Opponents of AT&T’s experiment argue that any results from AT&T’s experiment in these two geographic areas would be limited because of their lack of diversity. The selected trial centers are both on the East Coast; contain few schools or libraries and no municipal or county government buildings. There is little racial or ethnic diversity in the trial centers and almost all the residents speak English. The districts are either suburban or rural and will not provide information on how the IP transition would affect dense urban area customers. Thus, in sum, these two areas, at best, would provide limited data to the Commission.

Lack of Detail for Wholesale Services

One of the most consistent criticisms of AT&T’s proposal is the lack of specificity regarding the wholesale services available to customers. For example, AT&T states that in later stages of its experiment it would make only “bare copper loops” available to wholesale customers as a replacement for unbundled network elements (UNEs) which would no longer be provided.  But as Windstream points out in its comments, AT&T does not provide any details about how bare copper loops would meet the section 251(c) wholesale obligations required in the 1996 Telecom Act. Specifically, AT&T does not specify the rates, terms and conditions under which the bare copper loops would be available.

Moreover, details for many wholesale product replacements for TDM services are still to be determined. For example, the prices, terms and conditions for Digital Service products are not yet available. It is impossible for wholesale customers to know precisely what would be available to them in a 100 percent IP environment when IP products and services have not been fleshed out.

The Trial Would Prematurely Decide Policy Issues

Many commenters point out that the Commission will not use these trails to decide any of the policy issues that arise in the transition to the IP network. Nevertheless, AT&T appears to assume in this trial that some policy decisions have already been made. For example, it says it will use these trials to push for the elimination of its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) status in these two trial areas.  As it stands today, under the Connect America Fund (CFA), AT&T as an ETC has the obligation to provide broadband service to all, so the removal of its status could leave customers unprotected. In addition, ETC status is determined on a state-by-state basis by individual state commissions and some commissions argue that they and not the FCC or certainly an individual carrier will make ETC decisions, and such decisions will not be made in these trials. 

AT&T also claims that interconnection between it and wholesale providers will be accomplished via commercial agreements. However, the wholesale providers which would negotiate such interconnection agreements with AT&T continue to argue that these agreements must comply with section 251 and 252 of the 1996 Act.

There are many other criticisms of the proposal, such as the fact that AT&T alone would evaluate the results as opposed to a review by neutral parties and the fact that AT&T seeks confidentiality for much of the data. 

Many of these concerns are valid, and it begs the question about exactly what will be accomplished from trials such as this one. It would seem that the Commission would be better off first settling key policy issues such as how interconnection will work in the IP world and then it would be in a much better position to provide specificity to carriers regarding exactly what IP services and products they will have to provide to both wholesale and retail customers, before approving any specific trials that may raise more questions than answers.

By Andrew Regitsky, President, Regitsky & Associates

CCMI Will Conduct A Special FREE 60-Minute Webinar On Wednesday, April 23 At 3 PM ET To Detail All Of The Legal, Regulatory, Technical And Financial Issues That Surround IP Interconnection…An Issue With Industry Wide Implications.