EXPANDED TELEPHONE CALLING AREAS & LOWER RATES!!!
When the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, one of its goals was to deregulate the communications industry, another was to promulgate better telephone calling areas, and cheaper rates for consumers as a result of improved technology (the Internet is a prime example).
Since it appears that "local" telephone company monopolies (telephone, cable, etc.) only want to make higher profits at the expense of consumers, i.e., residents, homeowners, businesses, and government, then let us be your voice as partners in this venture, and have the Telecommunications Act be an equal instrument for consumers.
As a result of complaints filed (See Petition and Complaint) pursuant to Article 78, Section 77, of the Annotated Code of Maryland, requesting an investigation into Verizon's (aka Bell Atlantic-Maryland) business practices, the Public Service Commission (PSC), in Hearing Examiner Division - Order # 73658, Case # 8772 (See Item # 3), ordered an investigation on August 19, 1997, into the specific requests to modify Verizon's local calling in three specific areas (Kent Island to Annapolis, northern Montgomery County to the Washington D.C. Metropolitan area, and Dunkirk and surrounding communities in the Southern Maryland Counties [Petric had asked that Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Prince George's, and Saint Mary's Counties be included] into and around the Washington, D.C., and Annapolis Metropolitan areas); the methodology used for determining the calling areas; the financial and rate impacts from making such changes; and the process for obtaining waivers of LATA (Local Access Transport Areas) boundary changes from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
On Wednesday, October 15, 1997, at 1:00 p.m., at a prehearing conference in the Commission's 19th floor hearing room, the parties discussed options on this matter. A status conference was held on October 29th, at 11:00 a.m., with Verizon, and the other participants: Ivan Petric, the Maryland Office of People's Counsel (Theresa Czarski, Esq., 1-800-207-4055, Ext. 8150), PSC Staff Attorney (Sarah Lazarus, Esq. 1-800-492-0474, Ext. 8004), AT&T, MCI, Sprint, RCN Telecom, Cable TV Association, Teleport Communications, and others to present a uniform data request to the telephone communication carriers in Maryland that is necessary to the resolution of issues in this proceeding. At another meeting scheduled for November 12th, at 1:00 p.m., procedural steps for the remainder of the proceedings were established, including having town meetings starting in March 1998.
It's time to make a change that's good for the little guy, not just big business. Any persons or businesses with an interest in improving local toll-free calling areas and rates in this case or desiring more information should call the Public Service Commission at 410-767-8000, toll free # 1-800-492-0474, 410-333-6086-Fax, or write to:
Felecia L. Greer, Executive Secretary
Public Service Commission (PSC) of Maryland
6 Saint Paul St., 16th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202-6806.
Persons desiring to intervene as a party to this proceeding should have filed a Petition for Intervention, and submitted five copies to the above address, on or before the date of the conference.
We want to hear your opinions, suggestions, etc., on having better expanded local telephone
calling areas 
, and lower rates -- Tell us 
about what's important to you!
For Surrounding Communities, et.al.
Dunkirk, MD 20754-9535-1
Home: 301-855-7009
ANNAPOLIS, MD
NOTICE: (See the full Press Release)
On June 6, 1998, the PSC scheduled the following evening hearings for public comment on these matters, at the following locations and dates:
All hearings began at 7:00 p.m. Written comments may be submitted to the Commission by mailing them to the Commission's Executive Secretary at 6 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, on or before July 1, 1998.
Where ever the word reached, consumers showed their support by ATTENDING THE PUBLIC HEARING(s) and Testified about the terrible local calling area conditions and high phone rates, i.e., incurring high per-minute toll charges rounded to the next higher minute or having to pay additional monthly foreign exchange ("FX") access charges for a Metro line ... thus creating a perceived added 'telephone tax' of $15.25+ for those customers requiring accessibility to the Metro areas versus the 50 cents that is paid by Virginia consumers.
It appears that the PSC's Counsel has been more concerned with how to recoup any losses that Bell Atlantic may incur, rather than investigating the other area telephone exchanges on the expansion of calling areas and savings for consumers of Southern Maryland. In a comment to the Hearing Examiner, dated 12/30/97, the PSC's Counsel stated that "Dunkirk, located in Calvert County, is in the Baltimore LATA and in the North Beach exchange. This exchange has two originating prefixes. To determine if expansion of North Beach's local calling area to Washington and Annapolis is warranted ... That accumulating, reviewing, and analyzing this data will be a difficult, time consuming, complicated, and an expensive undertaking. If the purpose of the petitions is to expand this investigation to include other exchanges throughout Maryland, the Hearing Examiner should decline to do so."
