**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | File No. NSD-L-00-254        |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Elastic Networks Petition for    | ** |                              |
| Waiver of the Signal Power       |    |                              |
| Limitations Contained in Section | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| 68.308 (e)(1) of the             | ** |                              |
| Commission's Rules for the       |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| EtherLoop/Stormport 400 Modem    | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** July 13, 2001 **Released:** July 16, 2001

By the Acting Chief, Network Services Division:

# iNTRODUCTION

1.  On November 15, 2000, Elastic Networks (Elastic) filed a Petition
    with the Network Services Division (Division) of the Common Carrier
    Bureau (Bureau) for waiver of the out-of-band metallic signal power
    limitations contained in 47 C.F.R. section 68.308(e)(1) of the
    Commission\'s rules, so that it may register its EtherLoop Stormport
    400 Modem under Part 68 of the Commission's rules.[^1] In this
    order, we grant the waiver request subject to the conditions
    described herein.

# BACKGROUND

2.  *Signal Power Limitations.* Section 68.308(e) contains limitations
    on metallic and longitudinal signal power to protect the network
    from crosstalk.[^2] Metallic signal power levels in the 100 Hz to 4
    kHz range are limited by section 68.308(b). Section 68.308(e)(1)
    limits the power level of metallic signals in the 4 kHz to 6 MHz
    range.[^3] These limits are represented by a maximum value of root
    mean square (rms) voltage across the terminals of the equipment, as
    shown in Figure 68.308(a).

3.  Although section 68.308(e) provides two limitations to prevent
    crosstalk in telephone company transmission systems or services,
    Elastic seeks waiver of only the first limitation, excessive
    metallic signal power in the 4 kHz to 6 MHz range, as specified in
    section 68.308(e)(1). Elastic claims that the Stormport 400 complies
    with all other sections of Part 68.[^4]

4.  *Waiver Standard.* In analyzing the waiver request, we consider
    established legal standards for waiver of the Commission\'s rules.
    The Commission will adhere strictly to its rules unless a party can
    demonstrate that \"in the public interest the rule should be
    waived.\"[^5] Furthermore, the Commission may only waive a provision
    of its rules for "good cause shown."[^6] The party petitioning the
    Commission for a waiver bears the burden of showing good cause:
    \"\[a\]n applicant \[for a waiver\] faces a high hurdle even at the
    starting gate.\"[^7] The Commission must take a \"hard look\" at
    applications for waiver[^8] and must consider all relevant factors
    when determining if good cause exists.[^9] In addition, \"\[t\]he
    agency must explain why deviation better serves the public interest,
    and articulate the nature of the special circumstances, to prevent
    discriminatory application and to put future parties on notice as to
    its operation.\"[^10] Finally, a waiver of one or more conditions of
    the Commission\'s rules does not excuse an applicant from compliance
    with the Commission\'s other requirements.[^11]

5.  The test for a waiver of section 68.308(e)(1) is well
    established.[^12] We have formulated and consistently applied a
    two-prong test, the *Nortel Test*, to determine the merits of a
    request for waiver of section 68.308(e)(1) to permit registration of
    non-conforming terminal equipment.[^13] The first prong of the test
    is an evaluation of the terminal equipment's benefit to the public
    interest, with an emphasis on the potential gain in consumer choice
    and value that it would bring to the market. The second prong of the
    test is an evaluation of potential for prevention of harm if
    terminal equipment meets alternatives to waived conditions. We have
    consistently concluded that when waivers require the imposition of
    certain alternative performance conditions, those alternative
    performance conditions become mandatory requirements upon which the
    grant of the waiver is conditioned.[^14] Applicants submitting
    applications for registration of equipment for which waiver of
    section 68.308(e)(1) has been granted subject to provision of
    alternative performance conditions must provide, with their
    application for registration, test results showing compliance with
    those alternative performance conditions, as well as compliance with
    other applicable part 68 requirements.

