[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14978-14980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-7332]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[WC Docket No. 02-384; FCC 03-57]


Application by Verizon Maryland Inc., Verizon Washington, D.C. 
Inc., West Virginia 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., for Authorization To Provide In-Region, InterLATA 
Services in Maryland, Washington, DC, and West Virginia

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In the document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) grants the section 271 application of Verizon Maryland 
Inc., Verizon Washington, DC Inc., West Virginia 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., for authority to enter the 
interLATA telecommunications market in Maryland, Washington, DC, and 
West Virginia. 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 March 31, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Cohen, Senior Economist, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0939 or via the Internet at 
[email protected]. The complete text of this Memorandum Opinion and Order 
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 in WC Docket No. 02-384, FCC 03-57,

[[Page 14979]]

adopted March 18, 2003, and released March 19, 2003. The full text of 
this order 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 Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/ Wireline--
Competition/in-region--applications.

Synopsis of the Order

    1. History of the Application. On December 19, 2002, Verizon filed 
an application pursuant to section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, with the Commission to provide in-region, interLATA service in 
the states of Maryland, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia 
(Washington, DC).
    2. The State Commissions' Evaluations. The Maryland Public Service 
Commission (Maryland Commission), the District of Columbia Public 
Service Commission (DC Commission), and the West Virginia Public 
Service Commission (West Virginia Commission), following an extensive 
review process, advised the Commission that Verizon has taken the 
statutorily required steps to open it local markets in each state to 
competition. Consequently, the state commissions recommended that the 
Commission approve Verizon's in-region, interLATA entry in their 
evaluations and comments in this proceeding.
    3. The Department of Justice's Evaluation. The Department of 
Justice filed its evaluation on January 27, 2003, recommending approval 
of the application, subject to the resolution of questions regarding 
Verizon's checklist compliance for certain pricing and directory 
assistance issues. Accordingly, the Department of Justice recommends 
approval of Verizon's application for section 271 authority in 
Maryland, Washington, DC, and West Virginia.

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 Maryland, Washington, DC, and West Virginia. 
The record shows that Verizon relies on interconnection agreements with 
AT&T, Comcast, eLEC, FiberNet, Starpower, and StratusWave in support of 
this showing.
    5. Checklist Item 2--Unbundled Network Elements. Based on the 
record, the Commission finds that Verizon has provided 
``nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the 
requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)'' of the Act in 
compliance with checklist item 2.
    6. Operating Support Systems (OSS). Based on the record, the 
Commission finds that Verizon provides ``nondiscriminatory access to 
network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections 
251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)'' of the Act in compliance with checklist item 
2. The Commission finds that Verizon provides non-discriminatory access 
to its OSS--the systems, databases, and personnel necessary to support 
network elements or services. Nondiscriminatory access to OSS ensures 
that new entrants have the ability to order service for their customers 
and communicate effectively with Verizon regarding basic activities 
such as placing orders and providing maintenance and repair services 
for customers. The Commission finds that, for each of the primary OSS 
functions (pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and 
repair, and billing, as well as change management), Verizon provides 
access to its OSS in a manner that enables competing carriers to 
perform the functions in substantially the same time and manner as 
Verizon does or, if no appropriate retail analogue exists within 
Verizon's systems, in a manner that permits competitors a meaningful 
opportunity to compete. In addition, regarding specific areas where the 
Commission identifies issues with Verizon's OSS performance in the 
application states, these problems are not sufficient to warrant a 
finding of checklist noncompliance.
    7. UNE Combinations. Pursuant to section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) a BOC 
must demonstrate that it provides nondiscriminatory access to network 
elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such 
elements and that the BOC does not separate already combined elements, 
except at the specific request of the competing carrier. The Commission 
concludes, based on the performance data in the record, that Verizon 
meets its obligation to provide access to UNE combinations in 
compliance with the Commission's rules.
    8. Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements. Based on the record, we 
find that Verizon's UNE rates in Maryland, Washington, DC, and West 
Virginia 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 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 makes 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.''
    9. The Commission finds that, while Verizon's current recurring UNE 
rates were not established via state rate proceedings that applied 
TELRIC principles, the recurring UNE rates in all three jurisdictions 
are TELRIC-compliant based on a benchmark comparison to Verizon's New 
York UNE rates. The Commission concludes that Verizon's current loop 
provisioning policy does not preclude us from finding that Verizon's 
loop rates in these states are TELRIC-compliant based on a benchmark 
comparison. In addition, the Commission confirms that it performs its 
benchmark analysis by aggregating non-loop rate elements. Thus, we 
conclude that Verizon's UNE rates in Maryland, Washington, DC, and West 
Virginia satisfy the requirements of checklist item 2.
    10. Checklist Item 12--Dialing Parity. Based on the evidence in the 
record, the Commission finds that Verizon provides local dialing parity 
in accordance with the Commission's rules. No commenter challenges 
Verizon's provision of dialing parity in Maryland or Washington, DC. 
However, FiberNet claims that in West Virginia local dialing parity is 
not achieved in certain locations where an extended area service (EAS) 
crosses LATA and state boundaries. The Commission concludes that 
Verizon complies with our dialing parity rules and that our rules 
implementing 251(b)(3) do not require Verizon to develop 
interconnections arrangements for facilities-based competitive LECs 
with third-party carriers.
    11. Checklist Item 1--Interconnection. Based on the evidence in the 
record, the Commission concludes that Verizon provides access and 
interconnection on terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory, in accordance with the requirements of section 
251(c)(2) and as specified in section 271, and applied in the 
Commission's prior orders. Pursuant to this checklist item, Verizon 
must allow other carriers to interconnect their networks to its network 
for the mutual exchange of traffic, using any available method of 
interconnection at any available point in Verizon's network. Verizon's 
performance generally satisfies the applicable benchmark or

[[Page 14980]]

retail comparison standards for this checklist item. Verizon also 
demonstrates that it offers interconnection in Maryland, Washington, 
DC, and West Virginia to other telecommunications carriers at just, 
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, in compliance with checklist 
item 1.

