Commisioner Tony Clark of the North Dakota Public Service Commission thinks it does. “Certainly for my constituents and (others) throughout rural America, it isn’t an either-or thing to talk about economic development and quality of life and public safety. People really do want access to high speed wireline capabilities and also access to mobile technology.”
Refereeing Intercarrier Compensation
“Over the past few years, the telecommunications industry has developed a competitive marketplace,” says Clark, chairman of the NARUC Telecommunications Committee. “In large part, this evolution has come from the arrival of wireless. What makes this important is that competition has caused regulators to pull back from their traditional application of economic regulation. Instead, they have begun to referee disputes between companies.”
In their role as referees, state commissions have, through their work in NARUC, attempted to find a middle ground in the debate about the intercarrier compensation reform, says Clark. “NARUC has become a forum for industry stakeholders in developing a consen-sus plan on intercarrier compensation reform that can be put before the FCC and potentially adopted,” he says.
CTIA has serious objections to proposals being crafted by the NARUC Intercarrier Compensation Task Force. CTIA advocates a “bill and keep” system in which a carrier that has a customer making a call pays a charge to whatever other provider completes the call, and that’s that. The CTIA proposal treats all calls the same and contains no complex contrac-tual arrangements between carriers on termination rates and origination rates.
“The task force position is that ‘bill and keep’ will not pass political muster with the FCC, Congress, or rural telecom carriers,” says Jones of Washington State. “We have told the rural carriers that their system right now of origination rates, high and uneven termination rates, and huge differences between inter and intra state rates is not sustainable either. Our goal is to find a middle ground.”
Truth-In-Billing
Truth-in-Billing ranks as one of the less complex, though not necessarily less con-tentious, issues rankling industry and state regulators. “Things have gotten better,” says Ron Jones, Chairman of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority. “Consider Cingular’s efforts. They have done an excellent job.
“But there are still issues to iron out. Everyone recognizes that disclosure is appropriate, so that people know what they are paying for. There is some disagreement about whether there should be a federal scheme or if the states should be left to themselves. In the end, I think that consumers will define these concerns.”
