both companies are ready to close, all state approvals have
been made; however, we and our future customers still wait.
In 1996, CenturyTel reached agreement to acquire and merge its
operations with Pacific Telecom, Inc. (PTI), a midsize local exchange
carrier that served about 600,000 lines, primarily on the west coast,
and that did not overlap with CenturyTel's local exchange operations.
Our combined operations comprised a total of just six-tenths of one
percent of the local telephone lines in the country, gave us a cellular
business smaller than those of nine other carriers, and made us the
twenty-sixth largest broadband PCS carrier in the country.
Nevertheless, the Commission applied the same type of competitive
analysis it has repeatedly applied to the large headline-grabbing Bell
operating company mergers. This despite the fact that, even from the
outset, there was no serious contention that our merger would be
blocked or that it posed any anti-competitive effects whatsoever. The
Department of Justice showed no concern with our Hart-Scott-Rodino
filings. State regulators uniformly approved the deal. Most tellingly,
in response to the FCC's Public Notice seeking comment on the
transaction, no party opposed, or even commented upon, the transaction.
But more importantly, the FCC's review delayed the launch of our
service to customers that we wanted and were ready to serve. Since we
closed that merger in 1997, penetration of enhanced and information
services has grown dramatically, as our technical and marketing
expertise has brought additional value to the former PTI customers.
In today's digital economy, the FCC needs to make its decisions
quickly when reviewing mergers, in order to allow companies that are
poised to enter the market and improve service to do so. While the FCC
should have an opportunity to pass on the public interest benefits of
wireless license transfers, it should do so quickly, and with the
minimum delay necessary to make an informed decision on the
qualifications of the purchaser.
Price cap and pooling waivers: In order to complete these
transactions, we must seek and obtain Commission approval for a set of
rule waivers, including waivers of the price cap, common line pooling,
and study area boundary rules. These waivers are routinely granted to
all applicants because they raise no substantial policy or legal
issues. Although routine, the process takes an absolute minimum of six
months to complete, and the FCC has no established deadlines within
which to complete its review.
The FCC's concerns that carriers could use the price cap system in
this context to manipulate rates are unfounded. When a carrier changes
the type of regulation under which it is regulated, the FCC must
approve the company's tariff. At that time, the Commission must
determine whether the rates are just and reasonable, and may
investigate rates that it believes are not. Similarly, the National
Exchange Carriers Association (NECA) common line pool serves to even
out interstate access charges that non price cap carriers across the
country charge to long distance carriers. Especially in light of
allegations that some long distance carriers may be reducing or
eliminating service in areas where access charges are too high, the
Commission should be embracing the NECA pool as a useful tool to
preserve consumer choice.
Nevertheless, we have been unable to close on any of these
transactions, largely because of regulatory delays at the Commission.
Rapid approval of transactions like this--and there will be more of
them as the RBOCs divest of their properties--are in the best interest
of consumers.
Apart from the transactional context, the Commission's rules
prohibiting carriers to elect price cap regulation for individual
operating companies are outdated and deny the benefits of price caps to
hundreds of thousands of midsize carrier customers nationwide. The
benefits of price cap regulation are well-understood by carriers,
economists, and the Commission alike. Price caps replicate the
efficiency incentives of a competitive market, and ratchet rates
progressively downward.
Although price caps regulation won't work for all of our companies,
it would make sense for some. Nevertheless, the Commission's rules
prevent us from experimenting with price caps in this manner, and
forbid us from leaving the price cap system if we guess wrong, all
based on outdated hypotheses about what might happen if we were allowed
to convert individual companies from rate-of-return regulation to price
caps. Contrary to these regulatory fears, no cost shifting between
rate-of-return and price cap affiliates would occur because, as
separate affiliates, such action would be readily detectable. In
addition, any carrier attempt to ``game the system'' using these rules
would quickly backfire. Actual or threatened competition makes such
activity too risky--a carrier that tried to manipulate its rates in
that way would lose customers to a competitor.
Far from serving the public interest, these rules deny us
regulatory flexibility that could benefit us as a carrier, long-
distance carriers to whom we provide access services, and our business
and residential customers alike. If we had the type of flexibility that
H.R. 3850 would grant, we could bring the benefits of price caps to
many of our customers.
conclusion
In sum, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I urge you to
press forward with the regulatory and FCC reform efforts reflected in
the legislation before you today. The changes it would make are
essential to permit carriers like CenturyTel to compete in today's new
world of telecommunications, both to grow outside of our traditional
local exchange regions, and to deploy DSL Internet access and other
advanced communications services to our customers.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to pretend that reducing regulation
alone is enough to ensure rapid deployment of fast Internet access to
all parts of this country or all of my companies' rural customers. It
isn't enough. Our companies have a lot of work to do to deploy new
facilities and roll out new DSL and other broadband services. In
addition, universal service mechanisms will have to play an important
role in providing broadband access to all Americans. Congress, too,
should promptly consider proposals to provide tax incentives for
broadband investment in low density, high cost rural markets. Rural and
suburban companies desperately need the regulatory certainty and
financial stability that we do not have now. This legislation is an
important piece of the puzzle for my company, though, and I urge you to
move it forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I
look forward to responding to your questions.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Cole, thank you very much. We have time for
one final presentation and then we will have to take a break.
We have two 15-minute votes on the floor, so we will hear from
our last witness and then we will all break and go vote and
come back in about a half hour.
Last will be Mr. John Sumpter, Vice President Regulatory
Affairs of Pac-West Telecom in Stockton, California.
Mr. Sumpter.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SUMPTER
Mr. Sumpter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee, I appreciate very much this opportunity to speak to
you today on this issue.
Pac-West is a small, competitive, local-exchange carrier
created in effect by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and we
are very grateful for the opportunity you have given us to
compete.
We are in Stockton, California, which is the heart of
California's great agricultural area. We serve a lot of rural
communities.
Our business plan was sort of the reverse of a lot of CLECs
where we started in rural and agricultural areas and then
spread our services into the more urban areas of California.
I am also a member of the Operating Board of ALTS, the
Association for Local Telecommunications Services, which
represent CLECs, about 100 of them.
ALTS does not represent IXCs, large IXCs. It does not
represent any RBOCs. All of the companies of ALTS would not
exist without the Telecommunications Act.
ALTS's primary mission, and a significant issue of
importance to Pac-West, is to open the local telecommunications
market to competition.
We support the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and we
support the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission
and State officials to implement that Act.
The most important means of creating the competitive local
market that Congress envisioned is to ensure that the Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers, or ILECs, interconnect with the new
entrants and make available to competitors the critical
components of their network on a wholesale basis.
In other words, our principal focus is to make sure that
the ILECs provide the wholesale components that will allow us
to build new technologically advanced networks.
We are less concerned with the regulation of retail rates.
Our view is that competition, once it is established, will keep
retail rates low and affordable without the need for detailed
rate regulation.
However, market forces will only restrain rates and spawn
new services if competitive providers can interconnect and get
access to essential unbundled network elements of the monopoly
telephone company networks on a wholesale basis.
We are concerned about some of the provisions of H.R. 3850
that might weaken the prospects for local telephone
competition.
On the other hand, we have no disagreements with other
provisions of the bill that have little or no effect on
competition such as those that streamline and remove
unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements.
Our views on this bill are colored by our experience in the
marketplace. Many CLECs are working hard to bring competition
to suburban and rural markets. We are confident that
competitors and small and mid-sized ILECs alike are striving to
provide broadband services to rural consumers as quickly as
possible.
However, many CLECs have had a difficult time entering the
markets served by small and mid-sized ILECs. Many CLECs are not
able to obtain authority to offer service in areas served by
the small and mid-sized carriers.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 already permits ILECs
with less than 2 percent of the Nation's access lines to avoid
many of the unbundling and pro-competitive requirements that
currently apply to the larger ILECs.
There is no reason for Congress or Federal or State
regulators to deny consumers served by mid-sized or small
telephone companies the benefits of competitive choice.
The record is clear. Competition produces lower prices,
higher quality services, faster Internet access services, and
greater customer responsiveness.
Rural consumers deserve to receive these benefits as much,
if not more, than urban consumers.
