[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