[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1331-1346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-458]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 51

[CC Dockets No. 98-147 and 96-98; FCC 99-355]


Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission

ACTION: Final rule

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts measures to promote the availability of 
competitive broadband xDSL-based services, especially to residential 
and small business customers. This document amends the Commission's 
unbundling rules to require incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access 
to a new network element, the high frequency portion of the local loop. 
This will enable competitive LECs to compete with incumbent LECs to 
provide to consumers xDSL-based services through telephone lines that 
the competitive LECs can share with incumbent LECs. In addition, the 
document adopts spectrum management policies and rules to facilitate 
the competitive deployment of advanced services. These rules will 
significantly benefit the rapid and efficient deployment of xDSL-based 
technologies.

DATES: Effective February 9, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Staci Pies, (202) 418-1580. For 
further information concerning the information collection contained in 
this document, contact Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, 
Room 1A-804, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via 
Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147 and Fourth Report and Order in 
CC Docket 96-98, adopted on November 18, 1999, and released on December 
9, 1999. The complete text of the order is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information 
Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street S.W., Washington, D.C., and 
also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Services (ITS, Inc.), CY-B4000, 445 12th 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. it is also available via the Internet at 
the Commission's home page, http:www.fcc.gov/Common__Carrier/Orders/
1999/fcc99355.doc.

Synopsis of the Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order

I. Introduction

    1. The Commission adopts a Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 
98-147 and Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98, 
(collectively ``Third R&O'') to promote the availability of competitive 
broadband xDSL-based services, especially to residential and small 
business customers. Specifically, the Commission amends the unbundling 
rules to require incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to a new 
network element, the high frequency portion of the local loop. This 
will enable competitive LECs to compete with incumbent LECs to provide 
to consumers xDSL-based services through telephone lines that the 
competitive LECs can share with incumbent LECs. The provision of xDSL-
based service by a competitive LEC and voiceband service by an 
incumbent LEC on the same loop is frequently called ``line sharing.''
    2. In addition, the Commission adopts rules in this Order that 
apply to spectrum compatibility and management. These rules will 
significantly benefit the rapid and efficient deployment of xDSL-based 
technologies. Specifically, the Commission seeks to encourage the 
voluntary development of industry standards while limiting the ability 
of any one class of carriers to impose unilateral and potentially anti-
competitive spectrum management or compatibility rules on other xDSL 
providers. The spectrum policies adopted in this Order will ensure the 
compatibility of technologies and minimize the risk of harmful spectrum 
interference among transmission services. As such, these policies will 
ensure that American consumers will not face undue delay in receiving 
the benefits of technological innovation.

[[Page 1332]]

II. Line Sharing

    3. The Third R&O concludes that the Commission has authority to 
require incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to the high 
frequency spectrum of a local loop pursuant to our authority to 
identify a minimum list of network elements that must be unbundled on a 
nationwide basis. Section 251(c)(3) imposes a duty on all incumbent 
LECs to provide to competitors access to network elements on an 
unbundled basis. The standard for unbundling is set out in section 
251(d)(2). Section 251(d)(2) provides that, in determining which 
network elements should be unbundled under section 251(c)(3), the 
Commission shall consider, ``at a minimum, whether--(A) access to such 
network elements as are proprietary in nature is necessary; and (B) the 
failure to provide access to such network element would impair the 
ability of the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the 
services that it seeks to offer.'' Based on this language the Third R&O 
concludes that the high frequency portion of the loop is a network 
element that must be unbundled pursuant to section 251(c)(3) and 
section 251(d)(2).
    4. Line sharing generally describes the ability of two different 
service providers to offer two services over the same line, with each 
provider employing different frequencies to transport voice or data 
over that line. Section 3(29) of the Act defines a network element as 
``a facility or equipment used in the provision of telecommunications 
services'' including ``features, functions, and capabilities, that are 
provided by means of such facility or equipment.'' The frequencies 
above those used for analog voice services on any loop are a capability 
of that loop. Therefore, those otherwise unused frequencies that can be 
used for xDSL or other applications meet the definition of a ``network 
element.''
    5. Specifically, Secs. 51.307(d) and 51.309(c) of the Commission's 
rules address the requesting carrier's right to loop access. These 
rules provide, respectively, that an incumbent LEC must provide 
competitors with ``access to the facility or functionality of a 
requested network element separate from access to the facility or 
functionality of other network elements.'' The rules also state that a 
requesting carrier is ``entitled to exclusive use'' of an ``unbundled 
network facility.'' Consequently, although the Third R&O concludes that 
to the extent section 251(d) is satisfied requesting carriers may 
access unbundled loop functionalities, such as non-voiceband 
transmission frequencies, separate from other loop functions, they are 
also ``entitled,'' at their option, to exclusive use of the entire 
unbundled loop facility.
    6. High Frequency Loop Spectrum. The Third R&O concludes that 
access to the high frequency spectrum of a local loop meets the 
statutory definition of a network element and satisfies the 
requirements of sections 251(d)(2) and (c)(3). It is technically 
feasible for an incumbent LEC to provide a competitive LEC with access 
to the high frequency portion of the local loop as an unbundled network 
element. An incumbent LEC's failure to provide access impairs the 
ability of a competitive LEC to offer, on a competitive basis, certain 
forms of xDSL-based service that are capable of line sharing with voice 
services. The Third R&O finds that lack of access to the high frequency 
portion of the local loop would materially raise competitive LECs' cost 
of providing xDSL-based service to residential and small business 
users, delaying broad facilities-based market entry, and materially 
limiting the scope and quality of competitors' service offerings. It 
finds that access to the high frequency portion of the loop encourages 
the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all 
Americans as mandated by section 706 of the 1996 Act. Because some 
residential and small business markets may lack the economic 
characteristics that would support competitive entry in the absence of 
access to the high frequency spectrum of a local loop, it is clear that 
spectrum unbundling is crucial for the deployment of broadband services 
to the mass consumer market.
    7. The Third R&O defines the high frequency spectrum network 
element to be the frequency range above the voiceband on a copper loop 
facility used to carry analog circuit-switched voiceband transmissions. 
The Third R&O does not mandate a particular technological approach to 
the use of a line for multiple services. Line sharing relies on rapidly 
evolving technology and our requirement that incumbent LECs provide the 
high frequency spectrum of a local loop as an unbundled network element 
should stimulate technological innovation. The Third R&O does not set a 
specific dividing line between the low frequency channel and a high 
frequency channel on the loop.
    8. The Third R&O supports the use of any transmission technology 
that is presumed acceptable for shared-line deployment with analog 
voice service according to the criteria already identified in the First 
R&O 14 FR Rcd 4761 (1999), 63 FR 44220 August 18, 1998, and codified in 
the Third R&O.
    9. The Third R&O finds that there are no proprietary concerns 
associated with unbundled access to the high frequency spectrum of the 
local loop. It finds that there are no copyright, patent, or trade 
secrecy implications to unbundled access to the high frequency spectrum 
UNE. Carriers do not generally rely upon loop spectrum to differentiate 
themselves from their competitors. Thus, the high frequency spectrum is 
not proprietary
    10. The Third R&O concludes that a lack of access to high frequency 
spectrum of a local loop impairs a competitive carrier's ability to 
offer certain forms of xDSL-based service. Just as the loop itself 
remains a facility available only from an incumbent LEC, so too is a 
competitor seeking to offer certain xDSL-based services impaired if it 
does not have access to the high frequency spectrum of the local loop 
available from an incumbent LEC.
    11. Section 251 requires incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access 
to a network element where lack of access impairs the ability of the 
requesting carrier to provide the services that it seeks to offer. The 
Third R&O finds that most xDSL lines have been deployed to residential 
or small business consumers, and incumbent LECs provide service on the 
vast majority of these lines where their xDSL-based service shares the 
line with their voice service. Incumbent LECs generally deploy forms of 
xDSL-based services that can coexist with voice service on a single 
line. This enables incumbent LECs to utilize the full capacity of the 
copper local loop to efficiently provide both voice and data service to 
a customer. Competitive LECs seeking to deploy xDSL-based service to 
customers subscribing to the incumbent LEC's voice telephone service 
cannot deploy their xDSL with the same efficiency or at the same cost. 
Incumbent LECs currently do not permit competitive LECs to access the 
high frequency portion of the loop to provide xDSL-based services, even 
though the incumbent LECs utilize the high frequency portion of the 
loop to deploy their own services. This situation materially diminishes 
the competitive LEC's ability to provide the particular type of xDSL-
based service that it seeks to offer.
    12. In contrast, the Third R&O finds that competitors are not 
impaired where they seek to deploy those versions of xDSL-based 
services that require a dedicated local loop, such as SDSL or HDSL, 
because they can procure unbundled loops to deploy such service. For 
larger business users, competitive

[[Page 1333]]