Remarkably, the legislation under consideration today may
make it even more difficult to compete in these markets. This
is because the bill would remove some of the enforcement power
of the FCC and State regulators to enforce the procompetitive
provisions of the law.
For instance, Section 4 of the bill directs the FCC to
adopt separate, less burdensome rules for ILECs with less than
2 percent of the Nation's access lines.
This provision would apply to all the pro-competitive
provisions of Section 251[a][b] and [c] of the Communications
Act.
Thus, this provision would likely reduce the
interconnection and unbundling obligations for small and mid-
sized ILECs.
Finally, we are somewhat concerned about the strict time
deadlines suggested by the legislation on the FCC's merger
review. Perhaps a longer time would be more appropriate.
While we do not oppose the provisions that deal with cost
allocation manuals and the like, the committee should consider
accompanying these regulatory initiatives with provisions
designed to improve their prospects for competition.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of John Sumpter follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Sumpter, Vice President--Regulatory, Pac-
West Telecomm, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is John Sumpter. I
am the Vice-President--Regulatory for Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. a
competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) operating primarily in the
Western part of the U.S. Pac-West provides local telephone service to
business and residential subscribers. Pac-West also provides services
to Internet service providers (ISPs). While most of Pac-West's business
is located in Northern California, Pac-West plans to operate in 10
states in the Western U.S. by the end of 2000.
I am also a Member of the Operating Board of the Association for
Local Telecommunications Services, known as ALTS. ALTS is the leading
trade association representing facilities-based competitors for local
telecommunications services. ALTS represents approximately 100 CLECs,
most of whom were founded and started to build competing local
telephone networks after the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act. (ALTS does NOT represent either the Bell Operating Companies or
the major long distance companies.) In short, ALTS represents exactly
the kind of entrepreneurial new companies that Congress sought to
foster when it passed the 1996 Telecom Act. Our companies would not
exist today if Congress had not passed that Act, and for that we are
enormously thankful to you, Mr. Chairman and all the Members of this
Committee.
Mr. Chairman, you have asked me to testify concerning H.R. 3850,
the ``Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of
2000.'' I have several specific comments to make concerning the
provisions of this legislation. Before doing so, I would like to
summarize my principal message:
ALTS' primary mission, and the issue that is of greatest importance
to Pac-West, is to open the local telephone market to competition. We
support the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and we support the efforts
of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and state officials to
implement that Act. The most important means of creating the
competitive local market that Congress envisioned is to ensure that the
incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) interconnect with the new
entrants and make available to competitors the critical components of
their network on a wholesale basis. In other words, our principal focus
is to make sure the ILECs provide the wholesale components that will
allow us to build new technologically-advanced networks.
We are less concerned with the regulation of retail rates. Our view
is that competition, once fully enabled and vibrant, will keep retail
rates low and affordable without the need for detailed rate regulation.
However, market forces will only restrain rates and spawn new services
if competitive providers can interconnect with and get access to the
essential unbundled network elements of the monopoly telephone company
networks on a wholesale basis at cost-based rates.
We are concerned about some provisions of H.R. 3850 that might
weaken the prospects for local telephone competition. On the other
hand, we have no disagreement with other provisions of the bill that
have little to no effect on competition, such as those that streamline
and remove unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements on
carriers.
Our views on this bill are colored by our experience in the
marketplace. Many CLECs are working hard to bring competition to
suburban and rural markets. We are confident that competitors and small
and mid-sized ILECs alike are striving to provide broadband services to
rural consumers as quickly as possible. However, many CLECs have had a
difficult time entering the markets served by small and mid-size ILECs.
Many CLECs are not able to obtain authority to offer service in areas
served by these small and mid-sized carriers. Even when authorized,
CLECs do not have access to the universal service subsidies that are
made available to the ILECs. Moreover, the CLECs often encounter the
same difficulties obtaining unbundled loops and collocation from small
and mid-sized ILECs that CLECs encounter with the Regional Bell
Operating Companies and GTE. The result is that consumers in areas
served by these small and mid-sized carriers are not able to benefit
from the growth of competition as quickly as consumers in urban areas.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 already permits ILECs with less
than 2% of the nation's access lines to avoid many of the unbundling
and pro-competitive requirements that currently apply to larger ILECs.
(As a footnote, it appears that the decision of the 8th Circuit Court
of Appeals earlier this week may make it even easier for small and mid-
sized ILECs to obtain the exemptions from the pro-competition
provisions of the 1996 Act.) This is unfortunate. Whether or not the
ILEC is large or small, and whether or not it serves a large or small
geographic area, every ILEC that possesses a monopoly over local
telephone service should be required to open its network to
competition. There is no reason for Congress or federal or state
regulators to deny consumers served by mid-size or small telephone
companies the benefits of competitive choice. The record is clear--
competition produces lower prices, higher quality services, faster
Internet access services, and greater customer responsiveness. Rural
consumers deserve to receive these benefits as much if not more than
urban consumers.
Remarkably, the legislation under consideration today may make it
even MORE DIFFICULT to compete in these markets. This is because the
bill would remove some of the enforcement power of the FCC and state
regulators to enforce the pro-competitive provisions of the law. For
instance, section 4 of the bill directs the FCC to adopt separate, less
burdensome rules for ILECs with less than 2% of the nation's access
lines. This provision would apply to all the pro-competitive provisions
of sections 251(a), (b), and (c) of the Communications Act. Thus, this
provision would likely reduce the interconnection and unbundling
obligations for small and mid-size ILECs.
Furthermore, the bill proposes a new section 287 of the
Communications Act that would grant the small and mid-sized ILECs
pricing flexibility, and pricing deregulation, when the ILEC self-
certifies that another carrier has entered the geographic area on
either a facilities-based or resale basis. In other words, as soon as a
competitor serves a single customer, the ILEC would be able to have
pricing flexibility, or pricing deregulation (if the new entrant is
another ILEC). This pricing relief could cause substantial harm to
competition and consumers. This provision would permit a carrier with
99.99% of the market to raise prices to captive customers, and to drive
competitors out of the market by lowering prices below costs to the
customers targeted by a competitor.
The FCC already has the authority to implement pricing flexibility
under section 10 of the Communications Act when it is in the public
interest. If Congress wishes to change this standard for determining
when a market is sufficiently competitive to justify such pricing
flexibility, we would be glad to work with Congress to change that
standard. However, the standard set by this bill (the provision of
competitive service to a single consumer) would allow pricing
flexibility well before competitive pressures are sufficient to
restrain prices.
Finally, we are somewhat concerned about the strict time deadlines
suggested by the legislation on the FCC's merger review authority and
for petitions for waiver or for reconsideration. We support time
deadlines on FCC rulings; the Commission should not be permitted to
string out its review process for months on end. Nevertheless, the
bill's time deadlines (45 days for mergers, 90 days for petitions for
waiver or reconsideration) may be too difficult to meet. If the FCC
does not meet the deadline, the merger or petition is automatically
approved. If the FCC meets the deadline, it is likely to be forced into
a hasty decision that may not be well-reasoned and may not survive
judicial review. We suggest that the Committee consider extending these
time deadlines to 180 days maximum.
ALTS and Pac-West are not as concerned about other provisions of
the legislation, such as those removing the filing of cost allocation
manuals and the provisions allowing the small carriers to choose price
cap regulation. These provisions affect the FCC's ability to monitor
the rates charged by the ILECs. If there are other means of protecting
consumers from rate increases that are less burdensome to the small and
mid-sized ILECs, then the FCC and state regulators should be permitted
to rely upon these other measures.
While we do not oppose these provisions, the Committee should
consider accompanying these deregulatory initiatives with provisions
designed to improve the prospects for competition. In other words, if
Congress seeks to reduce the regulation of retail rates charged by
small and mid-sized ILECs, Congress should also consider measures to
stimulate greater competition in these markets so that consumers served
by these carriers will also receive the lower prices and greater
service innovation that competition can produce.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Sumpter.
We will take about a half-an-hour break. We have got----
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman, if I might?
Mr. Tauzin. Yes.
Mrs. Cubin. I have another bill that I have to Chair the
hearing on to start at 1:30, so I was wondering if we could
make the 15-minute vote and then vote quickly and come back and
I could do my questioning and then----
Mr. Tauzin. You will be up first, Mrs. Cubin.
