In earlier blogs this year (such as on May 5), we called attention to the fact that Windstream (along with CompTel) have taken the lead in urging the FCC to address the important regulatory issues faced by CLECs as part of the industry transition from the current Time Division Multipexed Network (TDM) to one based on Internet Protocol (IP).

As we noted, the situation is becoming very worrisome for wholesale carriers. The Commission is soon going to conduct a variety of technology transition experiments that will almost surely be used to determine the wholesale services that will be available to CLECs in an IP environment along with how the prices, terms and conditions of those services will be regulated. Yet, the Commission continues to refuse to establish any rules for wholesale services that ILECs will be required to provide under IP.

Thus, CLECs can be glad that Windstream is once again making the argument that it is critical for CLECs to maintain access to Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs) and special access on equivalent rates, terms and conditions as is provided today through the IP transition Agreement and into an all- IP network environment. 

In key meetings with the FCC in August, Windstream recommended that the Commission ensure UNE availability by clarifying the circumstances that would allow ILECs to invoke the formal Section 214 service discontinuance process and those that would not. In particular, Windstream urged the Commission to clarify that the grant of a Section 214 discontinuance for a particular service does not relieve an ILEC of its obligation to provide DS1 or DS3unbundled loops.

Windstream states that since UNEs are facilities that exist regardless of the technology used—either TDM or IP—any effort to discontinue UNEs should be handled under forbearance procedures, not Section 214 discontinuance. This would ensure that the FCC, and not an individual ILEC, could determine if an when UNE access could be discontinued. Access to UNEs continues to be important both for last-mile access and as an anchor for commercial negotiations addressing special access services. Thus, the industry and not a particular company should determine their future.

Windstream recommends that the Commission act now to designate the criteria that will need to be demonstrated in any ILEC Section 214 discontinuance request. To do this, the Commission will need to establish clear parameters for determining whether adequate and comparable wholesale alternatives proposed by an incumbent will, in fact, be provided at equivalent rates, terms and conditions, including safe harbors.

Windstream also raises concerns that under tariff-based volume commitments (including minimum revenue commitments) carriers can be penalized for transitioning their purchases from DS1 and DS3 special access to IP-based Ethernet services. Such provisions effectively could significantly increase competitors’ costs to attain last-mile access in the IP era.  

Windstream and CompTel should both be commended for raising these important service issues to the FCC before it too late and the Commission adopts its final network transition policies. However, the presence of one CLEC and one association cannot disguise the fact that too many CLECs do not appear to be actively involved in the transition process. A review of the ex parte filings and meetings that carriers conduct with the FCC reveals a paucity of carriers participating. 

Yes, things slow down for the summer. However, CLECs who do not participate in ensuring that the wholesale services they need during the transition to IP and after are in grave danger of finding themselves without equitable wholesale services to continue to compete with ILECs. When you add in the fact that the FCC continues to duck whether IP interconnection should even be regulated under section 251 just like TDM interconnection is today, CLECs who continue to remain silent are digging themselves a hole it will be tough to climb out of in the new environment.

By Andrew Regitsky, President, Regitsky & Associates