|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Kentucky 2004
Order
Order
Order
2002
Order
2001
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
2000
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
Order
Pursuant to regulatory statutes 278.512 and 278.514, the Commission, on its own motion, reopened proceedings to review and clarify existing exemptions from regulatory requirements of certain telecommunications providers as well as to determine whether providers of wireless telecommunications services, providers of pay telephone service and providers of pre-paid calling card telephone services should be exempted from additional regulatory requirements. Choices in the telecommunications market in Kentucky have multiplied: approximately 40 providers of wireless telecommunications services and approximately 300 providers of pay phone service currently operate in the Commonwealth, in addition to numerous competing carriers of traditional wireline service. Under existing rules, the Commission may exempt carriers or their services from regulation or provide alternative means of regulation of telecommunications services and products if it determines an exemption or reduced regulation is in the public interest. In this order it ruled that the lack of market power of providers of pre-paid calling card services, wireless telecommunications carriers and pay phone providers, together with the availability of competitive choices and the deregulation of these providers' rates, renders elimination of their tariffs reasonable and inevitable. As of the effective date of this Order, wireless carriers, pay phone providers, and providers of pre-paid calling card services that wish to provide service in Kentucky need only submit a letter to the Commission stating that intention. The Commission will also remove all existing wireless tariffs, pay phone tariffs and pre-paid calling card tariffs from its records. The elimination of a requirement to tariff its services does not exempt wireless carriers from collecting and remitting Commission-ordered universal service funding, however. Nor does it exempt any carrier from complying with Commission-mandated maximum charges and other requirements such as those specified for operator services in both the public and the confinement facility arenas.
The Commission hopes that the elimination of unnecessary record-keeping enables it to expend its administrative resources elsewhere, thereby more effectively promoting the public interest.
Order
Order
1998
Order
On April 24,1998, the Commission ordered that the wholesale discount rate for competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”) purchasing services from Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (“CBT”) should be 15.37 percent. On May 14, 1998, CBT filed its request for rehearing. On June 3, 1998, the Commission granted rehearing to further consider CBT’s arguments and scheduled an informal conference. An informal conference was held on July 7, 1998 at the Commission’s offices.
Order
On December 22, 1997, AT&T Communications of the South Central States, Inc. (“AT&T”) filed a Complaint against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (“BellSouth”) alleging violations of federal law, PSC Orders, and the parties’ interconnection agreement. Subsequently, BellSouth filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, and motion was denied by Order dated April 8, 1998. A hearing was held on this matter on August 4, 1998. On September 3, both parties filed post-hearing briefs.1 AT&T requests a declaration of rights, an Order restraining BellSouth from further alleged violations of law, and establishment of a monitoring process pursuant to which BellSouth will provide monthly reports to the Commission regarding its efforts to comply with applicable law, the parties’ interconnection agreement, and Commission Orders. (Approximately 9 pages)
Order
On September 1, 1998, the Commission entered its Order in this case ruling on continuing disputes between GTE South Incorporated (“GTE”) and MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. (collectively, “MCI”) in regard to the parties’ proposed interconnection agreement (the “Agreement”). GTE has filed a petition requesting the Commission to reconsider its portions of the Order and to clarify its decision regarding the quality of service GTE is required to provide to MCI pursuant to the Agreement.(Approximately 5 pages)
Order
On June 22, 1998, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (“BellSouth”) filed its updated Statement of Generally Available Terms (“SGAT”), with supporting documents, together with a request that the SGAT be approved by this Commission. By Order dated July 6, 1998, the Commission established this case to determine, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (the “Act”), at 47 U.S.C., § 252(f), whether the SGAT meets the requirements of 47 U.S.C., § 251 and 252(d) and relevant requirements of state law. The parties to Case No. 96-608 1 were also made parties to this proceeding and were invited to submit comments on the SGAT. Comments have been filed by e.spire Communications, Inc. (“e.spire”), MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. (collectively, “MCI”), Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (“Sprint”), AT& of the South Central States, Inc. (“AT&T”), and the Competitive Telecommunications Association (“CompTel”). BellSouth has filed a response AT&T Communicationso those comments. The issue of whether BellSouth’s SGAT complies fully with applicable law is ripe for Commission decision.
Energy Orders 
|
|
| Copyright ©1996-2008 Ben Johnson Associates, Inc.® All Rights Reserved |
