DOC

errata

By Deborah Gonzales,2014-03-24 13:31
10 views 0
errata errata errata errata errata errata

     Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-26

    Before the

    Federal Communications Commission

    Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

     )

    Deployment of Wireline Services Offering CC Docket No. 98-147 )

    Advanced Telecommunications Capability )

     )

    And )

     )

    Implementation of the Local Competition CC Docket No. 96-98 )

    Provisions of the )

    Telecommunications Act of 1996 )

    THIRD REPORT AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

    IN CC DOCKET NO. 98-147

    FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

    IN CC DOCKET NO. 96-98

    THIRD FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

    IN CC DOCKET NO. 98-147

    SIXTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

    IN CC DOCKET NO. 96-98

     Adopted: January 19, 2001 Released: January 19, 2001

Comment Date: 21 days after Federal Register publication of this Further Notice

    Reply Comment Date: 35 days after Federal Register publication of this Further Notice

By the Commission:

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Paragraph

    I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

    II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. 2

    III. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 5

    IV. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 7

    A. Line Sharing Issues ............................................................................................... 7

    1. Definition of High Frequency Portion of the Loop ........................................... 7

    2. Line Splitting ................................................................................................. 14

    3. Access to the Loop Facility for Testing Purposes ........................................... 27

     Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-26

    4. Conditioning Loops Over 18,000 Feet ........................................................... 33

    5. Rural Telephone Companies and Line Sharing Requirements ......................... 38

    6. Line Sharing Deployment Schedule................................................................ 42

    B. Spectrum Management Issues ............................................................................. 45

    1. Presumption that a Technology is Acceptable for Deployment

    Anywhere ............................................................................................... 45

    2. Disposition of Interfering Technologies ......................................................... 50

V. THIRD FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN CC DOCKET

    NO. 98-147 AND SIXTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

     IN CC DOCKET NO. 96-98 ...................................................................................... 55

    A. Background ........................................................................................................ 55

    B. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 56 VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.......................................................................................... 65

    A. Ex Parte Presentations ........................................................................................ 65

    B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ........................................................... 66

    C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ........................................................... 67

    D. Comment Filing Procedures ................................................................................ 68 VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ................................................................................................ 74 Appendix A: ............................................................................................................................ NA

    Appendix B: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ............................................................... 1

    A. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules..................................................... 2

    B. Legal Basis ........................................................................................................... 3

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected ...................... 4

    D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other

    Compliance Requirements .................................................................................. 13

    E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    and Significant Alternatives Considered .............................................................. 15

     F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

    Rules .................................................................................................................. 17

     2

     Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-26

    I. INTRODUCTION

    1. This reconsideration Order addresses five petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification of our Line Sharing Order, in which we required incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to make a portion of their voice customer’s local loop available to competing providers of 1 For the reasons set forth below, we deny two of these petitions, and grant, to advanced services.

    the extent described herein, three of these petitions. We also clarify our rules with regard to an incumbent LEC’s obligation to provide line sharing in those instances in which the loop is served by a remote terminal, and we seek comment in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the technical and economic issues associated with implementing this requirement. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    2. We take several actions in this Reconsideration Order with respect to line sharing, including:

    ; Definition of High Frequency Portion of the Loop. We clarify that the requirement to

    provide line sharing applies to the entire loop, even where the incumbent LEC has

    deployed fiber in the loop, (e.g., where the loop is served by a remote terminal).

    ; Line Splitting. To the extent described herein, we grant AT&T and WorldCom’s

    request for clarification that incumbent LECs must permit competing carriers

    providing voice service using the UNE-platform to self-provision or partner with a

    data carrier in order to provide voice and data service on the same line.

    ; Access to the Loop Facility for Testing Purposes. We deny Bell Atlantic’s request for

    clarification that data carriers participating in line sharing arrangements are not

    required to have access to the loop’s entire frequency range for testing purposes.

    ; Conditioning Loops Over 18,000 Feet. We deny Bell Atlantic’s request that we

    reconsider the requirement that incumbent LECs refusing to condition a loop

    demonstrate to the relevant state commission that conditioning the specific loop in

    question will significantly degrade voiceband services.