and incumbent LECs have to date maintained a degree of competitive 
parity, acquiring similar customer volumes. The larger business market 
tends to favor robust, high-capacity, symmetrical forms of xDSL, such 
as SDSL. These types of xDSL are not compatible with voice service 
provided over the same line in a line sharing arrangement, because they 
utilize the whole loop frequency spectrum. Thus, both incumbent and 
competitive LECs must deploy these forms of xDSL over dedicated loops. 
Comparable levels of market penetration between incumbent and 
competitive LECs indicates that competitive LECs are not impaired where 
they can procure unbundled loops to provide these services.
    13. The Third R&O concludes that carriers seeking to deploy voice-
compatible xDSL-based services cannot self-provision loops. The Third 
R&O also concludes purchasing or self-provisioning a second loop is not 
possible as a practical, operational or economic matter. First, second 
loops are not ubiquitously available. Refusing to unbundle the high 
frequency portion of the loop in this situation forecloses competitive 
access to the segment of consumers that lack additional copper pairs to 
their homes or small businesses. Where a customer premises is only 
addressed by one copper loop, or where end users have exhausted the 
facilities that serve them by installing multiple phone, modem, and fax 
lines, end users will have no additional facilities available at their 
premises which a competitive xDSL service provider could use to provide 
service. In those situations, competitive xDSL service providers are 
precluded from providing the services they seek to offer, and consumers 
are deprived of the benefits of competition. This is particularly a 
problem in rural areas, where spare copper facilities are less common. 
Without a requirement that the incumbent LEC must provide competitors 
with access to the high frequency portion of these loops, only the 
voice service provider that already controls the entire loop can 
provide xDSL-based service to that customer. In virtually all cases, 
this provider will be the incumbent LEC. Thus, lack of access to the 
high frequency portion of the loop reduces the efficient use of 
existing loop plant and diminishes the scope of potential customers to 
whom competitive LECs can market xDSL-based service, thereby limiting 
the competitive choices available to consumers for whom additional 
copper loops are not available. In addition, such lack of access can 
accelerate the depletion of copper loops in entire communities, 
necessitating inefficient capital expenditures that will increase costs 
imposed on consumers and competitors alike. Even if there are spare 
pairs in the ``drop'' to a home or business, there are not 
corresponding pairs in the feeder plant connecting the neighborhood to 
the central office.
    14. Second, the Third R&O concludes that if competitive LECs were 
to purchase or self-provision a second unbundled loop to provide voice-
compatible xDSL-based services, their provisioning of service would be 
materially more costly, and coincidentally less efficient, than 
purchasing the unbundled high-frequency portion of the loop. The 
inability of competing carriers to provide xDSL-based services over the 
same loop facilities that the incumbents use to provide local exchange 
service makes the provision of competitive xDSL-based services to 
customers that want a single line for both voice and data 
applications--typically small businesses and mass market residential 
consumers--not just marginally more expensive, but so prohibitively 
expensive that competitive LECs will not be able to provide such 
services on a sustained economic basis. Accordingly, a requesting 
carrier providing voice-compatible xDSL-based services is impaired 
without access to the unbundled high frequency portion of the loop.
    15. Specifically, incumbent LECs refuse to permit competitive LECs 
to deploy xDSL-based service to their customers on the same customer 
loops through which incumbents provide voice services, although 
incumbents regularly deploy both services on the same loop. As a 
result, a competitive LEC providing xDSL to a customer subscribing to 
an incumbent LEC's voice service must provide a second customer loop 
for the customer's xDSL service, effectively doubling the line access 
charges for that customer's voice and xDSL services, and providing a 
distinct cost advantage to incumbent LEC-provided xDSL products. The 
Third R&O finds that the combined collocation and unbundled loop costs, 
exclusive of incremental and fixed network, equipment, and overhead 
costs, incurred by a competitive LEC seeking to deploy xDSL service can 
exceed 100% of the retail price for the comparable shared-line xDSL 
that the incumbent offers to the same customer that the competitor is 
vying for. It also finds that incumbents charge requesting carriers 
almost as much or more, on a monthly basis, for an unbundled, 
conditioned loop, as the incumbent charges its retail customers for 
xDSL service. This price discrepancy between what an incumbent can 
charge its customer for its own shared-line xDSL and what a competitor 
must pay to the incumbent just to gain access to that customer 
materially diminishes the ability of the competitive carrier to offer 
voice-compatible xDSL-based services in competition with incumbent LEC.
    16. The Third R&O finds that it is not economical for competitive 
LECs to self-provision or purchase the entire loop as a second line 
just to obtain access to the high frequency portion of the loop. 
Incumbent LECs generally allocate virtually all loop costs to their 
voice services, then deploy a voice-compatible xDSL service such as 
ADSL on the same loop, allocating little or no incremental loop costs 
to the new resulting service. In contrast, when the competitive LEC 
procures a second loop, it must pay the incumbent LEC the full price of 
that unbundled loop as an unbundled network element. The cost of that 
additional loop often accounts for 30 to 50% of the competitor's total 
cost of providing service. Thus, the incumbent LEC's voice-compatible 
xDSL service enjoys substantial cost advantages over a competitive 
LEC's xDSL offerings.
    17. Third, the Order finds that a competitive carrier faces a 
competitive disadvantage in providing xDSL over a second line when 
competing against the incumbent's single line offering. The incumbent 
is able to market its own service to customers as a quick and 
convenient add-on service, while the competitive carrier must persuade 
the customer to purchase a second line. In comparison, consumers that 
desire to obtain xDSL service from competitive LECs must encounter 
complications and expenses, including the need to arrange for a 
technician to install service, that do not arise if they procure the 
exact same service from the incumbent LEC. Providing competitive LECs 
with access to the high frequency portion of the loop would remove that 
additional burden from consumers that prefer to obtain xDSL service 
from competitors.
    18. The Third R&O is not inconsistent with the Commission's 
decision to decline to unbundle packet switching. Self-provisioning 
switches is vastly easier, less expensive, less time consuming, less 
complicated, and less risky than self-provisioning the outside plant 
that constitutes the ubiquitous loop network. There can be little 
dispute that requesting carriers have not duplicated the incumbent 
LEC's ubiquitous loop plant and generally are not providing service 
with competitive loop facilities.

[[Page 1334]]

    19. The Third R&O concludes that if competitive LECs were to 
provide voice service in addition to xDSL-based service, they would be 
impaired in their ability to provide the data services they seek to 
offer. First, concluding that competitive LECs should be able to 
provide voice service on the customer's first line would impose on 
requesting carriers all of the cost and operational issues associated 
with providing circuit-switched voice services. To the extent the 
competitive carrier invests in its own switching facilities, it would 
face cost and operational impairments associated with collocation and 
the coordinated cutover process. Competitive carriers providing voice 
service would also incur the costs of providing E911 service and number 
portability.
    20. Furthermore, the Third R&O finds that requiring competitive 
LECs to provide voice services could require large investments in 
circuit switching network architectures that may have little to do with 
a requesting carrier's intention to offer advanced data services. 
Investments in circuit switched networks may only be justified by 
carriers that have attained sufficient scale and scope economies to 
justify deploying large-scale circuit switched networks. For other 
entrants, requiring this investment diverts financial resources and 
management focus away from competitive LECs' ability to offer advanced 
services and frustrates a requesting carrier's plan to migrate 
telecommunication services from circuit switched to packet switched 
networks. Frustrating the development of packet switched networks 
capable of bringing advanced telecommunications capability to all 
Americans is wholly inconsistent with the goals of section 706 of the 
1996 Act and the deployment of efficient networks.
    21. The Third R&O finds that despite its ability to purchase 
transmission facilities from the incumbent to provide voice service, a 
competitor is still impaired if it must provide analog voice service in 
order to enter the market for voice-compatible xDSL services. There are 
additional costs associated with being a provider of voice service than 
the cost of the circuit switches. In particular, a competitive carrier 
would need to develop marketing, billing, and customer care 
infrastructure designed to service the needs of its voice customers. In 
addition, competitive LECs seeking to enter the traditional voice 
services market must deploy sales and marketing forces, and invest in 
creating a recognizable brand. To compete against incumbent LECs that 
have a long history providing voice services, competitors must overcome 
the substantial goodwill, experience and market power of the incumbent 
LECs. These factors make it a considerable challenge for competitive 
LECs to motivate a consumer to adopt a new local exchange provider that 
offers much the same service that the consumer already receives from 
the incumbent LEC.
    22. The Third R&O finds that competitive LECs would be impaired 
even if they attempted to provide multi-service offerings including 
voice-compatible xDSL services. In addition, it is likely that 
competitive market entry would take longer to accomplish because 
competitors would need to develop all of these additional capabilities. 
To be sure, competitive LECs may well decide to diversify their 
offerings at some point in the future. But such action should occur in 
response to marketplace forces, not regulatory fiat. To conclude 
otherwise would be to ignore the statutory directive in section 
251(d)(2) that requires the Commission to consider whether a requesting 
carrier is impaired ``to provide the services that it seeks to offer.''
    23. The Third R&O's unbundling analysis acknowledges that 
requesting carriers may address the impairment they face in the absence 
of line sharing by capturing their own efficiencies and offering 
integrated or innovative product offerings to customers. For example, 
in the absence of line sharing, requesting carriers could offer 
multiple services, such as voice and data, over a single loop to 
capture the additional revenues associated with local and long distance 
voice services. Alternatively, requesting carriers could offer 
innovative bundles of services to customers to counter an incumbent LEC 
who provides voice and data services on a single loop. The unbundling 
analysis, however, favors an analytical approach that considers the 
totality of the circumstances a requesting carrier will face, rather 
than a specific business case analysis, to determine whether lack of 
access to particular network elements materially diminishes a 
requesting carrier's ability to provide the services it seeks to offer. 
The Third R&O does not rely upon the presence of a particular 
innovative business plan as a response to whether a requesting carrier 
is impaired because of the variety and difficulty of predicting the 
success of such a plan. The Third R&O concludes that a requesting 
carrier's ability to spread the costs of a loop between multiple 
services fully addresses a requesting carrier's impairment without 
access to line sharing.
    24. The Third R&O concludes that requesting carriers are not 
presently obtaining the high frequency portion of the loop from third-
party sources rather than from an incumbent LEC under the section 
251(c) unbundling obligation.
    25. The Third R&O states that the Commission will reexamine the 
national list of network elements that are subject to the unbundling 
obligations of the Act every three years.
    26. The Third R&O concludes that there are no bona fide issues of 
technical feasibility with regard to line sharing. The local loop can 
support transmissions on a wide range of frequencies. Analog voice 
service occurs on the lower ``voiceband'' frequency range, at least 
between 300 Hertz and 3,000 Hertz, and possibly up to 3,400 Hertz 
depending on equipment and facilities. Some forms of xDSL, such as ADSL 
use a higher frequency range, generally above 20,000 Hertz, that does 
not interfere with voiceband transmissions. xDSL services that do not 
use the voiceband frequency range can ``share'' a copper loop with 
voiceband services, such as POTS, without impairing the performance of 
either service. Therefore, the customer purchasing the xDSL service may 
continue to receive analog circuit-switched POTS from the incumbent 
LEC.
    27. xDSL service can be added to a local loop that is being used 
for ``traditional'' voice service by deploying special equipment at 
each end of the subscribing customer's local loop. Specifically, 
passive signal filters, or ``splitters,'' are installed at each end of 
the customer's loop to accomplish this operation. One splitter is 
installed at the customer's premises, and another at the central office 
or remote terminal. A splitter bifurcates the digital and voiceband 
signals concurrently traversing the local loop, directing the voiceband 
signals through a pair of copper wires to the Class 5 switch, and 
directing the digital traffic though another pair of copper wires to a 
DSLAM attached to the packet-switched network.
    28. The Third R&O finds that incumbents that provide their own xDSL 
services on the same line that they are providing analog voice service 
are utilizing the single copper pair in the same manner as if the 
incumbent's voice service shared the line with a competitive carrier's 
data service. Accordingly, the Third R&O requires incumbent LECs to 
provide access to the high frequency portion of the loop based on the 
criteria for presumed acceptability for deployment on shared lines. By 
requiring conformance with this criteria, the Third R&O ensures that 
competitive LECs utilize technology that

