Verizon, XO Say Windstream Too Late to Protest Deal in Pennsylvania

companies saying Windstream should have filed a petition to intervene by the PUC’s April 25 deadline. "In effect, Windstream has attempted to disguise its late-filed ‘Protest’ to the Joint Application as an ‘Amicus Brief’ and to sandbag Joint Applicants with a pleading that is effectively factual testimony, without allowing the opportunity for discovery, responsive testimony or cross-examination," Verizon and XO said. In the disputed brief, Windstream said the deal “is neither necessary nor proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, nor safety of the public." In their main brief Friday, Verizon and XO said the deal "will result in a stronger company that will be better able to provide enhanced services to Pennsylvania customers." Verizon and XO dismissed criticisms of Core Communications and the Pennsylvania Office of Small Business Advocate (OSBA), both of which filed timely petitions to intervene. Neither entity "identifies a single customer or competitor of XO in Pennsylvania that has complained about the transaction," Verizon and XO said. "Neither intervenor identifies any valid basis to conclude that the transaction risks causing any harm.” But Core and OSBA said they saw no substantial public benefits. "XO is a major provider of transport and related services to other competitors, and its merger into Verizon can only result in the elimination of a substantial avenue for competitors to interconnect with Verizon on reasonable terms and conditions,” Core said in its brief. In a separate brief, OSBA said it’s “very concerned that the proposed transaction would result in the worst case scenario for XO's business customers: no benefits will emerge; rates will increase by more than they would have in the absence of the transaction; and the loss of a meaningful competitor in the market will result in not only [removing] a competitive option, but a potential diminution of available services for commercial customers.” All protesters said the deal could be approved with conditions. Windstream and OSBA separately asked for a condition requiring Verizon to continue making unbundled DS1 and DS3 capacity available over fiber or other IP-based technology. Windstream also sought a requirement that Verizon commit to complying with any requirements imposed on price cap ILECs in the FCC ongoing business data services proceeding. OSBA sought conditions requiring Verizon to file VoIP interconnection agreements per Section 252 of the Telecom Act and to cease retiring copper loops facilities serving business customers until it obtains PUC approval of a wholesale alternative on fiber "that mimics the economics of Ethernet over Copper (such as deployed by XO).” Core sought conditions requiring Verizon to offer transport for interconnection to all competitors at cost-based TELRIC [Total element long-run incremental cost] rates, and to offer IP interconnection at standard and reasonable terms and conditions to all Pennsylvania carriers.