BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
	)	
Petition for Investigation into the 	)	
Cost of Universal Service and to 	)	DOCKET NO.  UT-970325
Reform Intrastate Carrier Access Charges	)	
	)	


 COMMENTS OF AT&T


 AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. (“AT&T”) submits the 
following comments pursuant to the Opportunity to Submit Written Comments on 
Proposed Rule issued May 20, 1998.
Rulemaking for Intrastate Carrier Access Charge Reform

 WAC 480-120-540. Terminating Access Charges


The stated underlying logic of the proposed rule as set forth by the Commission 
Staff is as follows:

that terminating access, but not originating access, is a bottleneck service in 
Washington;

that “the market” rather than affirmative action by the Commission will result 
in access reform as envisioned by the Act and the FCC’s Orders;

that this is an equitable standard for terminating access charges;

that this new Section best meets the intent of the Act; 

and, therefore, the proposed rule will induce an environment “where customers 
have a choice between and among carriers.” 
  

AT&T submits that the Commission Staff’s underlying logic and conclusion is in 
error and that the proposed rule language will not result in diversity of 
choice.   

First, as this Commission and others are aware, the FCC attempted to employ a 
similar leap of faith that a non-existent market could or would produce 
competitive choices for consumers.  The FCC was wrong, consumers expressed 
their frustration, and  FCC Chairman Kennard publicly recognized the futility 
of this specific strategy. See Comments of AT&T in this Docket, filed February 
13,1998.   Access will remain a monopoly-provided bottleneck wholesale service 
for as long as its rates do not reflect forward-looking economic cost.  See 
Comments of AT&T in this Docket, filed April 7, 1998.  Before there can be  
meaningful competitive market development, there must be prescriptive action on 
the part of this Commission that addresses both originating and terminating 
rates.

 Second, the restructuring of terminating access as articulated in the new rule 
does not embrace the intent of the Act because it is not a competitively 
neutral methodology when applied to the funding of universal service.  The mere 
fact that a component of terminating access has been made “explicit” does not 
at the same time mean it meets other mandates of the Act such as “equitable and 
nondiscriminatory contributions” by all telecommunications carriers. 47 U.S.C. 
254(b)(4).    

Finally, the conditions necessary to insure that the promise of diversity of 
customer choice becomes reality are predicated on the implementation of all 
three fundamental reforms articulated by the FCC as the “competition 
trilogy”.   Under the current regime, access and universal service are opposite 
sides of the same coin. See Comments of AT&T in this Docket, filed February 13, 
1998 and April 7, 1998.  However, meaningful reform requires that these be 
separated.  Under the current proposed rule, they are neither separated nor is 
there evidence of any significant movement in that direction.  Therefore, the 
assumption that permeates this rule, i.e., that the current level of ILEC 
revenue must be preserved, will institutionalize an unwarranted and 
discriminatory tax for Washington’s ratepayers. 

Dated this 12th day of June, 1998.

AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC.



_____________________________
Maria Arias-Chapleau
Susan D. Proctor
1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 1575
Denver, CO  80202
(303) 298-6164