    ; Rural Telephone Companies. We grant the petition of NTCA and NRTA for

    clarification regarding the line sharing obligations of rural incumbent LECs.

    ; Line Sharing Deployment Schedule. We reject Bell Atlantic’s contention that the

     1 Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147,

    Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98, 14 FCC Rcd 20912 (1999) (Line Sharing Order). The Line

    Sharing Order was released December 9, 1999. The petitions were filed by AT&T Corp. (AT&T), Bell Atlantic, BellSouth Corp. (BellSouth), MCI WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom), and the National Telephone Cooperative Association/National Rural Telephone Association (NTCA and NRTA) on February 9, 2000. Bell Atlantic is now known as Verizon, but filed as Bell Atlantic at the time reconsideration petitions were due.

     3

     Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-26

    industry is permitted to adopt a line sharing deployment schedule other than the one

    developed in the Line Sharing Order.

    3. We also take several actions concerning spectrum management, including:

    ; Presumption that a Technology is Acceptable for Deployment Anywhere. We deny

    BellSouth’s request that the Commission reconsider its finding that new technologies

    are presumed deployable anywhere when successfully deployed in one state without

    significantly degrading the performance of other services.

    ; Disposition of Interfering Technologies. We deny Bell Atlantic’s request to reconsider

    our conclusion that state commissions are in the best position to determine the

    disposition of known disturbers in the network.

    4. In addition, we adopt a Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 2 and Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Local Advanced Services docket3Competition docket, in which we request comment on issues that have been raised with respect to line sharing where an incumbent LEC has deployed fiber in the loop.

    III. BACKGROUND

    5. The term ―line sharing‖ refers to the provision of xDSL-based service by a 4competitive LEC and voiceband service by an incumbent LEC on the same loop. In our Line

    Sharing Order, we facilitated the availability of line sharing by requiring incumbent LECs to 5provide unbundled access to the ―high frequency portion of the loop.‖ We found that this new

    unbundling obligation would facilitate competition in the provision of advanced services, particularly to residential and small business consumers, by enabling competitive LECs to provide xDSL-based services to consumers through telephone lines that the competitive LECs share with 6incumbents. We concluded in the Line Sharing Order that lack of access to the high frequency

    portion of the local loop materially diminishes the ability of competitive LECs to provide certain types of advanced services to residential and small business users, delays broad facilities-based

     2 CC Docket No. 98-147.

    3 CC Docket No. 96-98.

    4 Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20915, para. 4.

    5 See 47 C.F.R. ? 51.319(h).

    6 Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20915, para. 4. The term ―advanced services‖ is defined as ―high speed, switched, broadband, wireline telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics or video telecommunications using any technology.‖ 47 C.F.R. ? 51.5. ―x-DSL‖

    service refers to advanced services that use digital subscriber line technology to send signals over copper wires to packet switches. xDSL services include ADSL (asymmetric digital subscriber line), HDSL (high-speed digital subscriber line), UDSL (universal digital subscriber line), VDSL (very-high speed digital subscriber line), and RADSL (rate-adaptive digital subscriber line). The small ―x‖ before the letters ―DSL‖ signifies that we are referring to DSL as a generic transmission technology, as opposed to a specific DSL ―flavor.‖

     4

     Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-26

    market entry, and materially limits the scope and quality of competitor service offerings. We also determined, based upon the record before us, that there were no technical, economic, operational, 7 The Line Sharing Order or practical barriers to incumbent LEC line sharing with competitors.

    addressed a number of operational issues associated with the implementation of line sharing, including effective dates, loop conditioning and testing, and the presence of digital loop carrier systems.

    6. We also adopted spectrum management policies and rules in the Line Sharing

    Order to facilitate the competitive deployment of advanced services. Specifically, we took steps to encourage the voluntary deployment of industry standards while limiting the ability of any class of carriers to impose unilateral and potentially anti-competitive spectrum management or compatibil