[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Federal Communications Commission Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
202. TELEPHONE COMPANY/CABLE TELEVISION CROSS-OWNERSHIP RULES SECTIONS 
63.54-63.56
Legal Authority:


 47 USC 151; 47 USC 154; 47 USC 201; 47 USC 202; 47 USC 203; 47 USC 
204; 47 USC 205; 47 USC 218; 47 USC 220; 47 USC 214; 47 USC 521; 47 USC 
533; 47 USC 522


CFR Citation:


 47 CFR 63.54; 47 CFR 63.55; 47 CFR 63.56; 47 CFR 63.57; 47 CFR 63.58


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In this stage of the proceeding, the Commission issued a Second Report 
and Order that modifies FCC rules and regulatory policy to enable local 
telephone companies to participate in the video marketplace through 
video dialtone. The FCC decided that local telephone companies may make 
available to multiple service providers, on a nondiscriminatory common 
carrier basis, a basic platform that will deliver video programming and 
other services to end users. Such a policy will advance the FCC's goals 
of creating an advanced infrastructure, increasing competition in the 
video marketplace and enhancing the diversity of video services to the 
American public. The FCC also issued a Recommendation to Congress 
recommending that the statutory telephone company-cable television 
cross-ownership restriction be repealed. Further, the Commission 
solicited comments in a second further notice of proposed rulemaking on 
the issue of whether the rural exemption to the telephone company-cable 
television cross-ownership restrictions should be raised to 10,000 
persons. As of 7/12/94, Commission has approved five applications for 
video dialtone trials and one application for commercial video dialtone 
service.


Statement of Need:


The Commission will consider petitions for reconsideration of its 
regulatory framework for provision of video services by local telephone 
companies. This framework established the terms and conditions by which 
companies may, consistent with statutory requirements, offer video 
services in their telephone service areas. The Commission's rules in 
this area are designed to promote investment in our national 
telecommunications infrastructure, increase competition in the 
provision of video services, and foster diverse sources of video 
programming. In furtherance of its video dialtone policy goals, the 
Commission is also currently considering applications from local 
telephone companies to offer video dialtone facilities and service to 
the public, on both a trial and permanent commercial basis.


Alternatives:


Prior to the Commission video dialtone order, telephone company 
participation in the video marketplace was limited to providing channel 
service for cable operators--that is, transmitting video signals to 
subscribers' homes for the cable operator. Telephone companies could 
not compete with cable operators in the telephone company service area.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Video dialtone will benefit consumers, video programmers, telephone 
companies, and other service providers by fostering innovation in 
services, competition in the video marketplace, improved service 
quality, increased network usage and lower cost telecommunications 
services and products. Video dialtone should benefit the Nation as a 
whole by fostering the rapid development of advanced telecommunications 
facilities, the provision of innovative new services, and increased 
competition in the telecommunications marketplace.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NOI             52 FR 34818                                    09/15/87
FNOI/NPRM       53 FR 38042                                    09/29/88
First R&O       56 FR 65445                                    12/17/91
FNPRM/SFNOI     56 FR 65464                                    12/17/91
Recommendations to Congress                                    08/14/92
Reconsideration 57 FR 41109O                                   09/09/92
Second R&O      57 FR 41106                                    09/09/92
SFNPRM          57 FR 41118                                    09/09/92
Pending Video Dialtone Reconsideration                         10/00/94
Further Action on Pending Video Dialtone Applications and Petit00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


For additional information on the Regulatory Plan, contact Gary 
Phillips, Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau, 
1919 M Street, Room 544, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-1573.


Agency Contact:
Adam Kupetsky
Attorney
Federal Communications Commission
202 418-1578
RIN: 3060-AE40
_______________________________________________________________________
FCC
203. EXPANDED INTERCONNECTION WITH LOCAL TELEPHONE COMPANY FACILITIES
Legal Authority:


 47 USC 151; 47 USC 154; 47 USC 201; 47 USC 202; 47 USC 203; 47 USC 
204; 47 USC 205; 47 USC 218; 47 USC 220; 47 USC 404


CFR Citation:


 47 CFR 69; 47 CFR 61; 47 CFR 64


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Commission adopted rules for expanded interconnection with local 
telephone company facilities for interstate special access and switched 
transport, authorized new pricing flexibility for LECs, and has sought 
comment on hand-off of switching information necessary to permit 
competition for the provision of tandem switching associated with 
switched transport.


Statement of Need:


On July 14, 1994. the Commission adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order 
in which it reaffirmed its commitment to its expanded interconnection 
policy. The Commission acted in response to the June 10, 1994, decision 
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Bell Atlantic 
Telephone Companies v. FCC. In that case, the court said it would 
vacate in part, and otherwise remand, the first two of the Commission's 
expanded interconnection orders, on the grounds that the agency lacked 
authority to require the telephone companies to provide expanded 
interconnection for special access through physical collocation.


In the July 14 order, the Commission directed the local telephone 
companies to provide expanded interconnection through virtual 
collocation. The FCC exempted telephone companies from the mandatory 
virtual collocation requirement at central offices in which they choose 
to offer physical collocation subject to nonstreamlined regulation by 
the Commission as a communications common carrier service. The carriers 
are required to file virtual collocation tariffs on September 1, 1994, 
scheduled to become effective on December 15, 1994. The Commission's 
staff will review these tariffs once they are filed. Interested parties 
may, under the Commission's rules, file petitions to reject, or to 
suspend and investigate the tariffs. The Commission staff will review 
those petitions and determine whether rejection or investigation of the 
tariffs is warranted.


Alternatives:


By acting expeditiously before the court issues its mandate, the FCC 
sought to avoid the disruption to competition that might result if its 
expanded interconnection policy lapsed. The Commission's quick response 
to the court's decision will give affected parties clear guidance on 
their rights and obligations and preserve the public interest benefits 
of expanded interconnection.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The increased competition generated by expanded interconnection should 
lead to lower access charges, which in turn will make it possible for 
long-distance companies to offer service at lower rates. Competition 
also creates incentives for telephone companies and their competitors 
to invest advanced telecommunications technologies, develop innovative 
services, give users a greater range of choices in telecommunications 
services, and provide existing services more efficiently.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM & NOI      56 FR 34159                                    07/26/91
ANPRM           56 FR 44053                                    09/20/91
ANPRM Comment Pe56 FR 34159                                    11/06/91
R&O and NPRM    57 FR 54323                                    11/18/92
2nd NPRM        57 FR 56888                                    12/01/92
MO&O            57 FR 62481                                    12/31/92
NPRM Comment Per57 FR 58767                                    03/09/93
2nd MO&O        58 FR 48752                                    09/17/93
2nd MO&O and 3rd58 FR 48756                                    09/17/93
3rd R&O         59 FR 32925                                    06/27/94
MO&O            59 FR 38922                                    08/01/94
Carriers required to file collocation tariffs on               09/01/94
Effective Date                                                 12/15/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


For additional information on the Regulatory Plan, contact David 
Sieradzki, Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau, 
1919 M Street, Room 544, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-1576.


Agency Contact:
James Schlicting
Division Chief
Federal Communications Commission
202 418-1580
RIN: 3060-AF04
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F