98-23148. Expanded Interconnection With Local Telephone Company Facilities  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 1998)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 45956-45958]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-23148]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
    
    47 CFR Chapter I
    
    [CC Docket No. 91-141; FCC 98-199]
    
    
    Expanded Interconnection With Local Telephone Company Facilities
    
    AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Order on Reconsideration (Order) released August 18, 1998 
    denies Association for Local Telecommunications Services and WilTel, 
    Inc. Petitions for Reconsideration of the Expanded Interconnection with 
    Local Telephone Company Facilities, CC Docket No. 91-141, Third Report 
    and Order, Transport Phase, II (Tandem Switching Order), and grants the 
    motion to withdraw filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 1998.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Oxman, Attorney, Common Carrier 
    Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, (202) 418-1580.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
    On Reconsideration adopted August 12, 1998, and released August 18, 
    1998. The full text of this Order is available for inspection and 
    copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 
    M St., N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C. The complete text also may be 
    obtained through the World Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
    Common Carrier/Orders/fcc98-199.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.
    
    Regulatory Flexibility Certification
    
        In the Tandem Switching Order, the Commission noted that it 
    certified in the Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 57 FR 56888, 
    December 1, 1992, that the conclusions it proposed to adopt would not 
    have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
    business entities. No comments were
    
    [[Page 45957]]
    
    submitted in response to the Commission's request for comment on its 
    certification. In this present Order on Reconsideration, the Commission 
    promulgates no additional final rules, and our action does not affect 
    the previous analysis.
    