6.  *Elastic's Petition*. As described by Elastic, the Stormport 400 is
    a \"burst mode\" modem. Burst mode modems transmit in intervals
    interleaved with quiet periods (moments in time when no energy is
    transmitted). The Stormport 400 takes crosstalk measurements in the
    quiet period between bursts, and uses these measurements both to
    optimize its transmission speed and to change its mode of operation
    if it detects the presence of crosstalk coupling with any asymmetric
    service. The change in mode of operation is accomplished by a
    \"Spectrum Management\" feature that switches from the higher power
    "Native Mode" to the lower power "Safe Mode" upon detection of such
    crosstalk. Elastic states that if Spectrum Manager's detection of
    crosstalk is inconclusive, the Spectrum Manager takes the cautious
    step of switching to Safe Mode. In Safe Mode, Elastic states, the
    Stormport 400 modem will not cause interference in the PSTN because
    it complies with ANSI standard T1.417[^15] section 5.3.5.1 (Spectrum
    Management Class 5 PSD criteria and total average power
    constraints), with section 5.3.5.2 (Spectrum Management Class 5
    transverse balance requirements), and with section 5.3.5.3 (Spectrum
    Management Class 5 longitudinal output voltage requirements). These
    industry standards are in the same Spectrum Management Class as the
    ADSL modems for which we have previously granted waivers using a
    streamlined procedure.[^16]

7.  When operating in Native Mode, the Stormport 400 modem transmits up
    to a maximum of 14 dBm of total power at each center frequency. In
    Native Mode, the modem will not interfere with symmetric basis
    systems, because, according to the Method B analysis of ANSI T1.417,
    there is sufficient margin for non-interference with such services.
    Elastic concedes that the modem would interfere with asymmetric
    basis systems when operating in Native Mode. This interference is
    avoided by operation of the modem\'s Spectrum Manager, which will
    detect signals from asymmetric basis systems and switch
    automatically from Native Mode to Safe Mode, thus avoiding
    interference with asymmetric systems. Accordingly, Elastic argues
    that its modem will not operate in Native Mode in the presence of
    signals from asymmetric basis systems.[^17] Elastic states that its
    modem has been deployed safely by 28 incumbent local exchange
    carriers and two competitive local exchange carriers in the United
    States, as well as by seven incumbent local exchange carriers in
    Canada.

8.  Elastic claims that the EtherLoop/Stormport 400 modem has greater
    reach than ADSL modems, and that this ability to provide high-speed
    data services reliably at greater distances from the telephone
    company central office will lead to more ubiquitous broadband
    service, particularly for rural customers.[^18] Elastic argues that
    its Stormport 400, although not compliant with section 68.308(e)(1),
    would not cause harm to the PSTN because it complies with the ANSI
    T1.417 standard. Elastic also notes that the Commission established
    a streamlined waiver process for ADSL equipment in the *Alcatel
    Order*.[^19] In that order, the Commission determined that, if a
    petitioner shows that an ADSL device meets two performance
    conditions established in ANSI standard T1.413, then it is in the
    public interest to grant a waiver of section 308(e)(1).[^20] Elastic
    contends that compliance with ANSI standard T1.417 should be an
    alternate basis for the Commission to waive the same rule.

# Discussion

9.  The issues raised by Elastic's Petition are similar to those raised
    in other petitions seeking waiver of the Commission's rules in
    Part 68. Based upon the record and its application to current law,
    regulations and precedent, we grant Elastic Network\'s Petition,
    subject to the following limitations.

10. *First prong of Nortel Test: New Products and Innovation.* We
    conclude that Elastic's Stormport Modem would increase consumer
    access to advanced telecommunication services, particularly in rural
    areas where ADSL services are not available. Champlain Telephone
    Company provides evidence of its deployment experience with the
    Stormport 400, indicating that use of the device would successfully
    benefit consumers.[^21] We have previously found that the similar
    ADSL, RADSL, and G-LITE technologies are in the public interest.
    Accordingly, we find that Elastic\'s Petition meets the first prong
    of the *Nortel Test*.

11. *Second prong of Nortel Test: Harm to the Network.* In our analysis
    of the second prong of the Nortel Test, we consider whether certain
    technical alternatives to section 68.308(e)(1) provide sufficient
    criteria for prevention of harm to the PSTN from terminal equipment
    meeting those alternative criteria. We conclude that with the
    protection of conditions proposed by Verizon and approved by
    Elastic, Elastic's Petition also meets the second prong of the
    *Nortel Test*.

