SUe--my understanding of the Ohio legislation is that the narrow definition 
is applicable to INCUMBENT local exchange companies and the services that 
they provide and that the bill did not take the extra step of extending the 
concept to help CLEC's fall under less scrutinty.  

You questions/ideas are good ones though.  I'm forwarding this email to our 
local counsel and Barbara and I will follow up.



	Sue Nord
	01/01/2001 12:59 PM
		
		 To: Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald_Lassere@enron.net, Jeff 
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda 
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Marchris Robinson/NA/Enron@Enron, Margo 
Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo 
Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Bolton/Enron 
Communications@Enron Communications, Stephen D Burns/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan 
M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Tracy Cooper/Enron Communications@Enron 
Communications, Xi_Xi@enron.net
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Ohio Telecommunications Legislation

The idea of using legislation to more narrowly tailor PUC jurisdiction over 
the local loop seems promising.  

Barbara/Sue:  do you know how the various interests have lined up around this 
legislation?  Did NARUC get involved?

All:  If data services were exempt from CLEC licensing requirements, would we 
still need to be licensed as a CLEC to sign interconnection agreements with 
incumbents?  If so, what would have to change to allow us to sign 
interconnection agreements (and get wholesale pricing for UNEs) without being 
a CLEC?




	Susan M Landwehr
	12/27/2000 04:55 PM
		
		 To: Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, 
scott_bolton@enron.net, Tracy Cooper/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
		 Subject: Re: Ohio Telecommunications Legislation

MArgo--as is indicated in the body of the information that you send, the 
stated reason for the changes is to more narrowly define LOCAL services so 
that other services  would fall outside of the more strict regulatory 
oversight of the PUC.  Specifically they include voice communications, and 
take out data and image communications (this is good).  However, our 
experience so far with the PUCO has not indicated that there is going to be a 
whole lot of streamlining as a result of this legislation---they still have 
way too many hoops to jump thru as far as we're concerned!



	Margo Reyna
	12/14/2000 03:30 PM
		 
		 To: Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Ohio Telecommunications Legislation

Sue,

I found the following in a recent Focus Notes issue dated December 8 from RRA:

"Ohio - Telecommunications Legislation--On December 7, 2000, the Ohio House 
passed Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 235 by a 77-8 vote.  SSB 235, if enacted, 
would amend current law to redefine the term "basic local exchange service" 
for all regulatory purposes.  On December 5, 2000, the bill was unanimously 
passed by the Senate.  SSB 235 will be submitted to Gov. Robert Taft (R), who 
has expressed support for the bill.  Currently, basic local exchange service 
is defined as access to and useage of telephone company-provided facilities 
that enable customers, over a local network, to originate or receive voice 
grade, data, or image communications.  SSB 235 proposes that local exchange 
service be redefined as end-user access to and usage of telephone 
company-provided services that enable a customer, over the primary line 
serving the customer's premises, to originate or receive voice communications 
within a local service area.  Local exchange service would consist of the 
following:  local dial tone service; touch tone dialing service; access to 
and usage of 911 services; access to operator services and directory 
assistance; provision of a telephone directory and a listing in that 
directory; per call, caller identification blocking services; access to 
telecommunications relay service; and, access to toll presubscription, 
interexchange and/or toll providers, and networks of other telephone 
companies.  Under SSB 235, the Ohio Public Utilites Commission (PUC) would be 
able to adopt alternative regulation plans for incumbent local exhange 
companies that do not require pricing or earnings restrictions on fully 
competitive services, especially on a service such as digital subscriber line 
(DSL), which is provisioned through the upper-level spectrum of the local 
loop.  In addition, the law would change the scope of the PUC's 
merger-related authority as it pertains to telecommunications companies.  
Under current law, a company must obtain PUC approval prior to its 
acquisition of a basic local service provider in Ohio.  If the definition of 
basic local service becomes more narrowly defined by SSB 235, the PUC's 
jurisdiction over certain mergers may be eliminated.

Is this useful, and is it something that we care about?

Margo Reyna
Regulatory Analyst
Enron Corp., Government Affairs
Phone:  713-853-9191