99-10832. Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 83 (Friday, April 30, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23229-23243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10832]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 51

[CC Docket No. 98-147; FCC 99-48]


Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts several measures designed to promote 
competition in the advanced services markets. The intended effect is to 
remove barriers to competition so that competing providers are able to 
compete effectively with incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) and 
their affiliates in the provision of advanced services. An additional 
effect of the First Report and Order is to ensure that incumbent LECs 
are able to make their decisions to invest in, and deploy, advanced 
telecommunications services based on market demand and their own 
strategic business plans, rather than on regulatory requirements.

DATES: Effective June 1, 1999, except for 47 CFR 51.321(f) and 
51.321(h) and 51.323(b) and (i)(3), which contain information 
collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget. The FCC will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections. 
Written comments regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements 
should be submitted on or before May 13, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Staci Pies, Attorney, Common Carrier 
Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, [phone] or via the 
Internet at [e-mail]. Further information may also be obtained by 
calling the Common Carrier Bureau's TTY number: 202-418-0484. For 
additional information concerning the information collections contained 
in this Order contact Judy Boley at [phone], or via the Internet 
at [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's First 
Report and Order adopted March 18, 1999, and released March 31, 1999. 
The full text of this First Report and Order is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 
The complete text also may be obtained through the World Wide Web, at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common Carrier/Orders/fcc9948.wp, or may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy

[[Page 23230]]

contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., [phone], 
1231 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. This First Report and 
Order contains information collections subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. The general 
public and other federal agencies are invited to comment on the 
information collections contained in this proceeding. The Commission 
has requested an emergency review of the collections with an approval 
by May 13, 1999.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the First Report and 
Order contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis which is set 
forth in the First Report and Order. A brief description of the 
analysis follows. Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, the Commission performed a comprehensive analysis of the Order 
with regard to small entities. This analysis includes: (1) a succinct 
statement of the need for, and objectives of, the Commission's 
decisions in the Order; (2) a summary of the significant issues raised 
by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis, a summary of the Commission's assessment of these 
issues, and a statement of any changes made in the Order as a result of 
the comments; (3) a description of and an estimate of the number of 
small entities to which the Order will apply; (4) a description of the 
projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of 
the Order, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which 
will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills 
necessary for compliance with the requirement; (5) a description of the 
steps the Commission has taken to minimize the significant economic 
impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of 
applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and 
legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the Order and 
why each one of the other significant alternatives to each of the 
Commission's decisions which affect small entities was rejected.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This Report and Order contains new and modified information 
collections. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the 
information collections contained in this Order, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-12. Persons wishing to 
comment on the information collections should submit comments on or 
before May 13, 1999. Comments should address: (a) Whether the 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information 
shall practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden 
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    OMB Approval Number: 3060-0848.
    Title: Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: Revised collection.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               No. of
         Information collection              respondents        Estimated time per response       Total annual
                                              (approx.)                                          burden (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Equipment.......................              1400  1 hour............................              1400
Report of Available Collocation Space...              1400  1 hour............................              1400
Information on Security Training........              1400  30 minutes........................               700
Access to Spectrum Management Procedures              1400  30 minutes........................               700
 and Policies.
Rejection and Loop Information..........              1400  1 hour............................              1400
Notification of Performance Degradation.              1400  30 minutes........................               700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Burden: 6300 hours.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.
    Estimated costs per respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: The Commission seeks to implement Congress's goal 
of promoting innovation and investment by all participating in the 
telecommunications marketplace, in order to stimulate competition for 
all services, including advanced services. In fulfillment of this goal, 
the Commission imposes certain collections of information on all 
incumbent local exchange carriers. Among other things, ILECs must 
provide a list of equipment to competitive LECs, submit to requesting 
carriers a report concerning collocation space, provide the specific 
type of security training a competitive LEC's employees must complete, 
etc. All of the requirements will be used by the Commission and by 
competitive carriers to facilitate the deployment of advanced data 
services and to implement section 706 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended.

Synopsis of Order

I. Introduction

    1. One of the fundamental goals of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996 (1996 Act) is to promote innovation and investment by all 
participants in the telecommunications marketplace, in order to 
stimulate competition for all services, including advanced services. In 
this order, we take important steps towards implementing Congress' 
goals with respect to advanced services.
    2. The market for advanced telecommunications is a nascent one. 
Today, both incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) and new entrants 
are at the early stages of developing and deploying innovative new 
technologies to meet the ever-increasing demand for high-speed, high-
capacity advanced services. Because it is in the early stages of 
development, the advanced services market is ripe for competition to 
develop in a robust fashion. In order to encourage competition among 
carriers to develop and deploy new advanced services, it is critical 
that the marketplace for these services be conducive to investment, 
innovation, and meeting the needs of consumers.
    3. To this end, we are committed to removing barriers to 
competition so that competing providers are able to compete effectively 
with incumbent LECs and their affiliates in the provision of advanced 
services. We are also committed to ensuring that incumbent LECs are 
able to make their decisions to invest in, and deploy, advanced 
telecommunications services based on market demand and their own 
strategic business plans, rather than on regulatory requirements. We 
intend to

[[Page 23231]]

take deregulatory steps towards meeting this goal in a subsequent 
order.
    4. In this order, we adopt several measures that we believe will 
promote competition in the advanced services markets. We fully expect 
that these measures will create incentives for providers of advanced 
services to innovate and to develop and deploy new technologies and 
services on a more efficient and expeditious basis. As a result, 
consumers will ultimately benefit through lower prices and increased 
choices in advanced services.

II. Overview and Executive Summary

A. Overview
    5. Increasingly, electronic communications are becoming digital and 
are transmitted by means of ``packet switching.'' Packet-switched 
transmission of information promises a revolution in information, 
communications services, and entertainment by offering businesses, 
residential users, schools and libraries, and other end users of 
information the ability to access and send large amounts of information 
very quickly across the street or across the globe. Moreover, for 
wireline carriers, digital subscriber line technologies are making it 
possible for ordinary citizens to access various networks, such as the 
Internet, corporate networks, and governmental networks, at high speeds 
through the existing copper telephone lines that connect their 
residences or businesses to the incumbent LEC's central office. The 
existing infrastructure is being used in new ways that make available 
to average citizens a variety of new services and vast improvements to 
existing services.
    6. We adopt, in this order, additional measures to further 
facilitate the development of competition in the advanced services 
market. First, we strengthen our collocation rules to reduce the costs 
and delays faced by competitors that seek to collocate equipment in an 
incumbent LEC's central office. For example, we require incumbent LECs 
to make available to requesting competitive LECs shared cage and 
cageless collocation arrangements. Moreover, when collocation space is 
exhausted at a particular LEC location, we require incumbent LECs to 
permit collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or 
similar structures to the extent technically feasible. Second, we adopt 
certain spectrum compatibility rules and adopt a Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM) to explore issues related to 
developing long-term standards and practices for spectrum compatibility 
and management. Finally, in the Further NPRM, we consider whether we 
should require LECs to allow competitors to offer advanced services to 
end users over the same line on which the LEC is offering voice 
service.
    7. We intend to address, in a future order, other specific forms of 
regulatory relief that may be needed to stimulate investment and 
deployment of advanced services by incumbents or new entrants, or 
whether other changes to the Commission's local competition rules may 
facilitate deployment of advanced services by competing carriers. For 
example, in the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, 63 FR 45134, August 
24, 1998, we had proposed an option under which incumbent LECs would be 
free to establish separate affiliates to provide advanced services that 
would not be subject to section 251(c) obligations if those affiliates 
were structured in a fashion so as not to be deemed a successor or 
assign of the incumbent. We also sought comment on the applicability of 
section 251(c)(4) resale obligations to advanced services to the extent 
such services are exchange access services. In addition, the NPRM 
proposed limited modifications of LATA boundaries. We also had set 
forth proposals in the Advanced Services Order and NPRM relating to 
incumbent LEC loop unbundling obligations. We are deferring action on 
those issues and proposals.
B. Executive Summary
    8. In the Order, we take the following steps:

Collocation

     Incumbent LECs must make available to requesting 
competitive LECs shared cage and cageless collocation arrangements. 
Moreover, when collocation is exhausted at a particular LEC location, 
incumbent LECs must permit collocation in adjacent controlled 
environmental vaults or similar structures to the extent technically 
feasible.
     A collocation method used by one incumbent LEC or mandated 
by a state commission is presumptively technically feasible for any 
other incumbent LEC.
     Incumbent LECs may adopt reasonable security measures to 
protect their central office equipment.
     Incumbent LECs may not require competitive LEC equipment 
to meet more stringent safety requirements than those the incumbent LEC 
imposes on its own equipment.
     Incumbent LECs must permit competitors to collocate all 
equipment used for interconnection and/or access to unbundled network 
elements (UNEs), even if it includes a ``switching'' or enhanced 
services function, and incumbent LECs cannot require that the switching 
or enhanced services functionality of equipment be disengaged.
     Incumbent LECs must permit a competitive LEC to tour the 
entire central office in which that competitive LEC has been denied 
collocation space. Incumbent LECs must provide a list of all offices in 
which there is no more space. Incumbent LECs must remove obsolete, 
unused equipment, in order to facilitate the creation of additional 
collocation space within a central office.
     The collocation rules set forth in the Order serve as 
minimum standards, and permit any state to adopt additional 
requirements.