12. As a threshhold matter, we find Bell South's argument that third
    party review is necessary for supporting a waiver of the Part 68
    technical requirements to be without merit. In our previous Orders
    waiving section 68.308(e)(1), we based our second-prong analysis on
    petitioner\'s representations that its equipment complied with
    established industry standards that were developed through open,
    industry consensus-building processes, and intended to protect the
    PSTN from harm.[^22] We have previously considered a similar
    argument by BellSouth that a party applying for a waiver of Part 68
    criteria must submit its device to a third party for testing for
    compliance with conditions imposed by an Order before granting a
    waiver request.[^23] We conclude here, as we did earlier, that
    requiring third party review for grant of a waiver would
    unnecessarily duplicate the testing that already occurs as part of
    the Part 68 registration process, and therefore is not in the public
    interest.[^24]

13. Verizon proposed five conditions that would ensure that no harm
    would be caused to the PSTN.[^25] These conditions are based on
    compliance with ANSI T1.417 as well as with the "Method B" outlined
    in that standard. The waiver conditions are different depending upon
    whether the Safe Mode or the Native Mode of the Stormport 400 is
    operating. We discuss these conditions below in detail and, with
    some modifications, include these conditions in our grant of
    Elastic's waiver request.

14. *User Control of Adaptive Systems.* We conclude that there must be a
    performance condition that requires the modem to be equipped with
    circuitry, *e.g*., a \"spectrum manager" feature, that cannot be
    defeated or adjusted by the operator, and that places the modem in
    the Safe Mode when signals from asymmetric services are present.
    Fundamental to Elastic Network\'s petition is the claim that its
    modem switches from Native Mode to Safe Mode upon detection of
    crosstalk coupling with an asymmetric service, even if the detection
    is ambiguous.[^26] We agree that a switch to Safe Mode in the
    presence of asymmetric services is necessary to prevent harmful
    interference. We further agree with Verizon that the mechanism that
    insures appropriate switching to safe mode should be beyond control
    by the user.[^27] We find it reasonable that a critical safety
    mechanism must not be easily defeated, for then it would not be fail
    safe.

15. *Compliance with T1.417, section 5.3.5.1.* We conclude that when
    operating in Safe Mode, the modem must meet the Spectral Management
    Class 5 Power Spectral Density criteria and total average power
    constraints contained in T1.417 clause 5.3.5.1. These technical
    criteria prevent interference by restricting the amount of
    electrical power transmitted over the PSTN. Elastic describes the
    Stormport 400 as a device that complies with T1.417, section
    5.3.5.1, PSD and average power limitations when operating in Safe
    Mode. We agree, as do Elastic and all commenters, that such
    compliance is necessary to avoid harmful interference in the PSTN.

16. *Compliance with \"T1.417 Method B\" or PSD masks*. We conclude that
    when operating in the Native Mode, all transmissions from the modem
    must have sufficient margin with respect to symmetric systems, as
    shown by the Method B analysis of ANSI T1.417, to avoid
    interference. Method B is a set of mathematical models for
    calculation of crosstalk margins for several transmission
    technologies. Elastic argues that analysis pursuant to Method B of
    ANSI T1.417 shows that its modem, operating in Native Mode, is
    spectrally compatible, without deployment restrictions, with all
    symmetric basis systems. Power Spectrum Density (PSD) masks set out
    specific technical requirements for signal power allowed at a given
    point in the spectrum. Verizon obtained PSD masks from Elastic
    Networks for the spectra associated with each of the carrier
    frequencies, or \"tones,\" used by the Stormport 400, and presented
    those masks to Commission staff as its suggested parameters for
    conditioning a grant of Elastic's waiver request.[^28] The PSD masks
    present criteria that are relatively easy to understand and apply in
    evaluation of test data for registration of the modem. Their use as
    a condition for this waiver, however, would be a departure from our
    practice of considering only widely accepted industry standards in
    deciding waiver requests. Accordingly, we believe that the better
    practice is to require compliance with Method B, since it is part of
    the industry standard ANSI T1.417.

17. *Transverse balance.* We conclude that when operating in either Safe
    or Native Mode, the modem must comply with the transverse balance
    limits of ANSI T1.417 clause 5.3.5.2. Transverse balance is the term
    given to a measure of symmetry of impedance.[^29] The transverse
    balance limits for Part 68 are presented in section 68.310 for
    frequencies up to 4 kHz. The transverse balance limits for T1.417,
    applicable to frequencies above 4 kHz, are presented in T1.417
    section 5.3.5.2.

