[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 83 (Friday, April 30, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23247-23252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10833]
[[Page 23247]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
[CC Docket No. 98-147, FCC 99-48]
Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced
Telecommunications Capability
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, we propose to establish certain spectrum
compatibility and management rules in order to promote the timely
deployment of advanced services without significantly degrading the
performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band
services. These rules rest upon currently established technical
standards and practices. We recognize that, in the long term, more
comprehensive standards and practices must be developed. The Commission
is therefore issuing this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)
seeking comment on proposed regulations to resolve, in a timely manner,
the host of long-term spectrum compatibility and management issues. In
addition, the FNPRM tentatively concludes that it is technically
feasible for two different carriers sharing a single line to provide
traditional voice service and advanced services. The FNPRM seeks
comment on a host of issues associated with the ramifications of
mandating such line sharing.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 15, 1999 and Reply Comments
are due on or before July 15, 1999. Written comments by the public on
the proposed information collections are due June 15, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,
Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Janice Myles of
the Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 5-C327,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any
documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Staci Pies, Attorney, Common Carrier
Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, (202) 418-1580. Further
information may also be obtained by calling the Common Carrier Bureau's
TTY number: 202-418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted March 18, 1999 and
released March 31, 1999. The full text of this FNPRM is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, 445 12th St., 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 contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036.
Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Spectrum Compatibility--Long-Term Standards and Practices
1. Overview
1. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM 63 FR 45134, August 24,
1998, we requested comment on loop spectrum issues. We asked commenters
to address any degradation of service that may result from provision of
advanced services using different signal formats on copper pairs in the
same bundle. In the Order, we establish spectrum compatibility and
management rules to the extent currently feasible in order to promote
the timely deployment of advanced services without significantly
degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional
voice band services. These rules rest upon currently established
technical standards and practices. We recognize that, in the long term,
more comprehensive technical standards and practices must be developed.
We therefore adopt this Further NPRM, through which we hope to resolve,
in a timely manner, the host of long-term spectrum compatibility and
management issues.
2. Discussion
2. In the companion Order, we find that incumbent LECs may not
unilaterally set spectrum compatibility and spectrum management
policies. In place of incumbent LEC-determined standards and practices,
we found in the companion Order that there should be a competitively
neutral spectrum standards setting process to investigate the actual
level of interference between technologies to determine what
technologies are deployable and under what circumstances. In this
Further NPRM, we tentatively conclude that this process should include
the active participation of the incumbent LECs, competitive LECs,
equipment suppliers, and the Commission. We further tentatively
conclude the following: the process should be competitively neutral in
both structure and procedure; representation should be equitably spread
over all segments of the industry; and representatives should have
equal authority, with no party or groups of parties presuming to have
greater weight or ``veto'' power. We seek comment on these tentative
conclusions and how to establish such a process to develop long-term
standards and practices. We also seek comment on our authority to
direct industry bodies to engage in the process of developing spectrum
compatibility and management policies, and our authority to compel
industry bodies to adhere to any requirements we establish for the
functioning of such bodies.
3. In this Further NPRM we seek comment on two broad and
interrelated issues: spectrum compatibility and spectrum management.
With regard to spectral compatibility, we generally believe, as
indicated in the Order, that the industry, via its standards bodies,
can create acceptable standards for xDSL and other advanced services.
Much of the standards development process is continuous in nature, and
our hope is that the industry will fairly and expeditiously develop
standards beyond completion of this proceeding. Future technologies
will require the T1E1.4, or other standards bodies, to develop these
compatibility standards in a timely, fair, and open manner. We believe,
however, that the Commission can play a role in fostering timely, fair,
and open development of standards for current and future technologies.
4. We seek comment on the best process or forum for developing
future power spectral density (PSD) masks. We tentatively conclude that
T1E1.4 is the best choice for this task. Commenters have expressed
concern, however, that T1E1.4 is not representative of the developing
advanced services industry as a whole and may be overly represented by
incumbent carriers and large manufacturers. We seek comments on how to
foster broader representation and participation in this standards body.
We also ask commenters to suggest other forums or methods of
guaranteeing fair and timely resolution of spectrum compatibility
problems.
5. We seek comment on whether generic masks would be an appropriate
means to address spectrum compatibility. We seek comment on whether
this approach might restrict deployment of technologies that otherwise
would not harm the network.
6. We seek comment on whether a calculation-based approach, in
addition
[[Page 23248]]
to a power spectral density mask-based approach, provides a better tool
for defining spectral compatibility We specifically seek comment
whether such an approach provides a more accurate predictor of spectrum
compatibility.
