Industry Disagrees on MidCo Interconnection Petition

Industry and state regulators disagreed on whether the FCC should grant Midcontinent's petition for declaratory ruling on rules for obtaining local interconnection. Reply comments were posted Monday in docket 22-277 (see 2207200050). Midcontinent asked the FCC to affirm that, under its Time Warner and CRC Communications rulings, that any telecom carrier is "entitled to interconnection for the purpose of providing wholesale local interconnection services."

There's "no basis" for Midcontinent to "obtain local exchange authority before interconnecting" to offer wholesale local interconnection services, it said. Claims that the carrier is "engaged in cherry-picking" are "manufactured," Midcontinent said, adding "parties oppose requests for relief that Midcontinent did not make." Midco said the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission "has decided that the clear statements in Time Warner and CRC that 'any telecommunications carrier' can obtain interconnection to provide wholesale interconnection services do not mean what they say."

Granting the petition "will enable more wholesale and retail competition," said Incompas. The FCC should "provide Midcontinent the certainty it needs to move forward with its wholesale interconnection plans," the group said, because it "impacts every provider who seeks to use the wholesale interconnection that Midcontinent will offer."

"The arguments made in Midco’s petition and supporting comments pose a threat to liberties within the regulation of the telecommunication industry and services provided in South Dakota and elsewhere," said the South Dakota PUC. The petition seeks a "sweeping misapplication of prior FCC declarations," the PUC said. The FCC's rulings in Time Warner and CRC Communications, which "clarif[ies] that interconnection must be made available to certain providers," do not support Midco "must merely make a simple attestation at the federal level that they are a [telecom] provider," it said.

Midco "repeatedly touts the public benefits associated with competition, but ignores entirely the public benefits associated with the state regulation it seeks to see preempted," said James Valley Cooperative Telephone and the South Dakota Telecom Association in joint comments. The petition "raises a novel question of law" that the FCC Wireline Bureau can't grant "under delegated authority," said the California Public Utilities Commission. The PUC said Section 251(a) of the Communications Act "preserves state authority over interconnection agreements."

The petition is "an attempt to disguise a petition for preemption" as one for a declaratory ruling to "evade" the South Dakota PUC's "authority to require a certificate of authority (COA)," said NTCA. Midco "falsely characterizes" the PUC's authority as "an insurmountable barrier to interconnection," the group said, and "fails to recognize" the Time Warner and CRC rulings don't preempt a state's authority. "The COA requirements at issue are fully vested in states’ authority and are not subject to review through a petition for declaratory ruling," NTCA said.

Midcontinent's request regarding interconnection services is "broadly worded and seems intended to preempt state commissions from exercising any form of certification authority" over wholesale telecom carriers, said the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, opposing the petition. The PUC said it had no position on whether state regulators may not require a telecom carrier that "wishes to offer wholesale interconnection services to obtain state authority to provide local exchange service ... prior to interconnecting with an incumbent local exchange carrier."