PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Amended Application of Vanguard Telecom Corp., d/b/a Cellular One [29 Pa.B. 2107] Commissioners Present: John M. Quain, Chairperson; Robert K. Bloom, Vice Chairperson; David W. Rolka; Nora Mead Brownell; Aaron Wilson, Jr.
Public Meeting held
March 31, 1999Amended Application of Vanguard Telecom Corp., d/b/a CellularOne, for approval to offer, render, furnish, or supply Facilities-based Competitive Local Exchange Telecommunication Services and Facilities-based Competitive Access Provider Services; A-310621 F0002 and A-310621 F0003
Tentative Opinion and Order By the Commission:
Before us for review is a Joint Petition for Interlocutory Review and Answer to Material Question (Joint Petition) filed on December 14, 1998, by Vanguard Telecom Corp., d/b/a CellularOne (applicant or Vanguard) and the Commission's Office of Trial Staff (OTS). We have previously enlarged the time for our consideration of the Joint Petition. The Joint Petition seeks consideration of the following asserted material question:
Whether, in light of the Commission's June 3, 1996 and September 9, 1996, Telecommunications Act Implementation Orders at Docket No. M-00960799 and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission will require a determination of whether rural incumbent local exchange carriers provide adequate service in their respective service areas or whether there is a public need and necessity, or whether neither such determination is necessary, in connection with applications for certification to provide competitive local exchange service and competitive access service?
History of the Proceeding On March 5, 1998, the applicant was granted authority from this Commission to provide interexchange toll telecommunication services throughout the Commonwealth as a reseller. (See, Docket No. A-310261.1 ) On May 5, 1998, the applicant requested authority to offer competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) and competitive access provider (CAP) services throughout the Commonwealth under Chapters 11 and 30 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101, et seq., and §§ 3001, et seq., and to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., (TA-96).2
The amended application filed on July 31, 1998, described the proposed CLEC services as ''including, but not limited, to switched, telephonic-quality voice and data services, where available, that enable users to communicate on a real-time basis between points within local calling areas . . . as well as ancillary services. . . .'' (Proposed CLEC Tariff, Sheet 53.) The applicant described its proposed CAP services as ''including, but not limited to, private line[s]'' and ''dedicated access.'' (Amended CAP Appl., ¶ 6.)
The applicant initially described in identical terms the proposed service territory for its CLEC and CAP services relative to various incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) in paragraph 11 of the original CLEC and CAP Applications as follows:3
Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, GTE, Sprint/United Telephone, Conestoga Telephone, Denver & Ephrata Telephone, Alltel Pennsylvania, Inc., Buffalo Valley Telephone Company, Citizens Telecommunications Company of New York, C-Tec Company, Contel of Pennsylvania, Inc. d/b/a GTE PA, Deposit Telephone Company, Inc., Frontier Communications, Hancock Telephone, Ironton Telephone Company, Lackawaxen Telephone Company, Mahoney & Mahantango Telephone Company, North Eastern Pennsylvania Telephone Company, North Penn Telephone Company, Palmerton Telephone Company, Pennsylvania Telephone Company, Quaker State Telephone Company, South Canaan Telephone Company, Sugar Valley Telephone (TDS Telecom), United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania and Commonwealth Telephone.
In general, Applicant expects that its service territory will be substantially identical to the areas served by its affiliated cellular operations.
Applicant has not determined at this time whether the specific provisions of [TA-96] relative to rural telephone companies pertain to any of the proposed operations of Applicant.
Various ILECs protested both the CLEC and the CAP applications. These protests, however, appear to be the first protests against a request for CAP authority outside the service territories of Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. (BA-PA), and GTE North, Inc. (GTE), since TA-96. Numerous unprotested requests for Statewide CAP authority have been routinely approved by this Commission.4
Specifically, on May 20, 1998, Conestoga Telephone and Telegraph Company (CTT) and Buffalo Valley Telephone Company (BV), both rural ILECs, jointly filed a protest. CTT and BV assert that the consolidated entry procedures for CLECs and exchange access providers seeking authority in rural areas are applicable to requests for CAP authority in rural areas. (CTT/BV Protest, pp. 7-12.) CTT and BV also assert that the 2-year suspension from the interconnection obligation established in Petition of Rural and Small ILECs Pursuant to Section 251(f)(2) of TA-96, Docket Nos. P-00971177 and P-00971188 (July 1997 Order) is applicable to CAP service as well as to CLEC service. (CTT/BV Protest, pp. 12-13.) They further assert that they are exempt from interconnection with respect to CLEC and CAP service. (CTT/BV Protest, pp. 13-14.)