Mrs. Cubin. I cannot have two bills at the same time
without me there.
Mr. Tauzin. I know, it's tough around here.
Mrs. Cubin. You're right.
Mr. Tauzin. Why not?
We have about 10 minutes left to go on this vote, and the
other vote will start--we will get back here in about 20
minutes let's say.
And if I am not back here before you are, Mrs. Cubin, start
it up.
Mrs. Cubin. I will. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. All right. The committee stands in recess.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Tauzin. The meeting will please come back to order.
When we left, the witnesses had completed their statements
and the Chair will now recognize himself and other members--
well, let me recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming, first,
since she is here.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman, that would be fine if you go
right ahead.
Mr. Tauzin. Well not at all. I know you have other things
to do, and I want to accommodate you, Barbara, so you are up
first.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
First of all, I do appreciate the testimony from all of the
witnesses here today. There are a few points I want to make
based on not only the witnesses testimony but also on some of
the reservations that members expressed about the bill.
First of all I want to make it absolutely clear that there
is nothing in this bill that prevents the Commission from
getting any information any time that they need.
You know there are a lot of times when I think it is a
disadvantage to me because I am not a lawyer, and so political
process gets kind of tied up with procedure and those kinds of
things, but I am a chemist and so I have a background in
statistics as well.
I happen to know that the information that is garnered from
some of these 2 percenters in the information that they submit
in CAM and ARMIS reports, and the others, is so statistically
insignificant that it would have to be thrown out when policy
decisions are made.
So I think that is one important point to make. But that is
all aside because you can get the information, the Commission
can get the information if they need it. They just don't
necessarily need to require it in such a comprehensive and
costly form.
Another point that I wanted to make was about the pricing
flexibility that the 2 percenters would be able to adjust their
fares in 1 day. Well 90 percent of the providers can do that
now.
So why remove that? Why not the 2 percenters?
Another thing is mergers. I realize that the mergers and
the time it takes, that that is a difficult point. I am not
saying that necessarily 45 days is the right number of days,
but what I am saying is these people have a right to get a
decision made.
Most of the time these mergers--in fact, I think all the
time that I am aware of--these mergers are one 2 percent
company merging with another 2 percent company resulting in
another 2 percent company.
So the information is not complicated. It is not detailed.
To my knowledge, the FCC has never denied one. So I just think
that 45 days is not an unreasonable amount of time to get this
done.
There are a lot of other regulatory problems that we could
have identified, but we identified these reports, the problem
with mergers, and the pricing flexibility and the deregulation
when in fact there is competition in place where an investment
has been made, and so they are not going anywhere. The
competition is there; will remain there; why not let the 2
percenters do what the other CLECs can do.
So with that, I would like to start my questioning with
Carol Mattey. I certainly do want you to know that I appreciate
the work that you have done to move these issues forward, and
we will be glad to work with you to try to get this done.
I absolutely think the legislation needs to be here,
though, because I think people are not necessarily like me in
temperament but they are like me in, you do the things that are
aggravating you the most.
So I think that we have to do this so that we can get this
accomplished. I know you intend to do it, but it is the time
that is a problem with me.
In your testimony regarding Section 281 of the bill you
mention that the FCC will not be able to receive data from the
2 percent carriers such as broadband deployment reports.
I must say that that never was the intention of the bill. I
am afraid that your statement kind of missed the mark in that
area. It was not ever intended to keep information from you for
regulating or receiving the information that you need to do
your job, and especially when it comes to broadband deployment.
But this bill is about your trying to think of ways that
smaller companies can provide you with the information that you
really need in a more appropriate and less burdensome manner
given their relative size.
In fact, I have information that indicates that CAM costs
for RBOCs are about four cents per customer, and for 2
percenters $3 per customer. Those are the kinds of things I
would like you to be looking at.
So these are just suggestions. Couldn't you get more
general information from 2 percenters and more detailed
information from the larger companies which serve 92 percent of
the customers?
It seems to me that that would be a good base of
information. Or, couldn't you require 2 percent carriers to
report annually while the larger carriers could report semi-
annually?
Or why not give smaller carriers a longer time to submit
their information?
I just think we need to be creative on ways to lessen their
regulatory burden. Do you see a problem with any of those
suggestions?
Ms. Mattey. We certainly are open to thinking through and
discussing further all of those suggestions.
I want to clarify for the benefit of the committee that not
all companies file the CAM filings that you referred to.
Presently there are over 1200 carriers that fit the category of
2 percent carriers.
Today, under the current regulations, only 8 of those 1200
carriers actually file the CAM report that you showed the
committee.
So I would share your concern if all 1200 of them were
filing that big report, but as it is today, the Commission
already has recognized that, what I would call the really small
companies, which are the bulk of the 1200, do not need to file
that sort of report.
And as I alluded to in my testimony, the Bureau is
preparing to recommend to the Commission that we do a
rulemaking. In fact, the Bureau believes, the Common Carrier
Bureau, believes that the CAM reports do not need to be filed
any longer and we would be recommending that the 2 percent
companies file a certification that they are in compliance with
our cost allocation rules.
So that is an example of an area where we hope to be moving
forward in a very constructive way.
With respect to the financial reports that----
Mrs. Cubin. Could I ask you a question about that first?
Ms. Mattey. Sure.
Mrs. Cubin. That is great news. Can you give me an idea of
when that will be?
Ms. Mattey. Well I can tell you when the Bureau hopes to
make the recommendation, but obviously when the Commission
adopts it is subject to the Commission. But we are hoping to be
making the recommendation in the early fall.
Mrs. Cubin. That is great. So my response would be that I
would really like the legislation to stay in place maybe to
help boost that process along.
Ms. Mattey. And I must confess, with respect to eliminating
the CAM filing, if you were to enact that particular provision,
it would mean we would not need to do the rulemaking, and that
takes time and resources as well.
So I do not object to that.
Mrs. Cubin. Good.
Ms. Mattey. I mean if you addressed the elimination of the
CAM filing. But the one thing I would suggest that you think
about is at least having some sort of provision that there be a
certification that the cost allocation rules are being complied
with.
So that is just one suggestion.
Mrs. Cubin. Good.
Ms. Mattey. With respect to the financial reports, you
showed the committee the big fat reports in that folder. Those
financial reports are not filed by all 1200 companies.
Approximately 55 out of the 1200 currently file those financial
reports, and the remainder do not file those financial reports.
And again as part of the rulemaking that the Bureau is
preparing, we would like to recommend to the Commission that we
eliminate those financial report filings and instead have
basically a one-page summary financial report because we think
there is some baseline information that the Commission needs in
order to have an assessment of what carriers across America are
doing, but we do not need as much information.
So again, if you would consider that sort of tailoring just
to have some sort of one-page summary or something, that would
be something that we are very open to talking about.
Mr. Tauzin. We are making a lot of progress here, Barbara.
Mrs. Cubin. Really. Those are exactly the kind of things
that we hope to achieve.
Ms. Mattey. Yes. I mean we have been actively thinking
about this, and I know you hope that the legislation is
spurring us to think about it, but indeed we were actually
thinking----
Mrs. Cubin. You have already been doing it.
Ms. Mattey. [continuing] about it. This is something that
we had started working on early this year. And so the
legislation and our thought process is sort of moving along in
a parallel timeframe.
Mrs. Cubin. Well I really do appreciate that and would like
to offer any assistance that you might need from this end. I
would really like to do that.
Let me--I cannot go through all these questions, but I
would like to submit them not just to Ms. Mattey but to the
other members of the witness panel today, too.
In your testimony, and it was mentioned otherwise too, that
the 45-day deadline, that you had a problem with that. I wanted
to note that even Mr. Sumpter favors the concept of a merger
review deadline.
Apart from the actual number of days, I have a more basic
question. Is it warranted, do you think, to set a shorter
deadline for action on the simpler mergers between smaller
companies?
Ms. Mattey. That is Mr. Bird's question.
Mr. Bird. I will take that question.
I think very often mergers between the smaller companies
will take a shorter period of time.
Mrs. Cubin. Shorter? Help me with that. Because some of
these have been pending a year, months, years, so just help me
with what you mean by ``shorter.''
Mr. Bird. I do not know that any 2 percenters have taken
that long. There really have not been that many mergers among
the 2 percenters.
