In an open letter to the FCC, a pro-CLEC and pro-competition lobbyist asks what SBC is trying to hide.

by H. Russell Frisby CEO of CompTel/Ascent [May 5, 2004]

May 4, 2004

The Honorable Michael K. Powell, Chairman
The Honorable Kathleen Q. Abernathy, Commissioner
The Honorable Michael J. Copps, Commissioner
The Honorable Kevin J. Martin, Commissioner
The Honorable Jonathan S. Adelstein, Commissioner
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Powell and Commissioners:

CompTel/ASCENT and its members read with considerable dismay the filings that SBC made with the Commission yesterday on matters relating to the "commercial" negotiations for access to UNEs undertaken at the Commission's request in the wake of the D.C. Circuit's decision in USTA II. Specifically, CompTel/ASCENT is concerned about (1) SBC's letter attacking Commissioner Martin simply for requesting information concerning its negotiations with Talk America with respect to the provision of UNEs after the USTA II mandate and any related documentation showing the willingness of either party to facilitate a transition from a UNE-P to a facilities-based UNE-L carrier; and (2) SBC's Emergency Petition For Declaratory Ruling, Preemption And For Standstill Order To Preserve The Viability of Commercial Negotiations, requesting that the Commission rule on an emergency basis that agreements containing provisions "establishing a replacement for the UNE-P" are not required to be filed with State Commissions pursuant to Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act.

CompTel ASCENT and its members question why SBC is so concerned that the terms and conditions it is offering to competitive carriers as a "replacement for UNE-P" be shrouded in secrecy such that federal and state regulators (as well as other carriers and the general public) are kept in the dark about these matters. As you know, CLECs currently serve approximately 19 million customers across the United States. CLECs use UNE-P as the vehicle for delivering service to many of these customers and will continue to be dependent on the incumbent local exchange carriers, including SBC, for network access unless and until they can transition their customers onto alternative facilities, consistent with the intent of the Triennial Review Order. Moreover, any proposals that might conflict with such a transition or that would destroy competition are both contrary to law and to the Commission's announced policies. This is not classified information and the Commission should question, at the very least, why SBC is trying to hide its proposed "replacement for UNE-P" (SBC Emergency Petition at 2-3) from public scrutiny.

In an effort to ensure that UNE-P customers do not lose their service or their carriers of choice during this period of uncertainty, the Commission must vigilantly protect the rights that competitive carriers are guaranteed by Sections 251 and 252 of the Act. For this reason, CompTel/ASCENT urges the Commission to reject SBC's attempts to eviscerate the requirements of Section 252 under the guise of protecting the sanctity and "viability" of "commercial agreements." The public interest demands nothing less.

Please feel free to contact me about this matter.

Sincerely,

H. Russell Frisby, Jr.
CEO
CompTel/ASCENT Alliance

— End

This letter republished with the kind permission of the CompTel/ASCENT Alliance.