[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60388-60390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-26794]



[[Page 60388]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[WC Docket No. 03-167; FCC 03-243]


Application by SBC Communications Inc., Illinois Bell Telephone 
Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated, the Ohio Bell 
Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., and Southwestern Bell 
Communications Services, Inc. for Authorization To Provide In-Region, 
InterLATA Services in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In the document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) grants the section 271 application of SBC Communications 
Inc., Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company 
Incorporated, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., 
and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., (SBC) for 
authority to enter the interLATA telecommunications market in the 
states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin. The Commission grants 
SBC's application based on its conclusion that it has satisfied all of 
the statutory requirements for entry and opened its local exchange 
markets to full competition.

DATES: Effective October 24, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Arluk, Attorney-Advisor, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1471 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. 03-167, FCC 03-243, 
adopted October 14, 2003, and released October 15, 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 July 17, 2003, SBC filed an 
application with the Commission, pursuant to section 271 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, to provide in-region, interLATA 
services in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin.
    2. The State Commission's Evaluation. The Illinois Commerce 
Commission (Illinois Commission), the Indiana Utility Regulatory 
Commission (Indiana Commission), the Public Utilities Commission of 
Ohio (Ohio Commission), and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission 
(Wisconsin Commission), following an extensive review process, advised 
the Commission that SBC has taken the statutorily required steps to 
open its local markets to competition. Consequently, the Illinois 
Commission, the Ohio Commission and the Wisconsin Commission 
recommended that the Commission approve SBC's in-region, interLATA 
entry in their evaluation and comments in this proceeding. The Indiana 
Commission, while it concluded that SBC is largely in compliance with 
section 271 requirements, it deferred to this Commission the ultimate 
determination of whether local markets have been fully and irreversibly 
open to competition, and whether SBC has demonstrated sufficient 
accuracy of its systems data and wholesale billing reliability.
    3. The Department of Justice's Evaluation. The Department of 
Justice filed its evaluation on August 26, 2003, expressing concerns 
about SBC's wholesale billing, line splitting, manual handling, pricing 
and data reliability. The Department of Justice, while noting that SBC 
had made progress addressing some of the issues, stated that because of 
concerns about the billing processes, it could not support the 
application based on the current record. The Department, however, noted 
that the Commission might be able to resolve these billing issues prior 
to conclusion of its review.
    4. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(A). In order for the 
Commission to approve a BOC's application to provide in-region, 
interLATA services, a BOC must first demonstrate that it satisfies the 
requirements of either section 271(c)(1)(A) (Track A) or section 
271(c)(1)(B) (Track B). The Commission concludes that SBC satisfies the 
requirements of Track A in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin. This 
decision is based on the interconnection agreements SBC has implemented 
with competing carriers in each of the four states and the number of 
carriers that provide local telephone exchange service, either 
exclusively or predominantly over their own facilities, to residential 
and business customers.

Primary Issues in Dispute

    5. Checklist Item 1--Interconnection. Based on its review of the 
record, the Commission concludes that SBC provides interconnection in 
accordance with the requirements of section 251(c)(2) and as specified 
in section 271 and prior Commission orders. In reaching this 
conclusion, the Commission examines SBC's performance with respect to 
collocation and interconnection trunks, as the Commission has done in 
prior section 271 proceedings. The Commission also examines whether SBC 
offers collocation and interconnection trunks to other 
telecommunications carriers at just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory 
rates. The Commission concludes that the commenters' allegations 
regarding SBC's collocation power rates in Indiana and Ohio do not 
require a finding of checklist noncompliance. The Commission determines 
that the revised collocation power rates made available to competitive 
LECs in Indiana and Ohio demonstrate that SBC provides collocation on a 
just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis in compliance with 
checklist item one in Indiana and Ohio. In addition, the Commission 
waives its complete-as-filed requirement on its own motion pursuant to 
section 1.3 of the Commission's rules to the limited extent necessary 
to consider SBC's revised collocation power rates.
    6. Checklist Item 2--Unbundled Network Elements. Based on the 
record, the Commission finds that SBC 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 two.
    7. Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements. Based on the record, the 
Commission finds that SBC's UNE rates in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and 
Wisconsin are just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory as required by 
section 251(d)(1). Thus, SBC's UNE rates satisfy checklist item two in 
all four states. 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

[[Page 60389]]

