ACTA-ing Out
Posted: 08/1998
ACTA-ing Out
By Carol L. Bowers
Formed in 1985 by 15 small long distance carriers, America’s Carriers
Telecommunications Association (ACTA) has grown to represent some 250 members that
represent a blend of small interexchange carriers (IXCs), switchless resellers, wholesale
providers and even local exchange carriers (LECs). Recently, Jennifer Durst-Jarrell,
ACTA’s executive director, talked with PHONE+‘s Carol L. Bowers about the battle
for recognition, industry trends and the association’s legislative agenda.
Carol L. Bowers: In describing the evolution of your membership, you mention
LECs as being among the newer members. Why are they joining ACTA?
Jennifer Durst-Jarrell: We’re seeing great growth in LEC membership as of late.
I would imagine that they are joining in hopes of gaining customers probably if there ever
is a chance, or when it becomes an option, for offering local service on a resale basis.
In the other direction, there are LECs who are interested in getting into long distance.
They are trying to be all things to all people.
CB: What do you see as the biggest regulatory issue that faces your members?
JDJ: The real meat and potatoes are still hinging on Section 271 [which outlines
the steps regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs) must take to get into long distance],
especially the terms for the bundling and unbundling of network elements. Is it ever going
to happen? Not only that, but the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is still being tweaked
and changed. There are 12 bills in the House and Senate regarding bits and pieces of this
act. When will this be settled?
CB: Another regulatory issue that has caught the public’s attention is the
access charge issue. What concerns ACTA members about this issue?
JDJ: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman William Kennard’s
statement at the beginning of the summer that he was looking at reopening the access
charge issue is going to generate a lot of excitement among the RBOCs, the IXCs, as well
as the competitive LECs (CLECs). One reason it’s causing such excitement is because of the
many areas that are being explored by the RBOCs to get into long distance without having
to meet the 14-point checklist in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It’s not even a
rumor anymore that Bell Atlantic [Corp.] is having quiet closed-door discussions about the
FCC letting them into long distance in New York on an experimental basis. It’s common
knowledge. But what are they going to do if the experiment is not working really well? Do
you think the FCC’s going to say, ‘You can’t do it anymore’? Once you’ve let the cat out
of the bag and you’ve opened the dam, you can’t bring that water back. They’ll be in long
distance. And unfortunately there has not been any serious advancement made in local
competition. Regardless of the success of some of the CLECs, who are indeed the darlings
of Wall Street, we are not seeing anywhere near the level of competition that everyone
hoped to see.
CB: What specific concerns do ACTA members have regarding Section 706
proceedings, in which several RBOCs have applied for permission to handle in-region long
distance data traffic?
JDJ: Again, I think it’s a nose under the tent. It’s going to be data. Oh
really. That’s it? Who’s going to discern that? Look at the number of Internet protocol
(IP) platforms that are being set up. A lot of people–including our members–are becoming
more and more intrigued about putting voice on an IP setup because of the access charge
advantage. [Access charges are not assessed on long distance voice traffic carried over IP
telephony networks.] If access charge reform isn’t addressed more completely, this is
going to be the only relief some of these carriers see; if it is going to be a price
advantage for our members, certainly they are going to take advantage of it. Still, access
charges on IP telephony are probably coming, and the advice is to get all your services up
there, rocking and rolling, and get your customer base firmly planted so that when access
charges do hit, you won’t be blindsided. I think everyone is anticipating that some form
of compensation eventually will be levied on IP services at some point.
CB: Where does ACTA stand on the universal service issue?
JDJ: ACTA does not ever want to be seen as not being pro universal service. But
while it is a lofty goal to get all schools, libraries and rural communities wired for the
Internet, we view it as an unconstitutional tax that wasn’t voted on by Congress. As it
is, everyone on the Hill is referring to this as the [Vice President Al] Gore tax. I get
two or three calls a week at ACTA’s offices from consumers, and nine times out of 10
they’ve contacted their long distance carrier asking about fees because they’ve been told
by the FCC that we’re not supposed to charge for this. They actually get a recording at
the FCC that tells them, ‘You aren’t supposed to be charged a universal service fee, we
have not mandated it, contact your long distance carrier.’ The FCC is completely washing
its hands of the whole thing. Our retort to consumers is that they should contact Congress
and their senators and let them know they’re unhappy.
CB: We’ve talked about traditional regulatory issues. Are there new wrinkles in
the legislative landscape?
JDJ: Yes. House Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.)
has proposed a surety bond that appears to require resellers of local or long distance
service to post a surety bond as a safeguard against slamming. Our position is that you
either make everyone post the bond or not. A reseller is no more likely to slam any other
company. WorldCom Inc. started off as a reseller, and now if the merger with MCI
Communications Corp. is approved, it’s going to be the second-largest phone company in the
country. Does Congress really want to say that resellers automatically are bad and have to
post a bond and facilities-based carriers are not bad?
CB: Are there other legislative issues that stand out in your mind?
JDJ: Slamming. It may be the one [bill] that they decide to tag everything onto
and shove down everybody’s throats. These guys are going to wave this like a banner, wear
it like a sash and tell their constituents, ‘I am for Joe Consumer. Look at what I’m doing
for you. This is a heinous crime and you, the consumer, have been protected.’ It’s a
wonderful flag to wave when you’re running for re-election. The problem is that it’s given
the entire small carrier industry a black eye and it’s really unjustified. Slamming
complaints across the board hit on every end of the spectrum of the industry, both small
and large IXCs. It’s just a real hot topic for an election year because of its public
relations value. Now, of course, the mainstream press has got hold of it, and I’m
thinking, ‘Where have you been for the last 10 years?’
CB: Although ACTA’s membership is large, do you think members and their issues
are getting the attention they deserve?
JDJ: One problem is that discussions like the ones over access charges, slamming
and universal service tend to fractionalize the industry. The regulators bring in the
RBOCs one week, and bring in AT&T Corp., MCI, WorldCom and Sprint Communications Co.
the next week. We’ve had to claw our way into some of these discussions, saying, ‘Please
don’t dismiss the small carrier industry.’ And they say, ‘Gosh, we didn’t know that
would happen,’ and we have to tell them it’s because they didn’t involve anyone in the
industry in this discussion. That’s been our greatest frustration as an association and an
industry. It’s like talking to a wall if you haven’t been an RBOC that houses an entire
apartment complex of lobbyists and has one assigned to each member of Congress for a
session. We’ve started taking our members down there, meeting in groups of six at the FCC.
And we took about 60 of our members to see about 88 members of the House of
Representatives and the Senate to say, ‘We’re small carriers. This is a real person who is
really conducting business in your district, in your state.’
Our entire approach always has been more of a grass-roots approach, but it’s been a
long uphill battle with both Congress and the FCC. I can remember being told by staff at
the FCC’s Common Carrier bureau just a few years ago that they had no idea there were
small carriers out there. It’s a scary thought.