7. With regard to spectrum management, we believe that comments in
response to this Further NPRM can provide the information necessary to
establish long-term spectrum management rules. Our goal is that the
rules developed as a result of the Further NPRM will encourage
technical innovation while preserving network reliability. Although we
believe that T1E1.4 could serve as the common ground where industry
resolves these issues, we think the Commission can facilitate industry
development of fair standards through this Further NPRM. We seek
specific comment and clarification on the following items initially
raised in the NPRM, but not sufficiently explicated in the record.
8. We seek comment on methods to encourage the industry to develop
fair and open practices for the deployment of advanced services
technologies. We tentatively conclude that T1E1.4 should serve as the
forum to establish fair and open deployment practices. This conclusion
is premised on the assumption that a method will be developed by which
to ensure the active participation of all segments of the industry in
T1E1.4. What role should the Commission play in facilitating broad
participation in this process?
9. We ask commenters to consider how to maximize the deployment of
new technologies within binder groups while minimizing interference. We
seek comment on the development of xDSL binder group administration
practices, including specifications on the types and numbers of
technologies that can be deployed within a binder group. This should
include procedures allowing for deployment of various xDSL-based
services in a nonrestrictive manner. We seek comment on the procedures
for maintaining and updating these administrative practices so as to
minimize interference with future technologies. We seek comment on the
practice of segregating services based on the technology. For example,
we recognize AMI T1 as a potential disturber and understand that
incumbent LECs currently assign AMI T1 to separate binder groups.
Competitive LECs have expressed concern that incumbent LECs might apply
a similar segregation practice to xDSL technology--a practice
competitive LECs claim is not necessary or beneficial. We seek comment
on whether to allow incumbent LECs to segregate xDSL technology in such
a manner.
10. We seek comment on whether we should establish a grandfathering
process for interfering technologies. For example, should the
Commission establish a sunset period for services such as AMI T1? As
noted above, we recognize that carriers have a substantial base of AMI
T1 in deployment and that in some areas AMI T1 provides the only
feasible high-speed transmission capability. We seek comment on whether
carriers should be required to replace AMI T1 with new and less
interfering technologies, and, if so, what time frame would be
reasonable. We ask commenters to propose rules for a possible
grandfathering process which will not disrupt the network and
simultaneously encourage investment in, and deployment of, new
technology.
11. We seek comment on whether to develop a dispute resolution
process regarding the existence of disturbers in shared facilities.
Specifically, we ask commenters to suggest how best to resolve disputes
arising out of claims that a technology is ``significantly degrading''
the performance of other services. We also seek comment on whether, and
if so, how we should define ``significantly degrade'' so as to ensure
that consumers have the broadest selection of services from which to
choose without harming the network. If we develop a dispute resolution
process, should it rely on an outside party as an arbitrator, such as
the state commission, the FCC, or a neutral third party, or should the
procedures simply provide the rules by which players must conform?
12. We seek comment to determine whether the Commission should
solicit the assistance of a third party in developing loop spectrum
management policies. What role could such a third party serve in
facilitating communication between the industry and regulatory bodies?
Should it serve a role similar to the role served by the administrator
for local number portability? Should it be empowered to develop binder
group management procedures, facilitate the development of future PSD
masks, and resolve disputes between carriers over the existence of
disturbers in shared facilities? We also ask parties to comment on
whether a voluntary industry effort could effectively address loop
management issues.
13. We acknowledge that the industry, via the T1E1.4, is currently
engaged in developing standards for various varieties of xDSL
technologies. We recognize further that the industry can best address
many of the details concerning spectral compatibility. Furthermore, we
acknowledge that many of the spectral compatibility issues will require
on-going analysis and oversight beyond the completion of this
proceeding. Although we have initiated this Further NPRM in order to
develop rules to address long-term spectrum management concerns, we
expect that the industry, via the T1E1.4 or other bodies, will continue
to develop standards and procedures to promote deployment of advanced
services and resolve the problems that arise when multiple carriers
deploy multiple technologies over the same facilities. We encourage the
industry, through its standards bodies, to continue its independent
efforts to develop long-term standards and practices for spectrum
management. We expect that the industry will conduct this ongoing role
in a expeditious, fair and open manner.
14. We ask commenters to address any additional measures the
Commission could take to ensure that spectrum compatibility and
management concerns are resolved in a fair and expeditious manner. We
also ask commenters to consider what measures the Commission could take
to ensure that spectral compatibility requirements are forward-looking
and able to evolve over time to encourage, rather than stifle,
innovation and deployment of advanced services.
