[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 122 (Monday, June 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15443]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 27, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 61, 64, and 69
[CC Docket 91-141, FCC No. 94-118]
Expanded Interconnection With Local Telephone Company Facilities
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission required Tier 1 local exchange carriers (LECs)
(except members of the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA)) to
provide to interested third parties, including competitive access
providers (CAPs), interexchange carriers, (IXCs), and end users,
signalling information necessary to provide tandem switching services.
These parties will thus, for the first time, be able to carry traffic
of multiple IXCs from LEC end offices to their own tandems, switch
traffic at that point, and deliver the traffic to the appropriate IXC.
LECs must offer signalling information from their equal access end
offices pursuant to tariff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary L. Phillips (202) 632-4048 or Linda L. Haller (202) 632-1298.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 91-141, adopted May 19, 1994, and
released May 27, 1994. The full text of this decision is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554.
The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-
3800.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 37 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Federal Communications
Commission, Records Management Division, Paperwork Reduction Project,
Washington, DC 20554 and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20503.
Summary of the Order
1. The Commission found that this decision represents another step
in a series of efforts to remove barriers to competition in interstate
access services. It stated that while the Commission's earlier expanded
interconnection decisions opened the door to competition in special
access and switched transport transmission services, interconnectors,
however, had to rely on LECs to perform the switching functions
necessary to provide switched transport. The Commission concluded that
the Order will enable interconnectors, as well as other parties, to
provide tandem switching functions for switched transport services.
2. The Commission concluded that LEC-provision of signalling
information will open the door to third parties to provide competitive
tandem switching services. By further reducing barriers to competition
in switched access services, this action will benefit all users of
tandem switching, especially small IXCs that tend to rely heavily on
tandem-switched transport, who will benefit from more competitively
priced tandem switching services. The Commission also found that its
action should promote more efficient use and deployment of the
country's telecommunications networks, encourage technological
innovation, and exert downward pressure on access charges and long-
distance rates, all of which should contribute to economic growth and
the creation of new job opportunities. In addition, these measures
should increase access to diverse facilities, which could improve
network reliability.
3. The Commission required Tier 1 LECs (except NECA pool members)
to provide signalling information necessary for tandem switching from
LEC equal access end offices to any interested third party (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as ``tandem switching providers'' or ``TSPs'').
(Tier 1 LECs are those with $100 million or more in annual regulated
revenues for a sustained period of time.) In end offices in which
common channel signalling (CCS or SS7) is available, TSPs shall have
the option of receiving signalling information via SS7 or multi-
frequency (MF) signalling. The provision of this information will be
treated as a new service under the Commission's price caps regime. Tier
1 LECs must file tariff amendments to reflect the availability of
signalling information from LEC equal access end offices within ninety
days of the publication of the Order in the Federal Register. Based on
the record and in light of prior decisions on pricing flexibility in
the Switched Transport Expanded Interconnection Order and in the
Transport proceeding, the Commission did not grant LECs additional
pricing flexibility at this time. The Commission also found that the
transport interconnection charge is sufficient to protect support flows
potentially affected by the provision of signalling information.
Background
4. The Commission stated that it has taken several initiatives to
increase competition in the long-distance market. First, in 1992, in
the Special Access Expanded Interconnection Order, the Commission
required Tier 1 LECs, except NECA pool members, to provide expanded
interconnection for interstate special access to all interested
parties.\1\ The Commission also stated that in 1993, it adopted the
Switched Transport Expanded Interconnection Order, in which the
Commission required LECs providing expanded interconnection for special
access to provide expanded interconnection for switched transport
service as well.\2\ In that order, the Commission opened the
opportunity for interconnectors to provide alternative transmission
services to LEC-provided direct-trunked transport and entrance
facilities by collocating transmission facilities in LEC end offices,
tandems, serving wire centers (SWCs), and certain remote nodes. The
Commission stated that as a result of those two actions,
interconnectors are now able to provide special access and switched
transport transmission services in competition with the LECs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
Facilities, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7
FCC Rcd 7369 (1992), 57 FR 54323 (November 18, 1992), vacated in
part and remanded in part, Bell Atlantic v. FCC, No. 92-1619 (D.C.
