Interconnecting with Rural ILECs Can t You Hear Me Knocking? Robin A. Casey Casey, Gentz & Magness, LLP October 8, 2007
Will you need to exchange local traffic with an RLEC? Do you want to offer service to customers in an RLEC s territory? If so, what type of interconnection do you need? If you need collocation, UNEs, interconnection at any technically feasible point, resale at a discount, the RLEC s rural exemption must be terminated first.
The Law - Interconnection Section 251(a) to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers. 251(b) obligations, all telecom carriers have a duty to: (1) resell services (2) provide number portability (3) provide dialing parity (4) afford access to your poles and ROW (5) establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and termination of telecommunications. Section 251(c) of the FTA obligates ILECs to (i) negotiate in good faith, (ii) provide interconnection with the local exchange carrier's network for the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange access at any technically feasible point, (iii) provide unbundled access to services and elements, (iv) offer services for resale at wholesale rates, (v) provide notice of facility and network changes, and (vi) provide collocation.
The Law Rural Exemption However, 251(f)(1), exempts rural ILECs from 251(c) obligations until (i) the RLEC receives a bona fide request for interconnection, services, or network elements, and (ii) the State commission determines that the request is not unduly economically burdensome, is technically feasible, and is consistent with the goals of 254 (universal service). An ILEC with less than 2% of the nation s subscriber lines can petition a State commission under Section 251(f)(2) to suspend or modify the requirements of 251(b) or (c) upon finding of necessity to avoid a significant economic impact on users, or avoid imposing requirements that are unduly economically burdensome or technically infeasible, if suspension is also consistent with the public interest.
A Texas Example: Sprint & Consolidated January 2005 - Sprint requests interconnection with two Consolidated RLECs (Fort Bend & Consolidated Communications). April 2005 Sprint files a petition for compulsory arbitration against Brazos Telecommunications, Inc. (BTI). During the following five months, Sprint filed similar arbitrations against three other rural ILECs: Eastex, Guadalupe and Consolidated. These cases were abated pending outcome of BTI case. May 2005 - BTI seeks dismissal of Sprint s petition on the grounds that BTI s rural exemption relieves the company of any obligation to negotiate with Sprint. December 2005 - PUC finds Sprint s interconnection request was premature and Sprint must first petition the PUC to lift BTI s rural exemption. March 2006 - Sprint filed a petition to terminate Consolidated s rural exemption. August 2006 PUC terminates Consolidated s rural exemption and orders parties to negotiate an ICA. December 2006 After negotiations fail, PUC issues an arbitration award on disputed issues and orders the parties to enter into an ICA. Consolidated immediately appeals. February 2007 Court issues an injunction preserving the status quo (no ICA). August 2007 Court issues decision upholding the PUC and finding that Sprint is a telecommunications carrier and entitled to interconnect with Consolidated. Oct 30, 2007 Agreed implementation date for Sprint-Consolidated ICA. From initial request to implementation of ICA: 34 months.
Texas PUC Decision limiting scope of 251(a) interconnection In the Sprint v BTI case, the Commission ruled that: FTA 251(a) does not require ILECs or other telecommunications carriers to interconnect for the express purpose of exchanging traffic relating to telephone exchange service. FTA 251(a) encompasses a broad duty to interconnect for all carriers. The duty of an ILEC to provide interconnection for purposes of exchanging telephone exchange service is solely and expressly an FTA 251(c) obligation. (Docket 31038 December 2, 2005)
FCC Ruling on Time Warner Cable Request for Declaratory Ruling March 1, 2007 Because the Act does not differentiate between retail and wholesale services when defining telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service, we clarify that telecommunications carriers are entitled to interconnect and exchange traffic with incumbent LECs pursuant to section 251(a) and (b) of the Act for the purpose of providing wholesale telecommunications services. We make clear that the rights of telecommunications carriers under sections 251 (a) and (b) apply regardless of whether the telecommunications services are wholesale or retail, and a state decision to the contrary is inconsistent with the Act and Commission precedent.
Checklist for RLEC Negotiations Assess your interconnection needs do you need more than 251(a) and (b)? Research the RLEC s financial position and regulatory involvement. Send a bona fide request for interconnection that is limited to 251 (a) and (b). Be prepared for RLEC questions about your network and services. Be persistent. Set deadlines and follow-up. Keep lawyers behind the scenes. Ask if the RLEC has entered into any other agreements to exchange local traffic. Don t waive your 251 and 252 rights. Keep state commission informed of your efforts prior to filing a petition for arbitration or termination. Accept that the process will take a long time.
Proactive measures Research what, if anything, your state commission has done regarding interconnection and termination of rural exemptions. States that have dealt with this issue include Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. Meet with commissioners and staff regarding your interconnection needs and urge them to initiate a rulemaking process to clarify their rules on interconnecting with RLECs and streamline the termination process.