The one that was referred to in Mr. Cole's testimony around
1996 came out at an unfortunate time in some ways. It was right
after the Commission had addressed the very large merger of
Bell Atlantic/Nynex.
It was a brand-new concept and a lot of the structure for
analysis that was in the Bell Atlantic/Nynex opinion was
applied in this context where it comes to the basic conclusion
that the competitive concerns were not really there. And
because that was the first case, there was a much more
extensive analysis.
I think if you look at the more recent cases, last year the
Al-Tel/Alliance Merger, the competitive analysis was three
pages and basically found that there were no major problems.
Mrs. Cubin. And how long did that take for the company to
receive that?
Mr. Bird. It was submitted in January and the decision was
adopted in June. But the major period of time on that one was
not spent on those Bell Atlantic/Nynex issues. I think there
were waiver issues that were involved.
And that is one thing that I wanted to mention with respect
to the mergers. The mergers often involve questions of waiver
of one or another of the Commission's rules and, depending on
which rule it is and how much experience there has been with
the waiver of the rule and what the circumstances are, those
can take a fair amount of time to decide.
That is where I think we try to decide these cases, and the
Commission has taken steps to speed up its review.
Mr. Tauzin. What is the average time right now?
Mr. Bird. The average time for?
Mr. Tauzin. To handle one of these reviews.
Mrs. Cubin. To review a merger.
Mr. Bird. Well it depends on the size of the merger. We
have made a commitment to reach a conclusion in even the most
complex mergers within 180 days of the time that it goes out
for public notice.
Mr. Tauzin. Barbara, if you would yield again, Mr. Sumpter,
didn't you recommend 180 days in your statement?
Mr. Sumpter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. And you are saying you can do it in 180 days,
even the most complex?
Mr. Bird. We have made the commitment to attempt to do the
most complex ones within 180 days from the time that they go
out on public notice. And we qualified that with only two
qualifications.
One is there are certain things that are within our control
in terms of these merger applications, things that the
Commission can do and should do within the time period that it
sets for itself.
There are other things that are not completely within our
control that occur with some frequency in merger applications.
One of those is if we do not get sufficient information from
the applicants on one point or another.
Mr. Tauzin. Barbara, if you would yield again----
Mrs. Cubin. Sure.
Mr. Tauzin. [continuing] One of the problems, we have got a
bill moving that deals with that, and one of the problems we
have found in examining this issue is that as long as that is a
subjective question as to whether or not you have got enough
information, that the time never tolls. You never start ringing
it.
The problem of setting any kind of time limit is defining
when it starts. But if you can decide it never starts because
you never go out on public notice because you keep asking for
more information, the applicant doesn't know what you want when
he first files, the legislation and time limits are
meaningless.
So I suppose what I would like to ask you, if you don't
mind, Barbara, is the bill we have offered, the Barrett-
Pickering bill, basically says that the time starts the moment
the applicant gives you all the information that you say up
front you need in a merger application.
And once you have that information, if he knows what it is
and does not give it to you, that is a different matter, but if
you tell him what is required at the get-go and he supplies it,
the timing begins to run.
Would you accept such a provision?
Mr. Bird. This is for the more general--these questions
frequently do not happen too much with the 2 percenters, but I
think that would go a long way to addressing the concern we had
that an applicant may come to us with an incomplete
application.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes.
Mr. Bird. We think it is very important that applicants
know exactly what is expected of them, and in the guidelines
that we have put forth on our web page we suggest that the
applicants get in touch with us before they file the
application, and we have done this with a number of people, so
they know what is required and we can get that together, and
things move rapidly at that point.
Mrs. Cubin. That has not been a problem that I have heard
about, of knowing what to submit, but certainly we need to know
when the clock starts ticking and when it should end.
But just to follow up on this a little bit, Mr. Darby, I
just have one more question after this one, but you discussed
in your testimony the cost of uncertainty.
Like my bill, H.R. 4019 that this subcommittee has already
marked up, H.R. 3850 proposes deadline for merger reviews as we
have said already.
I have always believed that we need more certainty in that
time. So could you tell us what are the costs to 2 percent
carriers of merger review without deadline of any kind?
What kind of not only inconveniences and delays in being
able to offer more advanced services, but what are those direct
costs to you?
Mr. Darby. Sure. I would be happy to. Thank you.
It is important to understand that mergers or acquisitions
have a sound economic basis to the stockholders who are engaged
in it. Otherwise, they would not be considering it.
So what happens is, if there is a proposed merger the
benefits of that merger are delayed. Okay? So in the first
instance there is a cost of delay. But there is in a sense a
discriminatory cost of delay because not all merger applicants,
not all merger candidates, have to go through these kinds of
processes.
That is to say, there are alternatives for an unregulated
company to merge with another, or acquire another unregulated
company.
So if I am looking as a potential acquirer of let's say
resources that will give me access to a particular market and I
look at a cable company, a wireless company, a satellite
company, or another company that is not subject to these
regulations, that is an incentive to me to avoid doing deals
with these kinds of people.
So there is a discriminatory piece to it, and there is also
a delay piece to it. The Bureau's response is we need more
time, and I sympathize with that. These are very difficult
issues many of time. But I think what is missing from that is
that this is--and this is a point in my testimony--this is not
a free good. Okay?
That taking more time while at the margin may create
benefits for the regulatory process, it also brings about these
kinds of costs.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to direct my question to Mr. Mueller and to
Mr. Cole, and then to Ms. Mattey from the FCC.
You heard some of the questions that I raised in my opening
statement, and let me direct myself toward this part of the
bill.
The bill would remove the separate subsidiary requirement
for long distance and other non-regulated activities.
Now we know that this requirement is intended to protect
ratepayers and competitors from cross-subsidization. But at the
same time, the bill removes the requirement for the companies
to file what is known as the CAM, the Cost Allocation Manual,
with the FCC.
Now these filings are also intended to protect against
cross-subsidization. I understand that requiring both of these
protections could be considered overkill. I understand that
one.
But how do you justify eliminating both of them? And how
can we be sure that ratepayers will be protected against the
cross-subsidization if neither of these mechanisms are in
place?
Mr. Mueller. I will be happy to go first.
Ms. Eshoo. Sure.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you for the question. I appreciate the
opportunity to respond.
First of all, let me just give you some----
Ms. Eshoo. Now do you really mean that?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, I do.
Ms. Eshoo. We always say things like that, and then. . .
Mr. Mueller. Let me just give you an example that I think
might help the committee understand the situation in
Cincinnati.
I am president of the Telephone Company. Some of the things
that I do not have under my direct control are wireless, long
distance, two subsidiaries that we have to have separate
subsidiary requirements. And so they are separated
subsidiaries.
Because we have those separated subsidiaries, we have
general managers for those businesses. We have additional
costs. We have the costs of creating separate books and all of
those kinds of things which are passed on to consumers and
businesses in our market.
There is really no need for that kind of separate
subsidiary requirement when you have a company that is our
size.
Your second point was about well what if we take away these
kinds of requirements and you do not have to file any cost
allocation materials?
The reason--let me put it this way. At the FCC we file a
lot of cost material for our states. We break that cost
material down between the States of Ohio and Kentucky.
We provide that information to the FCC, and honestly we do
not know whether or not that material is even used for any
purpose other than filing what you saw.
We also file similar materials----
Ms. Eshoo. They can tell us that. But if you remove both--I
mean I acknowledge that if you have both of them on it may be
overkill, but how are we guaranteed?
I mean how do we know?
Mr. Mueller. We also file similar materials at the State
level, and the states review our businesses on an ongoing
basis. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Public Service
Commission of Kentucky, and there are, I would say, some
onerous, some not onerous restrictions upon us in the states.
And that is true across the country, and many states are
different in terms of how they regulate the companies within
those states.
So I do not want anyone to get the impression that because
this bill is passed in its current form that regulation goes
away. That is clearly not the case at all.
We clearly would still be a regulated organization, and all
2 percent companies would be.
Ms. Eshoo. But the bill lifts both. And so my question--I
mean you are telling me what you do.
Mr. Mueller. Um-hmm.
Ms. Eshoo. But I am asking you, given that the bill says
both are gone, how do we know that ratepayers are protected
against the cross-subsidization?