18. Verizon argues that, although Elastic claims that its modem meets
    the applicable transverse balance limits in the Commission's rules,
    those limits apply only to equipment operating at frequencies below
    those of Elastic\'s modem (up to 4 kHz, as noted above), and Elastic
    does not show that its Stormport 400 modem meets that standard. In
    the *Alcatel Order*, we considered the matter of transverse balance
    and declined to adopt additional limits beyond those in section
    68.310 as a condition for granting Alcatel's Petition. [^30] In that
    case, petitioner Alcatel did not claim compliance with transverse
    balance limits of a particular standard, and Verizon (then Bell
    Atlantic) did not propose that we use an industry standard as a
    condition on the waiver. Instead, Verizon proposed an unsupported
    requirement of a minimum of 35 dB of transverse balance across the
    entire upstream and downstream ADSL frequency bands.

19. In the instant proceeding, on the other hand, Elastic claims that
    its Stormport 400 is compliant with the transverse balance limits of
    ANSI T1.417 section 5.3.5.2, an industry standard also proposed by
    Verizon. The transverse balance limits in ANSI T1.417 section
    5.3.5.2 were developed through an industry consensus process for the
    purpose of protecting the PSTN from interference from devices such
    as the Stormport 400. We agree with Elastic and Verizon that in view
    of the existence of this industry standard, it is appropriate to
    include this standard as a performance condition for grant of
    Elastic's waiver request.

20. *Longitudinal output voltage.* We conclude that when operating in
    either Safe or Native Mode, the modem must comply with the
    longitudinal voltage limits of T1.417 clause 5.3.5.3. Longitudinal
    voltage is the term given to a measure of symmetry of signals
    produced by the terminal equipment.[^31] Longitudinal voltage limits
    for Part 68 are presented in section 68.308(e)(2) for frequencies up
    to 6 MHz. Longitudinal voltage limits for ANSI T1.417 are presented
    in T1.417 5.3.5.3.

21. Elastic claims that the Stormport 400 is compliant with both section
    68.308(e)(2) and the longitudinal voltage limits of ANSI T1.417
    5.3.5.3. As with transverse balance limitations, the ANSI T1.417
    5.3.5.3 criteria for longitudinal voltage are designed to protect
    the network from interference and are applicable to devices such as
    the Stormport 400. Based on the industry consensus represented by
    ANSI T1.417, we agree with both Elastic and Verizon that compliance
    with this industry standard is important for protection of the PSTN
    from interference, and therefore condition Elastic's waiver on this
    requirement.

22. *Short Term Stationary criteria.* We conclude that when operating in
    either Safe or Native Mode, the modem must comply with the
    short-term stationary criteria of ANSI T1.417 clause 6.5. Short-term
    stationary criteria prevent interference to the network by limiting
    the extent to which power transmitted into the PSTN can change in a
    specified interval. ANSI T1.417 section 6.5 specifies tests and
    requirements for short-term stationary devices. Elastic claims that
    its Stormport 400 complies with all of the requirements of section
    6.5. of the T1.417 standard. We agree with both Elastic and Verizon
    that compliance with this industry standard is important for
    protection of the PSTN from interference.

23. *Frequencies below 25.875 kHz.* In its proposed waiver criteria for
    Elastic's Stormport 400, Verizon suggests that if the Stormport
    modem meets the upstream Spectrum Management Class 5 PSD limits in
    T1.417 for frequencies below 25.875 kHz while operating, then the
    modem could be presumed acceptable for deployment on the same loop
    with switched voice services.[^32] We conclude that it is not
    necessary to add this condition because the substance of these
    concerns is addressed by other waiver conditions we adopt herein.
    With regard to operation in Safe Mode, our performance condition
    requiring that Elastic's modem meet the Spectral Management Class 5
    Power Spectral Density criteria and total average power constraints
    contained in T1.417 clause 5.3.5.1 will include modem operations on
    frequencies below 25.875 kHz. Modem operation in Native Mode below
    25.875 kHz is addressed by our performance condition requiring that
    Elastic's modem must have sufficient margin to avoid interference
    with respect to symmetric systems, as shown by the Method B analysis
    of ANSI T1.417.

24. *Commission Obligations to Protect the PSTN.* We conclude that
    BellSouth\'s argument that section 256(a)(2) of the Act[^33]
    obligates the Commission to develop and institute technical criteria
    for equipment located on carrier premises in this proceeding is
    unfounded. In other proceedings, the Commission has imposed
    obligations on incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to allow
    connection of foreign equipment to their facilities (collocation) by
    competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), and placed the burden
    of assuring that such equipment did not harm the network on the
    incumbent carrier, without providing numerical criteria for
    evaluation of that equipment.[^34] In any event, this subject area
    is outside the scope of a waiver proceeding for Part 68, which is
    limited to the effect of terminal equipment on the PSTN.