Cir. June 10, 1994), recon., 8 FCC Rcd 127 (1992), recon., 8 FCC Rcd
7341 (1991).
\2\Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
Facilities, Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 7374 (1993), 58 FR 48756 (September 17, 1993),
appeal pending sub nom. Bell Atlantic v. FCC, No. 93-1743 (D.C.
Cir., filed November 12, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The Commission stated that only LECs, however, currently can
provide tandem switching functions. Third parties cannot now provide
such functions because they generally do not have access to the
signalling information necessary to switch and route traffic to IXCs.
Thus, virtually all tandem-switched transport currently must be routed
through LEC tandems and switched by the LECs at that point;
interconnectors can provide only the link between the LEC tandem and
the IXC point-of-presence (POP).
6. The Commission stated that in a Second Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Notice),\3\ which is the subject of this proceeding, it
proposed to broaden the scope of its access initiatives to address this
limitation. Specifically, the Commission proposed to require LECs to
provide other parties to offer tandem switching functions. Under this
proposal, interconnectors would be able to offer tandem-switched
transport, using their own tandems, in competition with the LECs. In
addition, third parties, such as IXCs, could obtain economies by
aggregating their traffic from end offices on a single direct trunk,
routing that traffic to a third-party tandem, and switching it at that
point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
Facilities, Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7740
(1991), 56 FR 52496 (October 21, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Requirements and Network Modifications
7. The Commission stated that the record identifies four types of
signalling information used to provide switched transport: (1) The
Carrier Identification Code (CIC), which identifies the caller's
selected IXC; (2) the OZZ, which indicates the specific IXC trunk group
that is to carry the call; (3) the Automatic Number Identification
(ANI), which identifies the billed number; and (4) the Called Number
Identification (CNI), which identifies the called telephone number.
IXCs may use different trunk groups to carry different classes of
calls. For example, 0+ calls may be carried on a different trunk group
than direct-dialed domestic calls. The OZZ digits indicate the call
type, and thus the trunk group, onto which a particular call should be
routed.
Requirement to Provide Signalling Information
8. The Commission stated that currently, LECs transmit ANI and CNI
to their access customers on originating Feature Group D trunks from
LEC end offices and tandems. They do not, however, transmit the CIC and
OZZ codes to third parties because IXCs do not need this information to
route and bill calls. Thus, these latter codes are dropped by the LECs
from the signalling data stream after trunk selection has taken place.
In the case of direct-trunked traffic, the CIC and OZZ codes are
dropped at the originating end office; in the case of tandem-switched
traffic, they are dropped at the tandem. Because the CIC and OZZ codes
are needed for tandem switching and are not currently provided to third
parties, these data are the focus of this proceeding.
9. The Commission affirmed its tentative conclusion that broader
interconnection requirements to facilitate access competition are in
the public interest. In accordance with this finding, the Commission
required Tier 1 LECs (except NECA pool members) to provide signalling
information from equal access end offices so that third parties may
install their own tandems to provide tandem-switching services. Third
parties may collocate at LEC end offices and provide their own tandem-
switched transport between those end offices and their tandems, or they
may purchase LEC transport to their tandems. We do not require LECs to
provide signalling information for tandem-switching from their tandems
since we find that the record does not support the establishment of
such a requirement at this time.