Spectrum Compatibility

     We adopt certain spectrum compatibility and management 
rules to allow competitive providers to deploy innovative advanced 
services technology in a timely manner. Specifically, any loop 
technology that complies with existing industry standards, has been 
successfully deployed by any carrier without significantly degrading 
the performance of other services, or has been approved by this 
Commission, any state commission, or an industry standards body is 
presumed acceptable for deployment. A LEC may not deny a carrier's 
request to deploy technology that is presumed acceptable for 
deployment, unless the LEC demonstrates to the state commission that 
deployment of the particular technology within the LEC network will 
significantly degrade the performance of other services.
     We also seek comment in the Further NPRM on measures that 
would facilitate timely development of long-term industry standards and 
practices on spectrum compatibility and management to facilitate 
deployment of new and innovative loop technologies.

Line Sharing

     In the Further NPRM, we tentatively conclude line sharing 
is technically feasible, and we seek comment on the operational, 
pricing, and policy ramifications to determine whether or not to 
mandate line sharing nationally.

III. Background

A. Advanced Services Technologies
    9. In circumstances in which the xDSL-equipped line carries both 
POTS (``plain old telephone service'') and data

[[Page 23232]]

channels, the carrier must separate those two streams when they reach 
the telephone company's central office. This is generally done by a 
device known as a digital subscriber line access multiplexer, or DSLAM. 
The DSLAM and central office xDSL modem send the customer's POTS 
traffic to the public, circuit-switched telephone network. The DSLAM 
sends the customer's data traffic (combined with that of other xDSL 
users) to a packet-switched data network. Thus, the data traffic, after 
traversing the local loop, avoids the circuit-switched telephone 
network altogether.
    10. Once on the packet-switched network, the data traffic is routed 
to the location selected by the customer, for example, a corporate 
local area network or an Internet service provider. That location may 
itself be a gateway to a new packet-switched network or set of 
networks, like the Internet.
B. Statutory Framework
    11. In the 1996 Act, Congress established a ``pro-competitive, 
deregulatory national policy framework'' for telecommunications, 
opening all telecommunications markets to competition so as to make 
advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services 
available to all Americans. At the core of the Act's market-opening 
provisions is section 251. In section 251, Congress sought to open 
local telecommunications markets to competition by, among other things, 
reducing economic and operational advantages possessed by incumbents.
    12. Section 251 requires incumbent LECs to share their networks in 
a manner that enables competitors to choose among three methods of 
entry--the construction of new networks, the use of unbundled elements 
of the incumbent's network, and resale of the incumbent's retail 
services. Section 251(a) requires all ``telecommunications carriers'' 
to ``interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and 
equipment of other telecommunications carriers.'' Section 251(c)(3) 
requires incumbent LECs to provide nondiscriminatory access to 
unbundled network elements. In addition, section 251(c)(6) imposes an 
obligation on incumbent LECs ``to provide, on rates, terms and 
conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, for 
physical collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or 
access to unbundled network elements. * * *'' Finally, for competitors 
that seek to compete by reselling the incumbent LEC's services, section 
251(c)(4) requires incumbent LECs to offer for resale at wholesale 
rates ``any telecommunications service that the carrier provides at 
retail to subscribers who are not telecommunications carriers.''
C. Procedural History
    13. On August 7, 1998, we released the Advanced Services Order and 
NPRM, in response to six petitions suggesting action we should take to 
speed the deployment by wireline carriers of advanced services. In that 
order, we concluded, inter alia, that the pro-competitive provisions of 
the 1996 Act are technology-neutral and thus apply equally to advanced 
services and to circuit-switched voice services. We therefore concluded 
that incumbent LECs are subject to section 251(c) in their provision of 
advanced services. Specifically, we found that incumbent LECs are 
subject to the interconnection obligations of sections 251(a) and 
251(c)(2) with respect to both their circuit-switched and packet-
switched networks. We also clarified that the facilities and equipment 
used by the incumbent LECs to provide advanced services are network 
elements and generally subject to the obligations in section 251(c)(3). 
In response to the petitions of Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, SBC and US 
WEST requesting us to forbear from applying the requirements of section 
251(c), or section 271, or both with respect to their provision of 
advanced services, we concluded that we lacked the statutory authority 
to do so and therefore denied those petitions.
    14. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we proposed, in 
relevant part, to strengthen collocation requirements to foster timely, 
cost-effective, competitive deployment of advanced services. We also 
proposed to establish spectrum compatibility and management guidelines 
so that multiple carriers could deploy advanced technologies on common 
facilities.
    15. On January 25, 1999, the Supreme Court released an opinion in 
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board in which it addressed the 
Commission's rule setting forth those network elements that incumbent 
LECs must make available to competitors. The Court held that the 
Commission did not adequately consider the standards of section 
251(d)(2) in determining which network elements must be unbundled 
pursuant to section 251(c)(3). The Court stated that the Commission's 
rule setting forth the network elements that incumbent LECs must make 
available to requesting carriers should be vacated, and it remanded the 
matter for further proceedings. We are currently reviewing the section 
251(d)(2) standard consistent with the Supreme Court opinion in Iowa 
Utilities Board, and will seek further comment on the issue of whether 
network elements used in the provision of advanced services should be 
unbundled.

IV. First Report and Order

A. Measures to Encourage Competitive LEC Deployment of Advanced 
Services
1. Overview
    16. In this section we adopt additional measures that we expect 
will further facilitate competitive deployment of advanced services. In 
order to enable competitive LECs to compete effectively with incumbents 
in the advanced services marketplace, we establish additional standards 
and rules that will strengthen our collocation requirements, thereby 
reducing costs and delays associated with competitors collocating in an 
incumbent LEC's central office. We also adopt certain spectrum 
compatibility and management rules to allow competitive providers to 
deploy innovative advanced services technology in a timely manner. We 
acknowledge that the rules we adopt in this Order focus on the 
provision of advanced services, but we emphasize that the actions we 
take today pursuant to the Act apply to all telecommunications 
services, whether traditional voice services or advanced services.
2. Collocation Requirements
a. Background
    17. In 1992, in the Expanded Interconnection proceeding, the 
Commission adopted rules pursuant to section 201 of the Act that 
required certain incumbent LECs to offer physical and virtual 
collocation for parties seeking to locate interstate special access and 
switched transport transmission facilities at LEC premises.
    18. Section 251(c)(6) of the 1996 Act requires incumbent LECs to 
``provide, on rates terms and conditions that are just, reasonable, and 
nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of equipment necessary for 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the premises 
of the local exchange carrier, except that the carrier may provide for 
virtual collocation if the local exchange carrier demonstrates to the 
State commission that physical collocation is not practical for 
technical reasons or because of space limitations.'' In the Local 
Competition First Report and Order, 61 FR 45476, August 29, 1996, the 
Commission adopted specific rules to implement the collocation 
requirements of section 251(c)(6). In the Advanced Services Order and 
NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we