Mr. Mueller. Congresswoman Cubin also responded to that, I
believe, by saying that the FCC still has the authority to ask
at any particular point in time to any of the companies for
this information.
It just would take away the requirement that we provide
this information on an annualized basis.
Ms. Eshoo. But if they ask and you give the information, do
they have the hands to do anything? Well maybe we can get Mr.
Cole to answer, and then maybe the views of the FCC.
I appreciate your response.
Mr. Cole. I would like to talk a little bit, and I believe
very much for me that the issues are on point. Ours is even a
more complicated situation in that we have 20 states and the
allocation process is extremely burdensome, but it is a very
complicated process for us.
But again I believe this legislation does not alter any of
the cost allocation requirements that we as companies are
required to follow as far as allocating our costs. So it does
not change anything as to how we do business or how we allocate
costs among regulated and non-regulated businesses, whether
they be separate entities or not.
It only says that we would not be able to--or would not be
required to produce this annual CAM and ARMIS filings that are
very extensive.
We would still be required----
Ms. Eshoo. Let me ask the question another way.
Mr. Cole. I'm sorry.
Ms. Eshoo. How is the ratepayer guaranteed that these
protections that you are referring to by intent anyway will be
honored?
Mr. Cole. I think one, I believe from the FCC staff, one of
their recommendations, which as far as filing just an annual
statement that we are complying with cost allocations requires
us to submit to the FCC that we are following these rules and
adhere to those.
The other is, there is also State regulatory review of
those same allocation methods as they have questions. And
again, if there are any questions from the FCC or other bodies
for us to sit down and show how we are following those
processes, we would be doing that at that time.
This is really just saying it is doing away with the filing
requirement, not that any of the rules of what we have to
follow change as far as the ongoing business practices and how
we account for costs.
And I do believe that the requirement for an annual
certification that we are following those rules would be a much
less burdensome----
Ms. Eshoo. I think I am running out of time, but I
appreciate your answer.
Mr. Chairman, can Ms. Mattey--I will not say anything
else--can she respond?
Mr. Tauzin. Of course. Absolutely. Ms. Mattey?
Ms. Mattey. Well one thing, obviously I agree with the
gentlemen that it would be important that it be clear that even
though a carrier would not file a report detailing how it
complies with the FCC's cost allocation rules, there should be
no misunderstanding that there would still be an obligation to
comply with those cost allocation rules. That is critical to
make sure that ratepayers, that the consumers are not bearing
the costs of competitive ventures or other ventures.
So I think that is a very important thing that we need to
keep in mind.
Ms. Eshoo. With the permission of the Chair, how would the
FCC know that they are complying, then? Is that enough for you?
Ms. Mattey. Well----
Ms. Eshoo. I mean somewhere, somehow, everyone is saying
that with what they would still have to do, be required to do,
so that there is a protection, so that the ratepayer is
protected, my question still is after all of what you have
said----
Ms. Mattey. Well it certainly would be more difficult----
Ms. Eshoo. [continuing] would they be----
Ms. Mattey. [continuing] for us to figure out whether there
is a need for any kind of enforcement action, because if you
eliminated both the separate affiliate requirement and the cost
allocation manual filing requirement simultaneously, it would
leave us with a lot less information on which to make any kind
of informed judgment.
You know, these are things we would need to think through
if this legislation proceeds, what the ramifications would be.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Illinois is recognized, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Mattey, the many different issues we have addressed
through this subcommittee, especially with the FCC, always has
to do with the time of rendering some type of ruling. I know I
have written--I think Senator McCain got in trouble during the
campaign for writing letters asking for an expedited, or at
least a timeframe by which filers would get a response.
Mr. Tauzin. If the gentleman would yield, I remember when
he got criticized for that. I invited the press to come check
my files. I had probably a hundred times more letters than him.
But go ahead.
Mr. Shimkus. And I have not been here nearly as long, but I
know I have a few myself. And the issue has never been--the
issue I think in all those letters has never been to encourage
the FCC or move the FCC in moving in a particular direction; it
has always been with the intent of the FCC to make a decision.
Because I think our panelists here understand that time is
money, and that they are looking for in the terms of another
hearing I had this morning, some legal certainty by which to
make business decisions whether to expand into a market or
whether to not.
I think in my fourth year here that has just been a
constant crescendo from this committee to the FCC. So in
reference to this bill and its timeframe, that is the premise
by which legislative language has been put in there. It is not
just with the 2 percenters; it is with everything we deal with
in addressing the FCC.
So if we are going to--so I do not know how a bill would
move out of this committee without some type of timeframe in
there. So the question would be. If there is going to be a time
line, or some definitive fish-or-cut-bait make a decision
timeframe, what should that be?
Ms. Mattey. Well I think that the time line really needs to
depend on the circumstances. For instance, petitions for
reconsideration in rulemaking proceedings, even though they may
be filed by a small company, may raise broad policy issues that
apply equally to the larger companies.
And if you have a short timeframe that the Commission must
act on that for the small companies----
Mr. Shimkus. Can you define ``short'' and ``long''?
Ms. Mattey. Well I will tell you I think in general 90 days
for Commission action on petitions for reconsideration of
rulemakings is too short, because rulemakings by definition
have to be adopted by the full Commission.
Mr. Shimkus. And what is too long?
Ms. Mattey. Well again it depends on the circumstances. I
agree with the gentleman from ALTS that something more on the
order of 180 days would be a more reasonable timeframe, but
again it depends on the circumstances because there is a
difference between actions that we can do at the Bureau level
and actions that can be done by the full Commission, and with
the full Commission things just take longer.
But also I just was trying to make the point that issues
that may raise broader policy issues take longer because you
have to think about the interrelationships of those issues and
how they impact on other carriers.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
My point in hearing the answer is, you can define a time
that is too short but you cannot define a time that is too
long. You can define a time, that 90 days if not enough time
for us to do it, but you cannot give me a time that this is in
excess of what we need to get it done.
Ms. Mattey. Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question.
Mr. Shimkus. No, but----
Ms. Mattey. I thought you were asking what a reasonable
time was. I'm sorry I misunderstood.
Mr. Shimkus. Well in essence I was, and I did not get an
answer.
Ms. Mattey. I thought I said that I agreed with the
gentleman from ALTS that 180 days----
Mr. Shimkus. Okay, on the record 180 days would be----
Ms. Mattey. I said that would be----
Mr. Shimkus. Could I have Mr. Darby? Could you respond?
Mr. Darby. Sure. Let me just talk about 180 days, and I
certainly appreciate the concern from a regulatory point of
view that you want to get the policy right.
But getting the policy right to the extent it takes time
might very well keep a lot of good things from happening in the
private sector.
As a former banker, if I were looking at a property I
wanted to acquire and I knew I could prove synergies for my
shareholders, and the shareholders of the companies, and it
would create value and growth for the consumers going forward,
the prospect of spending 180 days to get an uncertain review
would certainly be a turnoff.
I think that is what we are hearing. And again I am
sympathetic to the notion that to get the policy right you need
more time, but maybe you could do it with a little less time
and take some chances with the policy and let some good things
happen in the private sector.
After all, this is not the same as the telephone sector was
20 years ago. We hear a lot about Internet time and the pact at
which these deals are made, and the pace at which these
evaluations are made.
A hundred and eighty days, with all due respect to your
need to get it right, is just far too long.
Mr. Shimkus. And I do have some 2 percenters in my
District, and they really do an invaluable service. They have
provided, and they are trying to reach out in other areas, but
I know of Alaska Telephone has had a decision pending for over
2 years, and it is still pending.
Could you comment on that?
Ms. Mattey. Well I am sorry I am not familiar with that and
cannot respond without more details on that, but----
Mr. Shimkus. Could you----
Ms. Mattey. [continuing] I would just----
Mr. Shimkus. Ma'am--Mr. Chairman, if I could ask for the
FCC to give us a response on Alaska Telephone and why the----
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman is suggesting you do it in
writing.
Mr. Shimkus. In writing, so that we can get a further
clarification.
Ms. Mattey. I would be happy to provide something in
writing if perhaps you could give us a little more detail.
Alaska, involving what?
Mr. Tauzin. How much time do you need? Do you need 180
days?