Also on May 20, 1998, the Rural Telephone Companies5 filed a Motion to Strike the Applications (RTC Motion), referring to the consolidated entry procedures for CLEC applicants as established in this Commission's Implementation Orders. (RTC Motion, pp. 3-6.) The Rural Telephone Companies challenged the applicant's request for rural CAP authority on the basis that the applicant failed to follow CLEC procedures with respect to the CAP Application. (RTC Motion, pp. 5-7.)
On June 29, 1998, the Rural Chapter 30 Companies6 filed a protest against both applications and a Petition for Consolidated Proceedings (Chap. 30 Protest). The Rural Chapter 30 Companies suggested that the consolidated CLEC entry procedures should be applicable to requests for rural CAP authority. (Chap. 30 Protest, pp. 3-5.)
The applicant filed various answers and motions in response to the challenges. The Applicant asserted, inter alia, that the challenges are particularly without merit with respect to the request for rural CAP authority:
[B]ecause numerous providers (including unregulated entities) can provide dedicated transport services between the premises of an end-user and, e.g., the ''point of presence'' (''POP'') of a long-distance interexchange carrier (''IXC''). The provision of CAP services by such entities [as the Applicant] does not involve the local termination of traffic over the public switched telephone network (''PSTN'') facilities of rural ILECs. Thus, no interconnection requirements may burden the rural ILEC's PSTN facilities and operations. Indeed, this is the reason that CAP certification applications in the recent past would be approved by the Commission with little or no controversy. See generally Application of Penns Light Communications, Docket No. A-310260, Order entered February 27, 1995.
(Vanguard Answer and Motion to Dismiss, August 4, 1998, pp. 11-12.)
By Secretarial Letter dated July 28, 1998, the applicant was advised that the applications for CLEC and CAP authority in the service territories served by BA-PA, GTE and The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (United) were forwarded to Commission staff for preparation of a Report and Order. The requests for CLEC and CAP authority in service territories served by the protesting rural ILECs were assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judge (OALJ) and are pending before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Herbert S. Cohen.
On July 30, 1998, the applicant filed amended applications requesting CLEC and CAP authority specific to the service territories of BA-PA, GTE, and United. The amended applications requested authority to provide both facilities-based and resold CLEC and CAP services to business and residential customers in the three ILECs' service territories.
On November 23, 1998, at a prehearing conference before ALJ Cohen, the applicant agreed: (1) to further amend its requests for CLEC and CAP authority in rural areas to limit the proposed CLEC and CAP services to facilities-based services; and (2) to request interlocutory review of an asserted material question. On December 14, 1998, the applicant and the OTS filed the instant Joint Petition and a request for waiver to enlarge the time within which the Commission could consider the Joint Petition.
The Initial Hearing, scheduled for December 21, 1998, on the protested requests for CLEC and CAP authority in the rural areas was postponed in anticipation of Commission action on the Joint Petition. No one opposed the request for waiver. Briefs were filed by the Rural Chapter 30 Companies, the Rural Telephone Companies, and CTT and BV, each arguing that the asserted material question should be answered in the affirmative. Conversely, the OTS and the applicant argue that the asserted material question should be answered in the negative.
Under the bifurcation affected by the July 28, 1998 Secretarial Letter, the rural service territory applications, as amended, remain subject to the various protests of the rural and/or small ILECs and are presently assigned to the OALJ. ALJ Cohen has stayed the proceeding pending resolution of the material question.
On January 22, 1999, this Commission entered an order granting the CLEC and CAP applications for the BA-PA, GTE, and United service territories and granting the time enlargement waiver for consideration of the asserted material question. The time for such consideration has been further extended.
Discussion A. Interlocutory Review
1. Legal Standards
Our standards for interlocutory review are found in Section 331(e) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 331(e), and, in pertinent part, in §§ 5.302 and 5.303 of our regulations, 52 Pa. Code §§ 5.302 and 5.303. We interpreted the standards for interlocutory review in In re: Application of Knights Limousine Service, Inc., 59 Pa. P.U.C. 538 (1985) (Knights). We do not routinely grant interlocutory review except upon a showing by a petitioner of extraordinary circumstances or ''compelling reasons.'' Such showing may be accomplished, for example, by a petitioner proving that without interlocutory review some harm would result which would not be reparable through normal avenues, that the relief sought should be granted now rather than later, or that granting interlocutory review would ''prevent substantial prejudice or expedite the proceeding.''