[[Page 23233]]

should adopt additional collocation rules to ensure that competing 
providers have access to the physical collocation space they need in 
order to offer advanced services.
b. Adoption of National Standards
    (1) Background: 19. In the Local Competition First Report and 
Order, the Commission adopted minimum requirements for 
nondiscriminatory collocation arrangements. The Commission adopted 
rules for, among other things, space allocation and exhaustion, types 
of equipment that could be collocated, and LEC premises where parties 
could collocate equipment. The Commission also concluded that state 
commissions should have the flexibility to adopt additional collocation 
requirements that are otherwise consistent with the Act and the 
Commission's regulations. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we 
sought comment on the extent to which we should establish additional 
national rules for collocation pursuant to sections 201 and 251 in 
order to remove barriers to entry and speed the deployment of advanced 
services.
    (2) Discussion: 20. We adopt our tentative conclusion to establish 
additional national rules for collocation. We emphasize that the 
collocation measures we adopt in this order apply to all 
telecommunications services, including advanced services and 
traditional voice services. The standards and rules we implement in 
this proceeding will serve as minimum requirements. We note that state 
commissions commenting in this proceeding generally support our 
proposal to adopt additional national rules. We conclude that states 
will continue to have the flexibility to respond to specific issues by 
imposing additional requirements.
    21. There are numerous problems that remain with provisioning of 
collocation space, and we believe that there are concrete steps we can 
take, in conjunction with the ongoing work of state commissions, to 
further the pro-competitive goals of the 1996 Act.
c. Collocation Equipment
    (1) Background: 22. Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LECs to 
allow collocation of ``equipment necessary for interconnection or 
access to unbundled network elements . . . .'' In the Local Competition 
First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that section 251(c)(6) 
requires collocation of equipment used for: (1) interconnection for 
``the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and 
exchange access'' pursuant to section 251(c)(2); and (2) access to 
unbundled network elements for ``the provision of a telecommunications 
service'' pursuant to section 251(c)(3). The Commission interpreted 
section 251(c)(6) as requiring incumbent LECs to permit competitors to 
collocate equipment that is ``used and useful'' for either 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.
    23. The Commission concluded in the Local Competition First Report 
and Order that new entrants may collocate transmission equipment, 
including optical terminating equipment and multiplexers, on incumbent 
LEC premises. The Commission further concluded, at the time, that 
incumbent LECs need not permit the collocation of other types of 
equipment, including switching equipment and equipment used to provide 
enhanced services. With respect to switching equipment, however, the 
Commission recognized that ``modern technology has tended to blur the 
line between switching equipment and multiplexing equipment.'' This 
trend in manufacturing has benefited service providers and their 
customers by reducing costs, promoting efficient network design, and 
expanding the range of possible service offerings. As a consequence of 
this integration, certain equipment that competing carriers need to 
collocate to provide advanced services efficiently may also perform 
switching functions. Because incumbent LECs are currently not required 
by our rules to permit collocation of switching equipment, competing 
providers argue that incumbent LECs have delayed competitive entry by 
contesting, on a case-by-case basis, the functionality of a particular 
piece of equipment (which may perform switching functions in addition 
to its other functions) and whether it may be collocated.
    (2) Discussion: 24. Equipment with switching and enhanced services 
functionality. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we tentatively 
concluded that incumbent LECs should not be permitted to impede 
competing carriers from offering advanced services by imposing 
unnecessary restrictions on the type of equipment that competing 
carriers may collocate. We sought comment on whether we should require 
incumbent LECs to allow new entrants to collocate any equipment that is 
used for interconnection and access to unbundled network elements, even 
if such equipment also includes a switching functionality. 
Specifically, we asked if collocation of equipment that performs both 
switching and other functions would encourage competitive LECs to use 
integrated equipment that otherwise might not be allowed in incumbent 
LEC premises.
    25. Our existing rules, correctly read, require incumbent LECs to 
permit collocation of all equipment that is necessary for 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements, regardless of 
whether such equipment includes a switching functionality, provides 
enhanced services capabilities, or offers other functionalities. Our 
rules obligate incumbent LECs to ``permit the collocation of any type 
of equipment used for interconnection or access to unbundled network 
elements.'' Stated differently, an incumbent LEC may not refuse to 
permit collocation of any equipment that is ``used or useful'' for 
either interconnection or access to unbundled network elements, 
regardless of other functionalities inherent in such equipment. Rather, 
our rules require incumbent LECs to permit collocation of any equipment 
required by the statute unless they first ``prove to the state 
commission that the equipment will not be actually used by the 
telecommunications carrier for the purpose of obtaining interconnection 
or access to unbundled network elements.'' This rule requires incumbent 
LECs to permit competitors to collocate such equipment as DSLAMs, 
routers, ATM multiplexers, and remote switching modules. Nor may 
incumbent LECs place any limitations on the ability of competitors to 
use all the features, functions, and capabilities of collocated 
equipment, including, but not limited to, switching and routing 
features and functions.
    26. We consider this clarification of our existing rules to be 
particularly important given the rapid pace of technological change in 
the telecommunications equipment marketplace. By clarifying that 
incumbent LECs must permit advanced services equipment to be collocated 
on their premises, we take an important step towards elimination of 
obstacles to competition. In order to compete effectively in the 
advanced services marketplace, competitive telecommunications providers 
must be permitted to collocate integrated equipment that lowers costs 
and increases the services they can offer their customers.
    27. We continue to decline, however, to require incumbent LECs to 
permit the collocation of equipment that is not necessary for either 
access to UNEs or for interconnection, such as equipment used 
exclusively for switching or for enhanced services. Although we may 
explore requiring such collocation in the future, we do not find 
sufficient

[[Page 23234]]

support in the record at this time for such a requirement. We reiterate 
that incumbent LECs are obligated, pursuant to section 251(c)(6), to 
permit competitors to collocate multi-functional equipment, even 
equipment that includes switching or enhanced services functionalities, 
if such equipment is necessary for access to UNEs or for 
interconnection with the incumbent LEC's network.
    28. Cross-Connects. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we 
sought comment on any additional steps we might take so that 
competitive LECs are able to establish cross-connects to the equipment 
of other collocated competitive LECs.
    29. We now revise our rules to require incumbent LECs to permit 
collocating carriers to construct their own cross-connect facilities 
between collocated equipment located on the incumbent's premises.
    30. Equipment Safety Requirements. In the Advanced Services Order 
and NPRM, we tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs may require that 
all equipment that a new entrant places on its premises meet safety 
requirements to avoid endangering other equipment and the incumbent 
LECs' networks. Certain performance and reliability requirements, 
however, may not be necessary to protect LEC equipment. Such 
requirements may increase costs unnecessarily, which would lessen the 
ability of new entrants to serve certain markets and thereby harm 
competition. We tentatively concluded that, to the extent that 
incumbent LECs use equipment that does not satisfy the Bellcore Network 
Equipment and Building Specifications (NEBS) requirements, competitive 
LECs should be able to collocate the same or equivalent equipment. We 
further tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs should be required to 
list all approved equipment and all equipment they use.
    31. We conclude that, subject to the limitations described herein, 
an incumbent LEC may impose safety standards that must be met by the 
equipment to be collocated in its central office.
    32. Second, we conclude that, although an incumbent LEC may require 
competitive LEC equipment to satisfy NEBS safety standards, the 
incumbent may not impose safety requirements that are more stringent 
than the safety requirements it imposes on its own equipment that it 
locates in its premises.
d. Alternative Collocation Arrangements
(1) Background
    33. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we made several 
tentative conclusions and sought comment on issues raised by ALTS in 
its petition contending that the practices and policies that incumbent 
LECs employed in offering physical collocation impeded competition by 
imposing substantial costs and delays on competing carriers for space 
and construction of collocation cages. Based on the record submitted in 
this proceeding, we now adopt several of our tentative conclusions 
related to the provisioning of collocation space in incumbent LEC 
premises.
    34. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we tentatively 
concluded that we should require incumbent LECs to offer collocation 
arrangements to new entrants that minimize the space needed by each 
competing provider in order to promote the deployment of advanced 
services to all Americans. Such alternative collocation arrangements 
include: (1) the use of shared collocation cages, within which multiple 
competing providers' equipment could be either openly accessible or 
locked within a secure cabinet; (2) the option to request collocation 
cages of any size without any minimum requirement, so that competing 
providers will not use any more space than is reasonably necessary for 
their needs; and (3) physical collocation that does not require the use 
of collocation cages (``cageless'' collocation).
(2) Discussion
    35. We now adopt our tentative conclusion that incumbent LECs must 
provide specific collocation arrangements, consistent with the rules we 
outline below, at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions as are set by 
state commissions in conformity with the Act and our rules.
    36. We now adopt new rules requiring incumbent LECs to make certain 
collocation arrangements available to requesting carriers. In adopting 
new rules, we reject the arguments of incumbent LEC commenters that 
additional national collocation rules are not necessary.
    37. First, we require incumbent LECs to make shared collocation 
cages available to new entrants. A shared collocation cage is a caged 
collocation space shared by two or more competitive LECs pursuant to 
terms and conditions agreed to by the competitive LECs. In making 
shared cage arrangements available, incumbent LECs may not increase the 
cost of site preparation or nonrecurring charges above the cost for 
provisioning such a cage of similar dimensions and material to a single 
collocating party. In addition, the incumbent must prorate the charge 
for site conditioning and preparation undertaken by the incumbent to 
construct the shared collocation cage or condition the space for 
collocation use, regardless of how many carriers actually collocate in 
that cage, by determining the total charge for site preparation and 
allocating that charge to a collocating carrier based on the percentage 
of the total space utilized by that carrier. In other words, a carrier 
should be charged only for those costs directly attributable to that 
carrier. The incumbent may not place unreasonable restrictions on a new 
entrant's use of a collocation cage, such as limiting the new entrant's 
ability to contract with other competitive carriers to share the new 
entrant's collocation cage in a sublease-type arrangement. In addition, 
if two or more competitive LECs who have interconnection agreements 
with an incumbent LEC utilize a shared collocation arrangement, the 
incumbent LEC must permit each competitive LEC to order UNEs to and 
provision service from that shared collocation space, regardless of 
which competitive LEC was the original collocator.
    38. Second, we require incumbent LECs to make cageless collocation 
arrangements available to requesting carriers. While we do not prevent 
incumbent LECs from offering caged collocation arrangements, we require 
incumbent LECs to make cageless collocation available so as to offer 
competitors a choice of arrangements. Subject only to technical 
feasibility and the permissible security parameters outlined below, 
incumbent LECs must allow competitors to collocate in any unused space 
in the incumbent LEC's premises, without requiring the construction of 
a room, cage, or similar structure, and without requiring the creation 
of a separate entrance to the competitor's collocation space. Incumbent 
LECs may require competitors to use a central entrance to the 
incumbent's building, but may not require construction of a new 
entrance for competitors' use, and once inside the building incumbent 
LECs must permit competitors to have direct access to their equipment. 
Incumbent LECs may not require competitors to use an intermediate 
interconnection arrangement in lieu of direct connection to the 
incumbent's network if technically feasible, because such intermediate 
points of interconnection

