[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20771-20773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10112]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 02-7; FCC 02-118]


Common Carrier Services: In-Region InterLATA Services--Verizon 
New England Inc. et al.; Application To Provide Services in Vermont

    Application by Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic 
Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long 
Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon 
Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc., Pursuant to 
Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, For Authorization 
To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in the State of Vermont

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants the section 271 application of Verizon 
New England Inc., et al. (Verizon) for authority to enter the interLATA 
telecommunications market in the state of Vermont. The Commission 
grants Verizon's application based on its conclusion that Verizon has 
satisfied all of the statutory requirements for entry, and opened its 
local exchange markets to full competition.

DATES: Effective April 29, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Veach, Senior Attorney, Wireline 
Competition Bureau (WCB), at (202) 418-1580 or via the Internet at 
[email protected]. The complete text of this MO&O is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Further information may also be obtained 
by calling the Wireline Competition Bureau's TTY number: (202) 418-
0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) in CC Docket No. 02-7, FCC

[[Page 20772]]

02-118, adopted April 17, 2002, and released April 17, 2002. This full 
text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, 
Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, 
or via e-mail [email protected]. It is also available on the 
Commission's website at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/verizon_vt/welcome.html.

Synopsis of the Order

    1. History of the Application. On January 17, 2002, Verizon filed 
an application (Vermont Application), pursuant to section 271 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, with the Commission to provide in-
region, interLATA service in the state of Vermont.
    2. The Vermont Board's Evaluation. The Vermont Public Service Board 
(Vermont Board) conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Verizon's 
compliance with section 271, which included five days of evidentiary 
hearings. The Vermont Board concluded that Verizon met the checklist 
requirements of section 271(c) and has taken the appropriate steps to 
open the local exchange and exchange access markets in Vermont in 
accordance with standards set forth in the Act. Consequently, the 
Vermont Board recommended that the Commission approve Verizon's in-
region, interLATA entry in its (February 6, 2002) evaluation of the 
Vermont Application.
    3. The Department of Justice's Evaluation. The Department of 
Justice filed its evaluation of Verizon's Vermont Application on 
February 21, 2002, and recommended approval of the Vermont Application 
subject to the Commission satisfying itself as to pricing issues raised 
by commenters for UNEs in Vermont.

Primary Issues in Dispute

    4. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(A). The Commission concludes 
that Verizon demonstrates that it satisfies the requirements of section 
271(c)(1)(A) based on the interconnection agreements it has implemented 
with competing carriers in Vermont. The record demonstrates that 
competitive LECs serve some business and residential customers using 
predominantly their own facilities.
    5. Checklist Item 2--Unbundled Network Elements. Based on the 
record, the Commission finds that Verizon's Vermont UNE rates are just, 
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory as required by section 251(c)(3), and 
are based on cost plus a reasonable profit as required by section 
252(d)(1). Thus, Verizon's Vermont UNE rates satisfy checklist item 2. 
The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo 
review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an 
application only if either ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or 
the state commission make clear errors in the actual findings on 
matters so substantial that the end result falls outside the range that 
a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce.'' The 
Vermont Board concluded that Verizon's UNE rates satisfied the 
requirement of checklist item 2. While the Commission has not conducted 
a de novo review of the Vermont Board's pricing determinations, the 
Commission has followed the urging of the Department of Justice to 
examine commenters' complaints regarding UNE pricing.
    6. After carefully reviewing these complaints, the Commission 
concludes that the Vermont Board followed basic TELRIC principles and 
the complaints do not support a finding that the Vermont Board 
committed clear error in adopting Verizon's switching and Daily Usage 
File (DUF) rates. Thus, the Commission concludes that Verizon's Vermont 
UNE rates satisfy the requirement of checklist item 2.
    7. The Commission also concludes that Verizon meets its obligation 
to provide nondiscriminatory access to its operations support systems 
(OSS). Verizon provided evidence that its Massachusetts OSS and Vermont 
OSS are substantially the same; therefore the Commission finds that 
evidence concerning Verizon's Massachusetts OSS is relevant and should 
be considered in this proceeding.
    8. Pursuant to this checklist item, Verizon must also provide 
nondiscriminatory access to network elements in a manner that allows 
other carriers to combine such elements. Based on the evidence in the 
record, Verizon demonstrates that it provides to competitors 
combinations of already-combined network element as well as 
nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in a manner that 
allows competing carriers to combine those elements themselves.

