[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45956-45958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23148]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 91-141; FCC 98-199]


Expanded Interconnection With Local Telephone Company Facilities

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Order on Reconsideration (Order) released August 18, 1998 
denies Association for Local Telecommunications Services and WilTel, 
Inc. Petitions for Reconsideration of the Expanded Interconnection with 
Local Telephone Company Facilities, CC Docket No. 91-141, Third Report 
and Order, Transport Phase, II (Tandem Switching Order), and grants the 
motion to withdraw filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Oxman, Attorney, Common Carrier 
Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, (202) 418-1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
On Reconsideration adopted August 12, 1998, and released August 18, 
1998. The full text of this Order is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 
M St., N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C. The complete text also may be 
obtained through the World Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
Common Carrier/Orders/fcc98-199.wp, or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In the Tandem Switching Order, the Commission noted that it 
certified in the Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 57 FR 56888, 
December 1, 1992, that the conclusions it proposed to adopt would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
business entities. No comments were

[[Page 45957]]

submitted in response to the Commission's request for comment on its 
certification. In this present Order on Reconsideration, the Commission 
promulgates no additional final rules, and our action does not affect 
the previous analysis.

Synopsis of Order on Reconsideration

    1. In its Third Report and Order, 59 FR 32925 June 27, 1994, in the 
expanded interconnection proceeding, the Commission directed all Tier 1 
local exchange carriers (LECs), except National Exchange Carrier 
Association, Inc. (NECA) pool members, to provide third parties with 
the signalling information necessary for these parties to supply tandem 
switching. Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company 
Facilities, CC Docket No. 91-141, Third Report and Order, Transport 
Phase II, 9 FCC Rcd 2718 (1994) (Tandem Switching Order). Three parties 
filed for reconsideration of the Tandem Switching Order, but one of the 
three parties has sought to withdraw its petition. For the reasons 
discussed below, we deny the two remaining petitions.
    2. The Tandem Switching Order required Tier 1 incumbent LECs other 
than NECA pool members to provide all interested third parties, such as 
competitive local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers (IXCs), and 
end users, with the signalling information necessary for those parties 
to install their own tandems to provide tandem switching services. 
These third parties, called tandem switch providers (TSPs), would then 
be able to compete with the incumbent LECs in providing tandem switched 
transport. Tandem switched transport refers to traffic transported by 
means of a tandem switch, which is an intermediate switch between an 
originating telephone call location and the final destination of the 
call. TSPs carry traffic of multiple interexchange carriers from LEC 
end offices to their own tandems, and then deliver the traffic to the 
appropriate IXC. The Commission found that availability to third 
parties of signalling information needed for tandem switching could 
provide significant public benefits, such as facilitating broader 
access competition by enabling interconnectors to offer competitive 
interstate tandem switching and transport services. In the Commission's 
view, small IXCs, which rely heavily on tandem-switched transport, 
would particularly benefit. The Commission also found that competitive 
tandem switching would yield other benefits, such as putting downward 
pressure on access charges and long-distance rates, increasing 
technological innovation, and making more efficient use of the 
country's telecommunications networks. The Commission determined that 
the benefits of allowing this competition outweigh the de minimis 
potential costs incurred by the incumbent LECs in providing the 
necessary signalling. Finally, the Tandem Switching Order explicitly 
did not require incumbent LECs to provide signalling information from 
their tandem offices. The Commission found that the record did not 
reveal how tandem-to-tandem interconnection could be competitively 
viable, either from a service quality or pricing perspective.
    3. WilTel, Inc. (WilTel) and the Association for Local 
Telecommunications Services (ALTS) filed petitions for reconsideration 
of the Tandem Switching Order urging the Commission to reconsider its 
decision not to require tandem-to-tandem interconnection. Southwestern 
Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) also filed a petition for clarification 
and reconsideration of the Tandem Switching Order, claiming technical 
difficulties in implementing that order. SWBT subsequently filed a 
motion to withdraw its petition.
    4. We deny the WilTel and ALTS petitions to reconsider the 
Commission's decision not to require incumbent LECs to provide 
signalling from their tandems in its Tandem Switching Order. The 
Commission explicitly considered and decided against requiring LECs to 
provide tandem-to-tandem interconnection, finding that the costs of 
tandem-to-tandem signalling were not shown to be justified by either 
the benefits of, or demand for, such signalling. Nothing in the record 
on reconsideration persuades us to alter this finding. First, the 
petitioners have not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
demand for this service exists or that this is a viable service. Even 
WilTel admits that the demand for this service is speculative. In 
addition, while some commenters claim that tandem-to-tandem switching 
is necessary to provide ubiquitous service, they do not dispute that 
such a goal may be achieved by collocating at LEC tandems and routing 
traffic from those tandems to their own tandems, using separate trunk 
groups for each IXC. Instead, these commenters argue only in general 
terms that this option is not cost-efficient. Second, petitioners have 
failed to support their claim that the costs associated with tandem-to-
tandem interconnection would be minimal. The LECs claim that they would 
incur significant costs to develop standards and upgrade software to 
provide tandem-to-tandem signalling. While the parties seeking tandem-
to-tandem interconnection urge that the costs associated with such 
interconnection are minimal, they have not provided any precise 
information to support those assertions. On this record, we thus 
conclude that WilTel and ALTS have not met their burden of persuading 
us to reconsider the Commission's earlier decision in the Tandem 
Switching Order.
    5. We note here that the record suggests no reason why carriers 
desiring signalling from LEC tandems cannot obtain that signalling 
through the separate, yet to some extent parallel, interconnection 
requirements mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the 
Commission's subsequent order establishing rules implementing those 
requirements. Sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, obligate 
incumbent LECs to provide interconnection and access to unbundled 
elements, upon request, at any ``technically feasible point.'' As 
explained in the Local Competition Order, the term ``technically 
feasible'' refers solely to technical or operational concerns, rather 
than economic, space, or site considerations.
    6. Finally, we agree with many of the LEC commenters that 
consideration of modification of the Commission's new services test for 
LECs subject to price cap regulation is beyond the scope of this 
proceeding. Such arguments are more properly raised in petitions filed 
regarding individual tariffs, and we therefore decline to consider them 
here. For the reasons discussed, we affirm our decision not to require 
LECs to provide tandem-to-tandem signalling.
    7. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 
4, and 201-205 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 154, and 201-205, It is ordered that the petition for 
reconsideration of the Association for Local Telecommunications 
Services and the petition for reconsideration of WilTel, Inc. Are 
Denied as described.
    8. It is Further Ordered that the Motion to Withdraw Southwestern 
Bell Telephone's Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration is 
granted.
    9. It is Further Ordered that the Motion for Leave to File Late 
Reply of WilTel, Inc. is granted.


[[Page 45958]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-23148 Filed 8-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P