[[Page 23235]]

simply increase collocation costs without a concomitant benefit to 
incumbents. In addition, an incumbent LEC must give competitors the 
option of collocating equipment in any unused space within the 
incumbent's premises, to the extent technically feasible, and may not 
require competitors to collocate in a room or isolated space separate 
from the incumbent's own equipment. The incumbent LEC may take 
reasonable steps to protect its own equipment, such as enclosing the 
equipment in its own cage, and other reasonable security measures as 
discussed below. The incumbent LEC may not, however, require 
competitors to use separate rooms or floors, which only serves to 
increase the cost of collocation and decrease the amount of available 
collocation space. The incumbent LEC may not utilize unreasonable 
segregation requirements to impose unnecessary additional costs on 
competitors.
    39. Incumbent LECs must also ensure that cageless collocation 
arrangements do not place unreasonable minimum space requirements on 
collocating carriers. Thus, a competitive LEC must be able to purchase 
collocation space sufficient, for example, to house only one rack of 
equipment, and should not be forced to purchase collocation space that 
is much larger than the carrier requires. We require incumbent LECs to 
make collocation space available in single-bay increments, meaning that 
a competing carrier can purchase space in increments small enough to 
collocate a single rack, or bay, of equipment. We conclude that this 
requirement serves the public interest because it would reduce the cost 
of collocation for competitive LECs and it will reduce the likelihood 
of premature space exhaustion. We rely on state commissions to ensure 
that the prices of these smaller collocation spaces are appropriate 
given the amount of space in the incumbent LEC's premises actually 
occupied by the new entrants.
    40. Finally, we require incumbent LECs, when space is legitimately 
exhausted in a particular LEC premises, to permit collocation in 
adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures to the 
extent technically feasible. Such a requirement is, we believe, the 
best means suggested by commenters, both incumbents and new entrants, 
of addressing the issue of space exhaustion by ensuring that 
competitive carriers can compete with the incumbent, even when there is 
no space inside the LEC's premises. Because zoning and other state and 
local regulations may affect the viability of adjacent collocation, and 
because the incumbent LEC may have a legitimate reason to exercise some 
measure of control over design or construction parameters, we rely on 
state commissions to address such issues. In general, however, the 
incumbent LEC must permit the new entrant to construct or otherwise 
procure such an adjacent structure, subject only to reasonable safety 
and maintenance requirements. The incumbent must provide power and 
physical collocation services and facilities, subject to the same 
nondiscrimination requirements as traditional collocation arrangements.
    41. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we also asked whether, 
if an incumbent LEC offers a particular collocation arrangement, such 
an arrangement should be presumed to be technically feasible at other 
LEC premises. We recognize that different incumbent LECs make different 
collocation arrangements available on a region by region, state by 
state, and even central office by central office basis. We now conclude 
that the deployment by any incumbent LEC of a collocation arrangement 
gives rise to a rebuttable presumption in favor of a competitive LEC 
seeking collocation in any incumbent LEC premises that such an 
arrangement is technically feasible. Such a presumption of technical 
feasibility, we find, will encourage all LECs to explore a wide variety 
of collocation arrangements and to make such arrangements available in 
a reasonable and timely fashion. We believe this ``best practices'' 
approach will promote competition.
e. Security
    42. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on 
the security and access issues that may arise from a requirement that 
incumbent LECs provide alternative collocation arrangements, including 
cageless collocation. We noted that, in the Local Competition First 
Report and Order, the Commission concluded that incumbent LECs should 
be permitted reasonable security arrangements to protect their 
equipment and ensure network security and reliability. We recognized 
that adequate security for both incumbent LECs and competitive LECs is 
important to encourage deployment of advanced services.
    43. We conclude, based on the record, that incumbent LECs may 
impose security arrangements that are as stringent as the security 
arrangements that incumbent LECs maintain at their own premises either 
for their own employees or for authorized contractors. To the extent 
existing security arrangements are more stringent for one group than 
for the other, the incumbent may impose the more stringent 
requirements. Except as provided below, we conclude that incumbent LECs 
may not impose more stringent security requirements than these. Stated 
differently, the incumbent LEC may not impose discriminatory security 
requirements that result in increased collocation costs without the 
concomitant benefit of providing necessary protection of the incumbent 
LEC's equipment.
    44. We agree with commenting incumbent LECs that protection of 
their equipment is crucial to the incumbents' own ability to offer 
service to their customers. Therefore, incumbent LECs may establish 
certain reasonable security measures that will assist in protecting 
their networks and equipment from harm. The incumbent LEC may not, 
however, unreasonably restrict the access of a new entrant to the new 
entrant's equipment. We permit incumbent LECs to install, for example, 
security cameras or other monitoring systems, or to require competitive 
LEC personnel to use badges with computerized tracking systems. 
Incumbent LECs may not use any information they collect in the course 
of implementing or operating security arrangements for any marketing or 
other purpose in aid of competing with other carriers. We expect that 
state commissions will permit incumbent LECs to recover the costs of 
implementing these security measures from collocating carriers in a 
reasonable manner. We further permit incumbent LECs to require 
competitors' employees to undergo the same level of security training, 
or its equivalent, that the incumbent's own employees, or third party 
contractors providing similar functions, must undergo. The incumbent 
LEC may not, however, require competitive LEC employees to receive such 
training from the incumbent LEC itself, but must provide information to 
the competitive LEC on the specific type of training required so the 
competitive LEC's employees can complete such training by, for example, 
conducting their own security training.
    45. Incumbent LECs must allow collocating parties to access their 
equipment 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without requiring either a 
security escort of any kind or delaying a competitor's employees' entry 
into the incumbent LEC's premises by requiring, for example, an 
incumbent LEC employee to be present. We also require incumbent LECs to 
provide competitors reasonable access to basic facilities, such as 
restroom facilities and parking, while at the incumbent LEC's premises.

[[Page 23236]]

