COMPLAINT AND REQUESTED FOR EXPIDITED

Transcription

1 Before The PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF GUAM GT A LE1TER NOTICE REGARDING) DRY COPPER PAIR SERVICE & ) PROVISIONING ) ) COMPLAINT AND REQUESTED FOR EXPIDITED RELffiF INTRODUCTION Throughout virtually all of its history as a Government owned entity and for the first nine (9) months of its existence as a privately owned company, GT A has always offered "dry copper" or metallic circuits as a service to its customers. Indeed, GTA Teleguam (GTA) has continued to provide this service even subsequent to the filing and approval by the Public Utilities Commission of Guam (PUC) of its new local exchange tariff in April of this year. For years, Pacific Data Systems (PDS) has ordered dry copper circuit services from GT A and always had its orders for this service provisioned without question or delay right up to early September of Then something strange happened. Something that not only threatens and disrupts PDS's business, but also threatens and disrupts the businesses of all customers who are reliant on dry copper pair based services. On September 16, 2005 in response to a PDS inquiry regarding the status of pending orders for dry copper circuits, GTA issued a notice letter to PDS. A copy of the September 16, 2005 GTA is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In its letter GTA admits to it continuing practice of provisioning dry copper pair circuits for PDS. In its letter GTA also equates dry copper circuits with what GTA identifies as "unbundled loops" and goes on to state in part that, "...thisfunctionality is not a tariffed GTA service, and should not have been provisioned... ". The G T A letter paints the actions of GT A in provisioning dry copper circuits as ordered by PDS as some sort of mistake and sets forth what GT A characterizes as an "accommodation" to PDS as its remedy to this mistake. In this regard, the GT A letter reads in part, "...As an accommodation to you, we are willing to keep your existing unbundled loops in place and also provide them with basic maintenance, but we will no longer provision additional loops at any current or new locations..."

2 While the actions taken by GTA in continuously provisioning orders for dry copper circuits may have been mistaken and not necessarily in conformance with the provisions, terms and conditions of its own Local Exchange Tariff, the remedy GTA has imposed by its September 16, 2005 letter wrongly compounds those errors by arbitrarily and without any reasonable notice discontinuing a service that customers rely on for access to services they require and which GTA, itself, does not provide. Moreover, the remedy imposed by GTA creates unlawful discrimination between customers who already have the dry copper circuits they require and those that require dry copper circuits, but who will be excluded from obtaining them by GT A. In essence, by allowing one class of customers to continuing access to dry copper pair circuits while denying like access to all other customers, GTA is giving unreasonable preference and advantage to one class of persons over another. This situation is a direct violation of the provisions of 12 GCA (d) with regard to the explicit prohibitions against discrimination that are found therein. Furthermore, GTA'8 actions unreasonably deny access by any new customers requiring the dry copper pair based services provided by PDS and improperly thwart the ability of PDS to compete against GT A. Such behavior by GT A is patently anti-competitive in nature. Accordingly, GT A's actions in discontinuing access to dry copper pairs should be interpreted by the PUC as being contrary to the anti-competitive behavior prohibitions also found in 12 GA (d). PDS also believes the remedy GT A has imposed constitutes an unlawful unilateral amendment to GTA's Local Exchange Tariff. In essence, GTA has created and added a new service including maintenance and service rates therefore without flfst notifying the PUC of this change to its tariff and properly seeking PUC approval therefore. All of this is surely contrary to PUC policy and in all likelihood most certainly contrary to the public good. As such, PDS believes the PUC must intervene in this matter; resolve it directly and with all possible speed.