2. Disposition of Interlocutory Review
While the parties are clearly in conflict as to the proper answer to the asserted material question, they, nevertheless, unanimously support the interlocutory review process to resolve the issue raised by the asserted material question. On consideration of the asserted material question presented and the positions of the parties, we believe that interlocutory review could expedite these proceedings and prevent substantial prejudice. Accordingly, we shall grant the petition and address the merits of the material question.
B. The Material Questions
The material question, as stated by the applicant and the OTS, asks this Commission whether, in the wake of TA-96 and our Implementation Orders, CLEC and CAP applicants in rural area must prove (1) that the existing service provided by the ILEC is inadequate and (2) whether there is a public (a) need and (b) necessity for the proposed competitive services. Only the applicant and the OTS urge us to declare that such proof is not required. The remaining parties urge us to declare that the ''traditional'' entry requirement of such proof is necessary and proper.
C. CLEC Service
(a) Must a facilities-based CLEC prove the inadequacy of existing service from the rural ILEC?
(b) Must a facilities-based CLEC prove public need for its proposed services in rural areas?
(c) Must a facilities-based CLEC prove public necessity for its proposed services in rural areas?
1. The Rural Chapter 30 Companies' Position
The Rural Chapter 30 Companies make frequent reference to the ''consolidated procedures'' of our Implementation Orders. The Rural Chapter 30 Companies argue that this Commission has clearly mandated that the traditional Section 1103 Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1103, standards for issuance of a certificate of public authority, including an analysis of the existing service being provided by the current ILEC and the public need for the proposed service apply. (Rural Chap. 30 Companies' Brief, p. 8.) These companies acknowledge that the requirement that a new entrant prove the inadequacy of existing service is not statutory. The Rural Chapter 30 Companies suggest that this Commission has previously eliminated the requirement only after express consideration or regulation. See Brief, p. 14. These companies also acknowledge that the traditional test of public need is not to require proof of absolute need but rather to require proof that the proposed service is ''reasonably necessary for the accommodation and convenience of the public.'' Further, they point out that public need should include consideration of whether competition, or the additional competition which would result from approval of the proposed services, is in the public interest. (Brief, p. 15.)
2. The Rural Telephone Companies' Position
The Rural Telephone Companies acknowledge that neither our Implementation Orders nor our prior Tentative Decision, entered on March 14, 1996, at the same docket, specifically addressed the review standards applicable to entrants seeking only facilities-based authority in rural ILEC territory. The Rural Telephone Companies argue that the Implementation Order mandates that competitive applications in the territory of small ILECs must be subject to normal procedures under Section 1101 and 1103 of the Public Utility Code. In the alternative, they argue that if Sections 1101 and 1103 do not apply to facilities-based competition in rural areas under Section 251(a) of the TA-96, then principles which protect the public interest generally, and the rural ILECs' ratepayers and their service territories specifically, including the universal service standards of 254(b), should apply. (Rural Telephone Companies Brief, p. 9.)
3. Buffalo Valley and Conestoga's Position
BV and CTT assert that the Commission has not modified the traditional entry procedures for entry into the territories of small ILECs. (CTT/BV Brief, p. 3.)
4. The OTS' Position
Citing Mobilfone v. PA PUC, 458 A.2d 1030 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983), In re Implementation of Intrastate Access Charges, 58 Pa. P.U.C. 239 (1983), and Waltman v. PA PUC, 596 A.2d 1221 (1991), note 3, appeal granted, 529 Pa. 642, 600 A.2d 1260, aff'd, 533 Pa. 304, 621 A.2d 994 (1993), the OTS argues that the Commission had eliminated the inadequacy-of-existing-service test ''several years'' prior to TA-96. (OTS Brief, pp. 3-5.) The OTS suggests that the Implementation Orders only carried forward the remaining public interest determination under State law while recognizing the newly created Federal requirements. (OTS Brief, pp. 5-6.) In the alternative, the OTS argues that a requirement to prove the inadequacy of existing service would be ''unquestionably'' a barrier to entry and, therefore, be preempted by TA-96. (OTS Brief, pp. 3, 7-8.) The OTS further argues that Section 1101 of the Public Utility Code only requires that an applicant file an application and obtain approval of the application prior to beginning to offer the proposed services. The OTS maintains that the statutory standard under Section 1103 of the Public Utility Code for approval is that the proposed service be necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public. (OTS Brief, pp. 3-4.)