f. Space Preparation Cost Allocation
    46. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on 
ALTS' proposal that we establish rules for the allocation of up-front 
space preparation charges. One approach we noted, which had been 
adopted by Bell Atlantic in its pre-filing statement in the New York 
Commission's section 271 docket, was that the competing provider would 
be responsible only for its share of the cost of conditioning the 
collocation space, whether or not other competing providers were 
immediately occupying the rest of the space. In addition, Bell Atlantic 
committed to allowing smaller competing providers to pay on an 
installment basis. We sought comment on whether we should adopt Bell 
Atlantic's approach, or any other approach, as a national standard in 
order to speed the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability 
to all Americans.
    47. We conclude, based on the record, that incumbent LECs must 
allocate space preparation, security measures, and other collocation 
charges on a pro-rated basis so the first collocator in a particular 
incumbent premises will not be responsible for the entire cost of site 
preparation. In order to ensure that the first entrant into an 
incumbent's premises does not bear the entire cost of site preparation, 
the incumbent must develop a system of partitioning the cost by 
comparing, for example, the amount of conditioned space actually 
occupied by the new entrant with the overall space conditioning 
expenses. We expect state commissions will determine the proper pricing 
methodology to ensure that incumbent LECs properly allocate site 
preparation costs among new entrants. We also conclude that these 
standards will serve as minimum requirements, and that states should 
continue to have flexibility to adopt additional collocation 
requirements, consistent with the Act.
g. Provisioning Intervals
    48. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on 
how to address the entry barrier posed by delays between the ordering 
and provisioning of collocation space. Specifically, we sought comment 
on ALTS' proposal that we should establish presumptive reasonable 
deployment intervals for new collocation arrangements and expansion of 
existing arrangements. Currently, some incumbent LECs require a new 
entrant to obtain state competitive LEC certification before it can 
begin to negotiate an interconnection agreement. In addition, 
competitive LECs asserted that some incumbent LECs will not allow a 
requesting carrier to order collocation space until an interconnection 
agreement becomes final.
    49. We conclude that an incumbent LEC may not impose unreasonable 
restrictions on the time period within which it will consider 
applications for collocation space. Specifically, we conclude that an 
incumbent LEC may not refuse to consider an application for collocation 
space submitted by a competitor while that competitor's state 
certification is pending, or before the competitor and incumbent LEC 
have entered into a final interconnection agreement. There is no 
legitimate reason for an incumbent LEC to refuse to begin processing a 
collocation application, especially given that competitors pay an 
application fee to the incumbent to cover the costs associated with 
consideration of the application.
    50. We do not adopt specific provisioning intervals at this time. 
We have adopted several new collocation rules in this Order, and we do 
not yet have sufficient experience with the implementation of these new 
collocation arrangements to suggest time frames for provisioning. While 
we do not at this time adopt specific intervals, we retain authority to 
adopt specific time frames in the future as we deem necessary. We 
emphasize the importance of timely provisioning, and we are confident 
that state commissions recognize the competitive harm that new entrants 
suffer when collocation arrangements are unnecessarily delayed. The 
record in this proceeding reflects the significant competitive harm 
suffered by new entrants whose collocation space is not ready for as 
long as six to eight months after their initial collocation request is 
submitted to the incumbent LEC. Several state commissions have taken 
significant steps to lessen the time periods within which incumbent 
LECs provision collocation space. The Texas PUC has required 
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) to provide competitive LECs 
with information on space availability in a SWBT premises within ten 
days of receipt of a collocation request. Because of the importance of 
ensuring timely provisioning of collocation space, we encourage state 
commissions to ensure that incumbent LECs are given specific time 
intervals within which they must respond to collocation requests.
    51. The practices of several carriers suggest that provisioning 
intervals can be short. Both GTE and Ameritech state that they respond 
to physical collocation requests within ten days by advising the 
requesting carrier whether space is available or not. We view ten days 
as a reasonable time period within which to inform a new entrant 
whether its collocation application is accepted or denied. Even with a 
timely response to their applications, however, new entrants cannot 
compete effectively unless they have timely access to provisioned 
collocation space. We urge the states to ensure that collocation space 
is available in a timely and pro-competitive manner that gives new 
entrants a full and fair opportunity to compete.
h. Space Exhaustion
    52. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we noted that one of 
the major barriers facing new entrants that seek to provide advanced 
services on a facilities basis is the lack of collocation space in many 
incumbent LEC premises. Pursuant to the Act, incumbent LECs must 
provide physical collocation unless they demonstrate to the state 
commission's satisfaction that ``physical collocation is not practical 
for technical reasons or because of space limitations.'' Because 
incumbent LECs have the incentive and capability to impede competition 
by reducing the amount of space available for collocation by 
competitors, the Commission, in the Local Competition First Report and 
Order, required incumbent LECs that deny requests for physical 
collocation on the basis of space limitations to provide the state 
commission with detailed floor plans or diagrams of their premises. The 
Commission concluded that such submissions would aid the state 
commission in evaluating whether the denial of physical collocation was 
justified.
    53. We now adopt our tentative conclusion that an incumbent LEC 
that denies a request for physical collocation due to space limitations 
should, in addition to providing the state commission with detailed 
floor plans, allow any competing provider that is denied physical 
collocation at the incumbent LEC's premises to tour the premises. 
Specifically, we require the incumbent LEC to permit representatives of 
a requesting telecommunications carrier that has been denied 
collocation due to space constraints to tour the entire premises in 
question, not just the room in which space was denied, without charge, 
within ten days of the denial of space. As we noted in the Advanced 
Services NPRM, allowing competing providers to walk through a LEC's 
premises will enable those providers to identify space that they 
believe could be used for physical collocation. If, after the tour of

[[Page 23237]]

the premises, the incumbent LEC and competing provider disagree about 
whether space limitations at that premise make collocation impractical, 
both carriers could present their arguments to the state commission. 
Incumbent LECs are permitted to assign their own personnel to such 
tours, thus offering sufficient protection against harm to the network 
and proprietary information.
    54. We also adopt our tentative conclusion that an incumbent LEC 
must submit to a requesting carrier within ten days of the submission 
of the request a report indicating the incumbent LEC's available 
collocation space in a particular LEC premises. This report must 
specify the amount of collocation space available at each requested 
premises, the number of collocators, and any modifications in the use 
of the space since the last report. The report must also include 
measures that the incumbent LEC is taking to make additional space 
available for collocation. In addition to this reporting requirement 
incumbent LECs must maintain a publicly available document, posted for 
viewing on the Internet, indicating all premises that are full, and 
must update such a document within ten days of the date at which a 
premises runs out of physical collocation space. Such requirements will 
allow competitors to avoid expending significant resources in applying 
for collocation space in an incumbent LEC's premises where no such 
space exists. We expect that state commissions will permit incumbent 
LECs to recover the costs of implementing these reporting measures from 
collocating carriers in a reasonable manner.
    55. For network planning purposes, new entrants need to know what 
incumbent LEC offices are available for collocation. Each new entrant 
cannot be required to apply for collocation space in every central 
office in order to find out if there is space available in that office, 
when such information is readily available to the incumbent LEC that 
occupies that office.
    56. Finally, we conclude that in order to increase the amount of 
space available for collocation, incumbent LECs must remove obsolete 
unused equipment from their premises upon reasonable request by a 
competitor or upon the order of a state commission. We rely on state 
commissions to settle disputes between carriers as to which incumbent 
equipment is truly obsolete and unused and can be removed from the 
LEC's premises. We also note that carriers may utilize the complaint 
provisions of section 208 of the Act in the case of collocation 
disputes that fall within the Commission's jurisdiction.
B. Spectrum Compatibility
    57. Background. Spectrum compatibility refers generally to the 
ability of various loop technologies to reside and operate in close 
proximity while not significantly degrading each other's performance. 
Our discussion of spectrum compatibility includes spectral 
compatibility standards issues, such as setting the signal power 
densities so as to minimize interference, and spectrum management 
issues, such as establishing binder group administration and deployment 
practices. The development of spectral compatibility standards should 
help to minimize crosstalk, the noise caused by extraneous signals 
combining with the intended signal. This noise can result in the 
degradation of the intended signal. Compatibility becomes a significant 
concern with the introduction of new high-speed services in a multiple 
provider environment. For example, if an incumbent LEC and a 
competitive LEC offer DSL services that use different line encoding 
technologies, and if their respective customers' loops are located 
adjacent to each other within a binder group, the two technologies may 
unintentionally interfere with one another and interrupt the signals 
travelling over each loop. One method of ensuring spectral 
compatibility is through the use of power spectral density (PSD) masks. 
PSD masks are represented as graphical templates that define the limits 
on signal power densities across a range of frequencies so as to 
minimize interference. The goal of PSD mask standards is to permit 
divergent technologies to coexist in close proximity within the same 
binder groups. Standards bodies, such as T1E1.4, define these masks as 
technology develops. The development of spectrum management rules and 
practices should help enable multiple technologies to coexist within 
binder groups.
    58. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on 
how to address the host of loop spectrum compatibility issues. In 
particular, we asked commenters to consider how we should address 
interference concerns that may result from provision of advanced 
services using different signal formats on copper pairs in the same 
bundle. We asked parties to suggest ways to determine when a particular 
service, technology, or piece of equipment causes network interference 
such that the use of the particular service, technology, or piece of 
equipment should be prohibited. We also asked commenters to suggest 
ways to distinguish between legitimate claims that particular services, 
technologies, or equipment create spectrum interference and claims 
raised simply to impede competition. We sought comment on whether we 
should adopt any industry standards as the basis for national spectrum 
compatibility requirements. We also sought comment on how any 
requirements should evolve over time so as to encourage and not stifle 
innovation. In addition, we sought comment on other approaches to 
spectrum management that would foster pro-competitive use of the loop 
plant by incumbent LECs and new entrants, while providing necessary 
network protection.
    59. Discussion. We acknowledge that clear spectral compatibility 
standards and spectrum management rules and practices are necessary 
both to foster competitive deployment of innovative technologies and to 
ensure the quality and reliability of the public telephone network. We 
find, however, that incumbent LECs should not unilaterally determine 
what technologies LECs, both competitive LECs and incumbent LECs, may 
deploy. Nor should incumbent LECs have unfettered control over spectrum 
management standards and practices.
    60. We find that we do not have a sufficient record with which we 
can adequately address all of the long-term spectrum compatibility 
issues. Thus, we adopt below a Further NPRM through which we hope to 
resolve, in a timely manner, the long-term spectrum compatibility 
issues. In the Further NPRM, we seek comment on additional measures we 
can take to encourage deployment of innovative technology while 
simultaneously ensuring the integrity of the network. In this Order, we 
adopt certain rules on spectrum compatibility and management which we 
believe will enable reasonable and safe deployment of advanced services 
prior to development of industry standards and resolution of all the 
issues raised in the Further NPRM.
a. Existing Power Spectral Density Masks
    61. Commenters generally agree that the process of establishing 
power spectral density masks best occurs within the industry standards 
setting bodies. Such standards bodies possess the combined knowledge 
and expertise of a broad sector of the industry.
    62. We conclude, however, that we should establish certain rules on 
spectrum compatibility that will immediately facilitate the deployment 
of advanced services, until long-term