B. Line Sharing
1. Overview
15. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on
whether two different service providers should be allowed to offer
services over the same line, with each provider utilizing different
frequencies to transport voice or data over that line. We asked
commenters whether we should mandate such line sharing, specifically
whether the competitive LEC should have the right to run high frequency
data signals, or other advanced services, over the same line as the
incumbent LEC's voice signal.
16. Shared line access makes it possible for a competing carrier to
offer advanced services over the same line that a consumer uses for
voice service without requiring the competing carrier to take over
responsibility for providing the voice service. Such shared line access
would enable new entrants to focus solely on the advanced services
market without having to acquire the resources or the expertise to
provide other types of telecommunications services, such as analog
voice service. Shared line access could also remove
[[Page 23249]]
any cost disadvantage that an advanced services only provider might
face if it had to provide advanced services over a stand-alone line. A
competitive LEC, therefore, may want to take advantage of the ability
of advanced services technology, such as ADSL, to run on the frequency
above the analog voice channel by providing only high-speed data
service, without voice service, over a loop.
17. We believe each end user customer should be able to choose from
a broad array of services and from whom to obtain these services. In
particular, we believe allowing consumers to keep their voice service
provider while allowing them to obtain advanced services on the same
line from a different provider will foster consumer choice and promote
innovation and competitive deployment of advanced services.
18. Line sharing assumes that a requesting carrier will have access
to the incumbent LEC's local loop. While the Supreme Court, in Iowa
Utilities Board, has directed the Commission to reevaluate the standard
for defining the local loop as an unbundled network element, we see no
reason to delay seeking comment in this proceeding on whether competing
carriers may have access to the high frequency portion on an incumbent
LEC's loop. To the extent that any redefinition of the local loop, or
other network elements, affects any conclusions drawn from this
proceeding, we will revise our analysis and conclusions accordingly.
2. Discussion
19. The existing record indicates that incumbent LECs have denied
competitors the option of offering advanced services over the same line
on which the incumbent LEC provides voice service.
20. We decline, however, to mandate line sharing at the federal
level at this time under the accompanying Report and Order. Although we
find no evidence that line sharing is not technically feasible, we find
that the record does not sufficiently address the operational, pricing,
and other practical issues that may arise if LECs are compelled to
share lines with competitors. We acknowledge that the Commission has
concluded that a ``determination of technical feasibility does not
include consideration of economic, accounting, billing, space, or site,
concerns.'' Several incumbent LECs have raised, however, billing,
accounting, and other operational issues, that we would like to
consider before we determine whether to mandate line sharing
nationwide. While none of the issues raised by the incumbents challenge
the technical feasibility of line sharing, we believe that there may be
practical considerations that have not been adequately addressed in the
existing record. Moreover, there may be policy considerations that
weigh against line sharing, even if the Commission were to conclude
that technical and operational concerns could be met. As a result, we
seek additional comments in the Further NPRM in order to develop a more
comprehensive record on the policy and practical ramifications of
federally mandated line sharing, including any policy considerations
that weigh against line sharing.
a. Authority to Require Line Sharing
21. In Iowa Utilities Board, the Supreme Court held that we have
jurisdiction to implement the local competition provisions of the Act
and that our rulemaking authority extends to sections 251 and 252. We
therefore tentatively conclude that we have authority to require line
sharing. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Finally, we
tentatively conclude that nothing in the Act, our rules, or caselaw
precludes states from mandating line sharing, regardless of whether the
incumbent LEC offers line sharing to itself or others, and regardless
of whether it offers advanced services. We seek comment on these
tentative conclusions.
b. Access to ``High-Frequency Portion'' of the Loop
22. We tentatively conclude that incumbent LECs must provide
requesting carriers with access to the transmission frequencies above
that used for analog voice service on any lines that LECs use to
provide exchange service when the LEC itself provides both exchange and
advanced services over a single line. We tentatively conclude that,
without such a ruling, competitive LECs will be hampered in their
ability to compete in providing advanced services to end users because
the competitive LEC would have to obtain a new line from the incumbent
LEC in order to provide advanced services whereas the incumbent LEC
could provide advanced services far less expensively by using the
existing line. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
Moreover, in the absence of line sharing, the competing carrier
effectively may be forced to provide both voice and data over the local
loop it leases from the incumbent. This means that the competing
carrier potentially must invest in two technologies--circuit switched
technology for voice transmissions and packet switched technologies for
data. The competing carrier may need to make this investment in circuit
technology even though that technology may become obsolete over time.