25. Based on the foregoing analyses, we conclude that granting this
    waiver request, subject to the conditions set forth in this Order,
    will serve the public interest by providing greater consumer choice
    and value without increasing the likelihood of harm to the PSTN.

# ORDERiNG CLAUSES

26. Accordingly, pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and
    0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and section
    1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
    that the request for waiver of section 68.308(e)(1) of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 68.308(e)(1), by Elastic Networks for
    its Etherloop/Stormport 400 Modem is GRANTED to the extent discussed
    herein.

27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the waiver is GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE
    FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

    \(1\) When operating in the "Native Mode," all transmissions from
    the modem must have sufficient margin with respect to symmetric
    systems, as shown by the Method B analysis of T1.417, to avoid
    interference;

    \(2\) The modem must be equipped with circuitry, e.g., a \"spectrum
    manager" feature, that cannot be defeated or adjusted by the
    operator, and that places the modem in the Safe Mode when signals
    from asymmetric services are present;

    \(3\) When operating in Safe Mode, the modem must meet the Spectral
    Management Class 5 Power Spectral Density criteria and total average
    power constraints contained in T1.417 clause 5.3.5.1;

    \(4\) When operating in either Safe or Native Mode, the modem must
    comply with the short term stationary criteria of T1.417 clause 6.5;

    \(5\) When operating in either Safe or Native Mode, the modem must
    comply with the transverse balance limits of T1.417 clause 5.3.5.2;
    and

    \(6\) When operating in either Safe or Native Mode, the modem must
    comply with the longitudinal voltage limits of T1.417 clause
    5.3.5.3.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Diane Griffin Harmon

> Acting Chief, Network Services Division
>
> Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: ^?^ Elastic Networks Petition for Waiver, filed November 15, 2000
    (Elastic Petition). *See also* Network Services Division Seeks
    Comment on Petition by Elastic Networks Petition for Part 68 Waiver,
    Public Notice, DA 00-2921, released December 29, 2000.

[^2]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 68.308(e). Crosstalk was initially used to
    designate the presence in a telephone receiver of unwanted speech
    sounds from another telephone conversation. The term has been
    extended to designate interference in one communication channel or
    circuit caused by signals present in other communication channels.
    Consideration is limited here to the interference of one signal by
    another of the same general type - e.g., speech interfering with
    speech, video with video, digital with digital, etc.
    Telecommunications Transmission Engineering, Volume I-Principles,
    Second Edition, at 425 (AT&T, 1997).

[^3]: ^?^ The limits are: 1) maximum rms values, averaged over 100
    milliseconds at the telephone connections in all of the indicated 8
    kHz bands within the indicated frequency ranges, of -- (6 + 12.6 log
    f) dBV for center frequencies of 8 to 12 kHz with a terminating
    impedance of 300 ohms; 2) (23 -- 40 log f) dBV for center
    frequencies of 12 to 90 kHz with a terminating impedance of 135
    ohms; 3) -55 dBV for center frequencies of 90 kHz to 266 kHz with a
    terminating impedance of 135 ohms; and 4) maximum rms values of
    --15dBV, averaged over 2 microseconds, at the telephone connections,
    in all of the 8 kHz bands within the frequency range of 270 kHz to 6
    MHz, with a terminating impedance of 135 ohms. Sometimes these
    limits are referred to as the out-of-band signal power limitations,
    because the range 4kHz to 6 MHz is outside the voice-band range of
    200 Hz to 3995 Hz. For purposes of Part 68, voice-band is defined in
    47 C.F.R. § 68.3.

[^4]: ^?^ Elastic Petition, para. 8.

[^5]: ^?^ *FPC v. Texaco Inc*., 377 U.S. 33, 39 (1964).

[^6]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §1.3.

[^7]: ^?^ *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

[^8]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^9]: ^?^ *Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe*, 401 U.S.
    402, 416 (1971).

[^10]: ^?^ *Northeast Cellular Telephone Company, L.P. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d
    1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

[^11]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.3; see *also* In the Matter of Part 68
    Waiver Request of Alameda Engineering, Inc., et al., *Order*, 10 FCC
    Rcd 12135, 12139 (Com. Car. Bur. 1995)(*Alameda Order*).