[[Page 1335]]

does not interfere with analog voice frequencies.
    29. Voice-Compatible Forms of xDSL. The Third R&O requires 
incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to the high frequency 
portion of the loop to any carrier that seeks to deploy any version of 
xDSL that is presumed to be acceptable for shared-line deployment in 
accordance with Commission rules. xDSL technologies that meet this 
presumption include ADSL, as well as Rate-Adaptive DSL and Multiple 
Virtual Lines (MVL) transmission systems, all of which reserve the 
voiceband frequency range for non-DSL traffic. Among these, ADSL is the 
most widely deployed version of xDSL that is currently presumed 
acceptable for deployment on a shared line. Because line sharing as 
contemplated in the Third R&O can occur only on lines that carry 
traditional analog voiceband service, lines that are not used for these 
services could not be shared.
    30. Incumbent Remains the Voice Carrier. The Third R&O does not 
require incumbents to provide unbundled access to carriers seeking just 
the data portion of an otherwise unoccupied loop (often referred to as 
a ``dry loop.'') In the event that the customer terminates its 
incumbent LEC provided voice service, for whatever reason, the 
competitive data LEC is required to purchase the full stand-alone loop 
network element if it wishes to continue providing xDSL service. 
Similarly, incumbent carriers are not required to provide line sharing 
to requesting carriers that are purchasing a combination of network 
elements known as the platform. In that circumstance, the incumbent no 
longer is the voice provider to the customer.
    31. Single Requesting Carrier, One Customer Per Loop. The Third R&O 
defines the unbundling obligations to permit only a single competitor 
to share the line with the incumbent. Moreover, the Third R&O does not 
establish multiple customer line sharing requirements.
    32. Control of the Loop and Splitter Functionality. The Third R&O 
concludes that, subject to certain obligations, incumbent LECs may 
maintain control over the loop and splitter equipment and functions. 
Incumbent LEC seeking to maintain control of the splitter must promptly 
accommodate, in response to a competitive LEC request to do so, any 
line sharing technology that meets the deployment criteria established 
in this proceeding. It finds that incumbent LECs will not delay their 
actions to procure the necessary equipment, and will inform the 
requesting carrier of what action it takes, and when the equipment can 
be installed. It should take no longer to obtain and install such 
equipment in response to a competitive LEC's request than it would take 
the incumbent to procure and install the same equipment for itself. Any 
failure to make this accommodation in a reasonably prompt manner would 
constitute a violation of the incumbent LEC's section 251 unbundling 
obligations.
    33. The Third R&O finds that if a state commission finds that an 
incumbent has unreasonably refused to accommodate the competitive LEC's 
preferred technology or requested equipment upgrades in a prompt 
fashion, the state commission may authorize the competitive LEC to 
purchase and collocate its own splitter, whether or not incorporated 
into the DSLAM. The incumbent LEC would then receive the voiceband 
signal by connecting to the competitive LEC's collocated splitter. 
Alternatively, the state commission may authorize the competitive LEC 
to purchase a splitter that complies with the deployment standards we 
adopt in this Order, and transfer that splitter to the incumbent. Where 
the competitive LEC obtains some degree of control over the splitter, 
the state commission should ensure that the integrity of the incumbent 
LEC's voice transmission's passing through the competitive LEC's 
equipment and do not interfere with the performance of the incumbent 
LEC's central office and network equipment.
    34. Line Sharing Does Not Impede Incumbent LECs' Ability to Manage 
the Loop Plant. The findings in the Third R&O do no restrain the 
incumbent LEC, in the course of normal loop plant maintenance and 
improvement activities, from migrating customers from copper to fiber 
loop facilities. Where such activity takes place, however, the 
competitor may be required to forego access to only the high frequency 
portion of the loop serving that customer, and may have to obtain 
access to the entire unbundled copper loop or find another alternative 
to maintain service.
    35. The Third R&O concludes that, except in specific circumstances, 
incumbent LECs must condition loops to enable requesting carriers to 
provide xDSL-based services on the same loops the incumbent is 
providing analog voice service, regardless of loop length. 
Specifically, the incumbent LEC is required to remove bridge taps, 
filters, range extenders, and similar devices where a competitive 
carrier requests unbundled access to the high frequency portion of the 
local loop. Incumbent LECs are required to condition loops of any 
length for which competing carriers have requested line sharing, unless 
conditioning of that loop will significantly degrade the incumbent's 
voice service as described below. It concludes, however, that if 
conditioning a particular loop for shared-line xDSL will significantly 
degrade that customer's analog voice service, incumbent LECs are not 
required to condition that loop for shared-line xDSL.
    36. The Third R&O requires that the incumbent refusing a 
competitive carrier's request to condition a loop make an affirmative 
showing to the relevant state commission that conditioning the specific 
loop in question will significantly degrade voiceband services. The 
incumbent LEC must also show that there is no adjacent or alternative 
loop available that can be conditioned or to which the customer's 
service can be moved to enable line sharing.
    37. The Third R&O concludes that incumbent LECs should be able to 
charge for conditioning loops when competitors request the high 
frequency portion of the loop. The conditioning charges for shared 
lines, however, should never exceed the charges incumbent LECs are 
permitted to recover for similar conditioning on stand-alone loops for 
xDSL services. Accordingly, the Third R&O concludes that if the 
incumbent LEC seeks compensation from the requesting carrier for line 
conditioning activities, or such activity will cause substantial loop 
provisioning delays, the requesting carrier has the option of refusing, 
in whole, or in part, to have the line conditioned. A requesting 
carrier refusing some or all aspects of line conditioning will not, 
however, lose its right of access to the high frequency portion of the 
loop.
    38. The Third R&O concludes that incumbents must provide unbundled 
access to the high frequency portion of the loop at the remote terminal 
as well as the central office. It applies a rebuttable presumption that 
for carriers requesting unbundled access to the high frequency portion 
of the loop, the subloop can be unbundled at any accessible terminal in 
the outside loop plant. Where the parties are unable to forge an 
agreement to facilitate line sharing where the customer is served by a 
loop passing through a DLC, the incumbent carrier bears the burden of 
demonstrating to the relevant state commission, in the course of a 
section 252 proceeding, that it is not technically feasible to unbundle 
the subloop to provide access to the high frequency portion of the 
loop.

[[Page 1336]]

    39. The Third R&O concludes that incumbent LECs have the capability 
to accommodate the provisioning of the high frequency portion of the 
loop as a network element. Where incumbent LECs provide shared-loop 
xDSL services to their voice customers, either through their own 
subsidiaries or in cooperation with an unaffiliated ISP, the incumbent 
must resolve many of the same problems that they claim stand in the way 
of providing competitors with access to the high frequency portion of 
the loop.
    40. Service Ordering. The Third R&O concludes that the type of 
effort required for incumbent LECs to establish appropriate line 
sharing ordering practices is incremental in nature, and does not 
require a major development initiative. The OSS capabilities required 
for incumbent LEC provision of shared-line xDSL services are 
substantially similar to the OSS capabilities required for competitive 
LEC provision of shared-line xDSL services, and could be easily adapted 
to support unbundled access to the high frequency portion of the loop 
network element.
    41. The record shows that while changes to the existing fields on 
the UNE order form/electronic order formats may appropriately involve 
the OBF for coordination and standardization, incumbents already have 
made interim modifications to accommodate their own ADSL products. 
Thus, we conclude that the interim arrangements that the incumbents use 
for themselves can be extended to competitive carriers as well.
    42. A key ordering system function is establishing the records 
necessary for customer service, trouble management, billing, and 
inventory functions. The Third R&O observes that the incumbent LECs 
already use two circuit or service numbers to track their own shared-
line xDSL services: (1) the existing telephone number to identify the 
voice service; and (2) a circuit number to identify the xDSL service 
sharing the line. It concludes that incumbent LECs can extend this 
practice to accommodate two-carrier shared line access to the high 
frequency portion of the loop network element. Specifically, incumbent 
LECs can identify a line shared with a competitive LEC by cross-
referencing a circuit number with the POTS telephone number. Possible 
methods for establishing this cross-reference include embedding the 
telephone number in the incumbent-assigned circuit number or the 
customer-assigned circuit number, adding it as a cross-reference to the 
existing account number, making a notation in the remarks field, or by 
establishing a new field and field identifier (FID). An incumbent LEC 
could create two internal orders from a competitive LEC's order for 
access to the high frequency portion of the local loop submitted using 
the incumbent's UNE ordering process. In that case, one order would be 
used to establish the requesting carrier's access to the high frequency 
loop spectrum, and the other would be a record-type order to add line 
sharing indicators to the customer's analog voice service account and 
records. This system resembles those used for ``from'' and ``to'' 
orders to accommodate customers that change their address but want to 
retain the same telephone number, as well as the system that incumbents 
employ to respond to a customer's change to a competitive local service 
provider.
    43. Provisioning. The Third R&O does not require incumbents to 
provide access to the high frequency portion of the loop for multiple 
competitive carriers. It finds that incumbents will use much the same 
inventory functionality to inventory unbundled access to the high 
frequency portion of the loop whether for the purposes of providing 
access to that network element to their competitors, or for themselves. 
Otherwise, incumbents would have to undertake substantial rebuilds to 
accommodate their own shared-line xDSL service offerings.
    44. The Third R&O concludes that the capabilities already exist in 
the Loop Facilities and Assignment Control System (LFACS) to inventory 
and assign two services on one loop, and that with minor modifications, 
incumbent LECs can easily use existing capabilities to inventory 
services on a shared line. In light of the apparent availability of OSS 
modifications that will satisfy incumbent LEC inventory needs, there is 
no justification to withhold requesting carrier's access to the high 
frequency portion of the loop while OSS modifications are implemented 
to allow carriers to order line sharing through electronic interfaces. 
The Third R&O urges the state commissions not to permit incumbent LECs 
to delay the availability of access to the high frequency portion of 
the loop while they implement automated OSS solutions, or to attribute 
an unreasonable portion of incumbent LEC OSS development costs to our 
spectrum unbundling requirements. The Third R&O expressly makes no 
judgment, however, that such non-automated measures would constitute 
nondiscriminatory access to OSS interfaces for the purposes of section 
271 of the Act. It notes that a failure to implement OSS modifications 
within the time frame we contemplate in this Order could be grounds for 
finding that a BOC is not providing nondiscriminatory access to 
unbundled network elements under section 271 of the Act.
    45. Billing. The Third R&O finds that there is likely to be little, 
if any, billing system impact resulting from the provision of unbundled 
access to the high frequency portion of the loop.
    46. Maintenance, Repair, and Testing. The Third R&O concludes that 
current industry methods and procedures for customer service, line 
maintenance, and service quality assurance can largely accommodate the 
demands of line sharing between competitive LECs and incumbent LECs.
    47. First, the Third R&O finds that the customer must be informed 
that testing on one of their services will impact the other service 
sharing the customer's line. The Third R&O finds that either the 
incumbent or competitive LEC's customer service operations can provide 
sufficient customer education on this issue.
    48. The second loop testing issue, however, is more complex. 
Specifically, both the incumbent and competitive LEC must have access 
to the shared loop facility for testing, maintenance, and repair 
activities. Assuming that the competitive LEC owns the DSLAM and 
installs it in its collocation space in the incumbent LEC end office or 
remote terminal, a splitter is required to isolate and direct the voice 
service to the incumbent LEC voice switch and the xDSL service to the 
competitive LEC's DSLAM. This splitter will likely be installed between 
the MDF and the other central office equipment. In this configuration, 
the incumbent LEC retains testing access to the outside part of the 
loop through the voice switch. The competitive LEC, however, can only 
access the high frequency portion of the loop at its DSLAM. This 
precludes the competitive LEC from engaging in certain important types 
of loop testing that require the competitive LEC to access the loop's 
whole frequency range. The ability to perform this type of loop testing 
is important for installation, maintenance, and repair activities in 
both shared and non-shared line situations.
    49. The Third R&O requires that incumbent LECs must provide 
requesting carriers with access to the loop facility for testing, 
maintenance, and repair activities. We require that, at a minimum, 
incumbents must provide requesting carriers with loop access either 
through a cross-connection at the competitor's collocation space, or 
through a standardized interface