3 THE PUC HAS JURISDUICTION IN THE MAlfERAND THE AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS AND RESOLVE THE ISSUES OF DISCRIMINATION AND ANTI- COMPETITIVE BEllA VIOR ON THE PART OF GTA As noted previously, GTA, in seeking to correct its own errors, has unilaterally and without notice imposed a remedy that not only creates discrimination between customers, but which may also be viewed as an anti-competitive practice. Guam law clearly establishes the authority and the jurisdiction of the PUC in determining what constitutes just and reasonable terms and conditions for any telecommunications service provided within Guam. 12 GCA (c) (2) specifically states, "...the commission shall have the authority and jurisdiction to: (2) Determine what are just and reasonable rates, charges, classifications, terms and conditions for any telecommunicationservice..." This basic authority of the PUC over detennining just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions, etc. for telecommunications services is reiterated and further expounded upon in 12 GCA (c) which states in part that, " All rates, charges, classification, terms and conditions for and in conjunction with telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications company shall be just and reasonable and shall not unreasonably discriminate between similarly situated customers..." Moreover, 12 GCA (d) states plainly that, "A telecommunications company shall not give unreasonable preference or advantage to any person or class of persons when providing telecommunications services or engage in any anticompetitive act or practice. " By its own actions GTA has clearly run afoul of Guam law. and the authority to address and resolve these issues. The PUC clearly has jurisdiction GTA ACTIONS IN VIOLATION OF 12 GCS (a) AND (b) In its entirety 12 GCA (b) states, "Except as provided in subsection (c), no telecommunications company shall make any change in any rate or charge or classification, term or condition for any telecommunications service in its tariff except after thirty (30) days prior notice to the Commission or unless the Commission has previously authorized or approved the change. Any notice hereunder shall be in such form, contain such other information, and be made available to the public in such manner as the Commission may require. " As noted previously herein, GTA's actions with regard to its arbitrary creation of a dry copper circuit service on a going forward basis (including maintenance and pricing therefore) when it admits that no such service exists in its current PUC approved local exchange tariff stands in direct opposition to the restrictions and required processes created by this section of the Guam Telecom Act. Additionally, GTA's actions are in direct conflict with the basic obligation imposed on all telecommunications companies under 12 GCA (a) and the PUC's own rules to file a tariff and to have that tariff approved before service is offered to the public.

4 EXPEDITED RELIEF REQ VESTED PDS understands that the PUC is presently engaged in a regular regulatory session which is due to run through the end of October. Given that the issues involved in this Complaint are few in number, narrowly defined and not subject to being easily misconstrued or obfuscated by either PDS or GTA, PDS sincerely hopes the PUC will agree to address this Complaint during its current regulatory secession. In so doing, PDS would hope that the PUC will Order GT A to: 1. Provide notice and a transition period of six (6) months minimum to allow for a reasonable phase out of dry copper circuits and their replacement with an acceptable and duly tariffed alternate service. 2. File an amendment to its local exchange tariff for PUC approval adding two (2) wire and four (4) wire dry copper circuits as a tariffed service. The rates and terms and conditions of this service should be the same as previously offered by GTA. Also GTA should be barred by the PUC from either making any further amendments to its tariff with regard to dry copper circuits or petitioning the PUC to withdraw dry copper circuit services from its tariff for a minimum period of two (2) years from September Continue to accept and provision dry copper circuit orders in accordance with its previous rates, terms and conditions until such time as the PUC has made its final determination with regard to this Complaint and issued its final decision and order. Respectfully submitted this 18th day of October, 2005 John Day 0 President and COO PACIFIC DATA SYSTEMS

5 EXHIBIT A

6 624 North Marine Corps Drive Tamuning, GU Tel: (671) Fax: (671) September 16, 2005 Joey San Agustin Pacific Data Systems 185 Ilipog Drive, Suite 204-A Tamuning, Guam Dear Ms. San Agustin: Our records show that you receive unbundled loops (also known as dry copper pairs) from GTA Telecom. A recent review of our tariffs shows that this functionality is not a tariffed GTA service, and should not have been pro'/isioned. As an accommodation to you, we are willing to keep your existing unbundled loops in place and also provide them with basic maintenance, but we will no longer provision additional loops at any current or new locations. If you should have any questions please feel free t:o call me on my (jirect line at or on my mobile at Sincerely, ~/J#"A/I 7 I /&~ 1/ Sharon l/f I/VVY" T. Hamrick I tjlt'r(-t-.p: Carrier & Federal Markets Manager GTA