DE 90-002 GENERIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION DOCKET Regulation of Competitive IntraLATA Toll Providers Order Delineating Scope of Regulation over Competitive IntraLATA Toll Providers O R D E R N O. 22,473 January 6, 1997 The purpose of this order is to codify our preliminary findings regarding the degree to which competitive intraLATA toll providers should be regulated. Our experience in the trial period for intraLATA competition established in Order No. 20,916 (August 2, 1993) persuades us that our current procedures for regulating such toll providers is cumbersome and provides no greater degree of public protection than would a more streamlined approach. Accordingly, as set forth more fully below, we will modify our current procedures for authorizing competitive intraLATA toll providers and will outline the manner in which they will be regulated by this Commission in the future. The Commission's movement towards competition in telecommunications has been mirrored by enactments at our Legislature (see, e.g., RSA 374:22-g) and on a federal level with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Consistent with federal mandate, the Commission is encouraging the development of meaningful competition through a number of actions, including this reduction in regulation over competitive intraLATA toll providers. Our decision today is based upon the following history. As the telecommunications industry has evolved in recent years, so has the Commission's view of the appropriate degree of regulation over some of the new participants in the intraLATA toll market. One of the significant changes in the past few years is the emergence of competitive interLATA and intraLATA toll providers, who provide toll services either by using their own facilities or by buying toll services in bulk from a carrier or carriers and reselling them to individual retail customers. Some toll providers are facilities based, that is, they own or operate facilities, including switches, to route and/or carry calls. Others are non-facilities based or "switchless" toll providers, in that they only repackage the product offered by one or more carriers and have no ability to route, switch or carry the calls themselves. Many are a hybrid of the two, using facilities in some instances while serving customers on a non-facilities basis in others. In 1995, competitive intraLATA toll providers generated over $32.3 million in revenues in New Hampshire. For years, New England Telephone, now doing business as NYNEX, was the only carrier authorized to provide intraLATA toll service. As the incumbent toll provider, NYNEX still retains over 75% of the intraLATA toll traffic. Neither NYNEX nor any other incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) is included in our use of the term "competitive intraLATA toll provider." At a future time, we intend to consider the appropriate regulatory treatment for the intraLATA toll services offered by NYNEX and other ILECs that may enter the intraLATA toll market. We first became involved in analysis of competitive toll service when Long Distance North and AT&T sought authorization, which prompted the Commission to undertake the Generic Telecommunications Competition Docket, DE 90-002. During this period, we became aware of a switched reseller operating without Commission authorization. The Commission found the carrier to be a public utility pursuant to RSA 362:2. See, Re Atlantic Connections Ltd., 76 NHPUC 91 (1991), affirmed on appeal, Appeal of Atlantic Connections Ltd., 135 N.H. 510 (1992). In 1993, we learned from competitive toll providers considering entry into the New Hampshire market that the statutory requirement that a public utility be incorporated within New Hampshire was a deterrent to operating within the State. In response, we initiated a legislative amendment so that a telecommunications public utility has a choice either to be incorporated in New Hampshire or simply registered with the New Hampshire Secretary of State. RSA 374:25 (effective June 23, 1994). The number of petitions for authorization increased dramatically. We also saw an increase in providers interested in entering the New Hampshire market as a result of our Generic Telecommunications Competition Docket, DE 90-002. In our final order in that case, we established a framework for intraLATA toll competition and set decreasing access rates that stepped down from 20 cents per minute to the present level of 7.2 cents per minute (for combined originating and terminating access). We established a two year Trial Period of intraLATA competition, commencing in October 1993. Prior to the Trial Period, there were 20 competitive intraLATA toll providers authorized in New Hampshire; since then, the Commission has certified over 125 and has approximately 80 applications for authority pending. Nothing in our experience in the Trial Period suggests that extensive regulation of competitive toll providers is necessary. We are now evaluating data collected during the Trial Period and will issue a report of our findings in the near future. It is clear to us based on our review thus far, however, that we should reevaluate the degree of regulation imposed on competitive intraLATA toll providers. There is a long-standing tradition in New Hampshire that one should exert regulation only to the extent necessary. Part 2, article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides, in pertinent part, Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it. The New Hampshire Supreme Court elaborated on the State's clear preference for free enterprise, admonishing the Commission for exerting jurisdiction over a new area of telecommunications which, the Court concluded, did not require regulation. Appeal of Omni Communications, Inc., 122 N.H. 860 (1982). The Court found that the Legislature never intended the Commission to have jurisdiction over radio paging services (or "beepers") and there was no public need to bring these services within the Commission's purview. As the Court stated, "...the legislature did not intend to place all . . . telephone, telegraph, light, heat and power companies under the umbrella of the [Commission's] regulatory power." 