range that a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would 
produce.'' The Illinois Commission, the Indiana Commission, the Ohio 
Commission, and the Wisconsin Commission all conducted extensive 
pricing proceedings to establish wholesale rates for UNEs. The 
Commission concludes that the fact that certain of the rates are 
interim in Illinois does not undermine SBC's showing that the rates 
satisfy checklist item two. The Commission also concludes that various 
ongoing litigation and challenges to rates adopted in Indiana, 
Illinois, and Ohio, do not preclude a determination that SBC is in 
compliance with section 271. The Commission has determined in previous 
orders that future rate uncertainty due to a pending appeal, without 
more, should not affect the Commission's review of the currently 
effective rates. The Commission also finds that the revised non-
recurring charges (NRCs) for enhanced extended links (EELs) SBC 
submitted are reasonable interim rates. The Commission finds that the 
rates fall within the range SBC charges in other states, and that it 
expects the Illinois Commission to review the rates in the near future. 
In addition, the Commission waives its complete-as-filed requirement on 
its own motion pursuant to section 1.3 of the Commission's rules to the 
limited extent necessary to consider SBC's revised EEL NRCs.
    8. Operations Support Systems (OSS). Based on the evidence in the 
record, the Commission finds that SBC is providing competitors 
nondiscriminatory access to OSS in compliance with checklist item two. 
Pursuant to its analysis, the Commission finds that SBC 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 SBC regarding basic activities such as placing orders 
and providing maintenance and repair services for customers. First, the 
Commission finds that SBC's data are, on the whole, reliable and 
accurate, based on the evidence in the record, including two 
independent, third-party audits of SBC's performance data. Second, 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), SBC provides access to its OSS in a 
manner that enables competing carriers to perform the functions in 
substantially the same time and manner as SBC does or, if no 
appropriate retail analogue exists within SBC's systems, in a manner 
that permits competitors a meaningful opportunity to compete. In 
particular, the Commission, assessing the totality of the 
circumstances, finds that SBC's evidence regarding billing demonstrates 
that competitive LEC concerns reflect only isolated instances or errors 
typical of high-volume carrier-to-carrier commercial billing, rather 
than systemic problems. The Commission thus finds that the allegations 
raised about billing in this record do not warrant a finding of 
checklist noncompliance because SBC's billing processes provide 
competitors a meaningful opportunity to compete. In addition, regarding 
specific areas for which the Commission identifies issues with SBC's 
OSS performance `` service order completion notices, line loss 
notification reports, billing completion notices, and access to IP 
addresses `` the Commission finds that these problems do not 
demonstrate overall discriminatory treatment or are not sufficient to 
warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance.
    9. Checklist Item 4--Unbundled Local Loops. Based on the evidence 
in the record, the Commission concludes that SBC provides unbundled 
local loops in accordance with the requirements of section 271 and 
Commission rules. The Commission's conclusion is based on its review of 
SBC's performance for all loop types, which include voice-grade loops, 
xDSL-capable loops, digital loops, and high-capacity loops, as well as 
the Commission's review of SBC's processes for hot cut provisioning, 
line sharing and line splitting. With respect to issues related to 
SBC's line splitting processes, the Commission notes that the 
commenters in this proceeding raise the same issues regarding SBC's 
line splitting policies that it raised in the recent proceeding 
regarding SBC's application to provide in-region, interLATA services in 
the state of Michigan. Accordingly, the Commission incorporates and 
references the SBC Michigan II Order, and finds that SBC's line 
splitting policies do not warrant a finding of checklist noncompliance.

Other Checklist Items

    10. Checklist Item 7--Access to 911/E911 and Operator Services/
Directory Assistance. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii) of the Act requires a 
BOC to provide ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 services.'' 
A BOC must provide competitors with access to its 911 and E911 services 
in the same manner that it provides such access to itself, i.e., at 
parity. Specifically, the BOC ``must maintain the 911 database entries 
for competing LECs with the same accuracy and reliability that it 
maintains the database entries for its own customers.'' The Commission 
finds that SBC provides nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 
services. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii) also requires a BOC to provide 
nondiscriminatory access to ``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 Commission's review of the 
record it concludes that SBC offers nondiscriminatory access to its 
directory assistance services and operator services.
    11. Checklist Item 10--Databases and Signaling. Section 
271(c)(2)(B)(x) of the 1996 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 SBC provides nondiscriminatory access 
to databases and signaling networks in the states of Illinois, Indiana, 
Ohio and Wisconsin.
    12. 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 finds that the allegations AT&T raises with 
regard to reciprocal compensation pricing has already been 
appropriately raised before the Federal court, as Congress intended, 
where it is pending resolution. Under these circumstances, the 
Commission finds that such allegations do not require a finding of 
checklist noncompliance.
    13. Remaining Checklist Items (3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14). Based 
on the evidence in the record, the Commission concludes that SBC 
demonstrates that it is in compliance with checklist item 3 (access to 
poles, ducts, and conduits), item 5 (unbundled transport), item 6 
(unbundled switching), item 8 (white pages), item 9 (numbering 
administration), item 11 (number

[[Page 60390]]

portability), item 12 (dialing parity), and item 14 (resale).
    14. Section 272 Compliance. Based on the record, the Commission 
concludes that SBC has demonstrated that it will comply with the 
requirements of section 272. Significantly, SBC provides evidence that 
it maintains the same structural separation and nondiscrimination 
safeguards in the four states as it does in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Missouri, Arkansas, California, and Michigan.
    15. 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, the Commission 
finds that barriers to competitive entry in the local exchange markets 
have been removed and the local exchange markets in Illinois, Indiana, 
Ohio and Wisconsin today are open to competition. The Commission 
further finds that the record confirms its view, as set forth in prior 
section 271 orders, that 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. 
Finally, the Commission finds that SBC's performance plans in each of 
the four states provide assurance of future compliance.
    16. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement Authority. Working with the four 
state commissions, the Commission intends to closely monitor SBC's 
post-approval compliance to ensure that SBC 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 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-26794 Filed 10-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P