10. The Commission concluded that the availability to third parties
of signalling information needed for tandem switching could provide
significant public benefits. It would facilitate broader access
competition by enabling interconnectors to offer competitive interstate
tandem-switching and transport services. In addition, it would increase
opportunities for small IXCs to gain economies of scale by sharing
direct-routed transport facilities and providing their own tandem-
switching. The Commission found that as it stated in the Notice,
broader access competition should exert downward pressure on tandem-
switched transport rates, while fostering more efficient provisioning
of these services by new competitors and LECs. The Commission also
concluded that in addition, competition should encourage innovation and
investment in new technologies and could offer increased network
reliability through route diversity and redundancy. IXCs would benefit
from greater competition in the tandem-switched service market. Small
IXCs would especially benefit because they tend to rely more heavily on
tandem-switched transport than larger IXCs. The Commission also stated
that in addition, by promoting competition in tandem-switched transport
services and facilitating the use of direct-trunked transport by small
IXCs, these measures should help ensure more rational cost-based
pricing relationships between direct-trunked and tandem-switching
transport services, thereby lessening the need for regulatory controls
and fostering more efficient use of these services. All of these
benefits should contribute to economic growth--by enabling IXCs to use
more efficient transport arrangements, by fostering better, more
reliable, and more rationally priced access services, as well as by
creating new market opportunities for interconnectors.
11. The Commission also concluded that LECs can make signalling
information available from their end offices at very little cost.
Indeed, the record indicates that the costs to LECs of providing such
information from end offices may well be de minimis, involving only a
simple change in the end office routing table. The Commission stated
that while a few LECs baldly assert that the costs of providing
signalling could be significant, these LECs do not substantiate their
allegations with cost estimates or data. Nor do they distinguish
between end-office generated and tandem-generated signalling
information. The Commission found that moreover, no party has shown
that the necessary modifications to LEC billing systems would be
unreasonably costly or burdensome, or that the asserted need to change
industry standards to accommodate the passage of CIC and OZZ codes over
Feature Group D represents a significant barrier to the implementation
of this proposal. The Commission concluded that any such measures could
be accomplished without undue burden or cost.
12. The Commission stated that it was not persuaded that
competitive tandem switching services would require assignment of CICs
to IXCs. The record fails to indicate that any entity would actually
seek to offer or use that kind of routing dynamic. Even without
additional CIC assignments, IXCs would be able to designate a primary
route and an overflow route for their traffic, thereby securing the
benefits of both route and carrier diversity. Moreover, IXCs could vary
routing between a LEC and third party tandem on an end-office-by-end-
office basis or, perhaps, based on OZZ codes--thereby designating one
as primary for a particular type of traffic and another for a different
type of traffic. No IXC indicates that these options are insufficient,
at least for now. Therefore, the Commission found, no additional CIC
code assignments would have to be made to accommodate competitive
tandem-switched networks.
13. The Commission also found that the record belies any contention
that third parties do not really want signalling information and that
IXCs do not really want to use competitively-provided tandem-switching
services. The Commission found that the vast majority of parties,
including IXCs, CAPs, users, and some LECs, argue that unbundled
signalling information would allow development of alternatives to LEC
tandem-switched transport services and they urge us to make such
information available. The Commission stated that even if the measures
that it now takes do not produce an immediate change in the access
market, they will be beneficial in the long-term. By eliminating
barriers to competition in the provision of tandem-switched services,
this action will pave the way to a more competitive access market in
the future. The Commission also stated that the availability of
signalling information to third parties could, in itself and even
without actual entry into the market by competitive tandem-switching
providers, subject LEC pricing to some additional competitive
pressures. Since the costs of providing signalling information from
equal access end offices are so small, the Commission concluded, these
benefits are well worth the costs. The Commission also stated that LECs
should be required to offer signalling information from equal access
end offices is not based on application of the test that governs LEC
BSE offerings since signalling information is not a BSE, but that,
nevertheless, its conclusion was based on the same type of cost/benefit
considerations.
