Xxxx’x Position. Xxxx argued that the USTA II decision vacated the FCC rules that cover UNE-P services, and thereby placed in jeopardy the network platform Sage used exclusively to serve its customers. Without a substitute for UNE-P similar to the one contained in the LWC Agreement, Sage cannot continue to serve its customers. Xxxx added that the USTA II ruling also generated additional urgency to Xxxx’s efforts to exit the UNE-P regime by negotiating a mutually agreeable private agreement that enables Sage to compete on a sustainable basis. Further, the FCC declared that ILECs and CLECs could best serve the interests of customers by engaging in good-faith negotiations to conclude agreements to provide substitutes for UNEs. The Amendment between SBC Illinois and Sage provides for such substitutes. Xxxx also agreed with Staff that the LWC Agreement is wholly separate from the Amendment and should be brought before the Commission in a separate docket. Xxxx argued that the LWC Agreement does not pertain to obligations under Section 251 and does not, therefore, need to be filed. Xxxx stated that while AT&T/MCI do not suggest that the Amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of Section 252(e), they object to the LWC Agreement, which is not before the Commission. Xxxx noted that AT&T/MCI considers a $20.00 fee for an analog loop to be unreasonably high and asserts that it must be a payback for some undisclosed favorable treatment. Sage countered that since the analog loop rate covers 13 states, it cannot be viewed as solely an Illinois rate. Xxxx explained that its business model in each state is directed primarily at rural and suburban venues, where loop rates are usually higher than in urban centers. Also, the term of the Amendment is seven years, giving Sage a stable, predictable rate in a region where UNE rates are constantly evolving. Xxxx concluded that AT&T/MCI offered no evidence to prove that the $20.00 fee is higher than Sage would have had to pay if it relied on regulated rates for the next seven years. Xxxx further disputed AT&T/MCI’s claim that portions of the Amendment beneficial to Sage are hidden in the LWC Agreement, while terms other CLECs will find objectionable are in the publicly available Amendment. Xxxx stated that AT&T/XXX pointed to nothing in the LWC Agreement that favors Sage. Xxxx also contested AT&T/XXX’s argument that they are being denied opt-in rights, because AT&T/MCI made it clear they do not intend to opt-in. Under such circumstances, they c...
Xxxx’x Position. Posting and Notification Vacancies for any position, present, new, or additional, below the salary ratio of