We seek comment on the extent to which the absence of line sharing
requires such dual investment and the competitive effect of such dual
investment.
23. We also seek comment in this proceeding on whether we should
more precisely define what constitutes the frequency above that used
for analog voice service, so that it is clear to all parties what the
incumbent must unbundle, in the event we require line sharing. We ask
commenters to address whether setting a specific dividing line between
a low frequency channel and a high frequency channel on the loop would
arbitrarily freeze technological development and deny carriers
opportunities to use the loop to provision services that rely on
different frequencies bands within the loop.
24. We also tentatively conclude that any rules we adopt on line
sharing should not mandate a particular technological approach to the
use of a line for multiple services. We believe that shared line access
is a rapidly evolving technology and any rules we adopt must be
forward-looking and flexible enough to stimulate, rather than stifle,
technological innovation. We ask commenters to address how we can
construct regulations that promote local competition and technological
innovation so that American consumers can take full advantage of the
line's features, functionalities, and capabilities.
c. Technical, Operational, Economic, Pricing, and Cost Allocation
Issues Associated with Line Sharing
25. The current record in this proceeding reveals that incumbent
LECs have opposed line-sharing with xDSL-based providers on the grounds
that simultaneous provision of advanced service and voice service over
a single line by separate providers is not technically feasible. These
parties broadly argue that allowing new entrants to acquire rights to
the high frequency channel of the line, while declining to purchase the
voice channel of the line, would harm the network. We find that
incumbent LECs have placed nothing on the record in this proceeding
demonstrating that a competitor's advanced services equipment is likely
to cause any network problems.
26. Technical Issues. We find nothing in the existing record to
persuade us that line sharing is not technically feasible. In fact,
incumbent LECs are
[[Page 23250]]
already sharing the line for the provision of both voice and advanced
services. Because incumbent LECs are already using single lines to
provide both voice and advanced services and are even sharing lines
with other providers for the provision of both voice and advanced
services, it appears that there exists no bona fide issue of technical
infeasibility. As such, we tentatively conclude that line sharing is
technically feasible. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
27. Although not set forth in the record, we can conceive of some
circumstances in which advanced services cannot share a line with
analog voice service. We tentatively conclude that such isolated
situations can be remedied and should not interfere with the
incumbent's general obligation to share the line. We tentatively
conclude that, to the extent that an incumbent LEC can demonstrate to
the state commission that digital loop conditioning would interfere
with the analog voice service of the line, line sharing is not
technically feasible on that particular line, and the incumbent is not
obligated to share that line. We tentatively conclude that incumbent
LECs would be required to perform other sorts of conditioning, such as
removing bridge taps or cleaning up splices along the loop, that would
not interfere with the analog voice signal. We seek comment on these
tentative conclusions. We ask commenters to address any other technical
problems that may arise in line sharing arrangements and to suggest
remedies for such problems.
28. Operational Issues. In addition to technical feasibility
concerns, commenters raise concerns about operational barriers to line
sharing. We ask commenters to discuss the operational issues that may
arise with line sharing. For example, what effect will line sharing
have on existing analog voice service? Should carriers be allowed to
request just the voice channel of a line? Should carriers be allowed to
request any unused portion of a line? How will line sharing affect
existing and evolving operations support systems? To what extent will
LEC operations support systems needed to be modified in order to allow
two carriers to share a line? Which entity should manage the
multiplexing equipment if two carriers are offering services over the
same loop? Should different customers be allowed on the same physical
loop? How and by whom should problems on the line be handled? What
happens if conditioning a loop for advanced services requires removal
of repeaters or load coils, which are needed to preserve the quality of
the analog voice signal? These examples are merely illustrative of
issues that may arise from two carriers providing services over the
same line. We ask commenters to address these issues and any other
operational, administrative, and pricing concerns with specificity.
29. Economic, Pricing, and Cost Allocation Issues. We also seek
comment on the economic, pricing, and cost allocation issues that may
arise from line sharing. For example, how might line sharing affect
federal and state access charge regimes and universal service
mechanisms? What are the pricing consequences of requiring line sharing
(e.g., what consequences will line sharing have on the price of the
unbundled local loop)? Should the entire cost of the loop be imputed to
the voice channel or divided equally or otherwise between the two
services sharing the facility? What cost allocation issues, if any, are
raised by line sharing? What effect will line sharing have on new
entrants' ability to compete with incumbents? How will line sharing
stimulate or retard innovation? How will line sharing affect investment
in local exchange facilities?