14. The Commission stated that it appears that providing signalling
information from LEC tandems would require software upgrades to those
tandems. In addition, the record indicates that tandem-provided
signalling may be of less utility to TSPs than end office-provided
signalling. Although some parties claim generally that tandem-provided
signalling could provide a useful adjunct to other forms of
interconnection, they do not explain with any specificity how they
could use such an architecture, or how a two-tandem architecture could
actually be competitively viable, either from a service quality or
pricing standpoint. Therefore, based on the current record, the
Commission did not require LECs to provide this service at this time.
15. The Commission clarified that in proposing access to LEC
signalling information from LEC end offices and tandems, it did not
intend to require LECs to reconfigure their SS7 networks. Thus, the
Commission held that LECs may provide end-office-generated signalling
information through STPs, and they may require TSPs that are
terminating traffic to transmit signalling formation to LEC end offices
through LEC STPs. The Commission recognized that STPs perform important
network screening functions and did not require LECs to decentralize
those functions by deploying them in every switch. Moreover, the record
does not indicate that TSPs would seek to interconnect via SS7 at end
offices, rather than at STPs. Rather, as some parties pointed out, it
would be far more efficient for them to interconnect at STPs.
16. Regarding billing of terminating traffic, the Commission stated
that, consistent with its earlier expanded interconnection measures,
the customer of record of the terminating LEC should be billed by the
terminating LEC for services provided by that LEC. If the TSP is the
customer of record, the LEC should bill the TSP directly. If the TSP's
customer is the customer of record, then the TSP must provide the LEC
with billing tapes so that the LEC may properly count and bill access
minutes. The Commission rejected the suggestion of some LECs that all
discrepancies between TSP-provided billing tapes and LEC billing
records be resolved in favor of the LECs. The Commission stated that
TSPs and LECs can and should establish fair and reasonable procedures
to resolve billing discrepancies.
17. The Commission stated that it does not base its decision that
LECs must, in some instances, accept billing tapes from TSPs on a co-
carrier model. It required LECs to make signalling information
available to any third party, not just providers of competitive tandem-
switched transport services. Thus, small IXCs may use signalling
information as a way to aggregate their traffic on direct-trunked
transport facilities purchased from a LEC so that they can enjoy the
same scale economies as larger IXCs. In that situation, the IXC
ordering the signalling and transport would be a reseller or
aggregator, not a co-carrier. Indeed, if the meet-point billing model
applied, TSPs would not be able to purchase direct-trunked transport
from a LEC, since LEC tandem-switched transport rates to the ``meet-
point'' would apply.
Collocation
18. The Commission affirmed its tentative conclusion that physical
collocation of switching equipment should not be required. Virtually
every commenter that addressed this issue supported the tentative
conclusion and the reasoning behind it. Thus, the parties agreed that
there is no competitive or technical benefit to locating switching
equipment in LEC offices; that switching equipment is too large and too
heavy to be collocated in LEC space; and that interconnectors would
prefer to place their switching equipment on their own premises for
monitoring purposes. The Commission found that the arguments offered in
support of mandatory collocation were not convincing. It stated that no
one has shown why the line-drawing process between switching and
transmission equipment would be unmanageable or that collocation is
necessary to ensure fair and nondiscriminatory treatment of
interconnectors by LECs. The Commission's tariffing and general
nondiscrimination requirements should provide sufficient protection
against unfair or unreasonably discriminatory LEC rates and practices.
Pricing
19. The Commission concluded that LEC provision of CIC and OZZ data
to TSPs from LEC end offices will constitute a new service under the
price caps regime, which covers all Tier 1 LECs. New services add to
the range of options already available to customers. While LECs
currently transmit CIC and OZZ codes to their own access tandems, they
do not provide this information to their customers. Therefore, these
data add to the range of options of LEC customers and hence represent a
new service. While LECs appear to be able to provide this new service
without implementing new technology, the need--or absence of need--for
new technology does not dictate the categorization of the service under
price caps. Rather, this factor affects the costs and thus the price
that LECs may charge for a new service.