Ms. Mattey. No. But we would be happy to follow up on that.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Ms. Mattey. And also, just one thing I wanted just to
clarify for everyone. In rulemaking proceedings we are subject
to the Administrative Procedures Act requirements that we seek
public comment.
In those sorts of situations, we normally provide 30 days
for comment, and at least a minimum of 15 days for parties to
file reply comments. So in a normal situation that takes 45
days just to get the record of what people think of what we are
proposing to do.
And then, you know, again if something is going before the
full Commission, normally our Commissioners expect a minimum of
a couple of weeks before they will vote on something. And so if
that takes, you know, just for the sake of argument, 30 days,
again those two things together take up 75 days.
And then the remainder of the time obviously the Bureau is
working on preparing a recommendation and revising that and
responding to the parties.
Mr. Shimkus. And I am not belaboring the point, it is just
something that really has irked myself and I think many members
of this committee for a long time.
I do not think it is directed at an administrative--I just
think it is directed at a bureaucracy, and hopefully we would
be as vigilant should the Administrations change and there is
Republicans in there, and if they are slow and will not commit
to timely processing, I would probably say that this committee
would be as vigilant on trying to get some legal certainty on
time in response to some of these filings.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just follow up quickly on that.
Ms. Mattey, is there a relationship between adequate
staffing, adequate funding, and timely response?
Ms. Mattey. Yes, I think there is. And I can say, just
based on my own experience in the Bureau, our staffing levels
are not adequate to move things along in the timeframes that
are contemplated by this bill.
We have a number of matters that--I assure you I would
dearly love to be able to complete them and finish them as
quickly as we could, and we just do not----
Mr. Gordon. For those folks that want things to move more
promptly, if they would vote for additional funding do you
think that might be one way to help this out?
Ms. Mattey. That would be.
Mr. Gordon. Okay. Now let me ask also another question.
In your statement you said that H.R. 3850 could be
interpreted to say that the FCC would not have the authority to
regulate the 2 percent companies in slamming and truth-in-
billing.
Would you be more specific about what section you are
referring to?
Ms. Mattey. Section 4 of the bill, which would add a new
Section 281, requires the Commission to adopt less burdensome
requirements for the 2 percent carriers.
The bill also would allow the 2 percent carriers to seek a
waiver of any regulations.
And our concern about that would be that a 2-percent
carrier would seek a waiver of the requirements that it comply
with our truth-in-billing rules and our slamming rules. And as
I read the bill, the Commission could not enforce those rules
pending action on the waiver petition, and the legislation
mandates that we adopt less burdensome requirements.
Mr. Gordon. Just because they petition does not mean--I
mean I think no one would suggest that you should relieve them
of slamming and truth-in-billing. I mean they could petition
for relief for anything, I assume.
Ms. Mattey. Right. I was----
Mr. Gordon. I mean even without this bill, they could still
petition for that?
Ms. Mattey. Of course. Of course.
Mr. Gordon. So how are things different?
Ms. Mattey. Well again I was just focusing on the language
that says the Commission ``shall adopt less burdensome
regulations''. So as I read that language, it does not allow
the Commission to apply the same slamming rules and the same
truth-in-billing rules to the 2 percent carriers.
Mr. Gordon. So should we say ``reasonable''? Do you need
report language? Would report language--I mean, I think that is
very much of a stretch, but----
Ms. Mattey. Well if I am misreading it, then I feel more
comfortable.
Mr. Gordon. If there was report language, or the authors
were to say to you that is not what is supposed to be included
within the less regulation, then that should clear up that
matter?
Ms. Mattey. Yes. That would be helpful I think.
Mr. Gordon. Let me just I guess ask Mr. Mueller, do you
read it that way? And what would be your response to the
question of whether or not 2 percent companies should be
relieved of slamming or truth-in-billing requirements?
Mr. Mueller. First of all, thank you. I do not read it that
way. And certainly that, as a president of a company, that
would absolutely not be our intent.
I am not interested in being reduced from the regulatory
requirement surrounding slamming, nor truth-in-billing. Truth-
in-billing has some onerous requirements on us, but we are
complying with those and plan to continue to do so, as well as
continue to comply with the slamming requirements.
Mr. Gordon. So I think we can find a consensus that that
clearly was not the intent of the legislation and, if
necessary, can have that more specifically, or in report
language so that that should no longer be a concern of the FCC.
Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair would recognize himself. First of all, let me
assure you, Ms. Mattey, that in my very humble opinion if the
Commission were enforcing the 14-point checklist instead of
1014-point checklist on 271s you might have enough staffing and
money and time to do your other work. But that is a personal
opinion.
In regards to the issue before us, however, the law defines
the 2 percent company, does it not?
Ms. Mattey. In Section 251, or the draft legislation?
Mr. Tauzin. The current law.
Ms. Mattey. The current law, my understanding is 251 has a
suspension from 251 requirements for companies 2 percent or
less, yes.
Mr. Tauzin. So the current law recognizes that there is
something magical about a 2-percent thing. Does it say anything
about companies that are really 2 percent? Or sort of 2
percent? Or kind of 2 percent? Or does it address all the
companies under 2 percent?
Ms. Mattey. My understanding is the current law refers to
all 2 percent companies.
Mr. Tauzin. That's what I thought. I don't think it makes a
distinction. But the Commission does. The Commission to its
rulemaking, at least up to this date, has distinguished between
some 2 percent companies and others.
You testified today that certain numbers of 2 percent
companies have to comply with some rules, and certain numbers
do not. And certain numbers have to comply with other rules,
and certain do not. But the law basically says that there is a
class of companies called 2 percent companies that Congress
obviously intended to be treated differently than the larger
ILECs.
Is that right?
Ms. Mattey. Well the particular requirements that we have
been discussing today were all adopted by the Commission prior
to the passage of the law.
I agree with you that 251 does create a category of 2
percent carriers. It is not clear to me whether the law
mandated that we go back and re-examine all of our existing
regulatory framework to conform it to that particular----
Mr. Tauzin. Well it----
Ms. Mattey. [continuing] which relates specifically to
local competition.
Mr. Tauzin. If you follow Reid Hunt's argument that the
1996 Act created the capacity of the Commission to create its
own legislative intent, I assume that is true. But there is a
clear legislative intent in defining a 2-percent company as
something that is deserving of less regulatory burdens than
companies that obviously have a larger share of the marketplace
and therefore should be regulated more deeply as monopolies.
I mean isn't that obvious?
Ms. Mattey. I agree with you.
Mr. Tauzin. That is why you are moving in that direction
now, and that is why I think you have consented to some of the
changes Mrs. Cubin is recommending in her legislation. I am
glad to see that.
I just wanted to make the point that I think we are a slow
getting there, but I think we need to get there as rapidly as
we can.
Isn't the real reason why the Commission is considering
doing that, and the reason for the Cubin bill, illustrated in
those charts that Mr. Mueller held up earlier, the arrival of
incredible and significant competition to the 2 percent
companies?
Ms. Mattey. I am afraid I don't understand the question.
Could you please----
Mr. Tauzin. Let me try again.
Isn't the whole notion of the ``d'' word, deregulation,
less filing requirements? Less regulatory costs being imposed
upon the 2 percent companies? Either your decision to change
your rules in regards to what is required to be filed, or Mrs.
Cubin's bill, either one? Isn't the genesis of that notion
really in the fact that the 2 percent companies are, No. 1,
small, smaller than the large companies by definition? And, No.
2, they are being subjected to much greater competition in
their local markets than they ever were before?
Ms. Mattey. I agree with you that as competition is
unfolding in particular markets that the Commission should be
thinking about, and the Bureau is thinking about, ways to
deregulate.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes. And see, here is the big problem I think.
We are not only going to be faced with 2 percent companies, but
eventually with the whole telephone industry. The big problem
is that competitors arriving who don't have all of these
regulatory burdens--and the 1996 Act anticipated that; it
really begged for that. It asked the cable companies to
consider getting into telephones, and it helped create CLECs,
and it helped really establish the capacity of companies that
were not normally engaged in voice communication to get into
it, just as it told the telephone companies it is okay for you
to get into other things like video and data and whatever you
want to get into.
