[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20455-20457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10090]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[CC Docket No. 01-9; FCC 01-130]
Application by Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic
Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance
Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions) and Verizon Global
Networks Inc., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, for Authorization To Provide In-Region InterLATA Services in the
State of Massachusetts
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission grants
the section 271 application of Verizon New England Inc., et al.
(Verizon) for authority to enter the interLATA telecommunications
market in the state of Massachusetts. The Commission grants Verizon's
application based on our conclusion that Verizon has satisfied all of
the statutory requirements for entry, and opened its local exchange
markets to full competition.
DATES: Effective May 3, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Einhorn, Attorney-Advisor, Policy
and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1580,
or via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order in CC Docket No. 01-9 released April 16,
2001. The complete text of this document is available for inspection
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,
DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Services (ITS, Inc.), CY-B400, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is also available on the Commission's
website at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/ppp/2001ord.html.
Synopsis of the Order
1. History of the Application. On January 16, 2001, Verizon filed
an application (Massachusetts II Application), pursuant to section 271
of the Communications Act of 1996, with the Commission to provide in-
region, interLATA service in the state of Massachusetts. The
Massachusetts II Application incorporated by reference the record that
developed in an earlier
[[Page 20456]]
proceeding evaluating Verizon's first Massachusetts application
(Massachusetts I Application), which was filed on September 22, 2000,
and withdrawn on December 18, 2000.
2. The State Commission's Evaluation. The Massachusetts Department
of Telecommunications and Energy (Massachusetts Department) advised the
Commission, following sixteen months of extensive review, that Verizon
met the checklist requirements of section 271(c) and has taken the
statutorily required steps to open its local markets to competition.
Consequently, the Massachusetts Department recommended that the
Commission approve Verizon's in-region, interLATA entry in both its
October 16, 2000 evaluation of the Massachusetts I Application, and its
February 6, 2001 evaluation of the Massachusetts II Application.
3. The Department of Justice's Evaluation. The Department of
Justice (DOJ) filed its evaluation of Verizon's Massachusetts I
Application on October 27, 2000. It recommended that the Commission not
approve the application until Verizon had demonstrated that it provides
nondiscriminatory access to and suitable performance measures regarding
DSL loops. The DOJ submitted an evaluation of Verizon's Massachusetts
II Application on February 21, 2001. It stated that although ``a number
of changes have taken place'' since its evaluation of the Massachusetts
I Application, it still could not find at that stage of the proceeding
that Verizon had adequately demonstrated its ability to provide
nondiscriminatory access to DSL loops. Recognizing that its evaluation
reflected only the evidence in the record at the time, however, the DOJ
urged the Commission to consider the full record in its final
determination.
Primary Issues in Dispute
Checklist Item 2--Unbundled Network Elements
4. Pricing of Network Elements. The Commission finds that Verizon's
charges for UNEs made available in Massachusetts to other
telecommunications carriers are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory
in compliance with checklist item 2. Verizon relies on switching,
transport, and signaling rates equivalent to those currently in place
in New York. The Commission finds that Verizon's voluntarily-adopted
rates that are equivalent to those currently in place in New York
provide competitive LECs with rates that are within a reasonable TELRIC
(total element long-run incremental costs) range. As the Commission
noted in the SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order (66 FR 8596, February 1, 2001),
under appropriate circumstances, a BOC's UNE rates will be entitled to
a presumption of TELRIC compliance if they are adopted in whole from
another state whose rates have been found to comply with TELRIC, and if
costs are demonstrated to be at or above the costs in the state whose
rates were adopted. The Commission finds that Verizon's Massachusetts
rates meet the TELRIC-presumption test set forth in the SWBT Kansas/
Oklahoma Order. Additionally, the Commission finds the Massachusetts
loop rates to be within the range that the reasonable application of
TELRIC principles would produce.