20. LECs will be required to make a cost-based showing under the
price caps new services test. This showing will enable the Commission
to ensure that signalling services are reasonably priced. The
Commission will not use the net revenue test in reviewing LEC tariff
filings. The Commission stated that this is consistent with its
decision to eliminate the net revenue test for new service offerings
under price caps. That test is unnecessary, both because of the
Commission's requirement that LECs submit cost support for new
services, and because LECs clearly lack incentives to underprice
signalling services provided to competitive tandem-switching providers.
21. The Commission concluded further that LECs must establish new
rate elements for CIC and OZZ signalling data as a separate service
category within the trunking basket. This category will be subject to
an upper pricing band of 2%. The Commission stated that because LECs
have no incentive to price signalling services at predatory levels, it
saw no need for a lower band and therefore did not impose one. The
Commission believes that these measures are necessary to prevent LECs
from offsetting increases in the price of signalling information
provided to TSPs with price reductions in the LECs' own tandem-switched
transport rates.
22. The Commission found that the co-carrier model does not aptly
define the LEC/TSP relationship. It found that even though the
Commission has stated in the past that cellular service providers are
like co-carriers, it has never held that cellular interconnection
charges should be imposed on all LEC customers or on all cellular
users, rather than on the providers taking interconnection. Thus, a co-
carrier model does not necessarily dictate that the costs unique to
providing a joint service should always be directly imposed on the
LEC's customers or on all customers of the service in question. The
Commission also stated that a cost recovery mechanism that would have
all purchasers of switched transport or tandem-switched transport bear
the costs of making signalling information available to TSPs, is
inappropriate and that instead, TSPs should pay for such costs. The
Commission found that this is consistent with its long-held view that
costs should be paid by the cost causer.
Recovery of Support Flows
23. The Commission stated that it appears from the record that
there is no need for additional support mechanisms in conjunction with
adoption of this Order. The transport interconnection charge is
sufficient to protect support flows potentially affected by this
decision.
ONA Framework
24. The Commission concluded that unbundled CIC and OZZ data are
not BSEs as defined in its ONA orders and that there is no public
policy reason to treat them equivalently. BSEs are ``optional unbundled
features . . . that an ESP may require or find useful in configuring an
enhanced service.''\4\ The Commission found that there has been no
showing that the CIC and OZZ data that are the subject of the Order
will be used by ESPs to provide enhanced services. Rather, these data
will be used by TSPs to provide basic network services. Thus, these
data do not fall within the Commission's definition of a BSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, 4 FCC
Rcd 1, 36 (1988(, 54 FR 3453 (January 24, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. The Commission also found that no party demonstrated that it
would be in the public interest to treat CIC and OZZ codes as BSEs. The
Commission stated that while some parties argued that the four-part
test that LECs use in determining whether to offer an ESP-requested BSE
should apply, it has relied on similar considerations in assessing the
relative costs and benefits of LEC-provided signalling information. The
Commission also stated that the ``flagging'' requirements associated
with BSEs, under which BOCs must identify BSEs that they intend to use
themselves, are irrelevant: There is no dispute that LECs use CIC and
OZZ data for tandem-switched transport service. The Commission also
found that there would be no added benefit from a pricing standpoint in
treating CIC and OZZ data as BSEs, since it has already held that the
new services test applies to their initial rates.
Tariffing and Implementation
26. The Commission required Tier 1 LECs (except NECA members) to
file tariffs, with requisite cost support, for the provision of CIC and
OZZ codes within ninety days from publication of this Order in the
Federal Register, to be effective on forty-five days' notice. The
Commission found that the record in this proceeding shows that LECs can
provide CIC and OZZ codes to third parties from equal access end
offices simply by modifying their end office routing tables, without
purchasing new end office software and without making other costly and
time-consuming modifications. The Commission concluded that under the
circumstances, there is no reason why the LECs cannot tariff this
offering for all of their equal access end offices within ninety days
of publication of this Order in the Federal Register.