As companies do that, we still have bureaus that regulate
these companies as though they were only doing what they used
to do. And if you fit in that category, you are fitting into
this heavy shelf regulation.
If you don't, you can be delivering the same services to
the same customers in the same market now, but if you come in
by virtue of having been another company you're not subject to
those.
I think Mr. Darby put his finger on it. As we transition
into that world, what an enormous disadvantage these 2 percent
companies are going to be in.
Because, No. 1, this is a costly process for them to have
to go through.
No. 2, as Mr. Darby points out, it creates a prejudicial
economic situation for them.
And No. 3, it really damages them in terms of their ability
to sustain themselves in a merged market, merged functional
communications delivery system and marketplace.
I guess what I am saying in a nutshell is, don't you agree
with us that we have got a lot of work to do, both the
Commission and those of us in Congress who try to write
definitions for 2 percent companies and give them meaning, to
literally find the right formula over the right amount of time
as competition is evident in the marketplace, to really create
some more level playing field for all of the players?
And don't we really have to think about the whole
regulatory structure at the FCC which was designed for a world
where everybody was doing something functionally different and
now they are all doing the same thing?
We are getting down to that. You needn't respond. I'm
asking rhetorical questions.
But I think----
Ms. Mattey. This is my first time here. I have to learn
what to do.
Mr. Tauzin. Unfortunately it's not my first time here. We
have been through this a lot over the years. But I really think
we are at a period of time when we are going to have to think
out of the box on this because the marketplace is changing so
rapidly.
The gentlelady from California asked you a question, and
asked all of you a question, how do we know these companies
will comply with cost allocation?
Well No. 1, if they certify they are and they aren't, you
can always check them. You can audit them just like the IRS
can. If they're not, you can rap them pretty good. And you have
a habit of doing that when companies are out of compliance with
you, and you should.
No. 2, there is a marketplace out there. If Mr. Mueller's
companies starts subsidizing his other operations and raises
the price dramatically on his services, I suspect that
marketplace is going to react.
I mean the only reason we are here talking about
deregulating 2 percent companies is because that marketplace is
emerging. It is a competitive, vibrant marketplace in which he
not only faces local competitors but now the big ILECs are
coming in and challenging him.
And they are still going to be subject to all your
regulations and your rules. And if he raises his prices in
order to subsidize his other activities, I don't have any doubt
what his customers are going to do. I know what they do in my
home town. They go find another store.
That is the beauty of what we are getting into. We are
getting into the place and time when there are going to be a
lot of stores in town. And when there are a lot of stores in
town, there is less to do for you and I, because we don't have
to regulate prices and terms and conditions and cost
allocations and interconnections and all the things that we
have to do today in order to somehow transition from a monopoly
marketplace to that vibrant, merged, consolidated and diverse
and at the same time incredibly mixed multimedia communications
marketplaces we are seeing developed.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that I think you are
making some steps in exactly the right direction. I wish they
would come sooner. And frankly I think we need to put some time
limits and some definitions of when the time limit starts on
these things.
I am never more frustrated with the FCC than when someone
in this country of ours comes to me and tells me I can't get an
answer. I'm just hanging out there. I'm hanging out there.
And, by the way, while I'm hanging out there, people show
up and tell me if I hire them they can unstick me; they can get
me processed. And sometimes it's not lawyers asking to be
hired, it's just people who claim they have influence with you.
I'm not saying they do. I'm not saying they don't. I hope they
don't. But when you hang people out there, you create all the
uncertainties.
You create all the problems. You create the financing
problems. And you create all this vulnerability for these
people. I think it is in our interest, all of our interests,
for the integrity of the Commission and the integrity of the
process for us to have time limits that are real; that start at
a given time and end at a given time; and if you have got a
reason to disapprove somebody, you say so.
And then no one can come to me and complain that I got hung
out to dry and I got subject to all of this other stuff that
sometimes happens that I know none of you, none of us, would
approve of.
So it is a real passion with a lot of us here on this panel
to try to do something about that, and we are asking your help
in thinking it through and finding a way.
The transitions are always tough. Transitions to monopolies
to competitive marketplace are always tough. And we are going
to make some mistakes as well as you are going to make some
mistakes along the way.
So we need some failsafe mechanisms. But we need to plod
ahead. As Mr. Darby said, we've got to quit thinking in the
1930's. Competition is here. When competition comes, and when
it comes evidently, and when it comes in buckets, we need to be
quick enough and smart enough to deregulate and then stand back
and let the beauty of the marketplace work always with the
capacity to step in if somebody gets too big and plays
unfairly.
That is my soapbox.
Let me ask my friend from Tennessee if he has any closing
remarks.
Mr. Gordon. Just quickly. Again I want to thank the panel
for being here today. I think we better understand this issue
because of your testimony.
Ms. Mattey, I want to also thank you and the FCC for moving
forward on these issues. We hope that you will continue to do
that.
Clearly, as the chairman related, frustration is limbo.
Normally when you contact an agency or someone, it is a very
important issue to you. You know, you've got lots on your
table, but it is something very important to them and they are
thinking about it every day.
So every day that they don't hear something about it, it is
a problem. I have had the same experiences just trying to get
information from the committee.
I do think that a lot of it is not adequate funding, and I
think that it is not really responsible of us on the one hand
to give you a lot more responsibility, ask for a lot more, but
then try to cut your funds in retaliation.
You know, you have got to do a better job of showing us how
the funds can get results. Because I think things do need to
move promptly.
Also just let me thank you for your testimony today. You
said this was your first time. Part of the problems the FCC has
here is many of the surrogates that come simply haven't been
prepared and haven't done a good job.
I have come here oftentimes--not oftentimes, but on
occasions willing to support the FCC and their own folks can't
explain it. Hopefully you are a model of what we will see in
the future.
So thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. That was pretty sweet of you.
Let me echo that. I really appreciate you coming. It's the
first time for testimony from Ms. Mattey. Thank you for your
contribution. You have been very forthcoming.
And, frankly, I think you and Mrs. Cubin made some real
progress here today in terms of helping us fashion a bill that
will work and one that will meet your concerns. I hope we get
closer as we go along, and I thank you for that.
Ms. Mattey. You're welcome.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank your counsel for assisting you, as
well.
And I want to thank the other members of the panel. You
have added to our understanding of these issues.
What I would suggest is we keep the record open for 30
days. We generally do that. Let me ask if you can, in the next
10 days, respond to Mr. Shimkus's questions about the status of
the filing----
Ms. Mattey. Can the 10 days start when he tells me which
matter he's talking about?
Mr. Tauzin. I think you can gather that information rather
quickly and just let him know what the status of that filing is
and why it is being held, if it is over a year, why and what's
going on there.
The last thing I always request of our witnesses, if you
have any additional information, or if you want to comment
about something you have heard today that you disagree with, or
if you think we have said something you disagree with and you
want to add some testimony in the record, a good time to do it
is over the next 30 days. You are welcome to do that.
Let me finally say that I think we are going to make an
effort, a really big effort, next year to do more than just
process reform. We are going to talk about structural reforms
at the FCC as well to see if we can't create structures, as
well as processes, that work better in these transitional
marketplaces and eventually will work better in a much more
deregulated open marketplace.
And if we do that, if we do it properly, I think we are
going to solve a lot of the resource and the time problem of
the FCC. I frankly think you are spending a lot of time doing
things that were probably required of you a long time ago that
are not really required any more. And if you weren't doing
those, there could be time to do the things that are more
critical as we try to objectively and professionally think our
way through this period of transition.
I would like to help put you in that position where you
have the time and resources to really do it right. And so we
will focus on that. And if you have any thoughts from your
Bureau as to what we might do to make it a more efficient
operation where you're not having to do things you shouldn't
have to spend your time doing, please let me know.
I have often been very critical of the FCC as the ranking
minority member Mr. Dingell has been. It is not a personal
thing. I hope you understand that. Not at all. The folks I know
and work with at the FCC all tend to be extraordinary people
who work very hard for this government and for our country.
We differ on a lot of the policies, and that ought to be
the way it is. That's the way we get it right sooner or later.
So thank you for that, and thank you for understanding
that. And thank you all for your testimony today. The hearing
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
August 24, 2000
The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo
United States House of Representatives
205 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: H.R..3850: The Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement
Act of 2000
Dear Rep. Eshoo: ITTA and its member companies appreciate your
interest in the issues raised by H.R. 3850, the Independent
Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000, during the hearing
held by the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection on July 20, 2000.