Consumers have expressed their feelings to the Hearing Examiner that this is not what was requested of the PSC, and that Counsel's self serving comments to protect Verizon-MD's assets is a conflict of interest and is out of line.
On January 10, 1998, a rebuttal was submitted to the PSC's Counsel's comments requesting a broader investigation for all surrounding communities.
On January 22, 1998, the Chief Hearing Examiner (CHE) accepted the PSC's Counsel's and OPC's recommendation, against our opposition, and issued an order to keep the investigation narrowed to the North Beach Exchange.
On January 26, 1998, the CHE asked for Comments. Persons opposing this action needed to respond by February 6, 1998.
The following procedural dates were set for this proceeding:
Carriers to file call data - March 2, 1998 (No Hearing)
All Parties to file written initial testimony - April 15, 1998
All Parties to file written reply testimony - May 27, 1998
Hearings for cross-examination - June 15-19, 1998
Hearings were held in the Commission's 16th floor hearing room, at 9:30 a.m.
On May 8, 1998, Ivan Petric filed a Motion to Deny Verizon-MD's Request to Strike the Testimony of Mr. Hirsch, in that he raised some valid points dealing with the fact that the PSC could bring competition to a new level by dissolving the artificial local calling area boundaries by which the Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) are bound, and that outside that Verizon-MD would not voluntarily alter existing local calling area boundaries. The Hearing Examiner denied Bell Atlantic's request and allowed the testimony to stand.
On June 15, 1998, Verizon, joined by the PSC staff, placed a proposal on the table that stated: "When the level of residence subscription to a specific FX offering equals or exceeds 50% in a given exchange, the price for that specific offering should be reduced. The incremental costs and lost revenues associated with this action should be recovered as an exogenous change through an increase in the dial tone line rate for all customers in the state. The price decrease and cost/revenue recovery should occur concomitantly in the next annual price cap filing.
Effective 1/1/2000, reprice Gaithersburg FX purchased by Poolesville customers and Marlboro FX purchased by North Beach customers. The monthly rate for these FX customers will be reduced from $14.50/line to $2.00/line [vs. the .50 cents that is paid by Northern Virginia Consumers.]
- According to Verizon, the annual revenue impact of this change, including lost FX, toll, and access revenues is estimated to be $1,561,680. Therefore Verizon wants to recover this revenue from all dial tone lines in the state by increasing the rates by approximately $.04/line/month. [We said NO. And they have never provided physical evidence as to these actual costs].
- Also, according to Verizon -- The impact to the network is still being assessed, but is expected to be minimal.
- This proposal will make the requested local calling areas inexpensively available and yet avoid all of the previously identified problems related to actually modifying local calling areas."
June 24 to July 1, Public hearings were heard by the PSC. The testimony from consumers to Verizon was to expand the narrow and limited telephone calling areas, and ro lower rates. The public's answer to Verizon-MD and the PSC proposal was to "take that proposal and shove it." In other words they did not want it. The people and elected representatives have spoken.
Final Testimony on the Verizon-MD and PSC proposal was filed on July 20th, and rebutal testimony was filed on August 3, 1998.
The CHE finally issued a Proposed Order on July 29, 1999. While his decision is a favorable one for some consumers, it did not go far enough as it only mirrored Verizon's proposal. The people and elected representatives now need to pass legislation to remedy the problems that the PSC has failed to act upon.
On August 30, 1999, an Appeal was submitted opposing the Hearing Examiner's Proposed Order.
To read copies of the various REBUTTAL TESTIMONY to the PSC against Verizon in a Word Document please DOWNLOAD the case file.
November 2, 2000, PSC Final Order - Verizon's Appeal; Rebuttal to Verizon's Reconsider - Order 76537; 
December 28, 2000; August 29, 1999; July 29, 1999, August 3, 1998, July 20, 1998, May 27, 1998, April 15, 1998, and/or to read copies of the text version, select the appropriate date: August 29, 1999, July 29, 1999 , August 3, 1998, July 20, 1998, May 27, 1998, and April 15, 1998.
:
For best viewing in windows -- download a free copy of 
or 
higher.
Yahoo Quick Search
|
This page has been accessed times.
Send Email to: IPetric@Netzero.Net
Copyright © 2001 Ivan Petric. All Rights Reserved.