[[Page 23238]]

standards and practices can be established. Although we believe that 
the development of power spectral density masks is best left to 
standards bodies such as the T1E1.4, we also believe the Commission can 
take certain immediate steps to encourage the deployment of advanced 
services. Rather than setting forth in this Order specific standards 
for the new technologies, we establish certain rules to foster 
deployment of advanced services while maintaining network integrity, 
until the standards bodies adopt comprehensive standards for the new 
technologies. We find that any equipment deployed consistent with the 
rules adopted here can be connected to the public switched telephone 
network with reasonable confidence that this technology will not 
significantly degrade the performance of other advanced services, and 
with reasonable confidence that this technology will not impair 
traditional voice band services.
    63. We conclude that any loop technology that complies with 
existing industry standards is presumed acceptable for deployment. 
Specifically, we conclude that technology that complies with any of the 
following standards is presumed acceptable for deployment: T1.601, 
T1.413, and TR28. Furthermore, any technology which has been 
successfully deployed by any carrier without significantly degrading 
the performance of other services or has been approved by this 
Commission, any state commission, or an industry standards body is 
presumed acceptable for deployment.
    64. We conclude that a LEC may not deny a carrier's request to 
deploy technology that is presumed acceptable for deployment, unless 
the LEC demonstrates to the state commission that deployment of the 
particular technology within the LEC network will significantly degrade 
the performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band 
services. We conclude further that industry standards are not upper 
limits on what technology is deployable; incumbent LECs and competitive 
LECs are free to mutually agree to deploy new technologies that may 
exceed these standards. We encourage cooperation between incumbents and 
competitors to establish agreements on the deployment of non-standard 
xDSL-based and other advanced services technology. We expect that as 
standards are ratified for new technologies, carriers will recognize 
these as deployable technologies and will not deny competitors the 
ability to deploy these technologies. In the event that a LEC 
subsequently demonstrates to this Commission or 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 such 
services.
    65. We further conclude that incumbent LECs cannot deny requesting 
carriers the right to deploy a new technology that does not conform to 
the standards cited in the preceding paragraph and has not yet been 
approved by a standards body (or otherwise authorized by this 
Commission or any state commission), if the requesting carrier can 
demonstrate to the state commission that this particular technology 
will not significantly degrade the performance of other advanced 
services or traditional voice band services. In this situation, there 
would be no presumption in favor of deployment and the burden would be 
on the requesting carrier to make the appropriate showing.
b. Spectrum Management
    66. In order to encourage deployment of innovative technology and 
allow competitors the same opportunity as incumbent LECs to deploy 
advanced services, while simultaneously ensuring the integrity of the 
network, we establish certain spectrum management rules.
    67. We define spectrum management to include binder/cable 
administration as well as the broader issue of deployment practices 
(e.g., the rules for testing and implementing xDSL-based and other 
advanced services). We believe that the industry must develop a simpler 
and more open approach to spectrum management. Currently, each 
incumbent LEC defines its own spectrum management specifications. These 
measures vary from provider to provider and from state to state, 
thereby requiring competitive LECs to conform to different 
specifications in each area. We find that uniform spectrum management 
procedures are essential to the success of advanced services 
deployment. As such, we adopt the following spectrum management rules.
    68. We conclude that the incumbent LEC must provide competitive 
LECs with nondiscriminatory access to the incumbent LEC's spectrum 
management procedures and policies. The procedures and policies that 
the incumbent LEC uses in determining which services can be deployed 
must be equally available to competitive LECs intending to provide 
service in an area. We believe that competitive LECs need 
nondiscriminatory access to such information so that the competitive 
LEC can independently and expeditiously determine what services and 
technologies it can deploy within the incumbent LEC's territory.
    69. We conclude that incumbent LECs must disclose to requesting 
carriers information with respect to the rejection of the requesting 
carrier's provision of advanced services, together with the specific 
reason for the rejection. The incumbent LEC must also disclose to 
requesting carriers information with respect to the number of loops 
using advanced services technology within the binder and type of 
technology deployed on those loops. We believe that such disclosure 
will allow for a more open and accessible environment, foster 
competition, and encourage deployment of advanced services.
    70. We strongly believe that industry should discontinue deployment 
of well recognized disturbers, such as AMI T1. We further believe 
carriers should, to the fullest extent possible, replace AMI T1 with 
new and less interfering technologies. In the accompanying Further 
NPRM, we seek comment on methods by which to reduce or eliminate the 
deployment of AMI T1.
    71. We conclude that if a carrier claims a service is significantly 
degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional 
voice band services, then that carrier must notify the causing carrier 
and allow that carrier a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem. 
Any claims of network harm must be supported with specific and 
verifiable supporting information.
    72. We recognize that there may be a limit to the number of lines 
delivering advanced services that can share a binder group without 
interfering with other customers' services. We conclude that the 
incumbent LEC shall bear the burden of demonstrating to the relevant 
state commission when a requested advanced service will significantly 
degrade the performance of existing services, such that the incumbent 
can deny the competitor's request. We do not believe this will be a 
problem until advanced services penetrate a significant portion of the 
market and expect incumbents to manage binder groups in such a manner 
so as to maximize the number and types of advanced services that can be 
deployed.
    73. We recognize further that the standards development process may 
delay the deployment of new technologies. To address this difficulty, 
we encourage the industry to apply a

[[Page 23239]]

``test and see'' strategy, which would allow competitive LECs and 
incumbent LECs to cooperate in testing and deployment of new services. 
We find that this strategy will encourage innovation and allow for the 
more rapid deployment of new technologies. Our hope is that all 
providers recognize that cooperation is essential in this future shared 
environment.
5. Further Information
    74. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact 
Michael Pryor, Deputy Division Chief, Policy and Program Planning 
Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at 202-418-1580 or [e-mail]. 
Further information may also be obtained by calling the Common Carrier 
Bureau's TTY number: 202-418-0484.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    75. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1-4, 10, 
201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 160, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, 
and 303(r), the First Report and Order is hereby adopted. The 
requirements adopted in this Order shall be effective 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register, except for 47 CFR 51.321 (f) and 
(h) and 51.323 (b) and (i)(3) which contain information collection 
requirements that are not effective until approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    76. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public 
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this First 
Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Advanced 
Services Order and NPRM. The Commission sought written public comment 
on the proposals in the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, including 
comment on the IRFA. [The comments received are discussed below.] This 
present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the 
RFA.

I. Need for and Objectives of This First Report and Order and the Rules 
Adopted Herein

    2. In order to encourage competition among carriers to develop and 
deploy new advanced services, it is critical that the marketplace for 
these services be conducive to investment, innovation, and meeting the 
needs of consumers. In this First Report and Order, we seek to ensure 
that all carriers have economic incentives to innovate and invest in 
new technologies.
    3. We also adopt additional measures to further facilitate the 
development of competition in the advanced services market. First, we 
strengthen our collocation rules to reduce the costs and delays faced 
by competitors that seek to collocate equipment in an incumbent LEC's 
central office. We also adopt certain spectrum compatibility guidelines 
and adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to explore 
issues related to developing long-term standards and practices for 
spectrum compatibility and management and line sharing. The issues 
which are the subject of the FNPRM will be discussed in a separate 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    4. In the IRFA, we stated that any rule changes would impose 
minimum burdens on small entities. We indicated that the collocation 
section of the NPRM proposed reporting requirements. The IRFA solicited 
comment on alternatives to our proposed rules that would minimize the 
impact they may have on small entities. In response we received 
comments from the Office of Advocacy, United States Small Business 
Administration (SBA) specifically directed to the IRFA. Specifically, 
SBA contends that the Commission's IRFA was inadequate because it 
failed to consider the effect of its proposed rules on small incumbent 
LECs. While we continue to believe that incumbent LECs are dominant and 
therefore not ``small'' businesses within the meaning of the SBA, we 
include a discussion of the effect of the actions taken in this order 
on small incumbent LECs in order to remove any possible issue of RFA 
compliance. As noted in Part V of this FRFA, in making the 
determinations reflected in this order, we have given consideration to 
the SBA's comments, as well as comments of parties that generally 
addressed the impact of our proposed rules on small entities. We also 
do not agree with SBA's contention that our IRFA was not sufficiently 
detailed to generate ``meaningful comments on the impact of the 
proposed rules.'' The comments of the SBA, the National Rural Telecom 
Association, and the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of 
Small Telecommunications Companies, among others, provided more than 
sufficient detail for us to prepare this FRFA.

III. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected 
by the First Report and Order

    5. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the actions taken in this First Report and Order. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``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. A small business concern is one which: (1) is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).
    6. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small 
entities that may be affected by the decisions in this First Report and 
Order.
    7. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of certain 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 Telecommunications Industry 
Revenue report, regarding the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). 
According to data in the most recent report, there are 3,459 interstate 
carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers 
(LECs), 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.
    8. The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing 
``Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone'' to be small 
businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees. Below, we 
discuss the total estimated number of telephone companies and small 
businesses in this category, and we then attempt to refine further 
those estimates.
    9. Although 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

[[Page 23240]]

independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition not 
``small entities'' or ``small business concerns'' under the RFA. 
Accordingly, our use of the terms ``small entities'' and ``small 
businesses'' does not encompass small incumbent LECs. Out 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.''
    10. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small LECs. The closest applicable 
definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications 
companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to 
the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 1,371 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local 
exchange services. We do not have data specifying the number of these 
carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not 
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, 
and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the 
number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the 
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,371 
providers of local exchange service are small entities or small 
incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
    11. Competitive LECs. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed 
a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of 
competitive LECs. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules 
is for telephone communications companies except radiotelephone 
(wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding 
the number of competitive LECs nationwide is the data that we collect 
annually in connection with the TRS Worksheet. According the most 
recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 109 companies reported 
that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local 
exchange service or competitive access service, which are placed 
together in the data. We do not have information on the number of 
carriers that are not independently owned and operated, nor have more 
than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with 
greater precision the number of competitive LECs that would qualify as 
small business concerns under the SBA definition. Consequently, we 
estimate that there are fewer than 109 small competitive LECs or 
competitive access providers.

IV. Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

A. Collocation
    12. We establish additional national rules for collocation. We 
require incumbent LECs to permit collocating carriers to construct 
their own cross-connect facilities between collocated equipment located 
on the incumbent's premises. An incumbent LEC that denies collocation 
of a competitor's equipment, citing safety standards, must provide to 
the competitive LEC within five business days a list of all equipment 
that the incumbent LEC locates within the premises in question, 
together with an affidavit attesting that all of that equipment meets 
or exceeds the safety standard that the incumbent LEC contends the 
competitor's equipment fails to meet. Incumbent LECs must provide 
specific collocation arrangements, consistent with the rules we outline 
below, at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions as are set by state 
commissions in conformity with the Act and our rules.
    13. Incumbent LECs must make shared collocation cages, cageless 
collocation, and adjacent controlled environmental huts, each with 
single-bay collocation arrangements, available to new entrants. Subject 
only to technical feasibility and certain security parameters, 
incumbent LECs must allow competitors to collocate in any unused space 
in the incumbent LEC's premises, without requiring the construction of 
a cage or similar structure, and without requiring the creation of a 
separate entrance to the competitor's collocation space. Incumbent LECs 
may not require competitors to use an intermediate interconnection 
arrangement in lieu of direct connection to the incumbent's network if 
technically feasible, because such intermediate points of 
interconnection simply increase collocation costs without a concomitant 
benefit to incumbents. Incumbent LECs must allow competitive LECs to 
have access to their collocated equipment 24 hours a day, seven days a 
week, without requiring a security escort or delaying a competitor's 
employees' entry into the incumbent LEC's premises.
    14. Incumbent LECs must allocate space preparation, security 
measures, and other collocation charges on a pro-rated basis so the 
first collocator in a particular incumbent premises will not be 
responsible for the entire cost of site preparation. An incumbent LEC 
may not refuse to consider an application for collocation space 
submitted by a competitor while that competitor's state certification 
is pending, or before the competitor and incumbent LEC have entered 
into a final interconnection agreement. Incumbent LECs must permit 
representatives of a requesting telecommunications carrier that has 
been denied collocation due to space constraints to tour the entire 
premises in question. Upon request from a competitive LEC, an incumbent 
LEC must submit to the requesting carrier within ten days of the 
submission of the request a report indicating the incumbent LEC's 
available collocation space in a particular LEC premises. This report 
should specify the amount of collocation space available at each 
requested premises, the number of collocators, and any modifications in 
the use of the space since the last report. The report should also 
include measures that the incumbent LEC is taking to make additional 
space available for collocation. In addition to this reporting 
requirement, incumbent LECs must maintain a publicly available 
document, posted for viewing on the Internet, indicating all premises 
that are full, and must update such a document within ten days of the 
date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space. 
Finally, incumbent LECs must remove obsolete unused equipment from 
their premises to increase the amount of space available for 
collocation.
B. Spectrum Compatibility
    15. We establish certain spectrum compatibility guidelines in order 
to permit the safe deployment of xDSL and other advanced technologies. 
We determine that complying with these rules may require use of 
engineering, technical, operational, accounting, billing, and legal 
skills. However, we believe that incumbent LECs will already have these 
skills.

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

A. Collocation
    16. Incumbent LECs that deny competitive LECs collocation of 
certain equipment in a central office must provide the requesting 
carrier, within five business days, a list of all equipment the 
incumbent locates within the premises in question, together with an 
affidavit attesting that all the incumbent's equipment meets the safety 
standards that the incumbent contends the competitor's equipment fails 
to

[[Page 23241]]

meet. In addition, an incumbent LEC must submit to the requesting 
carrier within ten days of the submission of the request a report 
indicating the incumbent LEC's available collocation space in a 
particular LEC premises. These requirements allow competitive LECs, who 
would otherwise have be unable to discover if incumbent LECs are 
imposing discriminatory standards, to determine what type of equipment 
incumbents will accept to be collocated, and further will allow 
competitive LECs to determine if incumbent LECs are discriminating in 
enforcing equipment requirements on competitive LECs but not on 
themselves. The burden in preparing these reports in minimum, because 
incumbent LECs already know what equipment they have in their offices, 
how much space they have available, and the way in which they apply 
their collocation standards.
    17. Incumbent LECs that deny collocation for space reasons must 
allow competitive LECs to tour facilities. This requirement again 
provides proof of lack of space, and allows competitive LECs to gather 
evidence for presentation to state commission if there is a factual 
dispute regarding space availability. The burden on the incumbent LEC 
is minimum, because it can schedule tours when an employee is on site 
and available to give one.
    18. An incumbent LEC must make public a document available on 
Internet that lists all its premises that have no more collocation 
space available, within 10 days of the time that the space fills up 
completely. This serves competitive LECs by telling them when an 
incumbent LEC office is full, so they need not apply for space. The 
burden on incumbent LECs is minimal, because an Internet site is easy 
and cheap to maintain, and all they are doing is making available 
information that they already know themselves.
    19. An incumbent LEC must submit a report, within 10 days of 
receipt of a request for such a report, to a requesting competitive LEC 
indicating how much space is available in a particular incumbent LEC 
premises. This benefits competitive LECs by allowing them to find out 
if space is available without having to go through the lengthy and 
expensive application process. There is minimal burden on the 
incumbents because they already know the design of their own central 
offices and should be able to easily state how much space is available 
for collocation.
    20. Incumbent LECs must remove obsolete unused equipment from their 
premises to create more collocation space. Such a requirement can 
result in the creation of more collocation space in central offices 
that were previously without space. The burden on incumbent LECs is 
minimal, because if the equipment is obsolete and unused, the removal 
of such equipment will not affect the network operations of the 
incumbent.
B. Spectrum Compatibility
    21. Incumbent LECs must make public the spectrum management 
guidelines and policies that they use to determine what services 
competitive LECs can provide over unbundled loops. This requirement 
benefits competitive LECs by ensuring they know what services they can 
provide over unbundled loops. There is a minimal burden to incumbent 
LECs, because they already know what spectrum management guidelines 
they are applying to their own network, and they are now simply 
required to make such information public.

VI. Report to Congress

    22. The Commission will send a copy of the First Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of 
the First Report and Order, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the First 
Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published 
in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

Amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 51 as follows:

PART 51--INTERCONNECTION

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

    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. Section 51.5 is amended by adding the following definition to 
read as follows:


Sec. 51.5  Terms and definitions.

* * * * *
    Advanced services. The term ``advanced services'' is defined as 
high speed, switched, broadband, wireline telecommunications capability 
that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, 
graphics or video telecommunications using any technology.
* * * * *
    3. Section 51.321 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (f) and 
adding new paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.321  Methods of obtaining interconnection and access to 
unbundled elements under section 251 of the Act.