30. Finally, we ask commenters to address the continued viability
of line sharing arrangements as telecommunications network
architectures migrate from a circuit to a packet environment. As
carriers deploy ATM and other packet technologies, and as voice traffic
moves from the circuit-switched network to Internet Protocol (IP) or
ATM networks, is a line sharing requirement commercially or technically
feasible? Commenters should address whether a competitive LEC's ability
to deliver voice service over a packet-switched network obviates the
need to share a loop with the incumbent LEC.
C. Procedural Matters
1. Ex Parte Presentations
31. The matter in Docket No. 98-147, initiated by the Further NPRM
portion of this item, shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to
oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) as
well.
2. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
32. The Further NPRM contains either a proposed or modified
information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the
information collections contained in this Notice, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB
comments are due June 29, 1999. Comments should address: (a) whether
the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
information shall have 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.
3. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
33. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C.
603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible impact on small entities of the
proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in the
Appendix. Written public comments are requested with respect to the
IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing
deadlines for comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they must have a
separate and distinct heading, designating the comments as responses to
the IRFA. The Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division,
will send a copy of this NPRM , including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in
accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
4. Comment Filing Procedures
34. The proceeding, Deployment of Wireline Services Offering
Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, is
initiated by the Further NPRM portion of this item. Pursuant to
Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before June 15, 1999
and reply comments on or before July
[[Page 23251]]
15, 1999. All filings should refer only to Deployment of Wireline
Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No.
98-147. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through
the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://
www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an
electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal
screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service
mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number, which
in this instance is CC Docket No. 98-147. Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for
e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get
form jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB
Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503
or via the Internet to fain__t@al.eop.gov.
5. Further Information
39. 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 mpryor@fcc.gov.
Further information may also be obtained by calling the Common Carrier
Bureau's TTY number: 202-418-0484.
VI. Ordering Clauses
40. 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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
41. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public
Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected significant
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in
the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM). Written
public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments on the Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the
Further NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Admininistration in accordance with section 603(a)
of the Flexibility Act.
I. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule
2. The Commission is issuing the Further NPRM to seek comment on
issues related to spectral compatibility and spectral management. We
ask commenters to consider whether the Commission should establish
rules for deployment of central office equipment similar to those set
forth in part 68 of our rules. We also ask commenters to address the
technical, operational, pricing, legal or policy ramifications of line
sharing. We tentatively conclude that there are no technical, legal,
regulatory or policy obstacles to line sharing among competing
carriers. Further, we seek comment on our tentative conclusions that
incumbent LECS must provide requesting carriers with unbundled access
to the transmission frequencies above that used for analog voice
service on any loops that LECs use to provide exchange service when the
LEC itself provides both exchange and advanced services over a single
loop. We ask commenters to address any other technical problems that
may arise in line sharing arrangements and to suggest remedies for such
problems.
II. Legal Basis
3. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the
Further NPRM is contained in sections 1-4, 10, 201, 202, 251-254, 271,
and 303(r) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154,
160, 201, 202, 251-254, 271, and 303(r).
III. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected
by the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
4. 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 proposals in this Further NPRM, if adopted. 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
[[Page 23252]]
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
5. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small
entities that may be affected by the proposals in this Further NPRM, if
adopted.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Although some affected incumbent LEC 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 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.''
9. 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.
10. 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. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements
11. We were unable to gather a sufficient record on the development
of rules relating to procedures for equipment testing and compliance,
so we seek additional comments on this issue. We are seeking comments
on whether the Commission should establish rules for deployment of
central office equipment similar to those set forth in Part 68 of our
rules. We also ask commenters to address whether the Commisison should
be involved with the actual testing and compliance procedures or
whether the industry is better suited to serve this function through
the use of independent and accredited labs. We ask commenters to
address any additional measures the Commission could take to ensure
that spectrum compatibility and management concerns are resolved in a
fair and expeditious manner. We seek comment on the level of demand for
line sharing, and on technical and operational obstacles to sharing a
single loop between two service providers.
V. Significant Alternatives to Proposed Rule Which Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities and Small Incumbent LECs, and
Accomplish Stated Objectives
12. In this Further NPRM, we seek to develop a record sufficient
enough to adequately address issues related to developing long-term
standards and practices for spectral compatibility and management. In
addressing these issues, we seek to ensure that competing carriers,
including small entity carriers, obtain access to inputs necessary to
the provision of advanced services. We tentatively conclude that our
proposals in the Further NPRM would impose minimum burdens on small
entities. We seek comment on these proposals and the impact they may
have on small entities.
VI. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rule
13. None.
[FR Doc. 99-10833 Filed 4-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