LEC Pricing Flexibility
27. The Commission did not grant LECs additional pricing
flexibility but stated that it will continue to examine these issues in
a broader context in future consideration of pending access reform
petitions. The Commission also stated that it has already addressed
virtually all of the specific proposals suggested by LECs in the
Switched Transport Expanded Interconnection Order and the First
Transport Reconsideration. Thus, LECs may offer density zone pricing
and volume and term discounts under certain conditions. In addition,
they may price transport between their tandems and SWCs on a flat-rate
basis. The Commission also stated that it had considered and rejected
in the Switched Transport Expanded Interconnection Order various other
requests for flexibility. For example, the Commission rejected the
suggestion that LECs receive the same pricing flexibility as their
competitors, noting that giving LECs too much flexibility could stifle
competitive entry and harm customers of less competitive services. The
Commission also declined to eliminate service category pricing bands,
stating that these bands serve important public policy goals. The
Commission found that no party had shown that providing signalling
information to TSPs warrants a different outcome. Nor had any party set
forth any other specific pricing flexibility request related to
providing signalling information. The Commission also found that no
party had demonstrated that the availability of signalling information
warrants authorization of LEC contract tariffs. The Commission has
limited contract carriage to services found to be ``substantially
competitive.'' The Commission concluded that while the measures it now
takes should permit alternatives to LEC tandem-switched access services
to develop, it could not conclude that these services are now subject
to substantial competition.
28. The Commission concluded that for these reasons, it would not
to grant LECs additional pricing flexibility in conjunction with its
decision to make tandem signalling information available. The
Commission stated, however, that this decision is not intended to
prejudge broader questions regarding the possible need for access
charge reform. The Commission stated that by opening the door to
greater competition in the provision of tandem-switched services, it is
continuing the process of removing barriers to the development of a
more competitive access market in which CAPs and other entities can
participate.
Other Issues
Reciprocity
29. The Commission declined to impose reciprocal signalling
obligations on interconnectors at this time. It found, first, that
requests for reciprocal obligations are beyond the scope of this
proceeding. The Notice proposed that LECs provide signalling
information to third parties. The Commission stated that it did not
propose to impose reciprocal requirements on these third parties, and
that it declined to broaden this proceeding to consider such
requirements here. The Commission stated that second, LEC requests for
reciprocity seem to assume that only CAPs will purchase signalling
information. As noted, this information must be made available to any
interested party, including IXCs. LECs requesting reciprocity fail to
address the implications of their proposal with respect to these other
types of TSPs. The Commission stated that third, except in the few
instances where CAPs have end offices, interconnectors simply do not
have the signalling information to provide to the LECs, and the LECs
have not demonstrated specific, present needs for such information. The
Commission found furthermore, that TSPs do not possess market power. It
stated, for example, that the Commission had previously declined to
impose reciprocal obligations on interconnectors, noting, inter alia,
that CAPs and other interconnectors do not control bottleneck
facilities.
Jurisdictional Measurement and Reporting
30. The Commission found that most parties agree that the customer
of record should be responsible for reporting the PIU factor for
terminating traffic when the LEC cannot itself measure jurisdiction.
The Commission stated that this is consistent with existing reporting
arrangements that have worked satisfactorily. If the customer of record
is a TSP, it shall be the responsibility of that TSP to compile PIU
reports based on data from those to whom it provides tandem-switching.
If the customer of record is an IXC or other purchaser of access, that
entity shall continue to provide PIU reports directly to the LEC
providing terminating access.
Separations Issues
31. The Commission concluded that the signalling information
requirement does not raise separations issues that should be referred
to a Joint Board. The record does not show that providing signalling
information will raise any significant issues beyond those already
referred to the Joint Board in the Switched Transport Expanded
Interconnection Order. As noted, the costs associated with LEC
provision of CIC and OZZ codes from equal access end offices should be
minimal. The Commission found that therefore, these costs or the
revenues derived from providing signalling information do not require
Joint Board consideration. The Notice stated that the Commission did
not intend to refer to the Joint Board broader separations issues. The
Commission stated that these matters would be more properly addressed
in the context of a comprehensive separations review proceeding.