5. Vanguard's Position
The applicant argues that Sections 251(f)(1)-(f)(2) of TA-96 provide rural and small ILECs with relief from certain obligations under Sections 251(b) and (c) of TA-96 but do not exempt the small ILECs from competition or from their obligation to interconnect with CLECs under Section 251(a) of TA-96. The applicant maintains that the consolidated procedures of Section 252(g) of TA-96 were not triggered in this proceeding because the applicant is a facilities-based CLEC and is not seeking Section 251(b) or (c) interconnection. (Applicant's Brief, pp. 4-5.) The Applicant, citing Policy Statement re Revision of Evidentiary Criteria Applicable to Natural Gas Distribution and Interexchange Application Proceedings, Docket No. M-00900251, goes on to suggest that this Commission has moved to eliminate the inadequacy criterion from certification requests for applicants in public utility industries undergoing competitive transition. (Applicant's Brief, p. 6.) The applicant asserts that TA-96 established a legislative presumption that competition in telecommunication services is ''synonymous'' with the public interest. (Applicant's Brief, pp. 7-10.) The applicant reminds us that this Commission's July 1997 Order stated that Section 251(f)(2):
[D]oes not insulate the rural LECs from competition forever nor does it inhibit facilities-based competition . . . We do not agree . . . that relief from facilities-based competition envisioned by [TA-96] and Chapter 30 enhances a rural LEC's ability to comply with [TA-96] and Chapter 30. A competitor willing to provide alternative service over distinctly independent networks, as opposed to interconnection with the . . . network, is not directly related to any Section 251(f)(2) relief.
6. Disposition
For the purposes of these three questions, we shall turn to our classic definitions in the context of transportation proceedings. (See, Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Pa. PUC, 512 A.2d 1359 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).) We do not impose the full panoply of transportation's ''inadequacy of service'' criteria when reviewing applications to provide facilities-based CLEC telecommunication services envisioned under TA-96. We do so even if, to be sure, there is a minimal threshold of public interest, convenience, and necessity that must be shown sufficient to warrant granting an application for purposes of Sections 1101 and 1103 of the Public Utility Code read in light of TA-96.
We note that we have addressed related issues most recently on March 4, 1999, when we adopted a motion in Application of Armstrong Communications, Inc., Docket Nos. A-310583, F0002, et al., (Armstrong), wherein this Commission, inter alia, granted a facilities-based CLEC application in the service territory of a rural ILEC. The Commission eliminated completely the requirement that a facilities-based applicant demonstrate the public need for the proposed service or prove the inadequacy of the existing ILEC service.
Furthermore, the intent of TA-96 is to promote competition. Facilities-based service is true competition, clearly what the Congress envisioned with the passage of TA-96. The burden is on the facilities-based CLEC to make a go of its business, and its performance in the market will dictate the success or failure of that business. Under TA-96 as well as our Implementation Order, this Commission's review of facilities-based applications should, therefore, be very narrow.
Moreover, this approach is consistent with our prior decisions in our Implementation Orders and the July 1997 Order. That is because, at least for rural ILECs under TA-96, an application for CLEC authority in their service territories can be approved and, subsequent to such approval, the ILECs could be exempt under Section 251(f)(1) and subject to Section 251(f)(2). In our Implementation Orders, this Commission subjected applications for service in the rural ILECs' territory to a ''consolidated procedure'' wherein this Commission collectively considers entry, universal service, and interconnection, using Sections 1101 and 1103 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101 and 1103, to the extent consistent with Section 251 of TA-96.
We have already certificated Vanguard as a CLEC in the service territories of BA-PA, GTE, and United. Under the traditional Section 1101 and 1103 test, viewed in light of TA-96, and in light of our Implementation Orders, we find that Vanguard should be found to be technically and financially fit to provide CLEC services as a matter of State and Federal law within the service territories of rural ILECs. That conclusion is underscored by the absence of any challenge by the protestants to Vanguard's fitness.
Vanguard's rural facilities-based CLEC application is hereby remanded to the OALJ for further proceedings and disposition.
We recognize that, as in Armstrong, if a facilities-based CLEC application is approved, there will need to be on-going discussions between the CLEC and the protestants. At a minimum, the applicant and the protestants will need to resolve such matters as number portability, dialing parity, access to rights-of-way, and reciprocal compensation. They will also need to have protocols to facilitate cutovers.