    Synopsis of Order on Reconsideration
    
        1. In its Third Report and Order, 59 FR 32925 June 27, 1994, in the 
    expanded interconnection proceeding, the Commission directed all Tier 1 
    local exchange carriers (LECs), except National Exchange Carrier 
    Association, Inc. (NECA) pool members, to provide third parties with 
    the signalling information necessary for these parties to supply tandem 
    switching. Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company 
    Facilities, CC Docket No. 91-141, Third Report and Order, Transport 
    Phase II, 9 FCC Rcd 2718 (1994) (Tandem Switching Order). Three parties 
    filed for reconsideration of the Tandem Switching Order, but one of the 
    three parties has sought to withdraw its petition. For the reasons 
    discussed below, we deny the two remaining petitions.
        2. The Tandem Switching Order required Tier 1 incumbent LECs other 
    than NECA pool members to provide all interested third parties, such as 
    competitive local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers (IXCs), and 
    end users, with the signalling information necessary for those parties 
    to install their own tandems to provide tandem switching services. 
    These third parties, called tandem switch providers (TSPs), would then 
    be able to compete with the incumbent LECs in providing tandem switched 
    transport. Tandem switched transport refers to traffic transported by 
    means of a tandem switch, which is an intermediate switch between an 
    originating telephone call location and the final destination of the 
    call. TSPs carry traffic of multiple interexchange carriers from LEC 
    end offices to their own tandems, and then deliver the traffic to the 
    appropriate IXC. The Commission found that availability to third 
    parties of signalling information needed for tandem switching could 
    provide significant public benefits, such as facilitating broader 
    access competition by enabling interconnectors to offer competitive 
    interstate tandem switching and transport services. In the Commission's 
    view, small IXCs, which rely heavily on tandem-switched transport, 
    would particularly benefit. The Commission also found that competitive 
    tandem switching would yield other benefits, such as putting downward 
    pressure on access charges and long-distance rates, increasing 
    technological innovation, and making more efficient use of the 
    country's telecommunications networks. The Commission determined that 
    the benefits of allowing this competition outweigh the de minimis 
    potential costs incurred by the incumbent LECs in providing the 
    necessary signalling. Finally, the Tandem Switching Order explicitly 
    did not require incumbent LECs to provide signalling information from 
    their tandem offices. The Commission found that the record did not 
    reveal how tandem-to-tandem interconnection could be competitively 
    viable, either from a service quality or pricing perspective.
        3. WilTel, Inc. (WilTel) and the Association for Local 
    Telecommunications Services (ALTS) filed petitions for reconsideration 
    of the Tandem Switching Order urging the Commission to reconsider its 
    decision not to require tandem-to-tandem interconnection. Southwestern 
    Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) also filed a petition for clarification 
    and reconsideration of the Tandem Switching Order, claiming technical 
    difficulties in implementing that order. SWBT subsequently filed a 
    motion to withdraw its petition.
        4. We deny the WilTel and ALTS petitions to reconsider the 
    Commission's decision not to require incumbent LECs to provide 
    signalling from their tandems in its Tandem Switching Order. The 
    Commission explicitly considered and decided against requiring LECs to 
    provide tandem-to-tandem interconnection, finding that the costs of 
    tandem-to-tandem signalling were not shown to be justified by either 
    the benefits of, or demand for, such signalling. Nothing in the record 
    on reconsideration persuades us to alter this finding. First, the 
    petitioners have not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
    demand for this service exists or that this is a viable service. Even 
    WilTel admits that the demand for this service is speculative. In 
    addition, while some commenters claim that tandem-to-tandem switching 
    is necessary to provide ubiquitous service, they do not dispute that 
    such a goal may be achieved by collocating at LEC tandems and routing 
    traffic from those tandems to their own tandems, using separate trunk 
    groups for each IXC. Instead, these commenters argue only in general 
    terms that this option is not cost-efficient. Second, petitioners have 
    failed to support their claim that the costs associated with tandem-to-
    tandem interconnection would be minimal. The LECs claim that they would 
    incur significant costs to develop standards and upgrade software to 
    provide tandem-to-tandem signalling. While the parties seeking tandem-
    to-tandem interconnection urge that the costs associated with such 
    interconnection are minimal, they have not provided any precise 
    information to support those assertions. On this record, we thus 
    conclude that WilTel and ALTS have not met their burden of persuading 
    us to reconsider the Commission's earlier decision in the Tandem 
    Switching Order.
        5. We note here that the record suggests no reason why carriers 
    desiring signalling from LEC tandems cannot obtain that signalling 
    through the separate, yet to some extent parallel, interconnection 
    requirements mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the 
    Commission's subsequent order establishing rules implementing those 
    requirements. Sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3) of the Communications 
    Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, obligate 
    incumbent LECs to provide interconnection and access to unbundled 
    elements, upon request, at any ``technically feasible point.'' As 
    explained in the Local Competition Order, the term ``technically 
    feasible'' refers solely to technical or operational concerns, rather 
    than economic, space, or site considerations.
        6. Finally, we agree with many of the LEC commenters that 
    consideration of modification of the Commission's new services test for 
    LECs subject to price cap regulation is beyond the scope of this 
    proceeding. Such arguments are more properly raised in petitions filed 
    regarding individual tariffs, and we therefore decline to consider them 
    here. For the reasons discussed, we affirm our decision not to require 
    LECs to provide tandem-to-tandem signalling.
        7. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 
    4, and 201-205 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
    151, 154, and 201-205, It is ordered that the petition for 
    reconsideration of the Association for Local Telecommunications 
    Services and the petition for reconsideration of WilTel, Inc. Are 
    Denied as described.
        8. It is Further Ordered that the Motion to Withdraw Southwestern 
    Bell Telephone's Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration is 
    granted.
        9. It is Further Ordered that the Motion for Leave to File Late 
    Reply of WilTel, Inc. is granted.
    
    
    [[Page 45958]]
    
    
    Federal Communications Commission.
    Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 98-23148 Filed 8-27-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
9/28/1998
Published:
08/28/1998
Department:
Federal Communications Commission
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
98-23148
Dates:
September 28, 1998.
Pages:
45956-45958 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
CC Docket No. 91-141, FCC 98-199
PDF File:
98-23148.pdf
CFR: (1)
47 CFR None