[[Page 1337]]

designed for to provide physical access for testing purposes. Such 
access must be provided in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner. 
An incumbent seeking to utilize an alternative physical access 
methodology may request approval to do so from the state commission, 
but must show that the proposed alternative method is reasonable, 
nondiscriminatory, and will not disadvantage a requesting carrier's 
ability to perform loop or service testing, maintenance, or repair. We 
stress that incumbents may not use their control over loop testing 
access points and mechanisms for anti-competitive or discriminatory 
purposes, and that we will remain attentive and ready to respond to any 
reported anti-competitive incidents relating to competitive LEC access 
to loop testing mechanisms.
    50. Customer Service, Troubleshooting, and Repair. The Third R&O 
finds that maintenance, repair, and testing concerns can be handled by 
utilizing similar methods and procedures to those that incumbent LECs 
are implementing for the ordering and provisioning of other unbundled 
network elements. Specifically, it finds that incumbent LECs already 
have methods and procedures in place for the cooperative resolution of 
trouble and testing problems that arise with competitive LECs, and that 
these methods and procedures can easily be modified to include 
provisions for escalating shared line trouble issues in a manner that 
minimizes customer confusion.
    51. Resolution of Operational Issues. The Third R&O finds that 
incumbent LECs have already modified their OSS systems to accommodate 
their own xDSL products, and that those modifications and those 
required for line sharing are substantially similar. Incumbent LECs can 
adapt expediently existing incumbent OSS systems to handle line sharing 
with a single requesting carrier. The Third R&O also finds that 
incumbent LECs can perform the incremental modifications to the 
existing ordering processes required to provide competitive LECs with 
access to the high frequency portion of the loop in an expedient manner 
and at modest expense. It finds that in the absence of fully automated 
OSS interfaces, incumbent LECs have a variety of means available with 
which they can accommodate competitive LEC orders for the unbundled 
high frequency portion of the local loop, including the use of manual 
overrides of their current UNE ordering methods and procedures. 
Accordingly, the Third R&O urges requesting carriers and incumbent LECs 
to engage in a collaborative process at the regional level to develop 
solutions to incumbent LEC provision of shared line access.
    52. The Third R&O does not identify or require incumbent LECs to 
make specific OSS methods and procedures, or facilities changes, and it 
does not prejudge whether specific OSS functionalities are necessary to 
fulfill an incumbent LEC's nondiscrimination duty. The Third R&O finds 
that incumbent LECs should be able to develop and implement the 
majority of systems modifications necessary to provide access to the 
higher frequency portion of the loop 180 days from release of this 
order. There are alternatives, to those system modifications that can 
not be implemented in 180 days, and these alternatives can be deployed 
in six months. Thus, the Third R&O concludes that incumbent LECs should 
be able to implement system changes necessary to provide requesting 
carriers with nondiscriminatory access to the high frequency portion of 
the local loop within 180 days from release of the order.
    53. The Third R&O finds that there are five types of direct costs 
that an incumbent LEC potentially could incur to provide access to line 
sharing: (1) loops; (2) OSS; (3) cross connects; (4) splitters; and (5) 
line conditioning.
    54. Local Loop. The Third R&O concludes that in arbitrations and in 
setting interim prices, states may require that incumbent LECs charge 
no more to competitive LECs for access to shared local loops than the 
amount of loop costs the incumbent LEC allocated to ADSL services when 
it established its interstate retail rates for those services.
    55. OSS. The Third R&O finds that incumbent LECs should recover in 
their line sharing charges those reasonable incremental costs of OSS 
modification that are caused by the obligation to provide line sharing 
as an unbundled network element. It also reaffirms that the states may 
require incumbent LECs in an arbitrated agreement to recover such 
nonrecurring costs such as these incremental OSS modification costs 
through recurring charges over a reasonable period of time; and that 
nonrecurring charges must be imposed in an equitable manner among 
entrants.
    56. Cross Connects. The Third R&O finds it reasonable for the 
states to establish a presumption that, where the splitter is located 
within the incumbent LECs' MDF, the cost for a cross connect for entire 
loops and for the high frequency portions of loops should be the same. 
It states that the states should examine carefully any assessment of 
costs for cross connections for xDSL services that are in excess of the 
costs of connecting loops to a competitive LECs' collocated facilities 
where the splitter is located within the MDF. If the splitter is not 
located within the incumbent LEC's MDF, however, then the states should 
allow the incumbent LEC to adjust the charge for cross connecting the 
competitive LEC's xDSL equipment to the incumbent LECs' facilities to 
reflect any cost differences arising from the different location of the 
splitter, compared to the MDF.
    57. Splitters. The Third R&O concludes that if the incumbent LEC 
purchases for a competitive LEC the same splitter that it uses itself 
for providing xDSL services, then a state may require that it only 
assess the competitive LEC the same amount that it itself pays for a 
delivered splitter. The Third R&O further concludes that a competitive 
LEC, at its option, should be allowed to purchase a splitter that 
complies with industry standards, and transfer it to the incumbent LEC, 
in the event that the competitive LEC can complete the transaction more 
expeditiously or cost effectively than the incumbent LEC. A state may 
also allow the incumbent LEC to include in its rate structure a charge 
to recover the cost of installing the splitters.
    58. Line Conditioning. In order to prevent incumbent LECs from 
charging an excessive price for line conditioning, the Third R&O finds 
that states may require that the conditioning charges for shared lines 
not exceed the charges the incumbent LECs are permitted to recover for 
similar conditioning of stand-alone loops for xDSL services. 
Furthermore, if the incumbent LEC is providing, or has already 
provided, xDSL service over a particular shared loop, a competitive LEC 
should not be charged with any line conditioning costs if it wins that 
customer and seeks access to that shared loop for providing xDSL 
service. Thus, the Third R&O concludes that requiring line sharing and 
pricing it on the basis of TELRIC should not affect the ability of the 
incumbent LEC to recover costs associated with providing voice service.
    59. Effective Date of New Rules. The rules established in the Third 
R&O require that the unbundling of the high frequency portion of the 
loop becomes effective February 9, 2000.
    60. States' Role in Fostering Local Competition Under Sections 251 
and 252. The Third R&O strongly encourages states to issue binding 
interim arbitration awards that would require the incumbent to begin 
provisioning this unbundled network element on interim arbitration 
terms and conditions

[[Page 1338]]

within 180 days of release of the Third R&O. The state interim 
arbitration award would remain in effect until such time as the state 
issues a final award. The Third R&O states that in the event that a 
state commission fails to take action in an arbitration proceeding 
within the nine months prescribed by Congress, the Commission is 
prepared to act promptly, pursuant to section 252(e)(5) and the 
Commission's implementing rules, to issue an order ``preempting the 
State commission's jurisdiction of that proceeding or matter'' and 
thereafter to bring the arbitration to an orderly, expeditious 
conclusion. Furthermore, noting that a few states already have taken 
significant steps toward requiring incumbent LECs in their jurisdiction 
to offer line sharing, the Third R&O emphasizes that the timetable it 
outlines for implementing line sharing on a nationwide basis should be 
viewed as a maximum period for states that have not yet taken any 
actions to make line sharing available, and that the intention is not 
to delay or constrain states that already have undertaken such 
initiatives.
    61. The Third R&O contemplates that such interim arbitration awards 
would incorporate the rules adopted in the Third R&O and be 
sufficiently detailed to permit the incumbent LECs to begin providing 
this new unbundled network element immediately upon the effective date 
of the interim order. The interim arbitration awards, like final 
arbitration awards, should include the price of the high frequency 
portion of the loop based on the pricing guidelines set out in the 
Third R&O. The Third R&O encourages the states, when issuing their 
interim arbitration awards, to set the price for the unbundled high 
frequency portion of the loop at the amount that the incumbent assesses 
in establishing interstate rates for its own competing services.
    62. In addition to arrangements reached through section 252-
negotiation and arbitration procedures, Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) 
may prepare and file with a state commission a statement of generally 
available terms and conditions (SGAT) that they offer to comply with 
the requirements of section 251. Pursuant to section 252(i), 
competitive carriers will be able to obtain access to the high 
frequency portion of the loop at the same rates, terms, and conditions 
offered in any approved interconnection agreement, as well as the BOCs' 
SGATs.
    63. Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith. The Third R&O concludes that 
as part of the incumbent LEC's duty to negotiate in good faith, upon 
commencement of the negotiation process the incumbent LEC immediately 
should make available a representative who has region-wide decision-
making authority to meet with the requesting carrier and any other 
competitive carriers seeking shared line access in the incumbent LEC's 
region at issue.
    64. Guidelines for State Arbitration Awards. The Third R&O 
encourages states to require, in arbitration proceedings, incumbent 
LECs to fulfill requests for line sharing within the same interval the 
incumbent provisions xDSL to its own retail or wholesale customers, 
regardless of whether the incumbent uses an automated or manual 
process. The Third R&O further urges states to adopt provisioning 
intervals for this unbundled network element as part of any arbitration 
award, whether interim or final. Because there are currently no state-
required provisioning intervals for the high frequency portion of the 
loop network element, the Third R&O recommends that states consider a 
standard based on the time required to provision xDSL capable loops. 
Where the incumbent LEC is already providing shared line xDSL service 
to a particular customer, however, the provisioning interval should be 
significantly shorter.
    65. The Third R&O strongly urges the states to adopt an 
implementation schedule that requires an incumbent to begin 
provisioning this network element to requesting carriers no later than 
45 days after the issuance of an arbitration award. Finally, the Third 
R&O encourages states to establish penalties for failure to meet 
provisioning intervals as part of any arbitration award.