5. Access to Operations Support Systems (OSS). The Commission
concludes that Verizon provides nondiscriminatory access to its
operations support systems (OSS). Verizon demonstrates that its pre-
ordering systems permit competing carriers to build and use
application-to-application interfaces and integrate pre-ordering and
ordering interfaces. The interfaces are consistently available and
provide reasonably prompt response times. The Commission also finds
that Verizon offers nondiscriminatory access to the OSS functions
associated with determining whether a loop can support DSL. With
respect to Verizon's ordering OSS, the Commission finds that Verizon's
OSS provides timely confirmation notices, rejection notices, completion
notices, and jeopardy information. The Commission also finds that
Verizon's OSS are capable of achieving high overall levels of flow-
through. Regarding provisioning, the Commission concludes that Verizon
provisions competing carriers' resale and UNE-P orders in substantially
the same time and manner as it provisions orders for its own retail
customers. With respect to maintenance and repair, the Commission finds
that Verizon offers requesting carriers access to the same functions
that are available to Verizon's retail representatives, and that it
provides nondiscriminatory access to the maintenance and repair systems
and processes. With respect to billing, Verizon demonstrates that it
provides timely and accurate usage information to competing carriers,
as well as wholesale bills in a manner that affords competing carriers
a meaningful opportunity to compete. Finally, the Commission concludes
that Verizon has a sufficient process in place for handling changes to
its OSS, that competing carriers have input in this process, and that
Verizon adheres to it over time. Verizon also provides the
documentation and help desk support that competitors need to build
interfaces and make full use of the OSS Verizon provides to them.
6. UNE Combinations. The Commission concludes that Verizon provides
nondiscriminatory access to combinations of UNEs. The record indicates
first that Verizon provides access to UNE combinations, and also that
it provides access to UNEs in a manner that allows requesting carriers
to combine those elements. The Commission bases its conclusion on
evidence of actual commercial usage, and also on Verizon's legal
obligation to provide such access as established in its tariff and
interconnection agreements.
7. Checklist Item 4--Unbundled Local Loops. Verizon has adequately
demonstrated that it provides unbundled local loops as required by
section 271. More specifically, Verizon establishes that it provides
access to loop make-up information in compliance with the UNE Remand
Order and nondiscriminatory access to stand alone xDSL-capable loops
and high-capacity loops. Also, Verizon provides voice grade loops, both
as new loops and through hot-cut conversions, in a nondiscriminatory
manner. Finally, Verizon has demonstrated that it has a line-sharing
and line-splitting provisioning process that affords competitors
nondiscriminatory access to these facilities.
8. In the Commission's overview of Verizon's performance data, it
relies on Massachusetts performance data collected and submitted by
Verizon under the state-adopted carrier-to-carrier standards. Verizon
provides evidence and performance data establishing that it can
efficiently furnish unbundled loops, for the provision of both
traditional voice services and various advanced services, to other
carriers in a nondiscriminatory manner. Verizon also establishes that
it provides competing services with voice grade unbundled loops through
new stand-alone loops and hot-cuts in substantially the same time and
manner compared to its retail affiliates.
9. The Commission also finds that Verizon provides
nondiscriminatory access to the high-frequency portion of the loop and
it makes it possible for competing carriers to provide voice and data
service over a single loop (``line splitting''). Moreover, Verizon
demonstrates that it provides maintenance and repair functions, for
both line-shared and stand-alone xDSL-capable and voice-grade loops,
for competing carriers in substantially the
[[Page 20457]]
same time and manner as Verizon does for its own retail services.
Other Checklist Items
10. Checklist Item 1--Interconnection. Based on the evidence in the
record, the Commission concludes that Verizon demonstrates that it
provides interconnection in accordance with the requirements of section
251(c)(2) and as specified in section 271 and applied in the
Commission's prior orders. Pursuant to this checklist item, Verizon
must allow other carriers to interconnect their networks to its network
for the mutual exchange of traffic, using any available method of
interconnection at any available point in Verizon's network. The
Commission finds that Verizon makes interconnection available at any
technically feasible point, including the option interconnect at only
one technically feasible point within a LATA.
11. Verizon demonstrates that its collocation offerings in
Massachusetts satisfy the requirements of sections 251 and 271 of the
Act. Verizon provides physical and virtual collocation through state-
approved tariffs. Verizon's Massachusetts physical and virtual
collocation tariffs are virtually identical to the New York physical
and virtual collocation tariffs, which we found to satisfy checklist
item 1 in our Bell Atlantic New York Order. Verizon demonstrates that
it offers interconnection in Massachusetts to other telecommunications
carriers at just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, in
compliance with checklist item 1.
