Electronic Comment Filing System

ECFS Filing Proceeding: 05-75
Name of Filer: Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee
Author: Colleen Boothby
Lawfirm: Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP
View Filing:
NOTICE - ex parte (7)
Type of Filing: NOTICE OF EXPARTE
Exparte Presentation: YES
Date Received: 6/23/05
Date Posted: 12/8/05 5:17 PM
Address: 2001 L St., NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036

June 23, 2005 Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Ex Parte Submission Re: SBC Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp. Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control ? WC Docket No. 05-65; and Verizon Communications Inc. and MCI, Inc. Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control ? WC Docket No. 05-75. Dear Ms. Dortch: On June 22, 2005, Daniel C. Pyzik of FiServ, Inc., John C. Smith of First Data Corporation, and the undersigned on behalf of the Ad Hoc Telecommuni- cations Users Committee (?Ad Hoc?), met with Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and his Legal Advisor, Scott Bergmann. At the meeting, the parties reviewed the issues raised by Ad Hoc in the Reply Comments it filed in the proceedings captioned above, as summarized in the meeting handout attached to this letter. Messrs. Pyzik and Smith also described (1) their companies? products and telecommunications service needs; (2) their companies? combined annual telecommunications expenditures (which exceed $200 million); (3) the approximate number of locations at which their companies receive service from incumbent local exchange carriers (?ILECs?), competitive local exchange carriers (?CLECs?), and/or interexchange carriers (?IXCs?) (over four million); (3) the geographic distribution of those locations in rural and suburban commercial areas rather than core business districts in urban areas; (4) the impact of facility-based local service from MCI and AT&T on the pricing they receive from those carriers where MCI and AT&T are able to provide such services; and (5) ILEC reluctance (and occasionally outright refusal) to negotiate contract tariffs for special access in areas where the ILEC has qualified for pricing flexibility under the Commission?s rules. In addition, Messrs. Pyzik and Smith observed that access costs account for a disproportionate share of the total cost associated with a typical inter-city circuit and that wireless, cable, and Page 2 June 23, 2005 Notice of Ex Parte Meeting WC Docket Nos. 05-65 & 05-75 satellite services do not currently provide viable competitive alternatives to ILEC special access service. Pursuant to Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission?s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b), copies of this letter and attachments are being filed with the Office of the Secretary. Sincerely, Colleen Boothby Counsel for Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Attachment cc: Commissioner Copps Jessica Rosenworcel Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee June 22, 2005 The problem Enterprise customers depend on special access services Special access is not a competitive service The mergers will make a bad situation worse The solution Merger conditions that keep special access prices and practices just and reasonable * * * Special access plays a unique role in the telecom marketplace Key ingredient for enterprise customer networks Key input for IXCs and CLECs Special access services are not competitive Ad Hoc Committee members have no alternatives to ILEC special access services in the vast majority of their geographic markets ETI White Paper, updated in Ad Hoc?s merger filings, confirms the anecdotal experience of Committee members Excessive earnings Steep price increases Special Access is not regulated ?Pricing flexibility? rules de-regulated monopoly services Prices are higher in de-regulated areas than in the few remaining ?price caps? areas Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee June 22, 2005 The mergers will make matters worse Elimination of pricing pressure from IXC facilities and contract discounts Price squeeze incentives combined with market power If they?re serious about competing, where are their challenges to the out- of-region special access prices they pay? Ad Hoc?s proposed conditions, pending final action in the special access rulemaking: Re-initialize rates at the authorized 11.25% rate of return Unlimited downward pricing flexibility to respond to competition Incentive regulation to discipline future rate increases Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee June 22, 2005 RBOC Special Access RoRs: 2004 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Bell South Qwest SBC Verizon Average Special Access ROR FCC Authorized RoR FCC Authorized ROR Bell South 81.9% Qwest 76.8% SBC 76.2% Verizon 31.6% Average 53.7% Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee June 22, 2005 Sample Monthly Price for a DS1 Special Access Circuit of 10-miles in Length SBC $350 $400 $450 $500 $550 2001 2002 2003 2004 Pricing Flexibility Price Cap Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee June 22, 2005 Sample Monthly Price for a DS-1 Special Access Circuit of 10-miles in Length Verizon - Maryland $590 $610 $630 $650 $670 $690 $710 $730 $750 $770 $790 2001 2002 2003 2004 Pricing Flexibility ----Price Cap