Conclusion
32. The Commission concluded that in this Order, it took another
step in its ongoing effort to promote competition in the interstate
access market. Tier 1 LECs (except NECA members) are required to
provide signalling information from equal access end offices to
interested third parties. This measure will allow third parties to
provide tandem switching and thereby promote development of
alternatives to LEC-provided tandem-switched transport service. CAPs
may develop their own tandem-switching networks; other TSPs may use
tandem-switching to achieve scale economics attending the aggregation
of traffic. The Commission found that by promoting access to diverse
facilities and providers, this action should permit more efficient use
and deployment of interstate access services, increase network
reliability and redundancy, encourage innovation, and exert downward
pressure on access charges and long-distance rates. These benefits
should, in turn, contribute to economic growth and the creation of new
job opportunities.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
33. The Commission stated that in the Notice, it certified that the
proposed rule changes would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities, as defined by
Sec. 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.\5\ It also stated that
the Notice provided that to the extent that a PIU reporting requirement
would apply to small entities, it would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. The
Commission found that no commenting party disagreed with its analysis.
The Secretary shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the
certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordance with Sec. 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601
et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Notice, 7 FCC Rcd at 7749, 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordering Clauses
34. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in
Sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, and 214(d) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151(i), 154, 201-205, and 214(d), that
Parts 61 & 69 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Secs. 61, 64, and 69,
are AMENDED as set forth below.
35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the policies, rules, and
requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED, effective eighty days after
publication in the Federal Register.
36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the all LECs subject to this order
shall file tariff amendments as specified herein within ninety days of
publication of this order in the Federal Register, to be effective on
forty-five days' notice.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 61, 64, and 69
Communication Common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Amendatory Text
Parts 61, 64, and 69 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are amended as follows:
PART 61--TARIFFS
1. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154.
Interpret or apply sec. 203, 48 Stat. 1070; 47 U.S.C. 203.
2. Section 61.42 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(2)(vii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 61.42 Price cap baskets and service categories.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Signalling for tandem switching, as described in Sec. 69.129
of this chapter.
* * * * *
3. Section 61.47 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(5) as follows:
Sec. 61.47 Adjustments to the SBI; pricing bands.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) The upper pricing band for the ``Signalling for tandem
switching'' service category shall limit the upward pricing flexibility
for this service category, as reflected in its SBI, to two percent,
relative to the percentage change in the PCI for the trunking basket,
measured from the levels in effect on the last day of the preceding
tariff year. There shall be no lower pricing band for this service
category.
* * * * *
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154,
unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 201, 218, 225, 48
Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 225, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 64.1401 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.1401 Expanded interconnection.
* * * * *
(i) The local exchange carriers specified in paragraph (a) of this
section shall offer signalling for tandem switching, as defined in
Sec. 69.2(vv) of this chapter, at central offices that are classified
as equal office end offices or serving wire centers, or at signal
transfer points if such information is offered via common channel
signalling.
PART 69--ACCESS CHARGES
1. The authority citation for Part 69 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 403, 48 Stat. 1066,
1070, 1072, 1077, 1094, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203,
205, 218, 403.
2. Section 69.2 is amended by adding paragraph (vv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 69.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(vv) Signalling for tandem switching means the carrier
identification code (CIC) and the OZZ code, or equivalent information
needed to perform tandem switching functions. The CIC identifies the
interexchange carrier and the OZZ identifies the interexchange carrier
trunk to which traffic should be routed.
3. Section 69.129 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 69.129 Signalling for tandem switching.
A charge that is expressed in dollars and cents shall be assessed
upon the purchasing entity by a local telephone company for provision
of signalling for tandem switching.
[FR Doc. 94-15443 Filed 6-24-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