122 N.H. at 863 (citations omitted). The New Hampshire Supreme Court has also stated that the Commission's jurisdiction is somewhat fluid, depending not only on the operations of the utility provider but the policy reasons for asserting jurisdiction. In Allied N.H. Gas Co. v. Tri-State Gas Co., 107 N.H. 306 (1966), the Court held that though certain operations might fall within a strict reading of RSA 362:2, they were not necessarily regulated if, by asserting jurisdiction, the Commission would go beyond the purposes for which the Commission had been created. It is equally important, as noted in the Freedom Energy appeal, that the Commission narrowly construe its authority and exercise the degree of regulation that promotes fair competition while ensuring the public good. Appeal of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, 140 N.H. ___ (1996) (Supreme Court Docket #95-610, Order May 13, 1996 at page 7). In this case, therefore, we should impose regulation that will encourage the development of competition as well as protecting residential and commercial customers' interests. Switched and switchless toll providers offer a service that is now subject to considerable competition. Recently, we ordered the implementation of intraLATA presubscription which, we expect, will increase the level of competition for smaller customers. Under presubscription, customers will enjoy the same ease of selecting an intraLATA toll carrier as they now have for interLATA toll, eliminating the need to dial the extra five digit access code to reach a carrier other than NYNEX. Customers can move from one toll provider to another for intraLATA toll service if they are dissatisfied with any aspect of the provider's service. In light of the increasingly competitive market for intraLATA toll service, we find no need for extensive Commission regulation of the rapidly expanding number of competitive intraLATA toll providers. We will no longer require a provider to demonstrate its financial, technical or managerial competence but instead will institute a simple registration process. Nor will we scrutinize the terms, rates or conditions of service or issue orders regarding tariff changes. Effective immediately, we will require the following: A. Registration A competitive intraLATA toll provider shall register with the Commission before commencing operations in the State. It shall submit the company's name, business address and contact person, noting a toll free customer service number if available. It shall submit evidence of incorporation in New Hampshire or Secretary of State registration as a foreign entity authorized to do business in the State in accordance with RSA 374:25. It shall also certify that it will be bound by all applicable administrative rules and orders of the Commission. These registration requirements are effective with the date of this order. The Commission will presume that competitive toll providers possess the necessary qualifications to operate, a presumption which is subject to further analysis if a problem is raised by the public, another utility or the Commission regarding a particular utility provider. Before commencing operations in the State, a competitive intraLATA toll provider must obtain verification from the Commission stating the provider has met the Commission's registration requirements. B. Tariff filings A competitive intraLATA toll provider shall file an initial tariff and keep a current tariff on file with the Commission. New services and changes in services will be effective upon 30 days of filing, pursuant to RSA 378:3, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. We will presume that initial tariff provisions and subsequent changes are just and reasonable and in the public interest, given the wide availability of alternative toll providers and services. This presumption is subject to further evaluation if a problem is raised by the public, another utility or the Commission regarding a particular service or condition of service. Tariff conditions inconsistent with our administrative rules and/or statutory requirements will be null and void, notwithstanding a tariff on file with the Commission. Pursuant to Order No. 20,566 (August 5, 1992), changes in rates of existing services continue to be effective automatically if filed no later than one day after the new rate's effective date. C. Utility Assessment Competitive toll providers shall remain utilities pursuant to RSA 362:2. As such, they continue to be responsible for their share of the Utility Assessment for Commission operations in accordance with RSA 363-A. D. Reporting Requirements As a condition of authorization to operate within the state, each competitive toll provider shall file with the Commission an Annual Report consisting of a Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations, statement of New Hampshire revenues, and an Information Sheet containing the names, business mailing addresses and titles of corporate officers, and the address to which the New Hampshire Utility Assessment should be mailed. E. Pending Applications for Authority Applications for authority to operate now pending before the Commission will be treated as registration filings. We direct our Staff to review pending applications in light of this order and contact any applicant who has not met the terms of the registration process to complete its filing. F. Pending Tariff Changes Petitions for tariff approval now pending before the Commission will be evaluated in light of the terms of this order; that is, they will automatically become effective 30 days from the date on which they were received by the Commission unless an order is issued otherwise. G. Remaining Commission Oversight Because we remain at the threshold of significant change in the telecommunications industry, it is not appropriate at this time to fully deregulate competitive intraLATA toll providers. Our role providing oversight and assistance on consumer protection matters is critical, and we must maintain the ability to exert greater control over any provider that abuses its authority to operate or otherwise conducts business in an unfair or deceptive manner. Effective immediately, we will regulate competitive intraLATA toll providers in accordance with the limited terms detailed in this order. Our authority, of course, extends only so far as the Legislature provides. Based upon current statutory enactment, we maintain the authority to impose greater regulation over particular entities and competitive intraLATA toll providers as a whole, should circumstances so warrant. Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED, that effective immediately, the Commission will exert limited regulation over competitive intraLATA toll providers in accordance with the terms of this order; and it is FURTHER ORDERED, that the following dockets: DS 96-395 Cable & Wireless, Inc.; DS 96-398 Business Telecom, Inc.; DS 96-400 MCI Telecommunications Corporation; DS 96-403 LCI International Telecom Corp.; DS 96-404 AT&T Communications of NH, Inc.; DS 96-408 Sprint Communications Company of New Hampshire, Inc.; DS 96-410 Tel-Save, Inc. d/b/a The Phone Company of New Hope; DS 96-418 MCI Telecommunications Corporation; DS 96-421 Frontier Communications International, Inc.; DS 96-422 Frontier Communications of New England, Inc.; and DS 96-423 Sprint Communications Company of New Hampshire, Inc.; are hereby closed and that the filings contained therein shall be considered effective pursuant to paragraph F above. By order of the Public Utilities Commission of New Hampshire this sixth day of January, 1997. Douglas L. Patch Bruce B. Ellsworth Susan S. Geiger Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Attested by: Thomas B. Getz Executive Director and Secretary