IXCs attack SBC long-distance approval

(Telephony) Sprint, WorldCom and AT&T have asked a federal court to block the recent FCC decision allowing SBC to provide long-distance service in Kansas and Oklahoma beginning March 7.

SBC is accused of violating Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Sprint, WorldCom and AT&T collectively are charging that SBC has failed to fully implement the 14-point competitive checklist required for gaining FCC approval for long-distance service.

Specifically, Sprint charges SBC took data it collected to demonstrate that local competition exists in Texas--where SBC previously won long distance service approval--and used it for its applications in Kansas and Oklahoma. Sprint believes this action violates the sanctity of the checklist requirement.

“SBC is basically saying that, ‘What’s good in Texas should also be good in Kansas and Oklahoma,’” said a Sprint spokesman. “We believe they should be held to a higher standard.”

Sprint suggests SBC did this because local competition in Kansas and Oklahoma really doesn’t exist.

“We’ve been telling reporters in those states to ask people who they would pick for local phone service if they were unhappy with SBC. We believe they wouldn’t be able to answer the question,” said the Sprint spokesman.

“When SBC talks about competitors, they’re really talking about resellers. That would be like Safeway taking Tide detergent and putting it in Safeway boxes. That’s not real competition.”

WorldCom is taking issue because the checklist requires non-discriminatory access to—and cost-based pricing for—unbundled network elements, something it alleges SBC isn’t providing in Kansas and Oklahoma.

“We believe the prices SBC is charging are inflated and contrary to the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, as they do not allow for viable competition” said a WorldCom spokeswoman. “The Act wasn’t written just to let the Bells into long distance. The intention was also to create competition in local markets. Without rigorous adherence to the Telecommunications Act, local phone competition can’t become a reality.”

For its part, SBC believes that it stands on solid ground in this battle, noting that the state commissions in Kansas and Oklahoma, the Department of Justice and the FCC have all signed off on their application.

“All of our materials have been thoroughly reviewed and studied carefully, and everyone has agreed that we should be in the long-distance business in these states,” an SBC spokesman said. “We’re anxious to compete in this market, because it will be good for the consumers and businesses in Kansas and Oklahoma.”