Telephone competition rules spur predicted litigation WASHINGTON – A week after the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an order governing telephone competition, a predicted “litigation bonanza” has begun. An association representing three regional Bell telephone companies has filed one court petition, another of the Bells filed a second petition, and group of Internet service providers asked the FCC to delay parts of its order.On Thursday, the United States Telecom Association (USTA), representing Qwest Communications International, BellSouth and SBC Communications, filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking the court to force the FCC to rewrite its Aug. 21 order that sets new rules for what parts of their telephone networks the regional Bells must share with competitors at discounted prices. The same day, the fourth regional Bell, Verizon Communications, filed its own petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals, like the other three asking for a writ of mandamus that would give the FCC 45 days to rewrite its rules.FCC watchers were predicting lawsuits even before the Aug. 21 order was released. FCC Chairman Michael Powell, on the losing side of a 3-2 FCC vote on the telecom rules in February, argued the majority’s decision to maintain the network-sharing regulations was “flawed” and went against two earlier court rulings. The FCC order, which allows state public service commissions to set some of the discount rates, will result in a “litigation bonanza” across the U.S., Powell predicted in his statement on the Aug. 21 order. On the other side of the debate, a group of DSL (digital subscriber line) providers, including Covad Communications, filed a request with the FCC on Wednesday, seeking a stay of the part of the order that phases out discounts the regional Bells must offer to competing DSL providers using their lines to serve customers.The Aug. 21 order allows the regional Bells to phase out line-sharing discounts over three years on any new DSL customers signed up by competitors. The coalition of DSL providers argue the FCC’s ruling will be harmful to customers and is not supported by law. “If the commission chooses not to grant the request, members of the coalition would seek a stay in federal court,” Covad said in a statement.Meanwhile, the regional Bells object to the FCC’s order because it allows state public service commissions, in some cases, to set the discounts that the regional Bells must offer for their switching facilities. The USTA court filing argues the FCC “ceded its authority to the states without imposing any meaningful limits on the states’ authority,” while defying rulings by the D.C. Circuit Court in 2002 and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999 that rejected “blanket access” to the Bells’ so-called unbundled network elements (UNEs). The Bells argue they shouldn’t have to prop up their competition by offering parts of their phone networks at discounted prices. They said competitors should have to build their own networks or pay full price to use the Bells’ equipment. Competitors such as AT&T and MCI argue, however, that without the discounts on the Bells’ UNEs, the competition would dry up and the Bells would gain regional monopolies on phone and phone-line-based Internet services.Verizon made similar arguments to the USTA’s in its petition. Bill Barr, the company’s general counsel, said in a statement the FCC’s action was inconsistent with the two earlier court rulings and the U.S. Congress’ Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC ruling is “fundamentally antithetical” to promoting investment in new telecommunications facilities, he added.“It’s been more than seven years and we still don’t have a lawful set of rules,” he said in the statement. “It’s time for the court to apply a ‘three strikes and you’re out rule,’ and direct the FCC to immediately repeal its unlawful unbundling rules and replace them with rules that comply with the (Telecommunications) Act and the previous directives of the courts.” Others disagreed. The regional Bells’ court filings are a “cynical” attempt to find a sympathetic ear in the D.C. Court of Appeals, instead of filing a normal appeal in a U.S. district court, said H. Russell Frisby Jr., president of CompTel, the Competitive Telecommunications Association, which represents Bell competitors.“The writ of mandamus is used in situations where you’re attempting to force a government agency to act,” Frisby said. “Here, the Bells aren’t complaining that the agency hasn’t take action, they just don’t like what the agency did.”The Bells’ arguments have no merit, Frisby added. “I don’t believe they have a strong likelihood of success,” he said. Technology Industry