Other Items in Dispute

    12. Checklist Item 4--Unbundled Local Loops. Verizon demonstrates 
that it provides unbundled local loops in accordance with the 
requirements of section 271 and our rules, in that it provides ``local 
loop transmission from the central office to the customer's premises, 
unbundled from local switching or other services.'' The Commission's 
conclusions are based on Verizon's performance for all loop types, 
which include, as in past section 271 orders, voice grade loops, hot 
cut provisioning, xDSL-capable loops, digital loops, high capacity 
loops, as well as our review of Verizon's processes for line sharing 
and line splitting.
    13. Checklist Item 7--911-E911 Access & Directory Assistance/
Operator Services. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(I), (II), and (III) 
require a BOC to provide nondiscriminatory access to ``911 and E911 
services,'' ``directory assistance services to allow the other 
carrier's customers to obtain telephone numbers'' and ``operator call 
completion services,'' respectively. Additionally, section 251(b)(3) of 
the 1996 Act imposes on each LEC ``the duty to permit all [competing 
providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service] to 
have nondiscriminatory access to ``* * * operator services, directory 
assistance, and directory listing with no unreasonable dialing 
delays.'' Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission concludes 
that Verizon offers nondiscriminatory access to its 911-E911 databases, 
operator services (OS), and directory assistance (DA).
    14. Checklist Item 8--White Pages. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(viii) of 
the Act requires a BOC to provide ``[w]hite page directory listings for 
customers of the other carrier's telephone exchange service.'' The 
Commission has previously found that a BOC satisfies the requirements 
of checklist item 8 by demonstrating that it: (1) Provides 
nondiscriminatory appearance and integration of white page directory 
listings to competitive LECs' customers; and (2) provides white page 
listings for competitors' customers with the same accuracy and 
reliability that it provides its own customers. Based on the evidence 
in the record, the Commission concludes that Verizon satisfies 
checklist item 8.
    15. Checklist Item 10--Databases and Associated Signaling. Section 
271(c)(2)(B)(x) of the Act requires a BOC to provide 
``nondiscriminatory access to databases and associated signaling 
necessary for call routing and completion.'' Based on the evidence in 
the record, the Commission finds that Verizon provides 
nondiscriminatory access to databases and signaling networks in the 
application states.
    16. Checklist Item 11--Local Number Portability. Section 251(b)(2) 
requires all LECs ``to provide, to the extent technically feasible, 
number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the 
Commission.'' Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission finds 
that Verizon complies with the requirements of checklist item 11.
    17. Checklist Item 13--Reciprocal Compensation. Section 
271(c)(2)(B)(xiii) of the Act requires BOCs to enter into 
``[r]eciprocal compensation arrangements in accordance with the 
requirements of section 252(d)(2).'' In turn, section 252(d)(2)(A) 
specifies the conditions necessary for a state commission to find that 
the terms and conditions for reciprocal compensation are just and 
reasonable. The Commission concludes that Verizon provides reciprocal 
compensation as required by checklist item 13.
    18. Checklist Item 14--Resale. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv) of the Act 
requires that a BOC make ``telecommunications services * * * available 
for resale in accordance with the requirements of section 251(c)(4) and 
section 252(d)(3).'' Based on the record in this proceeding, the 
Commission concludes as that Verizon satisfies the requirements of this 
checklist item. Verizon has demonstrated that it has satisfied its 
legal obligation to make retail telecommunications services available 
for resale to competitive LECs at wholesale rates.
    19. Remaining Checklist items (3, 5, 6 and 9). In addition to 
showing that it is in compliance with the requirements discussed above, 
an applicant under section 271 must demonstrate that it complies with 
checklist item 3 (access to poles, ducts, and conduits), item 5 
(unbundled transport), item 6 (local switching unbundled from 
transport), and item 9 (numbering administration). Based on the 
evidence in the record, the Commission concludes that Verizon 
demonstrates that it is in compliance with the requirements of these 
checklist items. It notes that no party objects to Verizon's compliance 
with these checklist items (other than checklist item 5, which is 
addressed as part of checklist item 4).
    20. Section 272 Compliance. Based on the record, Verizon provides 
evidence that it maintains the same structural separation and 
nondiscrimination safeguards in the application states as it does in 
Virginia, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
Vermont, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts--where Verizon has 
already received section 271 authority. Based on the record before us, 
we conclude that Verizon has demonstrated that it will comply with the 
requirements of section 272.
    21. Public Interest Analysis. The Commission concludes that 
approval of this application is consistent with the public interest. 
From its extensive review of the competitive checklist, which embodies 
the critical elements of market entry under the Act, we find that 
barriers to competitive entry in the local exchange markets have been 
removed and the local exchange markets in Maryland, Washington, DC and 
West Virginia are open to competition. The Commission further finds 
that, as noted in prior section 271 orders, BOC 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. Verizon demonstrates that there is significant 
local competition in Maryland, Washington, DC and West Virginia and 
that Verizon's local market will remain open to competition, and that 
section 271 approval would enhance local and long distance competition 
in Maryland, Washington, DC and West Virginia.
    22. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement Authority. Working with each of 
the state commissions, the Commission intends to closely monitor 
Verizon's post-approval compliance to ensure that Verizon continues to 
meet the conditions required for section 271 approval. It stands ready 
to exercise its various statutory enforcement powers quickly and 
decisively in appropriate circumstances to ensure that the local market 
remains open in each of the states.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-7332 Filed 3-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P