The applicant has, however, asserted that it wishes ''Statewide authority.'' We find no proof of service on all ILECs within the Commonwealth. Accordingly, we shall enter this Tentative Opinion and Order, publish notice of it in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, and serve it on all jurisdictional rural ILECs. There will be a 20 day comment period.
D. CAP Authority
(a) Must a facilities-based CAP prove the inadequacy of existing service from the rural ILEC?
(b) Must a facilities-based CAP prove public need for its proposed services in rural areas?
(c) Must a facilities-based CAP prove public necessity for its proposed services in rural areas?
1. The Protestants' Position
The protestants assert that CAP applications are subject to the Section 251(f) exemption, suspension, and modification provisions of TA-96 and that a CAP applicant must prove the inadequacy of existing service as well as public need or demand for the proposed CAP services.
2. Vanguard's and the OTS' Position
Vanguard and the OTS assert that that CAP applications are not subject to the Section 251(f) exemption, suspension, and modification provisions of TA-96 and that a CAP applicant need not prove the inadequacy of existing service as well as public need or demand for the proposed CAP services.
3. Disposition
We find no reason to impose upon a CAP applicant the burden of proving the inadequacy of existing service or establishing proof of public demand or need.
''CAP'' stands for ''competitive access provider.'' An equivalent term within the Commonwealth is ''special access service.'' CAP has variously been applied to the following types of non-switched service: Leased lines, circuits, or private lines or channels (but not typically a ''channel'' as in ''unbundled network elements (UNEs)''). CAP service is non-switched (that is, dedicated line) service and may be either within an exchange or between exchanges. It may be intraLATA (local access transport area) or interLATA. CAP service is dedicated to a customer's use (but not dedicated as in ''dedicated trunk groups'' which may be either dedicated to inward or outward seven-digit dialing.) CAP service connects point-to-point or multi-point locations within the CAP's distinctly independent network.
CAP service does not go through the public switched network (that is, a circuit switched network such as the telephone or telex networks) in the manner that local and toll calls do. CAP service does not access dial tone. Stations connected to CAP service generally do not have seven-digit telephone numbers associated with them but may be accessed by dialing ''codes'' (like an intercom that can access any station on the intercom system, but which cannot access, or be accessed by, any party not on the intercom). CAP service is typically paid for on a $/mile/month basis rather than $/minute or $/call or $/month basis. Examples of CAP services are tie lines, private lines, data circuits, ''junk yard circuits,'' ''ring down circuits,'' ''full period circuits,'' and the like. CAP lines typically carry data but can carry voice. CAP service is typically used by business rather than residential customers.
CAP authority may not be used to access the public switched network or toll calling. If a utility with CAP authority wishes to provide access to the public switched network or to provide local or IXC (interLATA or interLATA) calling services to its customers, the utility must also have been granted CLEC and/or IXC authority by this Commission. We require CLEC services and special access/CAP services to be embodied in separate tariffs for both new entrants and incumbents. (See, Pennsylvania Telephone Tariff No. 9, Section 7, Special Access Services (PTA Tariff No. 9).) The PTA Tariff No. 9, dated 1985, describes ''special access services'' as ''all exchange services not utilizing Telephone Company end office switches . . . used, for example, . . . for the provision of private line service.'' Thirty-one rural ILECs subscribe to PTA Tariff No. 9. This includes many but not all of the protestants herein. Vanguard's application for facilities-based CAP is hereby remanded to the Office of Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings and disposition; Therefore,
It Is Ordered that:
1. The Joint Petition for Interlocutory Review and Answer to Material Question filed on December 14, 1998, by Vanguard Telecom Corp., d/b/a CellularOne, and the Office of Trial Staff is granted to answer the Material Questions, this Commission having previously enlarged the time for consideration of the Material Questions.
2. With respect to competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) authority, the Material Questions are restated and answered as follow:
In light of the Commission's Implementation and Implementation Reconsideration Orders (June 3, 1996, and September 9, 1996) in In Re: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. M-00960799, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., must a facilities-based CLEC prove the inadequacy of existing service from the rural ILEC? Answer: No.
In light of the Commission's Implementation and Implementation Reconsideration Orders (June 3, 1996, and September 9, 1996) in In Re: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. M-00960799, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., must a facilities-based CLEC prove public need for its proposed services in rural areas? Answer: No.
In light of the Commission's Implementation and Implementation Reconsideration Orders (June 3, 1996, and September 9, 1996) in In Re: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. M-00960799, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., must a facilities-based CLEC prove public necessity for its proposed services in rural areas? Answer: Yes.