12. Checklist Item 3--Poles, Ducts, Conduits and Rights of Way.
Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission concludes, as the
Massachusetts Department does, that Verizon demonstrates that it
provides nondiscriminatory access to its poles, ducts, conduits, and
rights-of-way at just and reasonable rates in accordance with section
271(c)(2)(B)(iii). The Commission rejects commenters' requests to find
Verizon's policies and practices nondiscriminatory, because section
224(c)(1) gives Massachusetts jurisdiction over such matters.
13. Checklist Item 5--Unbundled Local Transport. Section
271(c)(2)(B)(v) of the competitive checklist requires a BOC to provide
``local transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange
carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.'' The
Commission concludes, based upon the evidence in the record, that
Verizon demonstrates that it provides both shared and dedicated
transport in compliance with the requirements of checklist item 5.
14. Checklist Item 13--Reciprocal Compensation. Based on the
evidence in the record, the Commission concludes that Verizon
demonstrates that it has entered into reciprocal compensation
arrangements in accordance with the requirements of section 252(d)(2)
and is making all required payments in a timely fashion. Verizon thus
satisfies the requirements of checklist item 13.
15. Checklist Item 14--Resale. Based on the evidence in the record,
we conclude that Verizon demonstrates that it makes telecommunications
services available in Massachusetts for resale in accordance with
sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3), and thus satisfies the requirements
for checklist item 14. The Commission rejects commenters' assertions
that Verizon should fail this item because its advanced services
affiliate was not offering advanced services at resale discounts in
accordance with ASCENT v. FCC, because the mandate in that decision had
not been issued when Verizon filed its Massachusetts II Application.
16. Checklist Items 6-12. An applicant under section 271 must
demonstrate that it complies with checklist item 6 (unbundled local
switching), item 7 (911/E911 access and directory assistance/operator
services), item 8 (white page directory listings), item 9 (numbering
administration), item 10 (databases and associated signaling), item 11
(number portability), and item 12 (local dialing parity). Based on the
evidence in the record, and in accordance with Commission rules and
orders concerning compliance with section 271 of the Act, the
Commission concludes that Verizon demonstrates that it is in compliance
with checklist items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Massachusetts. The
Massachusetts Department also concludes that Verizon complies with the
requirements of each of these checklist items.
17. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(A). The Commission concludes
that Verizon demonstrates that it satisfies the requirements of section
271(c)(1)(A) based on the interconnection agreements it has implemented
with competing carriers in Massachusetts. The record demonstrates that
competing LECs serve a sufficient number of business and residential
customers using predominantly their own facilities. The Massachusetts
Department likewise concluded that Verizon satisfies the requirements
of section 271(c)(1)(A).
18. Section 272 Compliance. Verizon has demonstrated that it
complies with the requirements of section 272. Significantly, Verizon
provides evidence that it maintains the same structural separation and
nondiscrimination safeguards in Massachusetts as it does in New York, a
state in which Verizon has already received section 271 authority.
19. Public Interest Analysis. The Commission concludes that
approval of this application is consistent with the public interest. It
views the public interest requirement as an opportunity to review the
circumstances presented by the applications to ensure that no other
relevant factors exist that would frustrate the congressional intent
that markets be open, as required by the competitive checklist, and
that entry will therefore serve the public interest as Congress
expected. While no one factor is dispositive in this analysis, the
Commission's overriding goal is to ensure that nothing undermines its
conclusion that markets are open to competition.
20. Among other factors, the Commission may review the local and
long distance markets to ensure that there are not unusual
circumstances that would make entry contrary to the public interest
under the particular circumstances of this Application. The Commission
finds that, consistent with its extensive review of the competitive
checklist, barriers to competitive entry in the local market have been
removed and the local exchange market today is open to competition. The
Commission also finds that the record confirms our view that a BOC's
entry into the long distance market will benefit consumers and
competition if the relevant local exchange market is open to
competition consistent with the competitive checklist.
21. The Commission also finds that the performance monitoring and
enforcement mechanisms developed in Massachusetts, in combination with
other factors, provide meaningful assurance that Verizon will continue
to satisfy the requirements of section 271 after entering the long
distance market.
22. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement Authority. Working with the
Massachusetts Department, the Commission intends to monitor closely
post-entry compliance and to enforce the provisions of section 271
using the various enforcement tools Congress provided us in the
Communications Act.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10090 Filed 4-19-01; 1:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P