III. Spectrum Policy

    66. Standards-Setting Entities. The Third R&O reiterates the 
Commission's general belief that industry standards bodies can, and 
should, create acceptable standards for deployment of xDSL-based and 
other advanced services. Despite the neutrality and openness principles 
embedded in the standards setting processes of standards body T1E1.4, 
however, several parties continue to express concerns that T1E1.4 is 
dominated by incumbent LECs and that, as a result, standards setting is 
delayed and deployment of certain technologies particularly favored by 
competitive LECs is precluded. Thus, the Third R&O concludes that the 
Commission is compelled to play a role in standards development, and 
that the standards setting process must include the involvement of a 
third party to advise the Commission on spectrum compatibility 
standards and spectrum management practices. Specifically, the charter 
of an existing Federal Advisory Committee, the Network Reliability and 
Interoperability Council (NRIC), will be amended to charge NRIC with 
such an advisory function.
    67. NRIC V is requested to provide initial recommendations for 
resolution of spectrum compatibility and management issues to the 
Commission within 150 days from the establishment date of NRIC V. 
Moreover, NRIC is expected to submit reports to the Commission on 
standards and practices development issues as further deemed necessary 
by NRIC or the Commission and, in any event, promptly after NRIC has 
received appropriate input from industry standards bodies.
    68. The Third R&O anticipates that NRIC will receive the majority 
of input from, and monitor most closely, the work of T1E1.4 with 
respect to developing spectrum compatibility standards, and with 
respect to fair and open practices for the deployment of advanced 
services technologies. The Third R&O emphasizes, however, that NRIC 
will be open to, and will consider submissions from, any appropriate 
industry standards body. Through the recommendations and reports that 
the Commission receives from NRIC, the Commission will evaluate whether 
T1E1.4 and other industry standards bodies are acting in a manner 
consistent with the policies that the Commission has determined should 
underlie spectrum compatibility standards-setting and formation of 
spectrum management rules and practices. Should the Commission find 
that certain industry standards bodies are adopting spectrum 
compatibility standards or spectrum management practices that continue 
to fail, in their underlying processes, in safeguarding principles of 
competitive neutrality and promoting innovation, the Commission will 
look to other industry standards bodies that uphold these principles, 
or the Commission will exercise its authority to assume the standards-
setting function itself.
    69. Mechanisms for Demonstrating Spectrum Compatibility. In the 
first order in this proceeding (Advanced Services First Report and 
Order, 14 FCC Rcd 4761 (1999)), the Commission sought comment on the 
best means to address spectrum compatibility. The Third R&O declines to 
adopt a federal rule mandating the use of either generic PSD masks or a 
calculation-based approach. Instead, it defers to the conclusions to be 
reached by industry standards-setting bodies on this issue.
    70. Notwithstanding the Commission's abstention from adopting a 
federal rule governing methods for defining spectrum compatibility, the 
Third R&O observes that the use both of

[[Page 1339]]

generic PSD masks and a calculation-based approach appear to be the 
best means to address spectrum compatibility for purposes of spurring 
competition.
    71. Conditions for Acceptability of a Loop Technology for 
Deployment. The Advanced Services First Report and Order concluded 
that, ``until long-term standards and practices can be established,'' a 
loop technology should be presumed acceptable for deployment under any 
one of several circumstances. These circumstances include that the 
technology: (1) Complies with existing industry standards; (2) is 
approved by an industry standards body, the Commission, or any state 
commission; or (3) has been successfully deployed by any carrier 
without ``significantly degrading'' the performance of other services. 
The Third R&O codifies these presumptions and clarifies certain aspects 
of them.
    72. The Third R&O reaffirms the conclusion from the Advanced 
Services First Report and Order that ADSL, HDSL, and ISDN services are 
presumed acceptable for deployment on fully unbundled loops where they 
comply with any one of certain enumerated standards. Similarly, in 
accordance with the second and third criteria outlined above, the Third 
R&O declares SDSL to be presumed acceptable for deployment. This 
finding, however, is limited to presuming SDSL acceptable for 
deployment on a fully unbundled loop. The Third R&O does not establish 
a presumption that SDSL is acceptable for deployment on a shared loop.
    73. The Third R&O concludes that a competing carrier's use of the 
calculation-based method for demonstrating spectrum compatibility, as a 
prelude in most cases to initial deployment of a technology, should go 
far towards allaying the concerns of some commenters over risks of 
interference to the network from the deployment of a technology that 
was successfully deployed elsewhere. The LEC also will be able to rebut 
the presumption of acceptability before a state commission if the 
technology proposed for deployment poses a real interference threat in 
a certain area.
    74. Consistent with the information disclosure requirements that 
were applied to incumbent LECs in the Advanced Services First Report 
and Order, the Third R&O finds that competitive LECs must provide to 
incumbent LECs information on the type of technology that they seek to 
deploy. The Third R&O concludes further that competitive LECs must 
provide this information in notifying the incumbent LEC of any proposed 
change in advanced services technology that the carrier uses on the 
loop.
    75. The Third R&O reaffirms the subjective definition of 
``significantly degrade'' that was adopted in the Advanced Services 
First Report and Order, namely, ``an action that noticeably impairs a 
service from a user's perspective.'' The Third R&O reiterates that 
where a carrier claims that a deployed service is significantly 
degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional 
voice band services, that carrier must notify the deploying carrier and 
allow the deploying carrier a reasonable opportunity to correct the 
problem. Any claims of network harm presented to the deploying entity 
or, if subsequently necessary, the relevant state commission, must be 
supported with specific and verifiable corroborating information.
    76. The Third R&O confirms that an incumbent LEC need not act as 
the initial point of contact in all service degradation disputes. 
Instead, the carrier that believes its services are being significantly 
degraded should notify the causing carrier when the carrier 
experiencing degradation knows with certainty the identity of the 
causing carrier. The Third R&O recognizes that a carrier whose services 
are being degraded may not know the precise cause of the degradation 
and thus may not know which carrier to contact for corrective action. 
In this circumstance, the carrier experiencing service degradation must 
notify each carrier that may have caused or contributed to the 
degradation, including, where applicable, the incumbent LEC. Where the 
carrier experiencing service degradation does not know which carriers 
share the binder group or have deployed services in an adjacent binder 
group, it should request that the incumbent LEC provide it with the 
relevant contact information for those other carriers.
    77. The Third R&O reaffirms and codifies the policy enunciated in 
the Advanced Services First Report and Order 63 FR 4420 August 18, 
1998, to guide states in the resolution of interference disputes. 
Specifically, where a LEC demonstrates that a deployed technology is 
significantly degrading the performance of other advanced services or 
traditional voice band services, ``the carrier deploying the technology 
shall discontinue deployment of that technology and migrate its 
customers to technologies that will not significantly degrade the 
performance of other such services.'' The Third R&O adds an exception 
to this rule that the Commission believes will further safeguard 
competitive neutrality and deployment of new technologies. 
Specifically, where the only interfered-with service itself is a known 
disturber, that service shall not prevail against the newly deployed 
technology.
    78. Binder Group Management. The Third R&O concludes that the only 
permissible forms of binder group management are the segregation of 
known disturbers and the use of the interference protection techniques 
described above. Currently, the only technology that the Third R&O 
finds causes interference with sufficient persistence to rise to the 
level of a known disturber is analog T1. Because the designation of a 
technology as a known disturber impacts various national-level rules 
and policies, such as those governing interference dispute resolution 
and binder group management, and also triggers the determination by 
states of how the known interfering technology will be disposed, the 
Commission will decide which technologies should be considered as known 
disturbers.
    79. The Third R&O limits segregation practices to known disturbers 
because only the interference risks of mixing known disturbers with 
other technologies outweigh the risks of anticompetitive segregation 
practices. Because the Commission currently does not determine ADSL to 
be a known disturber, the Third R&O finds that SBC may not implement 
SFS, a form of binder group management that segregates ADSL. SBC and 
any other carrier currently implementing any prohibited binder group 
management techniques, including SFS, must discontinue and dismantle 
such implementations within 60 days after the release of the Third R&O.
    80. The Third R&O concludes that the states should determine 
disposition of known interfering technologies. The Third R&O further 
finds that leaving disposition of known interfering technologies to the 
states is preferable to establishing a national sunset period for known 
disturbers in this proceeding.

IV. Other Issues

    81. State Authority to Enact Additional Line Sharing Requirements. 
In conformance with the rule established in the Third Report and Order 
in CC Docket No. 96-98 (Local Competition Third Report and Order), the 
Third R&O does not permit the states to reduce the unbundling 
obligations established in the Third R&O. States may enact additional 
or modified unbundling requirements only to the same extent that they 
are

[[Page 1340]]

permitted to do so in the Local Competition Third Report and Order. Any 
state that imposes unbundling requirements in contravention of section 
253(a) of the Act will be subject to possible preemption by the 
Commission under section 253(d) of the Act. Moreover, the Third R&O 
declines to exempt rural incumbent LECs from the line sharing 
unbundling obligation, but notes that states retain the authority 
pursuant to section 251(f) of the Act to exempt certain rural LECs from 
all section 251 obligations.
    82. Takings. The Third R&O disagrees with US WEST's 
characterization that declaring the high frequency portion of the local 
loop to be an unbundled network element results in a physical taking. 
As the Commission previously has stated in the Local Competition Third 
Report and Order, dedicating a particular element to the new entrant's 
exclusive use does not effect a physical occupation of any incumbent 
LEC's property because the incumbent LEC retains physical dominion over 
their network elements. Requesting carriers are simply permitted to 
send their communications over these elements. Moreover, to the extent 
requiring incumbent LECs to provide access to network elements could be 
characterized as a regulatory or physical taking, incumbent LECs have 
an adequate means available to secure just compensation. Thus, the 
Third R&O concludes that even if requiring incumbent LECs to provide 
competitive LECs with access to the unbundled high frequency spectrum 
of the local loop constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment, this 
taking is not unconstitutional.