[^12]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* In the Matter of Tandy Corporation, Walker
    Equipment Company, Ameriphone, Inc., and Ultratec, Inc. Request for
    Waiver of Volume Control Reset, 47 C.F.R. § 68.317(f), NSD-L-00-17,
    NSD-L-00-22, NSD-L-00-63, NSD-L-00-193, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, DA 01-578 (released March 5, 2001); Alcatel USA, Inc.
    Petition for Waiver of the Signal Power Limitations Contained in
    Section 68.308(e) of the Commission\'s Rules, File No. NSD 00-37,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 4388 (Com. Car. Bur.
    Network Services Div. 2000) (*Alcatel Order*).

[^13]: ^?^ In the Matter of Paradyne Petition of the Signal Power
    Limitations Contained in Section 68.308(e) of the Commission's
    Rules, *Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 4496 (1999)(*Paradyne Order*); In the
    Matter of Northern Telecom Inc. Petition of the Signal Power
    Limitations Contained in Section 68.308(e)(1) of the Commission's
    Rules, NSD-L-98-135, *Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 12048 (Com. Car. Bur.
    Network Services Div. 1999)(*Nortel Order*).

[^14]: ^?^ Part 68 Waiver Request of Alameda Engineering, Inc., *Order
    on Reconsideration*, NSD-L-98-154, 15 FCC Rcd 1658 (Com. Car. Bur.
    1999) (*Alameda Recon. Order*).

[^15]: ^?^ ANSI T1.417, clause 4.2, Spectral Compatibility. ANSI
    standard T1.417 states that a new technology is spectrally
    compatible if its service: (A) fits within the power spectral
    density (PSD) mask of one of the nine defined Spectrum Management
    (SM) Classes, or (B) is demonstrated by a standardized analysis \--
    "Method B" \-- to cause interference to basis systems that is less
    than or equal to reference cases. The industry standard was
    developed by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions
    (ATIS) subcommittee T1E1.4, an open standards development
    organization that, pursuant to Commission directive in the *Third
    Advanced Services Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 20,912 (1999), works
    to ensure spectral compatibility in the unbundled loop environment.

[^16]: ^?^ *See, e.g.,* *Alcatel Order*, *supra,* note 12.

[^17]: ^?^ Elastic *Ex Parte*, March 8, 2001.

[^18]: ^?^ Petition at 2.

[^19]: ^?^ Petition at 3, citing the *Alcatel Order*.

[^20]: ^?^ *Alcatel Order, supra,* at 4395, para. 17. The modem must (1)
    meet the transmitter spectral response requirements specified in
    section 7.14 of T1.413- Issue Two (1998), and (2) operate with an
    aggregate power of less than 12.5 dBm over the range 25.875 to 138
    kHz as specified in section 7.15 of the same document.

[^21]: ^?^ Champlain Telephone Company Comments at 2.

[^22]: ^?^ *See, e.g., Alcatel Order* at 4395-4396, paras. 16-20.

[^23]: ^?^ *Alameda Recon. Order* at 1666, para. 18.

[^24]: ^?^ *Id*. at 1667, para. 19.

[^25]: ^?^ Verizon *Ex Parte*, April 3, 2001.

[^26]: ^?^ Petition at 2.

[^27]: ^?^ Verizon *Ex Parte*, April 3, 2001.

[^28]: ^?^ Verizon *Ex Parte*, April 3, 2001.

[^29]: ^?^ There are two types of asymmetry in characteristics of
    terminal attachments that contribute to interference on loops. One
    is an asymmetry in the impedance between tip to ground and ring to
    ground connections. To the extent that such asymmetry or transverse
    imbalance exists, the terminal equipment will cause signals received
    from the network in one side of the loop not to be offset by signals
    of opposite sign in the other side, resulting in greater
    interference than would be the case if the signals were equal and
    opposite, or balanced.

[^30]: ^?^ *Alcatel Order* at 4395-4396, para 18.

[^31]: ^?^ The second type of asymmetry is in the signals produced by
    the terminal equipment. If they are not equal and opposite at tip
    and ring (with respect to ground), then the signals in one side of
    the loop will not be offset by signals of opposite sign in the other
    side, resulting in greater interference than would be the case if
    the signals were equal and opposite, or balanced.

[^32]: ^?^ Verizon *Ex Parte*, April 3, 2001, at 13 (pages unnumbered).

[^33]: ^?^ Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §
    256(a)(2).

[^34]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 51, § 51.323.