The Honorable Michael Powell
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12^th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Powell:

I understand that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a petition filed last year by AT&T that requests a declaratory ruling on whether a particular type of long distance service should be exempt from the access charges all long distance carriers pay to use the public switched telephone network. I write today to urge you to both deny this petition and to deny the company's request that it not be responsible for the access charges that it refused to pay during the period while its petition was pending.

The AT&T service described in its petition transports voice calls that both originate and terminate on the public switched telephone network. The only difference between this service and traditional long distance service is that AT&T converts each call into Internet protocol for some part of the call's transmission. AT&T service is markedly different than the voice-over-Internet-protocol (VOIP) offerings available now by companies such as Pulver.com or Vonage, where calls originate and/or terminate in IP format on a broadband connection.

Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the FCC rules and all prior FCC decisions, AT&T's service is a "telecommunications service." The calls in question originate and terminate on a local exchange carrier's circuit switched telephone network. Under the FCC's current access charge rules, access charges must be paid to local exchange carriers for terminating these calls. AT&T's unilateral and arrogant decision cannot stand as it continues to afford the company an unfair competitive advantage over those carriers that support the network and play by the rules. It also has placed an undue burden on those smaller carriers who rely on access charges heavily and have lost significant revenue due to AT&T's action.

I am deeply troubled that despite the FCC's clear rules to the contrary and despite no formal FCC decision to the contrary, AT&T unilaterally refuses to pay local exchange carriers access charges for these calls while its petition is pending. AT&T's claims notwithstanding, I fail to see how it would constitute a manifest injustice to require AT&T to pay access charges for those calls. Rather, an injustice would result if the local exchange carriers that terminated AT&T's traffic do not receive the compensation to which they are legally entitled. As such, I would appreciate answers to the following questions by Tuesday, March 16, 2004:

1. On what specific FCC Order or Act of Congress does AT&T base its argument that it should not be required to pay access charges during the time that its access charge petition was pending?

2. If AT&T is unable to rely on a specific FCC Order or Act of Congress, is there any precedent where the FCC permitted an interexchange carrier to unilaterally determine without a prior ruling from the FCC that it would not pay access charges on an existing telecommunications service?

3. If an interexchange carrier is permitted to unilaterally determine that it will not pay access charges without relying on a formal FCC decision or Act of Congress, wouldn't such precedent encourage similar action by other carriers and, therefore, jeopardize the access charge regime? If not, please explain your answer.

Reports indicate that AT&T may now owe several hundred million dollars to local exchange carriers due to its refusal to pay access charges; clearly, the level of malfeasance that AT&T is demonstrating is appalling. Therefore, once again, I urge you to deny AT&T's petition for a declaratory ruling and to deny its request that the company not be responsible for access charges owed during the period while its petition was pending.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

        The Honorable Fred Upton, Chairman
        Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

        The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member
        Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

        Identical letter sent to all FCC Commissioners