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    83. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Advanced 
Services First Report and Order and FNPRM. The Commission sought 
written public comment on the proposals in the Advanced Services First 
Report and Order and FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
Need for and Objectives of This Third Report and Order and the Rules 
Adopted Herein
    84. In this Third Report and Order (Order), the Commission takes 
additional, important steps toward implementing Congress' goals for 
deployment of advanced services by requiring incumbent LECs to unbundle 
the high frequency portion of the loop, and establishing spectrum 
compatibility and management policies.
    85. First, the Commission amends our unbundling rules to require 
incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to a network element, the 
high frequency portion of the loop. This will enable competitive LECs 
to provide xDSL service through telephone lines that they share with 
incumbent LECs, which is frequently called ``line sharing.'' In order 
to ensure that line sharing does not significantly degrade analog voice 
service, incumbents must provide unbundled access to the high frequency 
portion of the loop only to carriers seeking to provide xDSL services 
that meet one of the Commission's criteria regarding the presumption of 
acceptability for deployment on the same loop as analog voice service.
    86. The Commission also set specific parameters for line sharing 
deployment in order to ensure that the analog voiceband is preserved 
from significant degradation. Incumbents are not required to provide 
unbundled access to the high frequency portion of the loop if they are 
not currently providing analog voice service to the customer. Moreover, 
incumbent carriers must provide unbundled access to the high frequency 
portion of the loop to only a single requesting carrier, for use at the 
same customer address as the analog voice service provided by the 
incumbent. In addition, subject to certain obligations, incumbent LECs 
may maintain control over the loop and splitter equipment and 
functions.
    87. The Commission also set forth pricing methodologies for the 
states to use as guidelines when setting the price of this new 
unbundled network element. Based on the record, we find that there are 
five types of direct costs that an incumbent LEC potentially could 
incur to provide access to line sharing : (1) loops; (2) OSS; (3) cross 
connects; (4) splitters; and (5) line conditioning.
    88. In addition to line sharing requirements, we adopt rules in 
this Order that apply to spectrum compatibility and management. These 
rules will significantly benefit the rapid and efficient deployment of 
xDSL technologies. Specifically, the Commission seeks to encourage the 
voluntary development of industry standards while limiting the ability 
of any one class of carriers to impose unilateral and potentially anti-
competitive spectrum management or compatibility rules on other xDSL 
providers. We believe that spectrum policies we adopt in this Order 
will ensure the compatibility of technologies and minimize the risk of 
harmful spectrum interference among transmission services. As such, 
these policies will ensure that American consumers will not face undue 
delay in receiving the benefits of technological innovation.
    89. The Commission also adopts rules that will govern when a loop 
technology is presumed acceptable for deployment. The circumstances 
include when the technology: (1) complies with existing industry 
standards; (2) has been approved by an industry standards body, the 
Commission, or any state commission; or (3) has been successfully 
deployed by any carrier without significantly degrading the performance 
of other services.
    90. The Commission affirms our conclusions from the Advanced 
Services First Report and Order regarding resolution of interference 
disputes. In the event that a LEC demonstrates to the relevant state 
commission that a deployed technology is significantly degrading the 
performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band 
services, the carrier deploying the technology shall discontinue 
deployment of that technology and migrate its customers to technologies 
that will not significantly degrade the performance of other services. 
We now adopt an exception to this rule: where the only service 
experiencing interference is itself a known disturber, that service 
shall not prevail against the newly developed technology. We conclude 
that analog T1 service is a known disturber.
    91. The only permissible forms of binder management are the 
segregation of known disturbers and the use of the spectrum 
compatibility (interference protection) techniques described above. The 
states may select one or more of several approaches towards disposition 
of known disturbers, including segregation or sunsetting of known 
disturbers.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to 
the IRFA
    92. In the IRFA, the Commission stated that any rule changes would 
impose minimum burdens on small entities, and solicited comment on 
alternatives to our proposed rules that would minimize the impact they 
might have on small entities. The Office of Advocacy, United States 
Small Business Administration (SBA), commented on the issues raised in 
the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
SBA argued that the Commission should consider all comments received in 
response to the FNPRM, but also issue a second Further

[[Page 1341]]

Notice along with a revised IRFA that more accurately identifies all 
small businesses impacted and details the compliance burdens. Moreover, 
SBA is concerned that the Commission did not provide adequate notice 
regarding cost allocation and operational issues.
    93. First, SBA argues that the Advanced Services FNPRM does not 
adequately identify all small entities affected by the line sharing and 
spectrum management proposals because the Commission did not identify 
small incumbent LECs as small entities. In fact, the Commission does 
include small incumbents in its RFA. While in the IRFA, the Commission 
stated that ``[a]lthough some affected incumbent LECs may have 1,500 or 
fewer employees, we do not believe that such entities should be 
considered small entities within the meaning of the RFA because they 
are either dominant in their field of operations or are not 
independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition not 
`small entities' or `small business concerns' under the RFA,'' the 
Commission goes on to state that ``[o]ut of an abundance of caution, 
however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will 
separately consider small incumbent LECs within this analysis and use 
the term `small incumbent LECs' to refer to any incumbent LECs that 
arguably might be defined by the SBA as `small business concerns.' '' 
Moreover, as SBA is aware, the Commission continues formally to include 
small incumbent LECs in the RFA analysis of recent Commission items.
    94. SBA also argues that the IRFA does not describe the possible 
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements stemming 
from the proposals in the Advanced Services FNPRM. The Commission 
determined in the Advanced Services FNPRM that line sharing is 
technically feasible and requested comments on the operation issues 
relating to sharing a single line between two service providers. In 
addition, the Commission sought comment on additional measures the 
Commission could take to ensure that spectrum compatibility and 
management concerns are resolved in a fair and expeditious manner. The 
Commission sought comment on these two issues, and specifically 
identified issues such as the economic, pricing, and cost allocation 
implications of the line sharing proposals, as well as the burdens on 
the industry created by our spectrum policy proposals. As stated in the 
IRFA, we sought ``comments on whether the Commission should establish 
rules for deployment of central office equipment similar to those set 
forth in part 68 of our rules. We also ask[ed] commenters to address 
whether the Commission should be involved with the actual testing and 
compliance procedures or whether the industry is better suited to serve 
this function through the use of independent and accredited labs.'' The 
commenters in this proceeding addressed these specific issues in a 
detailed manner, including any reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements associated with the proposals, suggesting that 
the Commission proposals were neither vague not insufficient as alleged 
by SBA.
    95. Third, SBA contends that the Commission's IRFA did not discuss 
any alternatives to the proposals made in the Advanced Services FNPRM, 
and that the Commission's claim that the proposals placed a minimum 
burden on small entities is unsupported by any analysis of the burdens. 
In the IRFA, the Commission sought ``to develop a record sufficient 
enough to adequately address issues related to developing long-term 
standards and practices for spectrum compatibility and management, and 
to the sharing of loops by multiple providers.'' In addressing these 
issues, the Commission sought to ensure that competing carriers, 
including small entity carriers, obtain access to inputs necessary to 
the provision of advanced services. We also tentatively concluded that 
our proposals in the FNPRM would impose minimal burdens on small 
entities. Moreover, we sought comment on these proposals and the impact 
they may have on small entities.''
    96. Although the Commission did not describe explicitly each of the 
alternatives that we considered and rejected, as the proposals in the 
Advanced Services FNRPM make clear, the Commission is not considering 
proposals that would require small entities to engage in activities in 
which they are not already required to engage. These activities might 
require operational, accounting, billing, and legal skills that the 
small carriers already have. Moreover, certain proposals in the 
Advanced Services FNPRM clearly would benefit all carriers, including 
small carriers, by ensuring that all carriers have economic incentives 
to innovate and invest in new technologies. This document notes that in 
the text of the Advanced Services FNPRM, the Commission, in many 
instances, raised questions regarding alternatives to our proposals. 
These alternatives have the potential to benefit small entities. While 
the Commission did not reiterate each of these questions in the IRFA, 
we did describe our actions in the IRFA, which was attached as an 
Appendix to the Advanced Services FNPRM, and as such, we provided 
sufficient notice for small entities.

VI. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected 
by the Third Report and Order

    97. In the RFA to the Commission's Advanced Services Order and 
FNPRM, we adopted the analysis and definitions set forth in determining 
the small entities affected by this order for purposes of this FRFA. 
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be 
affected by rules. The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the term ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission 
has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its 
activities. Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business concern'' 
is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not 
dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional 
criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The 
SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification 
(SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 
(Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities 
when they have no more than 1,500 employees. We first discuss the 
number of small telephone companies falling within these SIC 
categories, then attempt to refine further those estimates to 
correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly 
used under our rules.
    98. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as 
the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the 
Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report, derived 
from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications Relay 
Service (TRS). According to data in the most recent report, there are 
3,604 interstate carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, local 
exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, 
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service 
providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll 
service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.

[[Page 1342]]

    99. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in the present 
RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The 
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and determinations in 
other, non-RFA contexts.
    100. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The United 
States Bureau of the Census (``the Census Bureau'') reports that, at 
the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone 
services, as defined therein, for at least one year. This number 
contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local 
exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access 
providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service 
providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR 
providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 
telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small 
incumbent LECs because they are not ``independently owned and 
operated.'' For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an 
interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet 
the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, 
therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small 
entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be 
affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice.
    101. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. SBA has developed a 
definition of small entities for telephone communications companies 
other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that, 
there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one 
year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small 
business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one 
employing no more than 1,500 persons. All but 26 of the 2,321 non-
radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to 
have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those 
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 
non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or 
small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these 
carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at 
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline 
carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business 
concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that there are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications 
companies other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by 
the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice.
    102. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has 
developed a definition of small local exchange carriers (LECs) or 
competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). The closest applicable 
definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for telephone 
communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number 
of these carriers nationwide of which the Commission is aware appears 
to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the 
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to our most recent 
data, there are 1,410 LECs, 129 CLECs, and 351 resellers.
    103. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not 
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we 
are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number 
of these carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under 
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 
1,410 small entity LECs, 129 CLECs, and 351 resellers that may be 
affected by the decisions and rules adopted in the Order.

Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

A. Line Sharing
    104. The Commission set forth guidelines that states may use in 
pricing the higher frequencies of their local loops, which will be made 
available as an unbundled network element. The Commission determined 
that complying with these guidelines may require use of operational, 
accounting, billing, and legal skills. These are skills that the 
carriers already have. The Commission believes, however, that incumbent 
LECs will already have these skills. The burden of compliance is 
minimal because they use the higher frequencies of their local loops 
already to provide the service that will be offered to others pursuant 
to the unbundled network element.
    105. In this Order, we identify the high frequency portion of the 
loop as an additional network element that incumbent LECs are obligated 
to offer to requesting carriers on an unbundled basis nationwide. The 
Commission believes that incumbent LECs already have the skills 
necessary to accomplish this with little or no additional resources 
because incumbents will not have to hire new staff, or provide 
additional training to current staff. The Commission notes that, 
pursuant to section 251(c) and (d) of the 1996 Act, incumbent LECs, 
including those that qualify as small entities, are required to provide 
nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. The only 
exception to this rule apply to those carriers that qualify for and 
have obtained an exemption, suspension, or modification pursuant to 
section 251(f) of the Act.
B. Spectrum Policy
    106. The Commission requires competitive LECs to provide to 
incumbent LECs information on the type of technology they seek to 
deploy, including Spectrum Class information where a competitive LEC 
asserts that the technology it seeks to deploy fits within a generic 
power spectral density (PSD) mask. Where a competitive LEC relies on a 
calculation-based approach to support deployment of a particular 
technology, it must furnish the incumbent LEC with information on the 
speed and power at which the technology will be transmitted. 
Competitive LECs must provide this information in notifying the 
incumbent LEC of any proposed change in advanced services technology 
that the carrier uses on the loop, so that the incumbent LEC can 
correct its records and anticipate the effect that the change may have 
on other services in the same or adjacent binder groups. The provision 
of such information is integral to a competitive LEC's claim that the 
technology it seeks to deploy is presumed acceptable for deployment. 
The Commission determined that complying with these rules may require 
use of engineering, technical, operational, and legal skills.

[[Page 1343]]

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities 
and Small Incumbent LECs, and Alternatives Considered

A. Line Sharing
    107. The high frequency portion of the loop meets the statutory 
definition of a network element and must be unbundled pursuant to 
sections 251(d) and (c)(3). Our unbundling analysis benefits 
competitive carriers, including small entities, by enabling the 
carriers to have access to shared loops in order to serve customers 
who, heretofore, it has been uneconomical to serve. In order to ensure 
that line sharing does not significantly degrade analog voice service, 
incumbents must provide unbundled access to the high frequency portion 
of the loop only to carriers seeking to provide xDSL-based service that 
meets one of the Commission's criteria regarding the presumption of 
acceptability for deployment on the same loop as analog voice service. 
Incumbent carriers must provide unbundled access to the high frequency 
portion of the loop only to a single requesting carrier, for use at the 
same customer address as the analog voice service provided by the 
incumbent. Incumbents are not required to provide unbundled access to 
the high frequency portion of the loop if they are not currently 
providing analog voice service to the customer. Subject to certain 
obligations, incumbent LECs may maintain control over the loop and 
splitter equipment and functions. The specific parameters pursuant to 
which incumbent LECs have to provide access to shared lines benefit 
small entities, both incumbent and competitive carriers, by ensuring 
that carriers do not have to devote scarce resources to address line 
sharing arrangements, such as multiple carriers and multiple customers 
on the same loop, in which it is unlikely carriers seek to engage.
    108. Moreover, the record shows that incumbents should be able to 
resolve operational issues associated with implementation of line 
sharing, including modifications to operations support systems, within 
six months. The record shows that incumbents have a number of process 
alternatives available and we will allow them the flexibility to choose 
the best and most economically feasible of them. The 180-day 
implementation period will benefit small incumbents who might not have 
the resources to make immediate changes to their OSSs.

Spectrum Policy

    109. Although we reiterate our general belief that industry 
standards bodies should create acceptable standards for deployment of 
advanced services, we remain convinced, however, that the Commission is 
compelled to play a role in fostering timely, fair, and open 
development of standards for current and future technologies. We 
conclude that the standards setting process must include the 
involvement of a third party to advise the Commission on spectrum 
compatibility standards and spectrum management practices. 
Specifically, the charter of an existing Federal Advisory Committee 
(FAC), the Network Reliability Interoperability Council (NRIC), will be 
amended to charge NRIC with such advisory function.
    2. Because NRIC will make recommendations to the Commission based 
on input and submissions from T1E1.4 and other industry standards 
bodies, that balanced representation within the NRIC should be able to 
recommend against any issues that are unduly weighted towards any one 
particular industry segment, we expect that NRICs involvement in these 
issues will help in several ways to alleviate small business concerns 
about incumbent LEC domination of T1E1.4, and will help safeguard 
competitive neutrality in, and the timeliness of xDSL standards setting 
for network interoperability generally.
    110. Should the Commission find that certain industry standards 
bodies are adopting spectrum compatibility standards or spectrum 
management practices that continue to fail, in their underlying 
processes, in safeguarding principles of competitive neutrality and 
promoting innovation, we will look to other industry standards bodies 
that uphold these principles or we will exercise our authority to 
assume that standards-setting function ourselves.
    111. The Commission finds the criterion for acceptability for 
deployment outlined above--successful deployment of a technology 
elsewhere without significantly degrading the performance of other 
services--to be particularly useful for assisting the deployment of new 
technologies without subjecting them to delays often encountered with 
industry standards-setting fora. As a method to achieve a presumption 
of acceptability for deployment that does not rely upon industry 
standards bodies, the successful deployment criterion provides a 
further antidote against concerns regarding the competitive neutrality 
of the industry standards-setting process. This criterion should 
benefit small LECs because it relieves the LEC from having to meet the 
potentially burdensome requirements of the industry standards setting 
process.
    112. The LEC also will be able to rebut the presumption of 
acceptability before a state commission if the technology proposed for 
deployment poses a real interference threat in a certain area. We are 
confident that this represents a sufficient safeguard for network 
reliability. Indeed, because the power to rebut the presumption of 
acceptability for deployment of a technology before a state commission 
is an important safeguard for LECs, we decline to make the presumptions 
that are based on technology's standardization or other approval by an 
industry standards body or this Commission irrebuttable. This 
rebuttable presumption benefits small LECs because it gives them a 
vehicle to protect the network and their deployed services. Small LECs 
particularly benefit by the fact that we allow carriers to rebut the 
presumption of acceptability for deployment before the relevant state 
commission.
    113. The Commission confirms that an incumbent LEC need not act as 
the initial point of contact in all service degradation disputes. This 
relieves small incumbent LECs from the potential responsibility for 
fielding all complaints; a task which could create an administrative 
burden and a resource drain on small incumbents.
    114. The Commission reaffirms and codify the policy that we 
enunciated in the Advanced Services First Report and Order to guide 
states in the resolution of interference disputes. Specifically, where 
a LEC demonstrates that a deployed technology is significantly 
degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional 
voice band services, ``the carrier deployning the technology shall 
discontinue deployment of that technology and migrate its customers to 
technologies that will not significantly degrade the performance of 
other such services. We now add an exception to this rule that we 
believe will further safeguard competitive neutrality and deployment of 
new technologies. Specifically, where the only interfered-with service 
itself is a known disturber, as designated by this Commission, that 
service shall not prevail against the newly developed technology. This 
exception prevents the undue protection of noisier technologies that 
are at or near the end of their useful life cycle, at the same time 
preventing the undue preclusion of new, more efficient and spectrally 
compatible technologies. This rule benefits incumbents, including small 
incumbents, by protecting the deployment of innovative services. The 
deployment of known disturbers is not at risk of being displaced by new

[[Page 1344]]

technologies that do not meet the presumption of acceptability for 
deployment.
    115. Such an approach would designate automatic winners in the 
event of interference disputes. Chief among these concerns is that the 
guarded services approach is blatantly discriminatory, protecting 
technologies favored by competitive LECs. We emphasize that any 
criteria that favor incumbent LEC services in a manner that 
automatically trumps, without further consideration, innovative 
services offered by new entrants is neither consistent with section 706 
of the 1996 Act nor with the Commission's goals as set out in the 
Advanced Services First Report and Order. The policies that we 
reiterate and adopt here as rules with respect to interference dispute 
resolution protect new technologies often deployed by small carriers 
against otherwise guarded technologies that tend to be deployed by 
incumbents who are generally larger than competitive carriers that do 
not favor the guarded services approach having carte blanche to be 
deployed after-the-fact and cause interference. These policies also 
provide guidance at the national level, in accordance with our finding 
in the Advanced Services First Report and Order that ``uniform spectrum 
management procedures are essential to the success of advanced services 
deployment'' where they are possible, precisely to avoid requiring 
competitive LECs to conform to different specifications in each state. 
These policies, therefore, benefit small carriers by making it 
administratively more efficient to deploy advanced services nationwide.
    116. The Commission concludes that only permissible forms of binder 
group management are the segregation of known disturbers and the use of 
interference protection techniques. The Commission believes that the 
interference that known disturbers in particular are likely to cause in 
a multi-service environment renders it worthwhile for us to allow 
incumbent LECs to decide whether to segregate such disturbers as a 
further measure to protect against interference. This conclusion helps 
small incumbent LECs to the extent that they are likely to have some 
deployment of known disturbers (analog T1), because segregation is much 
less burdensome on small incumbents than forced replacement. This rule 
also helps small competitive carriers by prohibiting segregation of 
services in a discriminatory manner.
    117. Numerous competitive LECs, which are often small businesses, 
continue to express concern that if we vest in incumbent LECs right to 
manage binder groups unfettered, we will provide ample opportunity for 
incumbent LECs to discriminate against introduction of new technologies 
and/or to institute binder configurations which significantly favor 
their own deployed technologies. The Commission is persuaded that we 
must limit segregation practices to known disturbers, because only the 
interference risks of mixing known disturbers with other technologies 
outweigh the risks of anticompetitive segregation practices. Because we 
currently do not determine ADSL to be a known disturber, we find that 
SBC may not implement SFS, and we do order that SBC dismantle any 
currently existing SFS implementation. We further stress that carriers 
cannot use binder group management to preclude the deployment of new 
technologies that are otherwise presumed to be acceptable for 
deployment.
    118. The Commission finds leaving disposition of known interfering 
technologies to the states preferable to establishing a national sunset 
period for known disturbers in this proceeding. The Commission is 
concerned that a blanket sunset period may lead to unnecessary 
replacement of analog T1 or other otherwise known disturbers, which 
could lead further to unnecessary network disruption and could force 
carriers to undertake exorbitant replacement expenditures. In addition, 
as we acknowledged in the Advanced Services First Report and Order and 
FNRPM, carriers that have a substantial base of analog T1 in 
deployment, and in some areas it provides the only feasible high-speed 
transmission capability. We also recognize that transitioning customers 
to less interfering technologies may disrupt service for subscribers. 
This rule benefits incumbents, including small incumbents, by not 
imposing an automatic sunset period for known disturbers. Such a sunset 
could be expensive and have unnecessary detrimental effects on small 
carriers. At the same time, states are better equipped than incumbent 
LECs to take an objective view of the disposition of known disturbers, 
because of the vested interest that incumbent LECs have in their own 
substantial base of known disturbers such as analog T1.

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1 
through 4, 7, 10, 201 through 205, 251 through 254, 256, 271, and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 
through 154, 157, 160, 201 through 205, 251 through 254, 256, 271, and 
303(r), this Third Report and Order is adopted,
    119. Part 51 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 51, is amended.
    120. SBC Communications Inc. and all of its affiliated companies 
shall dismantle any currently existing Selective Feeder Separation 
(SFS) implementations, unless such implementations solely designate, 
segregate or reserve particular loops or binder groups for use solely 
by analog T1 technology. Any carrier currently implementing any binder 
group management technique, including SFS, which we prohibit above in 
Section V.B.4. of this Order and that designates, segregates or 
reserves particular loops or binder groups for use solely by any 
particular advanced services loop technology other than analog T1, 
shall discontinue and dismantle such implementations within 60 days 
after the release of this Order.
    121. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose new or modified 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51

    Communications common carriers, telecommunications, telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    Part 51 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 51--INTERCONNECTION

    1. The authority for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 
271, 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 157, 
201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271, 332, unless otherwise 
noted.

    2. In Sec. 51.5, the following definitions are added in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 51.5  Terms and definitions.

* * * * *
    Binder or binder group. Copper pairs bundled together, generally in 
groups of 25, 50 or 100.
* * * * *
    Known disturber. An advanced services technology that is prone to 
cause significant interference with other services deployed in the 
network.
* * * * *

[[Page 1345]]

    3. In Sec. 51.319, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 51.319  Specific unbundling requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) High frequency portion of the loop.
    (1) The high frequency portion of the loop network element is 
defined as the frequency range above the voiceband on a copper loop 
facility that is being used to carry analog circuit-switched voiceband 
transmissions.
    (2) An incumbent LEC shall provide nondiscriminatory access in 
accordance with Sec. 51.311 of these rules and section 251(c)(3) of the 
Act to the high frequency portion of a loop to any requesting 
telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications 
service conforming with Sec. 51.230 of these rules.
    (3) An incumbent LEC shall only provide a requesting carrier with 
access to the high frequency portion of the loop if the incumbent LEC 
is providing, and continues to provide, analog circuit-switched 
voiceband services on the particular loop for which the requesting 
carrier seeks access.
    (4) Control of the loop and splitter functionality. In situations 
where a requesting carrier is obtaining access to the high frequency 
portion of the loop, the incumbent LEC may maintain control over the 
loop and splitter equipment and functions, and shall provide to 
requesting carriers loop and splitter functionality that is compatible 
with any transmission technology that the requesting carrier seeks to 
deploy using the high frequency portion of the loop, as defined in this 
subsection, provided that such transmission technology is presumed to 
be deployable pursuant to Sec. 51.230.
    (5) Loop conditioning. (i) An incumbent LEC must condition loops to 
enable requesting carriers to access the high frequency portion of the 
loop spectrum, in accordance with Secs. 51.319(a)(3), and 51.319(h)(1). 
If the incumbent LEC seeks compensation from the requesting carrier for 
line conditioning, the requesting carrier has the option of refusing, 
in whole, or in part, to have the line conditioned, and a requesting 
carrier's refusal of some or all aspects of line conditioning will not 
diminish its right of access to the high frequency portion of the loop.
    (ii) Where conditioning the loop will significantly degrade, as 
defined in Sec. 51.233, the voiceband services that the incumbent LEC 
is currently providing over that loop, the incumbent LEC must either:
    (A) Locate another loop that has been or can be conditioned, 
migrate the incumbent LEC's voiceband service to that loop, and provide 
the requesting carrier with access to the high frequency portion of the 
alternative loop; or
    (B) Make a showing to the relevant state commission that the 
original loop cannot be conditioned without significantly degrading 
voiceband services on that loop, as defined in Sec. 51.233, and that 
there is no adjacent or alternative loop available that can be 
conditioned or to which the customer's voiceband service can be moved 
to enable line sharing.
    (iii) If the relevant State commission concludes that a loop cannot 
be conditioned without significantly degrading the voiceband service, 
the incumbent LEC cannot then or subsequently condition that loop to 
provide advanced services to its own customers without first making 
available to any requesting carrier the high frequency portion of the 
newly-conditioned loop.
    (6) Digital loop carrier systems. Incumbent LECs must provide to 
requesting carriers unbundled access to the high frequency portion of 
the loop at the remote terminal as well as the central office, pursuant 
to Sec. 51.319(a)(2) and Sec. 51.319(h)(1).
    (7) Maintenance, repair, and testing. (i) Incumbent LECs must 
provide, on a nondiscriminatory basis, physical loop test access points 
to requesting carriers at the splitter, through a cross-connection to 
the competitor's collocation space, or through a standardized 
interface, such as an intermediate distribution frame or a test access 
server, for the purposes of loop testing, maintenance, and repair 
activities.
    (ii) An incumbent seeking to utilize an alternative physical access 
methodology may request approval to do so from the relevant state 
commission, but must show that the proposed alternative method is 
reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and will not disadvantage a requesting 
carrier's ability to perform loop or service testing, maintenance or 
repair.
    4. Section 51.230 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 51.230  Presumption of acceptability for deployment of an advanced 
services loop technology.

    (a) An advanced services loop technology is presumed acceptable for 
deployment under any one of the following circumstances, where the 
technology:
    (1) Complies with existing industry standards; or
    (2) Is approved by an industry standards body, the Commission, or 
any state commission; or
    (3) Has been successfully deployed by any carrier without 
significantly degrading the performance of other services.
    (b) An incumbent LEC may not deny a carrier's request to deploy a 
technology that is presumed acceptable for deployment unless the 
incumbent LEC demonstrates to the relevant state commission that 
deployment of the particular technology will significantly degrade the 
performance of other advanced services or traditional voiceband 
services.
    (c) Where a carrier seeks to establish that deployment of a 
technology falls within the presumption of acceptability under 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the burden is on the requesting 
carrier to demonstrate to the state commission that its proposed 
deployment meets the threshold for a presumption of acceptability and 
will not, in fact, significantly degrade the performance of other 
advanced services or traditional voice band services. Upon a successful 
demonstration by the requesting carrier before a particular state 
commission, the deployed technology shall be presumed acceptable for 
deployment in other areas.
    5. Section 51.231 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 51.231  Provision of information on advanced services deployment.

    (a) An incumbent LEC must provide to requesting carriers that seek 
access to a loop or high frequency portion of the loop to provide 
advanced services:
    (1) Uses in determining which services can be deployed; and 
information with respect to the spectrum management procedures and 
policies that the incumbent LEC.
    (2) Information with respect to the rejection of the requesting 
carrier's provision of advanced services, together with the specific 
reason for the rejection; and
    (3) Information with respect to the number of loops using advanced 
services technology within the binder and type of technology deployed 
on those loops.
    (b) A requesting carrier that seeks access to a loop or a high 
frequency portion of a loop to provide advanced services must provide 
to the incumbent LEC information on the type of technology that the 
requesting carrier seeks to deploy.
    (1) Where the requesting carrier asserts that the technology it 
seeks to deploy fits within a generic power spectral density (PSD) 
mask, it also

[[Page 1346]]

must provide Spectrum Class information for the technology.
    (2) Where a requesting carrier relies on a calculation-based 
approach to support deployment of a particular technology, it must 
provide the incumbent LEC with information on the speed and power at 
which the signal will be transmitted.
    (c) The requesting carrier also must provide the information 
required under paragraph (b) of this section when notifying the 
incumbent LEC of any proposed change in advanced services technology 
that the carrier uses on the loop.
    6. Section 51.232 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 51.232  Binder group management.

    (a) With the exception of loops on which a known disturber is 
deployed, the incumbent LEC shall be prohibited from designating, 
segregating or reserving particular loops or binder groups for use 
solely by any particular advanced services loop technology.
    (b) Any party seeking designation of a technology as a known 
disturber should file a petition for declaratory ruling with the 
Commission seeking such designation, pursuant to Sec. 1.2 of this 
chapter.
    7. Section 51.233 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 51.233  Significant degradation of services caused by deployment 
of advanced services.

    (a) Where a carrier claims that a deployed advanced service is 
significantly degrading the performance of other advanced services or 
traditional voiceband services, that carrier must notify the deploying 
carrier and allow the deploying carrier a reasonable opportunity to 
correct the problem. Where the carrier whose services are being 
degraded does not know the precise cause of the degradation, it must 
notify each carrier that may have caused or contributed to the 
degradation.
    (b) Where the degradation asserted under paragraph (a) of this 
section remains unresolved by the deploying carrier(s) after a 
reasonable opportunity to correct the problem, the carrier whose 
services are being degraded must establish before the relevant state 
commission that a particular technology deployment is causing the 
significant degradation.
    (c) Any claims of network harm presented to the deploying 
carrier(s) or, if subsequently necessary, the relevant state 
commission, must be supported with specific and verifiable information.
    (d) Where a carrier demonstrates that a deployed technology is 
significantly degrading the performance of other advanced services or 
traditional voice band services, the carrier deploying the technology 
shall discontinue deployment of that technology and migrate its 
customers to technologies that will not significantly degrade the 
performance of other such services.
    (e) Where the only degraded service itself is a known disturber, 
and the newly deployed technology satisfies at least one of the 
criteria for a presumption that it is acceptable for deployment under 
Sec. 51.230, the degraded service shall not prevail against the newly-
deployed technology.

[FR Doc. 00-458 Filed 1-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P