* * * * *
    (c) A previously successful method of obtaining interconnection or 
access to unbundled network elements at a particular premises or point 
on any incumbent LEC's network is substantial evidence that such method 
is technically feasible in the case of substantially similar network 
premises or points. A requesting telecommunications carrier seeking a 
particular collocation arrangement, either physical or virtual, is 
entitled to a presumption that such arrangement is technically feasible 
if any LEC has deployed such collocation arrangement in any incumbent 
LEC premises.
* * * * *
    (f) An incumbent LEC shall submit to the state commission, subject 
to any protective order as the state commission may deem necessary, 
detailed floor plans or diagrams of any premises where the incumbent 
LEC claims that physical collocation is not practical because of space 
limitations. An incumbent LEC that contends space for physical 
collocation is not available in an incumbent LEC premises must also 
allow the requesting carrier to tour the entire premises in question, 
not just the area in which space was denied, without charge, within ten 
days of the receipt of the incumbent LEC's denial of space.
* * * * *
    (h) Upon request, an incumbent LEC must submit to the requesting 
carrier within ten days of the submission of the request a report 
indicating the incumbent LEC's available collocation space in a 
particular LEC premises. This report must specify the amount of 
collocation space available at each requested premises, the number of 
collocators, and any modifications in the use of the space since the 
last report. This report must also include measures that the incumbent 
LEC is taking to

[[Page 23242]]

make additional space available for collocation. The incumbent LEC must 
maintain a publicly available document, posted for viewing on the 
incumbent LEC's publically available Internet site, indicating all 
premises that are full, and must update such a document within ten days 
of the date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space.
    (i) An incumbent LEC must, upon request, remove obsolete unused 
equipment from their premises to increase the amount of space available 
for collocation.
    4. Section 51.323 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (h), 
and (i) and adding new paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.323  Standards for physical collocation and virtual 
collocation.

* * * * *
    (b) An incumbent LEC shall permit the collocation of any type of 
equipment used or useful for interconnection or access to unbundled 
network elements. Whenever an incumbent LEC objects to collocation of 
equipment by a requesting telecommunications carrier for the purposes 
within the scope of section 251(c)(6) of the Act, the incumbent LEC 
shall prove to the state commission that the equipment will not be 
actually used by the telecommunications carrier for the purpose of 
obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled network elements. An 
incumbent LEC may not object to the collocation of equipment on the 
grounds that the equipment does not comply with safety or engineering 
standards that are more stringent than the safety or engineering 
standards that the incumbent LEC applies to its own equipment. An 
incumbent LEC may not object to the collocation of equipment on the 
ground that the equipment fails to comply with National Equipment and 
Building Specifications performance standards. An incumbent LEC that 
denies collocation of a competitor's equipment, citing safety 
standards, must provide to the competitive LEC within five business 
days of the denial a list of all equipment that the incumbent LEC 
locates within the premises in question, together with an affidavit 
attesting that all of that equipment meets or exceeds the safety 
standard that the incumbent LEC contends the competitor's equipment 
fails to meet. Equipment used for interconnection and access to 
unbundled network elements includes, but is not limited to:
    (1) Transmission equipment including, but not limited to, optical 
terminating equipment and multiplexers, and
    (2) Equipment being collocated to terminate basic transmission 
facilities pursuant to Secs. 66.1401 and 64.1402 of this chapter as of 
August 1, 1996.
    (3) Digital subscriber line access multiplexers, routers, 
asyncronous transfer
    (c) Nothing in this section requires an incumbent LEC to permit 
collocation of equipment used solely for switching or solely to provide 
enhanced services; provided, however, that an incumbent LEC may not 
place any limitations on the ability of requesting carriers to use all 
the features, functions, and capabilities of equipment collocated 
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, including, but not limited 
to, switching and routing features and functions and enhanced services 
functionalities.
* * * * *
    (h) An incumbent LEC shall permit a collocating telecommunications 
carrier to interconnect its network with that of another collocating 
telecommunications carrier at the incumbent LEC's premises and to 
connect its collocated equipment to the collocated equipment of another 
telecommunications carrier within the same premises provided that the 
collocated equipment is also used for interconnection with the 
incumbent LEC or for access to the incumbent LEC's unbundled network 
elements.
    (1) An incumbent LEC shall provide, at the request of a collocating 
telecommunications carrier, the connection between the equipment in the 
collocated spaces of two or more telecommunications carriers. The 
incumbent LEC must permit any collocating telecommunications carrier to 
construct its own connection between the carrier's equipment and that 
of one or more collocating carriers, if the telecommunications carrier 
does not request the incumbent LEC's construction of such facilities. 
The incumbent LEC must permit the requesting carrier to construct such 
facilities using copper or optical fiber equipment.
    (2) An incumbent LEC shall permit collocating telecommunications 
carriers to place their own connecting transmission facilities within 
the incumbent LEC's premises outside of the actual physical collocation 
space, subject only to reasonable safety limitations.
    (i) As provided herein, an incumbent LEC may require reasonable 
security arrangements to protect its equipment and ensure network 
reliability. An incumbent LEC may only impose security arrangements 
that are as stringent as the security arrangements that incumbent LECs 
maintain at their own premises for their own employees or authorized 
contractors. An incumbent LEC must allow collocating parties to access 
their collocated equipment 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without 
requiring either a security escort of any kind or delaying a 
competitor's employees' entry into the incumbent LEC's premises. 
Reasonable security measures that the incumbent LEC may adopt include:
    (1) Installing security cameras or other monitoring systems; or
    (2) Requiring competitive LEC personnel to use badges with 
computerized tracking systems; or
    (3) Requiring competitive LEC employees to undergo the same level 
of security training, or its equivalent, that the incumbent's own 
employees, or third party contractors providing similar functions, must 
undergo; provided, however, that the incumbent LEC may not require 
competitive LEC employees to receive such training from the incumbent 
LEC itself, but must provide information to the competitive LEC on the 
specific type of training required so the competitive LEC's employees 
can conduct their own training.
* * * * *
    (k) An incumbent LEC's physical collocation offering must include 
the following:
    (1) Shared collocation cages. A shared collocation cage is a caged 
collocation space shared by two or more competitive LECs pursuant to 
terms and conditions agreed to by the competitive LECs. In making 
shared cage arrangements available, an incumbent LEC may not increase 
the cost of site preparation or nonrecurring charges above the cost for 
provisioning such a cage of similar dimensions and material to a single 
collocating party. In addition, the incumbent must prorate the charge 
for site conditioning and preparation undertaken by the incumbent to 
construct the shared collocation cage or condition the space for 
collocation use, regardless of how many carriers actually collocate in 
that cage, by determining the total charge for site preparation and 
allocating that charge to a collocating carrier based on the percentage 
of the total space utilized by that carrier. An incumbent LEC must make 
shared collocation space available in single-bay increments or their 
equivalent, i.e., a competing carrier can purchase space in increments 
small enough to collocate a single rack, or bay, of equipment.
    (2) Cageless collocation. Incumbent LECs must allow competitors to 
collocate in any unused space in the incumbent LEC's premises, without 
requiring the construction of a cage or

[[Page 23243]]

similar structure, and without requiring the creation of a separate 
entrance to the competitor's collocation space. An incumbent LEC may 
require collocating carriers to use a central entrance to the 
incumbent's building, but may not require construction of a new 
entrance for competitors' use, and once inside the building, incumbent 
LECs must permit collocating carriers to have direct access to their 
equipment. An incumbent LEC may not require competitors to use an 
intermediate interconnection arrangement in lieu of direct connection 
to the incumbent's network if technically feasible. In addition, an 
incumbent LEC must give competitors the option of collocating equipment 
in any unused space within the incumbent's premises, and may not 
require competitors to collocate in a room or isolated space separate 
from the incumbent's own equipment. An incumbent LEC must make cageless 
collocation space available in single-bay increments, meaning that a 
competing carrier can purchase space in increments small enough to 
collocate a single rack, or bay, of equipment.
    (3) Adjacent space collocation. An incumbent LEC must make 
available, where space is legitimately exhausted in a particular 
incumbent LEC premises, collocation in adjacent controlled 
environmental vaults or similar structures to the extent technically 
feasible. The incumbent LEC must permit the new entrant to construct or 
otherwise procure such an adjacent structure, subject only to 
reasonable safety and maintenance requirements. The incumbent must 
provide power and physical collocation services and facilities, subject 
to the same nondiscrimination requirements as applicable to any other 
physical collocation arrangement. The incumbent LEC must permit the 
requesting carrier to place its own equipment, including, but not 
limited to, copper cables, coaxial cables, fiber cables, and 
telecommunications equipment, in adjacent facilities constructed by 
either the incumbent LEC or by the requesting carrier itself.

[FR Doc. 99-10832 Filed 4-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P