Other Checklist Items

    9. Checklist Item 1--Interconnection. Based on the evidence in the 
record, the Commission concludes as did the Vermont Board that Verizon 
demonstrates that it provides interconnection and collocation in 
accordance with the requirements of section 251(c)(2) and as specified 
in section 271 and applied in the Commission's prior orders.
    10. Checklist Item 4--Unbundled Local Loops. Verizon has adequately 
demonstrated that it provides unbundled local loops as required by 
section 271. More specifically, Verizon establishes that it provides 
access to stand alone xDSL-capable loops, high-capacity loops, and 
digital loops. Also, Verizon provides voice grade loops, both as new 
loops and through hot-cut conversions, in a nondiscriminatory manner. 
Finally, Verizon has demonstrated that it has a line-sharing and line-
splitting provisioning process that affords competitors 
nondiscriminatory access to these facilities.
    11. In the Commission's overview of Verizon's performance data, it 
relies primarily on Vermont performance data (supplemented with 
Massachusetts data) collected and submitted by Verizon under the state-
adopted carrier-to-carrier standards. Verizon provides evidence and 
performance data establishing that it can efficiently furnish unbundled 
loops, for the provision of both traditional voice services and various 
advanced services, to other carriers in a nondiscriminatory manner.
    12. Checklist Item 5 `` Unbundled Local Transport. Section 
271(c)(2)(B)(v) of the competitive checklist requires a BOC to provide 
``local transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange 
carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.'' The 
Commission concludes, as did the Vermont Board that based upon the 
evidence in the record, that Verizon demonstrates that it provides both 
shared and dedicated transport, including dark fiber, in compliance 
with the requirements of checklist item 5.
    13. Checklist Item 13--Reciprocal Compensation. Based on the 
evidence in the record, the Commission concludes that Verizon 
demonstrates that it satisfies this checklist item. While one commenter 
claims that Verizon fails to meet the requirement of checklist 13 to 
provide reciprocal compensation for transport and termination of local 
calls to competing carriers, the Commission finds that the commenter's 
claim is not appropriately resolved in a section 271 proceeding.
    14. Checklist Items 3, 6-12, 14. An applicant under section 271 
must demonstrate that it complies with checklist item 3 (poles, ducts, 
conduits, and rights of way), item 6 (unbundled local switching), item 
7 (911/E911 access and directory assistance/operator services), item 8 
(white page directory

[[Page 20773]]

listings), item 9 (numbering administration), item 10 (databases and 
associated signaling), item 11 (number portability), item 12 (local 
dialing parity), and item 14 (resale). Based on the evidence in the 
record, and in accordance with Commission rules and orders concerning 
compliance with section 271 of the Act, the Commission concludes that 
Verizon demonstrates that it is in compliance with these checklist 
items in Vermont. The Vermont Board also concluded that Verizon 
complies with the requirements of each of these checklist items.

Other Statutory Requirements

    15. Section 272 Compliance. Verizon has demonstrated that it 
complies with the requirements of section 272. Significantly, Verizon 
provides evidence that it maintains the same structural separation and 
nondiscrimination safeguards in Vermont as it does in Pennsylvania, New 
York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts--states in which Verizon has 
already received section 271 authority.
    16. Public Interest Analysis. The Commission concludes that 
approval of this application is consistent with the public interest. 
The Commission views the public interest requirement as an opportunity 
to review the circumstances presented by the application to ensure that 
no other relevant factors exist that would frustrate the congressional 
intent that markets be open, as required by the competitive checklist, 
and that the applicant's entry into the in-region, interLATA market 
will therefore serve the public interest as Congress expected. While no 
one factor is dispositive in this analysis, the Commission's overriding 
goal is to ensure that nothing undermines its conclusion that markets 
are open to competition.
    17. The Commission finds that, consistent with its extensive review 
of the competitive checklist, barriers to competitive entry in the 
local market have been removed and the local exchange market today is 
open to competition. The Commission also finds that the record confirms 
its view that a BOC's entry into the long distance market will benefit 
consumers and competition if the relevant local exchange market is open 
to competition consistent with the competitive checklist. The 
Commission also finds that the performance monitoring and enforcement 
mechanisms developed in Vermont, in combination with other factors, 
provide meaningful assurance that Verizon will continue to satisfy the 
requirements of section 271 after entering the long distance market.
    18. Commenters urge the Commission to perform a price squeeze 
analysis. The Commission has reviewed the commenters' evidence of a 
price squeeze, however, and determined that, even if the Commission 
accepted their assertions that a price squeeze analysis is mandated by 
section 271's public interest requirement, no price squeeze is present 
here. The commenters' price squeeze claims, focusing solely on entry 
into the residential market using the UNE-Platform, are insufficient to 
demonstrate the existence of a price squeeze that dooms them to failure 
under the standard articulated by the D.C. Circuit in Sprint v. FCC. 
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there is no evidence in the 
record that warrants disapproval of this application based on 
allegations of a price squeeze, whether couched as discrimination under 
checklist item two or a violation of the public interest standard.
    19. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement Authority. Working with the 
Vermont Board, the Commission intends to monitor closely post-entry 
compliance and to enforce the provisions of section 271 using the 
various enforcement tools Congress provided in the Communications Act.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-10112 Filed 4-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P