3. With respect to competitive access provider (CAP) authority, the Material Questions are restated and answered as follow:
In light of the Commission's Implementation and Implementation Reconsideration Orders (June 3, 1996, and September 9, 1996) in In Re: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. M-00960799, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., must a facilities-based CAP prove the inadequacy of existing service from the rural ILEC? Answer: No.
In light of the Commission's Implementation and Implementation Reconsideration Orders (June 3, 1996, and September 9, 1996) in In Re: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. M-00960799, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., must a facilities-based CAP prove public need for its proposed services in rural areas? Answer: No.
In light of the Commission's Implementation and Implementation Reconsideration Orders (June 3, 1996, and September 9, 1996) in In Re: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. M-00960799, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., must a facilities-based CAP prove public necessity for its proposed services in rural areas? Answer: No.
4. The Application of Vanguard Telecom Corp., d/b/a CellularOne, at Docket No. A-310621, F0002, for authority to operate as a facilities based Competitive Local Exchange Carrier in certain enumerated service territories (in addition to its existing authority to so operate within the service territories of Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.; GTE North, Inc.; and The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania) is hereby remanded to the Office of Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings and disposition, consistent with this Opinion and Order.
5. The Application of Vanguard Telecom Corp., d/b/a CellularOne, at Docket No. A-310621, F0003, for authority to operate as a Competitive Access Provider in certain enumerated service territories (in addition to its existing authority to so operate within the service territories of Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.; GTE North, Inc.; and The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania) is hereby remanded to the Office of Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings and disposition, consistent with this Opinion and Order.
6. Notice of this Tentative Opinion and Order be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. This Tentative Opinion and Order shall be served upon all jurisdictional rural incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). There shall be a 20-day comment period.
JAMES J. MCNULTY,
Secretary[Pa.B. Doc. No. 99-649. Filed for public inspection April 16, 1999, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 On March 4, 1999, at Docket No. A-310621, F0004, this Commission entered an order approving the transfer of control of the applicant from Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc. to AT&T, Inc. The applicant is incorporated in North Carolina and has complied with 15 Pa.C.S. § 4124, relating to foreign corporations, and with 54 Pa.C.S. § 311, relating to fictitious names. The applicant's principal place of business is 2002 Pisgah Church Rd., Greensboro, NC 27455-3314. Correspondence to resolve complaints may be directed to Robert Baker or Chuck Rutter at the applicant's principal place of business. Additionally, the applications assert that the applicant is affiliated with Pennsylvania Cellular Telephone Corp. and Vanguard Cellular Financial Corp., both of which are non-jurisdictional entities doing business within the Commonwealth.
2 Market entry requirements, in light of the policy objectives of TA-96 for telecommunication service providers, are set out In Re: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. M-00960799 (Implementation Order: June 3, 1996; and Implementation Reconsideration Order: September 9, 1996; collectively, Implementation Orders).
3 We note that the applicant has not used proper names to identify certain of the ILECs. We note further, however, that the applicant has asserted, in a July 28, 1998 Letter, that it is seeking ''Statewide'' CLEC and CAP authority.
4 See, e.g., Amended Joint Application of Hyperion Telecommunications of Harrisburg, Docket No. A-310354, F0003 (Order entered May 17, 1998); Application of TCG Pittsburgh, Docket No. A-310213, F0003 (Order entered October 27, 1995); and Application of Qwest Communications Corp., Docket No. A-310189, F0002 (Order entered May 28, 1996)--stipulation reached resolving protests relative to the CLEC component of the application.
5 The Rural Telephone Companies include the following ILECs: ALLTEL Pennsylvania, Inc., Buffalo Valley Telephone Company, Citizens Telecommunications Company of New York, Conestoga Telephone and Telegraph Company, Denver and Ephrata Telephone and Telegraph Company, Deposit Telephone Company, Inc., Hancock Telephone Company, Ironton Telephone Company, Lackawaxen Telephone Company, The North-Eastern Pennsylvania Telephone Company, North Penn Telephone Company, Palmerton Telephone Company, Pennsylvania Telephone Company, and South Canaan Telephone Company.
6 The Rural Chapter 30 Companies include the following ILECs: Frontier Communications of Canton, Inc., Frontier Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc., Frontier Communications of Lakewood, Inc., Deposit Telephone Company/TDS Telecom, Inc., Sugar Valley Telephone Company/TDS Telecom. Inc., Mahanoy and Mahantango Telephone Company/TDS Telecom, Inc., and Commonwealth Telephone Company.