During the hearing you asked about the impact of granting two
percent companies relief from CAM (Cost Allocation Manual) and ARMIS
(Automated Reporting Management Information System) filing requirements
and separate affiliate requirements. Specifically, you inquired as to
whether the bill's elimination of CAM and ARMIS reporting burdens, in
addition to its elimination of separate affiliate requirements, would
diminish current levels of consumer protection against possible cost
misallocation by two percent carriers.
There are several reasons why the passage of H.R. 3850 would not
expose consumers to any increased risk of cost misallocation or
improper cross-subsidization:
1. Passage of H.R. 3850 would not alter existing Commission
prohibitions against cost misallocation or cross-subsidization.
Cost misallocations of this type are currently prohibited--and will
continue to be prohibited were H.R. 3850 enacted into law--both by
existing federal statute and Commission rules. Such misallocations
would result in cross-subsidization of competitive services by
regulated, local exchange services, a practice specifically forbidden
under section 254(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In
addition, the Commission currently has strict and detailed cost
allocation rules that govern the allocation of costs between local
exchange and other services. These regulations, contained in Part 64 of
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 64, will be left unchanged by
the passage of H.R. 3850 and will continue to apply to two percent
companies as well as larger companies.
Section 64.901 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.901,
currently requires carriers to allocate costs between local exchange
and other activities according to principles of cost causation that are
both favorable to local exchange ratepayers and strictly enforced by
the Commission. Among other requirements, Section 64.901 requires local
exchange carriers: (1) to charge tariffed rates for services provided
to a nonregulated activity, and credit the appropriate regulated
revenue accounts for the tariffed value of the services provided; (2)
directly assign costs to either regulated or unregulated accounts
whenever possible; (3) allocate outside plant and central office
equipment investments to regulated and nonregulated activities based on
relative usage during the year among the preceding three years when
nonregulated usage,was greatest; and (4) allocate common costs
according to detailed principles.
These detailed statutory and administrative requirements would
remain unchanged by H.R. 3850. Two percent companies would still have
to track and allocate their costs according to the rules. The
Commission would still have full access to this information whenever
and however it desired to enforce its rules. H.R. 3850 would only
eliminate costly and unnecessary annualized reporting requirements that
consume resources that two percent carriers could be using to deploy
new services to their customers and launch out-of-region competitive
ventures. H.R. 3850 would shift the current regime of cumbersome
prophylactic regulation to an enforcement approach, consistent with the
FCC's own plan to reinvent itself for the 21st' century.
2. Passage of H.R. 3850 would not alter the Commission's existing
enforcement powers against cost misallocation and cross-
subsidization.
Nor does the bill reduce in any way existing federal and state
authority to police and enforce the legal prohibitions against cross-
subsidization. Federal officials will continue to have ample authority
to investigate suspected wrongdoing. Section 218 of the Communications
Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 218, gives the Commission sweeping
authority to require from carriers ``full and complete information''
that it deems necessary to carry out its mission. This provision, and
its grant of such broad investigative power, would remain unchanged
after the enactment of H.R. 3850. The Commission would still be free to
investigate any carrier and to require the carrier to provide any and
all necessary information, including information identical to that
required by the current ARMIS and CAM requirements.
Moreover, federal enforcement in this field is not exclusive: Both
the Communications Act and Part 36 of the Commission's rules provide
for concurrent authority at the state level to enforce these cost
allocation rules--authority that also would not be affected by granting
the relief H.R. 3850 proposes in these areas.
3. Both the Commission and Congress have recognized that imposing CAM/
ARMIS and separate affiliate requirements on two percent
carriers is not essential to ensuring consumer protection.
The Commission itself has largely not relied on CAM/ARMIS and
separate affiliate requirements to regulate two percent carriers. For
example, until relatively recently, the Commission only required large
carriers to structurally separate their service offerings. The
Commission only extended these requirements to two percent companies in
two orders released in 1997 as part of an effort to formulate a ``one-
size-fits-all'' policy. No examples of abuse by two percent companies
were cited either in the Commission's orders or its underlying records.
When Congress addressed the issue of structural separation
requirements in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it saw no
compelling need for imposing these requirements on two percent
carriers. Congress effectively drew a size-based distinction similar to
that being proposed in H.R. 3850. Section 272 of the Act requires
structural separation for interLATA and certain other activities of
Bell Operating Companies but neither Section 272 nor any other portion
of the 1996 Act imposes such obligations on smaller carriers. Moreover,
Section 272 contains a provision that sunsets the requirement three
years after a BOC first begins providing enters into long distance
service (Section 272(f)(1)). Ironically, no such mandatory sunset
exists in the Commission's rules as applied to two percent carriers.
Likewise, the Commission appears to treat two percent companies'
CAM and ARMIS reports as non-essential regulatory tools. The majority
of two-percent companies are not currently covered by the requirement
to file CAM and ARMIS reports and there is no indication that any of
these carriers engage in questionable behavior that would be detected
through CAM and ARMIS reporting. Conversely, the Commission has rarely
made any significant use of the CAM and ARMIS information it does
collect on two percent companies.
In conclusion, H.R. 3850's proposed elimination of CAM and ARMIS
reporting requirements, and separate affiliate requirements for two
percent companies would not change the Commission's substantive
prohibitions against cost misallocation, nor would it alter state and
federal officials' authority to enforce those rules. Instead, it would
allow regulators to move away from burdensome regulatory requirements
and allow them the discretion to target their enforcement efforts
whenever and however they chose. Ultimately, this would benefit
consumers by allowing companies to redirect their resources to network
investments and new competitive initiatives.
Thank you again for your interest in the issues raised by H.R.
3850. I hope the foregoing is responsive to the concerns you raised at
the subcommittee's hearing. Please contact me if you have further
questions or if you wish to discuss this letter in greater detail.
Very truly yours,
David W. Zesiger
Executive Director
cc: The Honorable Tom Bliley
The Honorable John D. Dingell
The Honorable W. J. (``Billy'') Tauzin
The Honorable Edward J. Markey
The Honorable Barbara Cubin
The Honorable Bart Gordon
The Honorable Charles (``Chip'') Pickering
The Honorable Tom Barrett
______
Federal Communications Commission
September 14, 2000
The Honorable John M. Shimkus
U.S. House of Representatives
513 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Shimkus: During the July 20, 2000 hearing on the
Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000, a
question was raised concerning why the Commission had not addressed a
1998 waiver request from the Anchorage Telephone Utility (ATU) for
pricing flexibility in the Anchorage market. In that petition, ATU
requests a waiver of two sections of the Commission's rules to permit
it to offer volume and term discounts for the local switching and
transport interconnection charge. The appropriate degree of competitive
response in the form of additional pricing flexibility is a complex and
significant issue for the development of competition in the exchange
and exchange access market. When ATU filed its petition, the Commission
was considering broad pricing flexibility issues for price cap
incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), and no incumbent LEC was
authorized to offer volume and term discounts on services for which ATU
sought a waiver.
In August 1999, the Commission adopted rules setting pricing
flexibility guidelines for price cap LECs that included volume and term
discounts for local switching services upon a showing of a specified
degree of competition in a given metropolitan statistical area. The
Commission has not addressed volume and term discounts in connection
with the transport interconnection charge.
In addition to the pricing flexibility proceeding, the Commission
has addressed other major access pricing issues. Most significantly,
the Commission adopted with minor changes a proposal from the Coalition
for Affordable Local and Long-distance Service that involved a major
restructuring of the access charges assessed by incumbent price cap
LECs. This was a lengthy, complex, and resource intensive proceeding.
The order adopting the revised rules was released on May 31, 2000.
In February 2000, ATU filed additional data showing the development
of increased competition in the Anchorage market that addressed the
competitive market conditions market in light of the requirements
established for price cap LECs. The Commission staff has been analyzing
the record in light of this updated data, and I anticipate that the
Common Carrier Bureau will make a recommendation to the Commission on
ATU's waiver request by the end of this fiscal year.
Sincerely,
Carol E. Mattey
Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau
cc: The Honorable W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin