Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring
Customer Premises Equipment 
Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer 
Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Cable 
Home Wiring 
Clarification of the Commissions Rules and 
Policies Regarding Unbundled Access to 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Inside Wire 
Subloop  
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CS Docket No. 95-184
MM Docket No. 92-260
WC Docket No. 01-338
REPORT AND ORDER AND
DECLARATORY RULING
Adopted: May 31, 2007 Released:  June 8, 2007
By the Commission:  Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein and McDowell issuing 
separate statements.  
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para.
I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................4
A. Cable Inside Wiring Rules...............................................................................................................4
B. Incumbent LEC Inside Wire Subloops............................................................................................7
III. DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................................12
A. Cable Inside Wiring Rules.............................................................................................................12
B. Incumbent LEC Inside Wire Subloops..........................................................................................48
IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................56
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS...................................................................................................................57
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ..........................................................................................................................60
APPENDIX A  List of Commenters in WC Docket No. 01-338
APPENDIX B  List of Commenters in CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260
APPENDIX C  Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we take steps to eliminate barriers to competitive entry in multiple dwelling 
units (MDUs) and in multiunit premises, when a new entrant seeks to compete against an incumbent 
provider.  Part I of this Order, responds to a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit regarding amendment of the Commissions cable television inside wiring 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
2
rules.1 In the 2003 order reviewed by the court, the Commission had modified its rules to provide that 
home run wiring located behind sheet rock is considered physically inaccessible for purposes of 
determining the demarcation point between home wiring and home run wiring.2 The Commission then 
concluded that cutting and repairing sheet rock adds significantly to the physical difficulty and cost of 
wiring an MDU.  In this Order, we conclude that cable wiring located behind sheet rock qualifies as 
physically inaccessible under the Commissions rules for purposes of determining the demarcation point 
between home wiring and home run wiring.  The record shows that accessing such wiring causes 
significant damage or modification to a preexisting structural element and generally adds significantly to 
the physical difficulty and/or cost of accessing the subscribers home wiring.  This ruling will facilitate 
competition in video distribution markets by clarifying the circumstances under which the existing cable 
home run wiring in MDUs can be made available to alternative video service providers.   
2. In Part II of this Order, we grant, as described below, a petition for declaratory ruling filed 
by Cox Oklahoma Telcom, L.L.C. (Cox) regarding the scope of requesting carriers right to access 
incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) inside wire subloops in multiunit premises.  Specifically, 
Cox asks the Commission to clarify that incumbent LECs must allow requesting carriers to have direct
access to the inside wire subloop in multi-tenant environments (MTEs) for the purposes of performing
installations.3 As explained below, we grant Coxs petition and conclude that state commission decisions 
denying requesting carriers direct physical access to incumbent LECs inside wire subloops in multiunit 
premises pursuant to section 251(c)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) are 
inconsistent with the Act and Commission precedent and would frustrate the development of 
competition.  
3. The Order that we adopt today takes important steps to ensure that the pro-competitive, 
deregulatory goals of the 1996 Act are realized.  Our actions here remove both economic and operational 
barriers to infrastructure investment in the communications market.  New entrants to the video services 
and telephony markets should not be foreclosed from competing for consumers in multi-unit buildings 
based on regulatory technicalities or costly and inefficient industry practices.  By removing these 
obstacles, we further the opportunities for consumers living in multi-unit buildings to enjoy the social 
and economic benefits of communication services competition.
  
1 National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of 
America, No. 03-1140, 2004 WL 335201 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 17, 2004, unpublished) (Appeals Court decision). 
2 Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring, Customer Premises Equipment and Implementation of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Cable Home Wiring, CS Docket No. 95-184, MM 
Docket No. 92-260, First Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1342 (2003)
(Reconsideration Order).  Cable home run wiring in a MDU is the wiring that runs from the demarcation point to the 
point at which the multichannel video programming distributors (MVPD) wiring becomes devoted to an individual 
subscriber or individual loop.  See 47 C.F.R.  76.800(d).  In contrast, cable home wiring is the internal wiring 
contained within the premises of a subscriber, which begins at the demarcation point and runs to the subscribers 
television set or other customer premises equipment.  See 47 C.F.R.  76.5 (ll).   
3 Coxs Petition for a Declaratory Ruling for Clarification of the Commissions Rules and Policies Regarding 
Unbundled Access to Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Inside Wire Subloop, WC Docket No. 01-338 (filed Oct. 
27, 2004) (Petition) at 1; see also 47 U.S.C.  251; Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 
56 (1996) (1996 Act).  The Petition was placed on public notice on November 4, 2004 with comments due by 
December 6, 2004, and reply comments due by December 21, 2004.  Pleading Cycle Established for Comments On 
Coxs Petition for a Declaratory Ruling, for Clarification of the Commissions Rules and Policies Regarding 
Unbundled Access to Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Inside Wire Subloop, WC Docket No. 01-338, Public 
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 22040 (WCB 2004).  See Appendix A for a list of commenters filed in WC Docket No. 01-338.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
3
II. BACKGROUND
A. Cable Inside Wiring Rules
4. In 1993, the Commission first promulgated rules for cable home wiring and for the 
disposition of that wiring after termination of service.4 In 1996, the Commission addressed certain cable 
home wiring issues and sought comment regarding how the Commission should revise these rules to 
reflect new developments, and how to promote competition by ensuring that the Commissions rules 
would facilitate the use of new and diverse services.5 In 1997, the Commission sought further comment 
on and addressed issues regarding procedures for the disposition of home run wiring in MDUs6 when an 
MDU owner decides to terminate service for the entire building and when an MDU owner is willing to 
permit two or more video service providers to compete for subscribers in the MDU on a unit-by-unit 
basis.7 In 2003, the Commission resolved the issues presented on reconsideration in that proceeding.8
5. Central to any discussion on cable home wiring or cable home run wiring is the matter of the 
MDU demarcation point, which is the point at which a consumers home wiring becomes the networks 
home run wiring. The Commission has previously stated that the cable wiring demarcation point serves 
such multiple purposes as defining (1) the location at which the subscriber may control the internal home 
wiring if he or she owns it; (2) the point at which an alternative multichannel video programming 
distributor (MVPD) would attach its wiring to the subscribers wiring in order to provide service; and (3) 
the point from which the customer has the right to purchase cable home wiring upon termination of 
service.9 For purposes of this proceeding, a critical component of our discussion involves the location of 
the demarcation point because it is where a competing provider may access existing cable home wiring in 
an MDU building.  The demarcation point for MDUs is set at (or about) twelve inches outside of where 
the cable wire enters the subscribers individual dwelling unit.10 In the event that the cable demarcation 
point is physically inaccessible to an alternative MVPD, the demarcation point moves away from the 
individual dwelling unit to a point at which it first becomes physically accessible.11 The Commission has 
concluded that, for the cable demarcation point to be physically inaccessible, access to the wiring must 
  
4  See Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act), Pub. L. No. 102-385, 
106 Stat. 1460 (1992), 47 U.S.C.  521, et seq.; see also 47 U.S.C.  544(i); 47 C.F.R.  76.5(ll), (mm) and 76.801, 
76.802;  Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Cable Home 
Wiring, MM Docket No. 92-260, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 1435 (1993) (Cable Wiring Order). 
5 Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring and Customer Premises Equipment, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
11 FCC Rcd 2747 (1996) (Inside Wiring Notice); Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992: Cable Home Wiring, MM Docket No. 92-260, First Order on Reconsideration and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 4561 (1996) (First Reconsideration Order and Further Notice).   
6 An MDU is a building or buildings with two or more residences, such as an apartment building, condominium 
building, or cooperative.  See 47 C.F.R.  76.800.  
7 Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring, Customer Premises Equipment and Implementation of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Cable Home Wiring, Report and Order and Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 3659 (1997) (Report and Order and Second Further Notice).   
8 See Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1342 (2003).
9 Inside Wiring Notice, 11 FCC Rcd at 2750. 
10 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(2).  The demarcation point for single unit installations is the same.  See 47 C.F.R.  
76.5(mm)(1).  The presumptive demarcation point was adopted in the Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd 1435 (1993).
11 Id; see also Report and Order and Second Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 3729.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
4
(1) require significant modification or damage to preexisting structural elements, and (2) add 
significantly to the physical difficulty and/or cost of accessing the subscribers home wiring.12
6. The Appeals Court decision remanded that portion of the Reconsideration Order that 
amended the Note to Section 76.5(mm)(4) of the Commissions rules to indicate that wiring embedded in 
sheet rock would be considered physically inaccessible.13 Previously, the Commission provided 
examples of wiring that would be considered physically inaccessible, including wiring embedded in 
brick, metal conduit, and cinder blocks with limited or no access openings.14 Wiring simply enclosed 
within hallway molding would not be considered inaccessible.15 The Court found that the Commission 
offered no reasoned basis for expanding the Note to include sheet rock and remanded the case to the 
Commission for further consideration.16 In response, the Commission sought comment on its conclusions 
in the Reconsideration Order with regard to Section 76.5(mm)(4) of the rules and the amendment of the 
applicable Note.17
B. Incumbent LEC Inside Wire Subloops
1. Coxs Petition  
7. Cox filed its petition in response to a decision by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission 
(OCC) arbitrating a dispute over access to the inside wire subloop between Cox, a competitive LEC, and 
the incumbent LEC, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC).18 Cox seeks a Commission 
declaration confirming that:  (1) requesting carriers have a right to direct physical access to incumbent 
LECs inside wire subloops in MTEs; (2) this right allows requesting carriers to obtain direct access to 
inside wire subloops at incumbent LECs terminal blocks in MTEs; and (3) this right exists regardless of 
any state law or regulation that would otherwise limit it.19  Cox asserts that the OCC arbitration decision 
denied it those rights.  
8. Cox argues that the right of requesting carriers to access incumbent LECs inside wire 
subloops is supported by the Commissions decision in the Triennial Review Order, as well as by the 
underlying principles of the Act and federal policy encouraging local competition for customers in 
  
12 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(4); see also Report and Order and Second Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 3730.  
13 See Appeals Court decision at 1; Note to 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(4) (2003).
14 Report and Order and Second Further Notice at 3730; Note to 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(4) (2002).
15 Id.
16 See Appeals Court decision at 3.
17 See Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring, Customer Premises Equipment and Implementation of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Cable Home Wiring, CS Docket No. 95-184, MM 
Docket No. 92-260, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 1233 (2004) (Further Notice); see also 
Further Notice, 2004 WL 2187191(FCC).  A list of parties filing comments and reply comments in these dockets is 
set forth in Appendix B.       
18 Petition at 2-3.  An inside wire subloop is defined as all loop plant owned or controlled by the incumbent LEC at 
a multiunit customer premises between the minimum point of entry as defined in  68.105 of this chapter and the 
point of demarcation of the incumbent LECs network as defined in  68.3 of this chapter.  47 C.F.R.  
51.319(b)(2).
19 Petition at i.  Although Cox uses the term MTEs, the Commission uses the term multiunit premises in the inside 
wire subloop rule.  47 C.F.R.  51.319(b)(2).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
5
MTEs.20 Cox also claims that Commission action is needed to resolve an emerging split among state 
commissions over the manner that requesting carriers must be granted access to the inside wire subloop.21  
According to Cox, the state commissions of New York, Washington, and Georgia have all adopted access 
rules more favorable to requesting carriers,22 but Oklahoma has varied by adopting a rule23 that requires 
Cox to employ burdensome ordering procedures, [and] undertake needless and time-consuming 
construction of new facilities.24  Cox further states that under two of SBCs proposals, Cox would be 
required to construct, or pay SBC to construct, unnecessary intermediate facilities between SBCs and 
Coxs terminal facilities in each MTE.25 Each of these options would increase both the cost of providing 
service to MTE customers and the time - sometimes as long as 120 days - it would take Cox to initiate 
service to a requesting customer.26 Cox claims that SBC would maintain the enormous competitive 
advantage inherent in operating legacy facilities that can be used to initiate service in a matter of hours or 
  
20 See Petition at 2 (citing Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange 
Carriers, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment 
of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 98-147, 01-338, 
Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 16978 (2003) 
(Triennial Review Order), corrected by Errata, 18 FCC Rcd 19020 (2003), affd in part, remanded in part, vacated 
in part, United States Telecom Assn v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (USTA II), cert. denied sub nom. 
National Assn Regulatory Util. Commrs v. United States Telecom Assn, 125 S. Ct. 313, 316, 345 (2004).  Cox 
also asserts that these rights are supported by the Wireline Competition Bureaus Virginia Arbitration Order.  
Petitions of WorldCom, Inc., Cox Virginia Telecom, Inc. and AT&T Communications of Virginia Inc. Pursuant to 
Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for Preemption of the Jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation 
Commission Regarding Interconnection Disputes with Verizon Virginia, Inc., and for Expedited Arbitration, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 27039 (WCB 2002) (Virginia Arbitration Order)).
21 Petition at 1.  
22 Id. at 17-18 (citing Staffs Proposal to Examine the Issues Concerning the Cross-Connection of House and Riser 
Cable, Order Granting Direct Access Cross-Connections to House and Riser Facilities, Subject to Conditions, Case
No. 00-C-1931 (NY Pub. Serv. Commn rel. June 8, 2001) (New York Order); AT&T Communications of the Pacific 
Northwest. Inc. v. Qwest Corporation, Second Supplemental Order, Docket No. UT-003120 (Wash. Pub. Util. and 
Trans. Commn rel. April 5, 2001) (Washington Order); Petition of AT&T Communications of the Southern States. 
Inc. and Teleport Communications Atlanta, Inc. for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of Proposed 
Agreement with BellSouth Telecommunications. Inc. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Order, Docket No. 
11853-U (Ga. Pub. Util. Commn rel. Mar. 6, 2001) (Georgia Order).
23 Petition at 6-7 (citing Report and Recommendations of the Arbitrator, Docket No. PUD 200300157, Report and 
Recommendations of the Arbitrator (OCC rel. April 2, 2004) (Arbitrators Report); Final Order Adopting and 
Modifying the Arbitrators Report, Order No. 491645, OCC Docket No. PUD 200300157 (OCC rel. June 28, 2004) 
(OCC Order).    
24 Petition at 2; see infra para. 9 (describing SBCs proposed options).  Cox asserts that under all three options, Cox 
must rely on [SBC] technicians to establish service connections for MTE customers wishing to subscribe to Coxs 
telephone service. Petition at 2.  Cox adds that during the time its petition has been pending before the 
Commission, the Kansas Corporation Commission issued an order that parallels the Oklahoma decision in all 
material respects.  See Letter from J.G. Harrington, et al., Counsel to Cox Communications, Inc. to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 2 (filed June 2, 2006).          
25 Id. at 7.
26 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
6
a few days.  Cox also contends that the OCC Order inappropriately applied state law to questions the 
Commission has already settled.27  
2. Oklahoma Proceedings
9. In October 2002, Cox and SBC began negotiating an amendment to their existing 
interconnection agreement (ICA) that would govern the rates, terms, and conditions of inside wiring 
subloop access.  After failing to reach an agreement, Cox submitted the issue to arbitration before the 
OCC pursuant to section 252(b) of the Act.28  In the arbitration proceeding, Cox asserted that the Act and 
the Commissions rules and orders mandate that competitive LECs technicians must be given direct 
physical access to SBCs inside wire subloops at existing SBC terminals for the purposes of 
accomplishing installation and service changes.29 SBC denied that Cox had a right of direct physical 
access to its inside wire subloops.30  Instead, SBC proposed three options, each of which would require 
Cox to use SBC technicians to provide access to the inside wire subloop:  (1) an intermediate cross-
connect device that SBC would place or construct, own, and manage;  (2) an intermediate cross-connect 
device that Cox would place or construct, own, and manage; (3) SBCs provisioning of inside wire 
subloops by extending jumper/cross connect wire from its existing accessible terminal, left coiled up near 
Coxs terminal.31
10. On April 2, 2004, the arbitrator issued a report adopting, in its entirety, SBCs proposal.32 In 
reaching that conclusion, the arbitrator accepted SBCs assertions that denial of direct access was 
essential to the integrity of SBCs network.33  Specifically, the arbitrator found that direct access to the 
terminal block is not in the public interest, and may seriously jeopardize SBC-OKs ability to 
maintain network integrity, security and control, as well as accountability for damage and substandard 
engineering and operational practices.34  Cox appealed the matter to the full OCC, which affirmed the 
Arbitrators Report on this issue.35  
11. Cox challenged the OCCs decision in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 
Oklahoma.  Cox then asked the court to stay the proceeding pending Commission resolution of the 
instant petition for declaratory ruling.36  
  
27 Id. at 12-15.
28 Id. at 6.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 6-7.
32 Arbitrators Report.  
33 Id. at 45.  
34 Id. 
35 Petition at 7-8.  The OCC Order affirmed the Arbitrators Report without detailed discussion, and with only slight 
modifications.  OCC Order at 1-2.  Accordingly, our discussion of the Arbitrators Report also applies to the OCC 
Order adopting it.
36 The court granted the stay on January 18, 2005.  Petition at i.  More recently, on February 23, 2007, SBC filed a 
motion to vacate the stay on the grounds that more than two years have passed and the Commission has not acted on 
Coxs petition.  Cox Oklahoma Telcom, L.L.C., v. Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma and 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
7
III. DISCUSSION
A. Cable Inside Wiring Rules
12. The Court asserted that the Commission did not adequately support its conclusion that wiring 
behind sheet rock is physically inaccessible for purposes of the inside wiring rules.37 The Commission 
in 2003 had stated that it considered sheet rock to be a structural element and reasoned that it was 
more like brick or cinder block, materials also commonly used to form ceilings and hallways, than 
molding, which is not.38 The Court found that the Commission had not explained why or how accessing 
wiring behind sheet rock requires significant modification of, or significant damage to the sheet rock.39  
The Court also found that the Commission failed to explain the relative nature of the damage or 
modification related to accessing wiring behind sheet rock, and therefore that the Commissions 
conclusion regarding physical inaccessibility lacked adequate evidentiary support.40
13. The Court also criticized the Commissions assessment of whether accessing cable wire 
behind sheet rock would add significantly to the physical difficulty and/or cost of accessing the 
subscribers home wiring.41 The Court stated that while the Commission acknowledged that cutting 
through sheet rock is easier than boring through brick, metal, or cinder block, it did not support the 
conclusion that the lesser physical difficulty and cost are significant.42  
14. In response, the Commission sought additional comment with respect to whether cable 
wiring behind sheet rock should be considered physically inaccessible.43  
(Continued from previous page)    
Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., d/b/a SBC Oklahoma, Case No. CIV-04-1282-M, Motion of AT&T Oklahoma to 
Vacate Stay (filed Feb. 23, 2007).  In its motion, SBC states that at the time of the filing of this case, Southwestern 
Bell Telephone, LP was doing business as SBC Oklahoma but now it is doing business in Oklahoma as AT&T 
Oklahoma.  On March 22, 2007, the court denied SBCs motion to vacate the stay, and directed Cox to file status 
reports every three months until the Commission issues its decision.  Cox Oklahoma Telcom, L.L.C., v. Corporation 
Commission of the State of Oklahoma and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., d/b/a SBC Oklahoma, Case No. CIV-
04-1282-M, Order (W.D. Okla. Mar. 22, 2007).     
37 See Appeals Court decision at 3.  The term inside wiring incorporates both cable home run wiring and cable 
home wiring.  See n.2, supra.
38 Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1362.
39 See Appeals Court decision at 3; see also 47 C.F.R  76.5(mm)(4)(i).
40 See Appeals Court decision at 3.
41 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(4)(ii).
42 See Appeals Court decision at 3, citing Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1362.
43 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 1235.  In the Further Notice, the Commission set forth its premise that what 
preexisting structural elements should be included for purposes of determining the demarcation point and what is 
considered to be an accessible or inaccessible location should be based on practicality.  In the Reconsideration 
Order, the Commission incorporated its response to a Request for Letter Ruling from RCN-BeCoCom, L.L.C. (RCN 
Request for Letter Ruling) asking the Commission to address the issue of whether cable wiring behind sheet rock is 
physically inaccessible, such that the demarcation point should be located not at the twelve inch mark, but rather at 
the operators junction box.  Based on the RCN Request for Letter Ruling and  responses to that request, the 
Commission incorporated sheet rock as one of the examples of materials to be considered as a preexisting structural 
element in its definition of physical inaccessibility.  See Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1362.  Our analysis 
on this issue was based, in part, on the RCN Request for Letter Ruling.  See Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at n.21.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
8
1. Would accessing the demarcation point behind sheet rock require 
significant modification of, or significant damage to, preexisting structural 
elements?
15. As explained below, we find that sheet rock is a preexisting structural element and that 
accessing inside wiring behind sheet rock would cause significant modification and damage to that 
structural element. 
16. The Commission specifically sought comment on whether sheet rock qualifies as an example 
of a preexisting structural element that is an integral and permanent part of an MDU.44 The Commission
also asked if it is likely that many MDU owners and managers would not allow new service providers to 
cut, open, spackle, sand, and paint or replace wallpaper or other finishings on the common walls and 
ceilings on each floor of their MDUs in order for installers to complete their work.45 The Commission 
asked whether the damage to or modification of ceilings and walls made by alternative providers in 
accessing inside wiring should be considered significant.46  
17. The majority of commenters in this proceeding, comprised of alternative providers and trade 
associations that service the MDU communities, agree that cable inside wiring located behind sheet rock  
is physically inaccessible because access to such wiring would involve significant modification of, or 
damage to, a preexisting structural element.47 These commenters offer what they term their real world 
experiences and urge the Commission to continue to support the expansion of the definition of 
physically inaccessible to include sheet rock for purposes of the inside wiring rules.48 They argue that 
this is not a theoretical analysis, but rather a reflection on the world of day-to-day competition, contract 
negotiation and installation of equipment to provide service to MDU residents.49 Some assert that these 
rules serve to stimulate competition and have made it possible for hundreds of thousands of residents to 
subscribe to the services provided by alternative providers.50 These commenters argue that it is essential 
that the current definition of physically inaccessible, which includes wiring behind sheet rock, be 
maintained in order for the inside wiring rules to be effective.51
18. NCTA argues that wiring behind sheet rock does not meet the test of physical 
inaccessibility.52 NCTA asserts that the practical questions surrounding the issue of the physical 
  
44 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 1235.
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 See IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4-5; RAA & CAI Comments, CS 
Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5; RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 
92-260 at 3; Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2.
48 See IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2; RAA & CAI Comments, CS 
Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2.   
49 Id.
50 See IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3.
51 See IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3; RAA & CAI Comments, CS 
Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3; RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 
92-260 at 2; Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2.
52 See NCTA Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
9
inaccessibility of wiring behind sheet rock do not naturally occur within the regulatory or policy 
expertise of the Commission.53 NCTA contends that the existing record in this proceeding already 
contains a variety of affidavits and declarations that support its position submitted by commenters who 
engage in this line of work.54 NCTA also submits additional declarations and affidavits in support of its 
position.55
a. Sheet Rock as a Preexisting Structural Element
19. The Commission previously concluded that the term structural elements encompassed 
sheet rock.56 The majority of commenters here assert that it is well-established that sheet rock is a 
preexisting structural element that is an integral and permanent part of the building structure of MDUs.57  
RAA & CAI state that sheet rock is installed as part of the construction of the building and it is integral 
to the overall structure: without sheet rock, some other material  such as brick or cinder block  would 
have to be used to form walls and other building elements.58 Moreover, sheet rock is permanently fixed 
to the framing structure of the building and is not readily removed or designed to be removed.59 RAA & 
CAI further assert that sheet rock is not a mere surface finish or decorative flourish and, for that same 
reason, it is clearly preexisting because it is not added after the building is completed.60  
20. RCN states that to access facilities behind sheet rock, whether it be wiring, ducts, pipes or 
other types of utility conduit, the opening up and closing of sheet rock is not as simple a matter as 
opening and closing an electrical panel.61 Moreover, RCN asserts that sheet rock is not easily removed or 
replaced in the same manner as removable hallway molding.62 RCN argues that the only alternative to 
cutting holes in sheet rock to access facilities would be to remove and replace an entire wall or ceiling.63  
From a materials point of view, RCN acknowledges that while it is not difficult to cut through sheet rock, 
the cost and damage associated with accessing a demarcation point behind sheet rock are significant 
  
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id. at 4; NCTA Reply, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5.
56 Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1362. 
57 IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4; RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket 
No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3; RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260  
at 3.
58 See RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3 and Exhibit D (Declaration 
of Greg OBerry, President of AMLI Management Company, a subsidiary of AMLI Residential Properties Trust, at 
para. 3); see also IMCC Reply Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2.
59 Id. 
60 Id.
61 See RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at  3 and Attachment A (Affidavit of 
John Holbert, ISP Construction Manager for RCN-BecoCom, LLC at para. 5).
62 Id. 
63 Id. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
10
enough to render it physically inaccessible.64 RCN contends that these factors of inaccessibility are 
exacerbated by the integral and permanent nature of sheet rock.65
21. NCTA counters that sheet rock is not considered to be a structural element because it is easy 
to cut and repair.66 According to NCTA, installers commonly need to make cuts and/or holes in sheet 
rock walls and other nonstructural building materials in order to access home wiring.67 NCTA contends 
that such procedures are neither difficult nor expensive for experienced installers to perform and there 
should be no adverse impact on the structural integrity of the sheet rock.68  
22. We agree with those commenters who contend that sheet rock is a preexisting structural 
element and not merely a surface finish or decorative finish like molding. Sheet rock is not added after a 
building is completed. Sheet rock is a fundamental component of the construction of the building. Thus,
sheet rock is more like brick or cinder block because it is commonly used to form ceilings and walls in 
MDUs and other structures. We believe that ceilings and walls are an integral and permanent part of the 
building structure of MDUs, and therefore, sheet rock used to form ceilings and walls qualifies as a 
preexisting structural element for purposes of the Commissions rules.69
b. Assessing Significant Modification of, or Significant Damage to, 
Sheet Rock 
23. The Commission sought comment on whether the modification of, or damage to, sheet rock 
ceilings and walls by alternative providers accessing inside wiring behind those ceilings and walls should 
be considered significant.70 The assessment of significant modification or damage must be made 
regarding a preexisting structural element before that location is deemed to be physically inaccessible.71
When characterizing the modification of or damage done to sheet rock in efforts to access inside wiring, 
the majority of commenters agree that the modification of or damage done is significant.72
24. Several commenters explain that cutting through sheet rock involves careful, difficult, and 
labor-intensive work.  RCN explains that when it is required to access the demarcation point through 
sheet rock, its actions result in significant modification and damage to the walls and ceilings of the 
MDUs.73 RCN attests to the fact that it must cut a hole in the sheet rock that is at least 12 by 12 in 
  
64 Id. 
65 Id.
66 NCTA Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5 and Attachment A (Declaration of 
David Jordon, Construction Coordinator, Bright House Networks at para. 2).   
67 Id. and Attachment A (Declaration of Joseph Danno, Vice President of Midtown Express, Inc. at para. 4).
68 Id. at 6 and Attachment A (Declaration of John Kuhn, President and CEO for Prince Telecom, Inc. and William J. 
Kelly, Executive Vice President for General Fiber Communications at paras. 3-5).
69 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(4)(i).
70 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 1235.
71 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(4)(i).
72 IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6; RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket 
No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5; RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 
at 3; Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2.
73 RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
11
order to gain access to wiring behind sheet rock.74 RCN further notes that cutting through sheet rock 
with a knife or similar tool results in the creation of considerable dust and debris and an effort must be 
made to avoid damage to elements behind sheet rock, such as electrical wiring, insulation, duct work and 
plumbing.75 RCN states that although cutting through sheet rock is relatively easy, the process results in 
permanent damage to MDU walls or ceilings and the holes that remain must be repaired.76 RCN states 
that in order to repair the damage, subcontractors must plug the hole by cutting another piece of sheet 
rock that is large enough to fill the hole.77 The hole must be spackled, taped and sanded and the area 
around the hole must later be repainted or re-wallpapered to the satisfaction of MDU managers and 
owners.78 RCN contends that the whole wall or ceiling may need to be repainted or re-wallpapered in 
order to restore a uniform appearance.79
25. Commenters also note that they must pay careful attention to aesthetic considerations.  IMCC 
states that each penetration or hole in the wall or ceiling must be patched twice, sanded twice, primed and 
painted to match the prior paint.80 IMCC also comments that the work requires a minimum three-day 
time period and requires several hours of labor, and that part of the job in many upscale properties 
involves entire hallways being repainted or re-wallpapered.81 Similarly, RAA and CAI state that property 
owners are concerned with the appearance of their buildings, and that as a result, any work involving 
cutting into sheet rock requires meticulous restoration. 82 These commenters assert that this is no small 
task because obtaining access to wiring behind sheet rock requires the removal of sizable pieces of sheet 
rock, not only at the demarcation point, but at times at other places along the corridor or inside different 
units.83 RAA & CAI argue that property owners do not know exactly where wiring is located and finding 
hundreds of demarcation points within a building is not a precise science.84  
  
74 Id. and Attachment A (Affidavit of John Holbert, ISP Construction Manager for RCN-BecoCom, LLC at para. 8). 
See also IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6 (explaining that in order to 
connect to home run wiring at the demarcation point, a 6 to 18 square or rectangle must be cut into the wall or 
ceiling); Ex Parte Verizon filing at 4 (Declaration of Daniel VanRoekel, Senior Engineer, Outside Plant Engineering 
dated June 22, 2005) (stating that an installer would need to cut approximately a 9 x 9 hole in the ceiling or wall 
because a smaller hole would not be large enough to permit the installer to perform the work required to attach the 
new home run wire to the home wiring). 
75 RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4 and Attachment A (Holbert Affidavit at 
para. 8).
76 Id.
77 Id. and Attachment A (Holbert Affidavit at para. 9).
78 Id.
79 Id. Moreover, RCN argues that repeated access to the sheet rock may eventually lead to the disintegration of the 
structural element and may require that a whole wall or ceiling be replaced.  Id.
80 IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6.
81 See Id.; RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6 and Attachment F 
(Declaration of Michael T. Tremmel, Manager of External Infrastructure of Forest City Residential Management, 
Inc., at para. 4) (noting that restoring the smoothness and texture of a wall and matching paint and wallpaper are 
difficult tasks).
82 RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6.
83 Id. and Attachment D (Declaration of Greg OBerry, President of AMLI Management Company, at para. 4).
84 Id. and Attachment B (Declaration of Lyn Lansdale at para. 5).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
12
26. Commenters also raise safety issues.  RAA & CAI state that any action that affects the 
structural integrity of a building is considered significant by property owners.85 RAA & CAI explain that 
there are special types of sheet rock for specific applications and cutting into these different types of 
sheet rock to gain access to wiring may result in a degradation of a buildings resistance to moisture, or 
its sound or temperature insulating capability, as well as its resistance to fire.86 From a safety 
perspective, RAA & CAI assert that the use of sheet rock in firewalls means that any breach of a sheet 
rock surface poses a safety risk to residents and may involve a code violation for which property owners 
are liable.87 RAA & CAI state that cuts in specialty types of sheet rock that affect the buildings 
resistance to water damage, or its sound or temperature insulating capacity, will concern building owners 
and may lead to damage to the fabric of the building over time.88  Similarly, Verizon states that cutting 
into or patching sheet rock walls and ceilings compromises the integrity of fire resistant sheet rock and 
may pose a safety hazard for MDU residents if such work is not done properly.89  
27. Finally, RAA and CAI argue that under the National Electric Code (NEC), wiring behind
sheet rock is not considered accessible because it cannot be removed or exposed without causing damage 
to the structure or finish of the building.90  While not binding on the Commission, RAA & CAI assert that 
NECs definition should be instructive to the Commission because it represents the judgment of experts 
in the field of building safety.91
28. NCTA, however, argues that the existing record establishes that wiring located behind sheet 
rock does not meet the test of physically inaccessibility.92 NCTA points to a previously filed 
declaration that it is not difficult to access the demarcation point of each unit through a 2 x 4 hole cut 
  
85 RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5. 
86 Id. at 4.  RAA & CAI explain that any gaps or holes in a firewall can allow heat and flame to penetrate a firewall 
and any penetrations must be repaired carefully to restore the fire rating of the breached element of the structure. Id.
and Attachment B (Declaration of Lyn Lansdale, Vice President of AvalonBay Communities, Inc. at para. 3) and 
Attachment E (Declaration of Henry Pye, Director of Resident Services and Technology for JPI Partners, LLC para. 
5).  See also http://www.nhci.com/sheetrock.html.  The information on this web site in supplied by the National 
Home Centers, Inc., a commercial building materials supplier. 
87 Id. at 5.  See also International Building Code (IBC) (2003 ed.)  712 (addressing penetrations in firewalls).  RAA 
& CAI note that 44 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the IBC. See
http://www.iccsafe.org/government/adoption.html.   RAA&CAI Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket 
No. 92-260 at n.5.
88 RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5-6.
89 Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6. Verizon argues that if cable 
installers cut into sheet rock walls and ceilings, additional precautions must be taken and additional expenses 
incurred to ensure that the sheet rock is properly repaired in accordance with building code standards.  See id. and 
attached Declaration of P. Kelley Dunne, Executive Director for Network Operations for Verizon Avenue, at para. 9.
90 See RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 9 (noting that NEC defines 
accessible, for purposes of wiring methods, as [c]apable of being removed or exposed without damaging the 
building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building, and that such 
wiring is permanently closed in by the structure or the finish); see also NEC Art. 100 (2005 ed.). The NEC is 
promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association.
91 Id.
92 NCTA Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
13
into the hallway sheet rock wall.93 That declarant stated that after the cut in the sheet rock is made and 
the old MVPDs wiring is taped off, the hole is repaired either by patching and repainting or adding a 
wall plate that matches the interior of the building; a procedure the declarant described as not difficult 
and one having no adverse impact on the structural elements or integrity of the building.94 NCTA also 
resubmits an affidavit from an industry representative that states that cutting, drilling opening, plugging, 
spackling, taping, sanding, painting and repairing sheet rock are insignificant and commonplace 
procedures that do not result in significant modification of or damage to a buildings structural 
elements.95  
29. NCTA also offers more recent declarations and affidavits to support its position that cable 
wiring behind sheet rock can be readily accessed without incurring damage to structural elements.96 For 
instance, NCTA submits the declaration of an independent contractor that states that in the typical MDU 
building, it is not difficult to access the demarcation point through a small cut in the hallway sheet rock, 
that installers can interconnect wires quickly and cheaply and that the repair work for an experienced 
installer is not difficult and has no adverse impact on the aesthetics or structural integrity of the 
building.97 NCTA also argues that the procedure for accessing wiring behind sheet rock is not 
significantly more difficult or expensive than accessing wiring that is behind molding.98  With regard to 
the issues of structural integrity and fire safety, NCTA states that while sheet rock walls do provide shear 
resistance and fire protection, there is nothing about cutting and properly repairing a small hole in the 
sheet rock that should affect its structural integrity or fire resistance.99
30. When analyzing this issue we are faced with two substantially different points of view on 
whether significant modification or damage to preexisting structural elements occurs when efforts are 
made to access cable wiring behind sheet rock.  Most commenters, consisting of alternative providers and 
trade associations, contend that large holes  12x 12 or 6x 8  must be cut into the sheet rock in 
order to access wiring, while NCTA asserts that only a 2x 4 inch hole must be made.  Most 
commenters also emphasize the difficulty of locating demarcation points and making numerous cuts into 
the walls, and contend that the repair and restoration of the common walls and ceilings frequently require 
extensive and time-consuming work. Most commenters also focus on fire and other safety issues 
including the possible degradation of a buildings resistance to moisture and potential problems 
associated with its sound and temperature insulating capability once the process of accessing wiring 
begins.
  
93 Id. and Attachment B (Declaration of Al Costanzi, Time Warner Cable Vice President/Northeast Ohio at para. 6, 
filed with Opposition of Time Warner Cable on Oct. 22, 1998).
94 Id.
95 Id. at 4 and Attachment B (Affidavit of John Donahue, Vice President of Engineering for Comcast Cable 
Communications, Inc. at para. 4, filed with Comments of Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. filed on Oct. 22, 
1998).
96 NCTA Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4.
97 Id. and Attachment A (Declaration of John Chamberlain, President of JC Communications, at para. 4); see also
Declaration of David Jordan, Construction Coordinator for Bright House Networks at para. 2 and  Declaration of 
Joseph Danno, Vice President of Midtown Express, Inc. at paras. 4-7.  
98 Id. at 6  and Attachment A (Affidavit of John Kuhn, President and CEO for Prince Telecom, Inc. at para. 6 and 
Affidavit of William J. Kelly, Executive Vice President for General Fiber Communications at para. 6). 
99 See Id. at 6 and Declaration of Joseph Dano, Vice President of Midtown Express, Inc. at para. 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
14
31. We believe the record supports the conclusion that accessing inside wiring behind sheet rock 
causes significant modification and damage to structural elements, i.e., walls and ceilings, albeit 
modification and damage that may be repairable. MDU resident owners and their managers are not only 
concerned with the condition of individually-owned units or apartments, but also with the condition of 
the common elements in these structures. For example, the record reveals that MDU resident owners and 
their managers will sometimes require an entire wall or ceiling to be repainted or re-wallpapered even 
where the hole cut in the sheet rock is significantly smaller than the wall or ceiling in order to restore the 
area to its original appearance.  Requiring such extensive repair is a strong indication that there has been 
significant modification or damage to the pre-existing structural area. Unlike with single family 
residences, MDU residents share common walls and ceilings and have an interest in the condition and 
treatment of those common elements. With regard to the issues of fire safety and possible degradation of 
a buildings resistance to moisture, we take a conservative approach and give credence to the commenters 
who argue that cutting into sheet rock may pose a safety risk or affect a buildings resistance to moisture 
and thus may lead to significant modification or damage to such structural elements. Consequently, we 
conclude that penetration of sheet rock for purposes of accessing inside wiring constitutes significant 
modification and damage to structural elements under the Commissions rules. 
c. Access of New Service providers by MDU Owners and Managers
32. We conclude that the refusal of MDU owners to permit competitive providers to cut into 
sheet rock walls attests to the significance of the work involved.  The Commission asked if it is likely 
that many MDU owners and managers would not allow new service providers to cut, open, spackle, sand, 
and paint or replace wallpaper or other finishings on the common walls and ceilings on each floor of their 
MDUs in order for installers to complete their work.100 The majority of commenters agree that 
competition from new service providers in MDUs is impeded because MDU owners and managers do not 
want new providers on the premises cutting and repairing sheet rock because it causes damage to a 
preexisting structural element in the building and the process is disruptive to building residents.101
33. RCN asserts that it has been clearly demonstrated in the Commissions earlier proceedings 
on this issue that many MDU owners are reluctant to permit overbuilders to cut holes in their walls and 
ceilings.102 In referring to its own past experiences, RCN contends that MDU owners and managers will 
not allow RCN to cut, open, plug, spackle, tape, sand and paint ceilings and walls in order to install new 
lines because it is disruptive and could eventually require the replacement of entire ceilings and walls.103  
RCN argues that if an MDU owner prohibits a competitive provider from cutting holes in a buildings 
walls and ceilings in order to access the home run wiring then it is physically impossible to access these 
  
100 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 1235. 
101 IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5; RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket 
No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2, 6; RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-
260 at 6-7; Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2-3.    
102 See Letter to Deborah A. Lathen, Chief, Cable Services Bureau, from William L. Fishman, Swidler, Berlin, 
Shereff & Friedman, LLP, Inside Wiring  Request for Letter Ruling (September 23, 1998).  See also supra para. 31.    
103 Id. and RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6 and Attachment A (Affidavit of 
John Holbert, Construction Manager for RCN-BecoCom, LLC at para. 9).   RCN gives an example of being 
foreclosed from serving 209 units in a building in Boston because the owner of the apartment building refused to 
allow RCN to cut through walls and ceilings in order to access the demarcation point twelve inches outside each unit.  
RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6 and Attachment A (Holbert Affidavit at 
para. 4).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
15
lines.104 RCN argues that if MDU owners wont allow access to home run wiring through sheet rock and 
the incumbent cable operator wont allow a competitor access at the junction box, then new entrants are 
precluded from providing competitive video service to consumers.105 Verizon agrees that the refusal by 
MDU owners and residents to allow competing providers to cut into sheet rock to access home run 
wiring makes such wiring inaccessible for practical purposes.106 Verizon argues that meaningful 
competition for cable services for millions of Americans living in MDUs is inhibited because MDU 
owners and residents consider cutting and repairing sheet rock a significant inconvenience and new 
entrants are placed at a competitive disadvantage.107 RAA & CAI agree and add that any action that 
harms the appearance of the building presents significant problems.108 They state that cutting and 
repairing drywall is a messy process and is the kind of disruption that residents want to avoid whenever 
possible.109 IMCC asserts that the resistance of MDU owners and residents to physical degradation of 
their property and the associated inconvenience and cost are the reasons contract negotiations between 
MDU owners and alternative providers fail and the incumbent cable provider remains entrenched.110
34. NCTA argues that whether building owners choose to allow cable operators to access wiring 
behind sheet rock is not and should not be relevant to the determination whether such wiring is physically 
inaccessible.111 NCTA asserts that there is nothing in the Commissions definition of physical 
inaccessibility that suggests that the owners willingness to allow a service provider to access wiring at a 
particular point should determine whether that point is, in fact, accessible.112
35. Although the Commissions rule defining physical inaccessibility does not specifically take 
into account the willingness of MDU owners and managers to allow new service providers to cut and 
  
104 Id. at 6.
105 Id. at 6-7.  We disagree with Time Warner Cable that our ruling today effectively concludes that the demarcation 
point is located at the incumbents junction box.  Specifically, Time Warner Cable expresses concern that allowing 
competitive access to the junction box will cause security and signal leakage issues.  See Letter from Arthur Harding, 
Counsel for Time Warner Cable, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CS Docket No. 95-184, MM Docket 92-260
at 2-3 (filed May 23, 2007).  We note that this argument was made and answered in the Report and Order and
Second Further Notice, where the Commission stated that [t]he procedures we are adopting, however, do not grant 
alternative providers, subscribers, or MDU owners access to the incumbent provider's riser cable or lockbox and 
therefore do not pose the safety concerns about which Congress was concerned.  Report and Order and Second 
Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 3707. We note that exactly where the wiring will become accessible (because it is no 
longer behind brick, cinderblock, or sheetrock) will vary building by building.  As the Commission noted in the 
Report and Order and Second Further Notice, [t]he incumbent provider must disconnect the home run wiring from 
its lockbox and leave it accessible for the new provider within 24 hours of actual service termination.  Id. at 3688.
106 Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2.
107 Id. and attached Declaration of  P. Kelley Dunne, Executive Director for Network Operations for Verizon Avenue 
at para. 2.  Verizon Avenue is an affiliate of Verizon Communications, Inc. that focuses on providing 
communications and video services to residents of MDUs.  Dunne Declaration at para. 1.
108 RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6 and Exhibit B (Declaration of 
Lyn Lansdale, Vice President of AvalonBay Communities, Inc. at para. 4); see also Exhibit E (Declaration of Henry 
Pye, Director of Resident Services and technology for JPI Partners, LLC at para. 4).
109 Id.
110 IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5.
111 NCTA Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6.
112 Id. and NCTA Reply, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
16
repair sheet rock, the refusal by building owners to permit competitive providers to cut into building 
walls, even sheet rock walls, suggests that the consequences of doing so are significant to the building 
owners.113 This fact supports the proposition that accessing wiring behind sheet rock exposes the walls to
significant modification or damage. 
2. Would accessing the demarcation point behind sheet rock add significantly 
to the physical difficulty and/or cost of accessing the subscribers home 
wiring?
36. As explained below, we find that accessing the demarcation point behind sheet rock adds 
significantly to the physical difficulty and/or cost of accessing the subscribers home wiring.  
37. The majority of commenters agree that accessing the demarcation point behind sheet rock 
adds significantly to the physical difficulty and cost of accessing the subscribers home wiring.114 NCTA 
disagrees and argues that there is no significant expense or difficulty associated with such work.115 The 
Commission has acknowledged that while cutting through sheet rock is neither as physically difficult nor 
as costly as boring through brick, metal or cinder block, it was satisfied that the process added 
significantly to the physical difficulty and cost of wiring an MDU.116 The Commission  stated that  the 
examples listed in the original Note to Section 76.5(mm)(4) regarding various materials that can be 
considered structural elements capable of concealing a coaxial cable was not meant to be exhaustive.117  
Moreover, the Commission sought comment on the costs associated with cutting through sheet rock.  The 
Commission further stated that it would seem that the difficulty and costs associated with cutting through 
sheet rock are significantly more than what is involved in accessing wiring behind removable molding, 
and sought additional comment on the costs of accessing wiring behind molding.  The Commission 
previously determined that wiring enclosed within hallway molding is not physically inaccessible.118
a. Assessing the Physical Difficulty Involved in Accessing Wiring 
Behind Sheet Rock                   
38. In assessing the physical difficulty involved in accessing cable wiring located behind sheet 
rock, many commenters describe a process that involves more than simply cutting through the material.  
For example, IMCC states that once a hole is cut in the sheet rock and the wire connection is made at 
each unit, the wire must either be fished through the hallway and back to the junction box or pedestal 
or it must be installed in some form of molding.119 RCN states that once it has cut a hole in the sheet rock 
there are no guarantees that where it cuts the hole it will actually be able to locate and retrieve the inside 
  
113 See 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(4).
114 IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5; RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-
184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5; Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4; 
RAA & CAI Reply, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 1.  
115 NCTA Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4; NCTA Reply, CS Docket No. 95-
184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5. 
116 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 1236; see also Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1362.
117 Id. at 1236.
118 See Note to 47 C.F.R.  76.5 (mm)(4). 
119 IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
17
wiring for interconnection with its own subscriber lines.120 If this is the case, RCN explains that it must 
then cut additional holes in the sheet rock until it can locate and retrieve the existing subscriber line.121  
RCN states that once the line has been retrieved, it must then connect its own subscriber line to the 
existing subscriber line at the demarcation point.122 Thereafter, RCN describes the ensuing difficulty of 
running its own subscriber line back to the junction box to its network interface.123 RCN states that this 
process can be extremely difficult to undertake behind sheet rock, particularly in MDUs where, RCN 
asserts, it faces unknown obstacles such as heating ducts, water pipes, and other facilities.124 When 
encountering such obstacles, RCN states that it may be necessary to cut additional holes in the sheet rock 
to avoid them.125 Verizon asserts that when MDUs are constructed, inside wiring is generally run without 
concern for the path that the wiring will take to get to a particular unit.126 Moreover, Verizon states that 
attention is rarely paid to ensuring post-construction ready-access to wiring for particular units, such as 
through chase-ways.127 As a result, Verizon argues that running cable wiring behind sheet rock is 
invasive and often requires access not only to the particular unit seeking service, but also to one or more 
of the abutting units.128 Verizon argues that established industry practice in the context of telephone 
wiring confirms that many of the practical difficulties of installing or accessing wiring behind sheet rock 
walls or ceilings make such wiring inaccessible for all practical purposes.129 Verizon asserts that in order 
to avoid the problems with accessing wiring that is behind sheet rock in an MDU, Verizons state 
telephone tariffs generally provide concealed telephone wiring in MDUs where reusable means for 
accessing the wiring are installed.130  
  
120 RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5 and Attachment A (Affidavit of John 
Holbert, Construction Manager for RCN-BecoCom, LLC at para. 7).  RCN describes home run wiring as subscriber 
lines.  See RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 1.   
121 Id.
122 Id.
123 Id.
124 Id.
125 Id.
126 Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3 and attached Declaration of P. 
Kelley Dunne, Executive Director for Network Operations for Verizon Avenue at para. 3.
127 Id.
128 Id. and Dunne Declaration at para. 4.  As an example, Verizon states that in order to run cable wiring to a unit on 
the second floor of a three-story MDU, an MVPD installing the wiring might require access to units above, below, or 
beside the unit seeking service in order to fish the wire through walls and floors.  Verizon asserts that this process 
could require cutting into a neighbors sheet rock walls and ceilings and may become more difficult if the adjoining 
units dont correspond, thereby requiring additional modification to these structures in order to accommodate the 
wiring.  Id.
129 Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 7.
130 Id. As an example, Verizon points to its tariff in Massachusetts which addresses concealed wiring by stating:  
For the initial establishment of service, the Telephone Company installs concealed wiring in residential buildings 
during construction where post-construction wiring is not feasible and where, if riser cable plant is required, the 
customer or builder provides conduit or other reusable means satisfactory to the Telephone Company to reach each 
floor and each suite on each floor . . . .  New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Tariff DTE MA No. 10, 
Exchange and Network Services,  2.2.2(A) Concealed Wiring (emphasis added).  Id. at n.3.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
18
39. NCTA counters that commenters have confused the difficulties and costs of accessing home 
run wiring at the demarcation point with that of installing their own home run wiring behind sheet 
rock.131 NCTA argues that the comments of RCN and Verizon are not on point when they assert that 
running new cable wiring behind sheet rock is invasive and that new service providers must fish wire 
through interior walls and ceilings.132 NCTA argues that the rules governing the disposition of home run 
wiring do not allow alternative providers to acquire and use such wiring simply because it is easier and 
less costly than to install their own.133 NCTA notes that once an alternative provider is able to access the 
wiring at the demarcation point, the home run wiring rules provide procedures for the disposition of such 
wiring if the incumbent finds it is too difficult or costly to remove.134 NCTA argues that whether a 
demarcation point located behind sheet rock is physically inaccessible does not depend on whether 
installing new home wiring behind sheet rock is difficult, expensive or causes damage to the building.135  
All that matters, NCTA asserts, is whether accessing wiring at such a point would cause significant 
structural damage, difficulty, and expense.136
40. As an initial matter, we note that a finding of physical difficulty is not required because 
our rule requires that we find that cutting through the sheet rock would add significantly to the physical 
difficulty and/or costs of accessing the subscriber's home wiring. Nevertheless, we conclude that 
the record supports a finding of significant physical difficulty in accessing the subscriber's home 
wiring.137 Accessing such wiring requires some level of physical harm to the property  i.e., access holes 
cut in the sheet rock  and that the property be restored to its original integrity and appearance. As we 
have recognized throughout this decision, the repair is not always limited to the hole(s) cut; it can include 
repainting and/or re-wallpapering necessary to restore the premises. Those tasks can add significantly to 
the physical difficulty involved in accessing the wiring, certainly as compared to accessing wiring behind
hallway molding (the example in the Commissions rules of wiring that is not physically inaccessible).138  
In any event, we need only find that cutting through sheet rock significantly increases the physical 
difficulty or cost of accessing the wiring and, as described below, we find that the additional costs are 
typically significant.
b. The Cost of Accessing Wiring Behind Sheet Rock
41. We conclude that the cost of accessing wiring behind sheet rock is significant. The majority 
of commenters agree.  IMCC submits two letters from private cable operators (PCOs) expressing their 
views.  A letter from a PCO in Atlanta states that the work involved in accessing wiring at the 
demarcation point takes between two to four hours per unit and one hole cut would add $150.00 to 
  
131 NCTA Reply, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 1.
132 Id. at 2. 
133 Id.
134 Id.
135 Id. at 4.
136 Id.
137 We disagree with NCTA that commenters are confusing accessing existing home run wiring with installing their 
own.  Each of the commenters cited above refers to the difficulty of accessing existing wiring and states, in addition, 
that the installation of new wiring itself is a difficult and damaging process.  Regardless, our analysis here is based 
on the comments only to the extent that they discuss the difficulty of accessing existing wiring.
138 See note to 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
19
$250.00 to the cost of wiring a unit.139 The PCO further states that in a typical 200-unit building this 
work would cost approximately $40,000.00.140 A Manager from a PCO in California asserts that 
accessing the home run wiring in an MDU 12 inches outside each residential unit is virtually impossible 
in most instances because that location would be 12 inches inside the neighboring MDU residence.141  
This PCO Manager asserts that this means it is then necessary to install a completely separate home run 
wire from the junction location to an access point within the residence at a cost of a minimum of $200.00 
per unit.142 RCN contends that the costs associated with accessing wiring behind sheet rock can range 
from $450.00 to $1,000.00 per unit, depending on the degree of difficulty that is encountered in efforts to 
locate, retrieve and connect the cable home run wiring to its own subscriber lines at the demarcation 
point and run it back to the junction box in the MDU.143 Verizon asserts that the high costs to competing 
providers and consumers of accessing wiring behind sheet rock discourage competition.144 Verizon 
asserts that restoration of sheet rock is the most labor-intensive and expensive part of the whole process 
because it requires multiple visits.145 Verizon contends that time must be permitted for the repair work to 
set and dry before additional steps can be taken in the restoration process.146 Verizon states that prices to 
restore the sheet rock to an acceptable condition may vary from $200.00 for an uncomplicated situation 
to $1,000.00 or more for high-end MDUs or in instances where larger sections of sheet rock must be 
repainted or wallpapered.147 Verizon also notes that these costs reflect work on a single unit and that they 
multiply with additional units, although cost savings may be available when an entire MDU switches to 
an alternative provider.148 Verizon also argues that most cable installers are not currently trained or 
qualified to perform the necessary repair and restoration work.149 In that regard, Verizon contends that 
significant costs must be expended to train installers or to hire additional employees or contractors and 
these costs are passed on to cable subscribers and are likely to keep competing providers out of MDUs.150
  
139 IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 7 and Attached Letter from Bryan J. 
Rader, President/CEO, MediaWorks, to Bill Burhop, IMCC (October 27, 2004). 
140 Id.
141 IMCC Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 7 and Attached Letter from Richard K. 
Baxter, Consolidated Smartsystems to Bill Burhop, IMCC (November 15, 2004). 
142 Id.
143 RCN Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 7 and Attachment A (Affidavit of John 
Holbert, ISP Construction Manager for RCN-BecoCom, LLC at para. 13).  In referring to an MDU that contained 
209 units, RCN asserts that, at a minimum, it would cost $60,000.00 to accomplish the job. Id.
144 Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4.  In referring to replacing wiring 
embedded in sheet rock, Verizon contends that the costs are high because all of the cutting and repairing of sheet 
rock must be done to the satisfaction of MDU owners and managers. Id. and Attached Declaration of P. Kelley 
Dune, Executive Director for Network Operations for Verizon Avenue at para. 6. 
145 Ex Parte Verizon filing at 5 (June 22, 2005).    
146 Id.
147 Id. Verizon notes that this cost would be in addition to the roughly $50.00 required to locate the wiring and cut 
the initial hole in the wall for access. Id.  
148 Id.
149 Verizon Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 4 and Attached Declaration of P. 
Kelley Dunne at para. 6.
150 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
20
42. RAA & CAI state that they can offer no reliable cost information because this type of work 
is rarely done, but they maintain that, whatever the cost, it would be prohibitive.151 RAA & CAI state 
that because property owner resistance and the practical challenges of doing the job right are so obvious 
that drywall installations are not given enough consideration by responsible management officials to 
warrant any serious cost analysis.152
43. NCTA counters by arguing that there are no significant costs involved in cutting and 
repairing sheet rock.  NCTA resubmits a declaration already on the record from a Time Warner employee 
that states that cutting into sheet rock is not difficult for an experienced MVPD provider to perform and 
is relatively inexpensive ($25.00).153 Another previously submitted declaration offered by NCTA from a 
Comcast employee referring to the installation of cable television inside and home run wiring states 
that the [r]estoration of sheet rock subsequent to such installations is accomplished easily and 
inexpensively.154 NCTA also submits more recent affidavits and declarations in support of its contention 
regarding the costs of accessing wiring behind sheet rock.  One independent contractor asserts that after 
the demarcation point is accessed, repair of the hole can be accomplished quickly and cheaply.155  
Another contractor asserts that accessing wiring behind sheet rock is a common procedure and is not 
difficult for an experienced installer to perform, is relatively inexpensive and should have no adverse 
impact on the structural elements or the structural integrity of the building.156 In addition, NCTA 
submits two affidavits that point out that accessing wiring behind sheet rock is not significantly more 
difficult or expensive than accessing wiring that is behind molding.157
44. In reply, IMCC argues that NCTAs views are not reflective of what occurs in the real world 
of providing video services in MDUs.  IMCC disputes NCTAs view that connecting to the wiring 
outside each unit can be accomplished easily and inexpensively.  IMCC argues that NCTA ignores the 
process of finding the exact place in the ceiling or wall to make the connection; ignores the fact that the 
process usually requires using electrical taping at the connection; and, that service to each unit must be 
tested after the connection is made.  IMCC argues that NCTA is wrong when it says that the process of 
accessing the wire only costs $25.00.  According to IMCC, the estimates of $150.00-$250.00 presented 
in its comments by PCOs are more realistic numbers.158 RCN replies that even if NCTA is correct with 
  
151 RAA & CAI Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 8.
152 Id. at 8-9.
153 NCTA Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3 and Attachment B (Declaration of Al 
Costanzi, Time Warner Cable Vice-President, Engineering/Northeast Ohio at para. 6 filed with Opposition of Time 
Warner Cable  Oct. 22, 1998).  
154 Id. at 3-4 and Attachment B (Declaration of John Donahue, Vice President of Engineering for Comcast Cable 
Communications, Inc. at para. 4 filed with Comments of Comcast Communications, Inc.  Oct. 22, 1998).  NCTA 
also submits two other previously submitted declarations in support.  These declarations attest to the fact that drop 
pre-wiring at the time of new building construction and the installation of coaxial cable in pre-existing facilities, 
using such methods as wall fishing, do not disrupt the structural integrity or aesthetics of the building; however, they 
do not discuss the costs involved.  Id. at 4 and Attachment B (Declarations of Christopher P. Patterson, Vice 
President of Suburban Cable and Jack Rockwell, System Engineer, Adelphia Communications at paras. 2-3).         
155 Id. at 4 and Attachment A (Declaration of John Chamberlain, President of JC Communications at para. 4).
156 Id. at 5 and Attachment A (Declaration of Joseph Danno, Vice President of Midtown Express, Inc. at para. 6).    
157 Id. at 6 and Attachment A (Affidavits of  John Kuhn, President and CEO for Prince Telecom, Inc. and William J. 
Kelly, Executive Vice President for General Fiber Communications at para. 6). 
158 IMCC Reply, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
21
its $25.00 cost estimate, this does not complete the analysis.159 RCN argues that the fact is that placing 
the demarcation point behind sheet rock impedes competitors access to cable inside wiring and, 
accordingly, deprives consumers of access to competitive MVPD services.160
45. In reply, NCTA argues that it is highly misleading that experienced installation technicians 
require additional training in order to access MDU wiring at demarcation points.161 NCTA maintains that 
in the performance of their normal duties, installers routinely cut holes in sheet rock walls.162 NCTA also 
argues that cutting and repairing sheet rock in order to access wiring almost never involves the disruption 
of adjacent units or units on other floors.163 Moreover, NCTA states that installers commonly use 
inexpensive cable locator devices to pinpoint the location of wiring.164 NCTA states that contrary to the 
calculations set forth by some commenting parties, the per-unit MDU cost where multiple units are 
accessed is much lower than the cost to cut and repair only a single unit.165 NCTA specifically addresses 
IMCCs comments that contend that cutting and repairing sheet rock is a process that consumes two-to-
four hours and involves between $150.00-$250.00 in labor costs.166 NCTA argues that in a two-to-four 
hour scenario, much of the time would have to be attributed to downtime involving the drying of the 
patching and repairing material used.167 According to NCTA, experienced technicians would not work 
on one unit at a time, sitting and waiting for the patching to dry before painting and moving on to the 
next unit.168 NCTA argues these installers would multi-task and create an assembly line process which 
would greatly reduce the downtime and overall cost of the project.169 NCTA further contends that 
because most of the expense of accessing wiring at demarcation points behind sheet rock is associated 
with the cost of the labor involved, this cost is about the same as it would cost to access wiring in 
hallway molding.170 NCTA notes that the Commissions rules specifically provide that wiring at a 
demarcation point located behind molding is not physically inaccessible.171 NCTA argues that it follows 
that if the costs and difficulty of accessing wiring at a point located behind sheet rock are comparable to 
the costs of accessing wiring behind molding, then wiring behind sheet rock is also not physically 
inaccessible.172
  
159 RCN Reply, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 2.
160 Id.
161 NCTA Reply, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 5 and Attached Declaration of Joseph 
Danno, Vice President of Midtown Express, Inc. at para. 4.
162 Id.
163 NCTA Reply, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 7 and Danno Declaration at para. 10.
164 Id. and Danno Declaration at para. 11.
165 Id and Danno Declaration at para. 8.
166 Id. at 8.
167 Id. and Danno Declaration at para. 7.
168 Id.
169 Id.
170 Id. and Danno Declaration at para. 8.
171 Id. at 9.
172 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
22
46. In analyzing the costs involved in accessing wiring behind sheet rock, we recognize that the 
record reveals a wide divergence among the estimates offered by commenters  ranging from $25.00 to 
$1,000.00  as the appropriate sum needed to accomplish the job.173 Although we find that we cannot 
pick a precise monetary figure that fairly reflects the costs associated with accessing cable inside wiring, 
we believe it is reasonable that costs estimates could include factors such as how difficult it may be to 
satisfy the MDU owner and manager with repair work and whether a single unit or many units are 
worked on in one time period.  Taking these factors into consideration, we conclude that we should not 
rely on the lower costs estimates, such as the $25.00 estimate by NCTA, because they do not include 
some of these factors. We believe that the estimates that do take into account these factors, which range 
significantly above $25.00, are closer to reasonable cost estimates for accessing wiring behind sheet 
rock. For example, as Verizon and other commenters note, the cost of repairing sheet rock can often 
include repainting and re-wallpapering entire walls or ceilings.  Although we do not have specific quotes 
for restoration work, it seems likely that repainting and/or re-wallpapering entire ceilings and walls can, 
at a minimum, run into the hundreds of dollars, particularly for more high-end MDUs that use more 
expensive surface finishes.  These figures appear significant, especially when compared to the estimates 
we received for accessing wiring behind hallway molding.
47. We received little comment on the costs involved in accessing wiring behind removable wall 
molding.  Verizon states that, at most, the cost of accessing wiring located behind molding would likely 
be a third of the costs of accessing wiring behind sheet rock.174 Additionally, Verizon asserts that the 
costs of going behind molding would never approach the costs associated with repairing sheet rock in 
expensive, high-end MDUs.175 Verizon explains the cost differential by asserting that accessing wiring 
behind molding requires no modification of a preexisting structural element, as would be the case with 
sheet rock, and does not require multiple trips to an MDU to make the kind of restorations involved with 
sheet rock.176 Verizon describes the accessing of wiring behind molding as a simple process that 
generally only requires snapping molding off its retainer in order to access the embedded wiring and 
snapping it back on once work is completed.177 NCTA contends, however, that the cost of accessing 
wiring behind sheet rock is about the same as accessing wiring behind molding.178 We are persuaded that 
removing and replacing molding is generally less intrusive and less expensive than cutting into sheet 
rock, locating the wiring, and then repairing the wall or ceiling to the satisfaction of MDU owners and 
managers. While there may be cases in which the cost of accessing wiring behind sheet rock may be 
comparable to removable molding the record demonstrates that the cost for sheet rock generally will be 
higher, and often significantly so.   
B. Incumbent LEC Inside Wire Subloops
48. We grant Coxs request as described below.  The Commissions rules and precedent make 
clear that competitors have the right of direct access to an incumbent LECs unbundled inside wire 
subloops at any point of technically feasible access, and we clarify that the terminal block to a 
  
173 See supra paras. 39-40, and 42.
174 Id. at 5-6.
175 Id. at 6.
176 Id.
177 Id.
178 NCTA Comments, CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 6 and NCTA Reply, CS Docket No. 
95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 at 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
23
multiunit premise is such a technically feasible access point.  We find any decision that does not allow 
for such direct access to be contrary to the Commissions rules and policy of promoting telephone and 
broadband competition.179 While the Commission provided for these rights to be enforced through the 
state section 252 process, we further clarify the applicability of Commission precedent precluding certain 
approaches like those adopted by the OCC.
1. Competitors Have the Right to Direct Access to Inside Wire Subloops at 
Any Point of Technically Feasible Access.
49. The text of the Triennial Review Order makes clear that competitors may directly access 
inside wire subloops at any technically feasible point.180 In contrast, the OCC Arbitrators Report stated 
that direct access to the terminal block is not in the public interest.  A state decision, such as this 
one, denying direct access is at odds with Commission precedent.  
50. The notion of forcing access through an intermediate terminal is fundamentally inconsistent 
on its face with the right to direct access.181  The governing rule gives competitors the right of access at 
any point where a technician can access wire or fiber.182 This rule allows a requesting carrier to select 
the point of feasible access, and we conclude that a reading of the word any to narrow the number or 
definition of access points, or to shift this discretion to an incumbent LEC or a state commission, would 
be unfounded and incompatible with our rules.  In the Triennial Review Order, the Commission made 
clear that it is the competitors right to choose by emphasizing that [c]ompetitive carriers are able to 
access these subloops at any technically feasible terminal point at or near the building in any technically 
feasible manner, and that the imposition of at least one form of indirect access  a collocation 
requirement  is impermissible.183  Consequently, we reject any interpretation of the Commissions rules 
that would allow only indirect access to inside wire at technically feasible points.184  
  
179 We reject Verizons request that a grant of the Petition could only be accomplished through a Commission 
rulemaking.  Letter from Dee May, Vice President  Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 6 (filed May. 17, 2007) (Verizon May 17 WC Docket No. 01-338 Ex Parte).  We
are not adopting new rules, but interpreting the Commissions existing rules and precedent.  
180 In the underlying Oklahoma proceeding, direct access was defined as follows:  Direct access means that Cox 
technicians enter SBC-OK terminals at MTEs, identify UNE Subloops that Cox seeks to use, disconnect those UNE 
Subloops from the SBC-OK network and connect them to the Cox network by cross-connect procedure.  
Arbitrators Report at 45.   
181 In other contexts, the Commission has expressly barred intermediate arrangements or devices where it has 
required direct access.  See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  51.323(k)(2) (Incumbent LECs must permit collocating carriers to 
have direct access to their equipment.  An incumbent LEC may not require competitors to use an intermediate 
interconnection arrangement in lieu of direct connection to the incumbents network if technically feasible.); 
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commissions Rules Concerning the Interconnection of Private Land Mobile Paging 
Systems with the Public Switched Telephone Network in the Radio Spectrum Below 900 MHz, Report and Order, 
Report and Order, PR Docket No. 86-335, 2 FCC Rcd 2379 (1987) (indicating that removing the need for an 
intermediate person or device is equivalent to permitting direct access).
182 47 C.F.R.  51.319(b)(2)(i) (emphasis added).  
183  Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17191, para. 350 (emphasis in original).  Although both Cox and SBC 
cite to the Virginia Arbitration Order to support their respective positions on direct access, that decision is a Bureau-
level order resolving an interconnection arbitration, and deals with a fundamentally different architecture where the 
requesting carriers were seeking access to inside wiring at the NID.  See, e.g., Petition at 11; SBC Opposition, WC 
Docket No. 01-338 at 17.  However, we recognize in that order, the Bureau did interpret Commission precedent as 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
24
2. The Terminal Block of a Multiunit Premise Is a Point of Technically 
Feasible Access.
51. The language and intent of the rules that the Commission adopted in the Triennial Review 
Order make clear that a terminal block of a multiunit premise is a point of technically feasible access to 
inside wire subloops.185  The Commission defined point of technically feasible access as any point in 
the incumbent LECs outside plant at or near a multiunit premises where a technician can access the wire 
or fiber within the cable without removing a splice case to reach the wire or fiber within to access the 
wiring in the multiunit premises.  Such points include, but are not limited to, a pole or pedestal, the 
network interface device (NID),186 the minimum point of entry (MPOE), the single point of 
interconnection, and the feeder/distribution interface.187  The terminal block fits squarely under the rules 
defining a point of technically feasible access  there is no real dispute in the record that a technician is 
capable of accessing the wires in the multiunit premises at the terminal block.188 In fact, as Cox explains, 
most incumbent LECs permit a competitive LEC to disconnect the inside wire from the incumbent LEC 
terminal block and connect it to the competitive LEC interface without any interference by the incumbent 
LEC.189 As one incumbent LEC states, [c]learly, the Commissions Triennial Review Order requires 
that CLECs have physical access to an ILECs NID or terminal block, and is intended to preempt 
excessive and unnecessary costs and burdens.190 The approach we take here is also consistent with the 
Commissions broader goals of removing disincentives for facilities-based competitors to deploy their 
own loop infrastructure and providing competitors with the greatest flexibility in network design.191
(Continued from previous page)    
establishing that competitors should have direct access to all wire on the customer side of the NID.  See Virginia 
Arbitration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 27243, para. 421.
184 Thus, we reject the arguments of commenters that, for example, CLEC access [to inside wire] at an incumbents 
terminal block may be technically feasible where CLECs have access to an intermediate access terminal at that 
terminal block, thus permitting direct access at that point while adequately protecting network facilities. Verizon 
Reply, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 3 (citing BellSouth Comments at 7-15).
185 Section 51.319(b)(2) defines subloops for access to multiunit premises wiring as any portion of the loop that it is 
technically feasible to access at a terminal in the incumbent LECs outside plant at or near a multiunit premises.  47 
C.F.R.  51.319(b)(2).  The rule then defines inside wire to be all loop plant owned or controlled by the incumbent 
LEC at a multiunit customer premises between the minimum point of entry as defined in  68.105 of this chapter and 
the point of demarcation of the incumbent LECs network as defined in  68.3 of this chapter.  47 C.F.R.  
51.319(b)(2).  
186 A NID is defined as any means of interconnection of customer premises wiring to the incumbent LECs 
distribution plant, such as a cross-connect device used for that purpose.  47 C.F.R.  51.319(c).  Apart from a 
competitors obligation to provide the NID functionality as part of an unbundled loop or subloop, an incumbent LEC 
must also provide nondiscriminatory access to the NID on an unbundled basis.  47 C.F.R.  51.319(c).  
187 47 C.F.R.  51.319(b)(2)(i).
188 See Petition at 8 (describing the terminal block at issue).  
189 Id. at 4.
190 Qwest Comments, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 6.
191  E.g., Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17190, para. 348 (For all requesting carriers, especially carriers 
constructing facilities-based networks, the ability to access subloops at, or near, the customers premises in order to 
reach the infrastructure in those premises where they otherwise would not be able to take their loop the full way to 
the customer, is critical.).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
25
3. Implementation of Access to Inside Wire Subloops 
52. The alternative access arrangements adopted by the OCC, whereby either SBC or Cox would 
place or construct, own, and manage an intermediate cross-connect device, conflict with prior 
Commission determinations on the scope of reasonable access.  In circumscribing the scope of 
reasonable access in the other contexts, the Commission prohibited a lengthy and burdensome process at 
the customer premises to collocate a separate terminal facility in order to gain access to the inside wire 
subloop, or other inside wire used by the LEC to access customers in multiunit premises.192 The 
Commission also prohibited an incumbent LEC requirement to have its technician present and to impose 
an associated charge on the [requesting carrier] for such contact on the non-network side of the NID.193  
Incumbent LEC impositions of such requirements would be contrary to the competitive goals of the NID 
and inside wire unbundling rules and thus were precluded by the Commission.  These limitations reflect 
Commission balancing of interests to ensure competitive access to inside wire, which the Commission 
found important because competitors may be able to construct and provision a local loop using their own 
facilities all the way to a customer premises, yet still remain unable to reach the end user in that 
premises.194 As such, consistent with prior Commission findings in a similar context, we find that the 
alternatives adopted by the OCC requiring an intermediate cross-connect device are unreasonable access 
requirements and inconsistent with our inside wire subloop rules.    
53. Further, in explaining how a competitor will access a subloop at a technically feasible 
location, the Commission expressly recognized that that the physical work necessary for competitive 
access does not need to be provided by the incumbent LEC, but rather may be performed by the 
requesting carrier itself:  Accessible terminals contain cables and their respective wire pairs that 
terminate on screw posts which enables a competitors technician to cross-connect its terminal to the 
incumbent LECs to access the incumbent LECs loop from that point all the way to the end user 
customer.195 Although we do not address the question of whether the terminal block is a NID under our 
rules,196 we do find some support from the Triennial Review Orders authorization of competitors to use 
  
192 Id. at 17199, para. 358.  This decision makes clear that no collocation requirement exists for subloops used to 
access the infrastructure in multiunit premises.  Incumbent LECs are required to provide subloops for access to 
multiunit premises without collocation.  Id. at 17192, para. 350.  
193 Id. at 17199, para. 358. 
194 Id. at 17193, para. 351.  
195 Id. at 17184-84, para. 343 n.1013 (emphasis added).  In light of the Commissions explicit identification of the 
rights of the technician of a competitor to perform the cross-connect, we are not persuaded by the assertion that the 
Commission meant to limit its intent to indicate technical details rather than substantive obligations.  See, e.g., SBC 
Opposition, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 14 (claiming that it is more reasonable to interpret this sentence as merely 
describing the characteristics of accessible terminals, rather than establishing a national right on the part of 
competitive LECs to unfettered access to such terminals.).
196 Under Oklahoma law, NIDs at multiunit premises are always defined to be inside, at the first jack within the 
individual tenant customer premises.  SBC Opposition, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 18.  We agree with SBC that 
access to terminal blocks for the purposes of gaining unbundled access to incumbent LEC subloops is distinct from 
the issue of direct access to NIDs as separate UNEs.  Id. at 16.  The Commission clearly indicated in the Triennial 
Review Order that competitors have the right to direct access to the NID.  Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 
17199, para. 358.  We therefore do not reach Coxs request that the Commission also clarify state law classifications 
regarding the locations of the points of demarcation and NIDs.  See Petition at 12-15.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
26
their own technicians to access the NID.197 All three options adopted by the OCC would require Cox to 
use SBC technicians, and thus are also at odds with our holdings in the Triennial Review Order.  
54. We conclude, however, that factors such as network security may be considered in section 
252 proceedings, subject to the constraints enumerated by the Commission.  Several commenters point to 
the OCCs reliance on network integrity concerns and ask that we defer to state-specific analysis of 
technical feasibility to prevent potential network damage and degradation.198  However, the OCC did not 
undertake an analysis of technical feasibility under our regulations, and we emphasize today that any 
issue of network security must be addressed within the two-step framework of those regulations.  
Specifically, where there is a dispute as to whether it is technically feasible to unbundle at a given point 
in the network, under our rules the incumbent LEC then has the burden of demonstrating insufficient 
availability of space or technical infeasibility to a state commission.199 Under the Commissions best 
practices rule, since at least one other state has determined that multiunit premises terminal block 
unbundling is technically feasible, an incumbent LEC has this evidentiary burden for terminal blocks in 
all other state proceedings.200  We expect that states, acting pursuant to section 252 of the Act, will 
continue to consider interconnection, access, and pricing issues, especially those affecting the safety or 
integrity of consumer services, but emphasize that states must do so consistent with the Commissions 
framework and directions.201  
55. The record before us indicates that in many instances incumbent LECs willingly allow direct 
access to terminal blocks pursuant to different arrangements,202 and we do not mandate unconditional 
  
197  Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17199, para. 358 (a competitive LEC seeking to make contact with the 
incumbent LECs NID . . . so that the competitive LEC can reconnect such customer wiring to its own NID is not 
accessing the incumbent LECs NID as a UNE).
198  See, e.g., SBC Opposition, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 12 (contending that Coxs technicians caused pervasive 
damage to SBC-Oklahomas network, including damage to 7,100 of SBC-Oklahomas terminals, caused more than 
3,000 recorded instances of trouble on SBC Oklahomas network and over 9,000 hours of service outages to SBC 
Oklahomas customers); Verizon May 17 WC Docket No. 01-338 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (stating that the OCC
resolved the dispute between SBC and Cox in a section 252 arbitration based on extensive record evidence.)
199 47 C.F.R.  51.319(b)(3)(i).  
200 47 C.F.R.  51.319(b)(3)(ii).  See Letter from Thomas W. Snyder, Corporate Counsel  Qwest, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 01-338 (filed May 29, 2007) (Qwest May 29 WC Docket No. 01-338 Ex 
Parte Letter); Letter from Jay Bennett, Executive Director  Federal Regulatory, AT&T Services Inc., to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 01-338 (filed May 25, 2007) (SBC May 25 WC Docket No. 01-338 Ex 
Parte). Thus, contrary to Verizons concern, we are not overriding the rules governing state determinations 
regarding technically feasible access to subloops, but are ensuring that the states rely upon these rules and our 
precedent regarding technical feasibility.  Verizon May 17 WC Docket No. 01-338 Ex Parte at 4.
201 47 C.F.R.  51.319(b)(3)(i).  The record indicates a controversy regarding the responsibility for prior damage to 
SBCs terminals, and the declaration we make here has no bearing on the resolution of that dispute, or on any 
incumbent LECs rights to seek damages against any party for past or ongoing damage to its network and for 
compensation for the work it performs.  Arbitrators Order at 45 (finding that direct access may seriously 
jeopardize [SBCs] ability to maintain network integrity, security and control, as well as accountability for damage 
and substandard engineering an operational practices); SBC Opposition, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 11; SBC Reply, 
WC Docket No. 01-338 at 4.
202 For example, Qwest indicates that it is not necessary for an ILEC to perform all of the connections and rerouting 
of inside wire subloop themselves, and that Qwest has no objection to CLECs using their own personnel.  Qwest 
Comments, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 11.  Qwest adds that state regulators in all fourteen of the states in Qwests 
incumbent LEC territory require notification when a requesting carrier accesses the incumbent LECs inside wire 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
27
access, or otherwise seek to specify the details of any arrangement so long as a competitor has direct 
access, consistent with the principles described above.  The Triennial Review Order established a 
framework within which state commissions would govern the process for interconnection negotiations 
and related disputes pursuant to section 252 of the Act, and nothing we do today is designed to disturb 
that basic role.203  
IV. CONCLUSION
56. In view of the foregoing, we find that that cable wiring located behind sheet rock qualifies as 
physically inaccessible under our rules for purposes of determining the demarcation point between home 
wiring and home run wiring.  Specifically, we conclude that (1) accessing such wiring causes significant 
damage or modification to a preexisting structural element, and (2) accessing wiring behind sheet rock 
generally adds significantly to the physical difficulty and/or cost of accessing the subscribers home 
wiring.  The Commissions cable inside wiring rules are intended to facilitate competition in video 
distribution markets.  This ruling will foster opportunities for competing MVPDs to provide service in 
MDUs by clarifying the circumstances under which the existing cable home run wiring in MDUs can be 
made available to alternative video service providers.  Finally, we grant Coxs petition and conclude that 
state commission decisions denying requesting carriers direct physical access to incumbent LECs inside 
wire subloops in multiunit premises pursuant to section 251(c)(3) of the Act are inconsistent with the Act 
and Commission precedent and would frustrate the development of competition.   
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
57. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),204 an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Further Notice.205 The 
Commission sought written public comment on the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities regarding the proposals addressed in the Further Notice, including comments on the IFRA.  
Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Flexibility Analysis is contained in Appendix C.
58. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.  This document does not contain new or modified 
information collection requirements subject to the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 
104-13.  In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burdens 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.  3506(c)(4).
(Continued from previous page)    
subloop.  Id. at 10; see also Verizon May 17 WC Docket No. 01-338 Ex Parte Letter at 7 (stating the New York 
Public Service Commission requires, for example, that a requesting carrier seeking direct connection to a terminal 
block in multiunit premises must first identify itself to the owning carrier and indicate, in writing that it intends to 
access directly the owning carriers subloop facilities); SBC May 25 WC Docket No. 01-338 Ex Parte at 2 (stating 
that such safeguards also could include requirements that a requesting carrier is responsible for ensuring that its 
technicians complete training in the engineering standards and practices used by the owning carrier.)
203 Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17198, para. 358.  Just as we do not bar states from adopting legitimate 
network security safeguards, we also reject requests that we set forth safeguards that states should or must adopt.  See
SBC May 25 WC Docket No. 01-338 Ex Parte at 2; Letter from Thomas W. Snyder, Corporate Counsel  Qwest, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 01-338 at 4 (filed May 24, 2007); Qwest May 29 WC Docket 
No. 01-338 Ex Parte at 1.
204 See 5 U.S.C.  603.
205 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 1239, App.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
28
59. Congressional Review Act.  The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
60. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority found in Sections 1, 4(i), 601, 
623, 624, and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 521, 543, 
544 and 552, the Commissions amendment of the Note to Section 76.5(mm)(4) of the Commissions 
rules to include sheet rock as an example of one of the materials that would likely be considered 
physically inaccessible for purposes of the Commissions cable television inside wiring rules IS 
AFFIRMED.
61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that in light of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbias Circuits decision in NCTA v. FCC, No. 03-1140, 2004 WL 335201, which 
remanded but did not vacate the decision adopted in Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring, 
Customer Premises Equipment; Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
Competition Act of 1992: Cable Home Wiring, 18 FCC Rcd 1342 (2003) (Home Wiring Decision), the 
note to 47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(4) adopted in the Home Wiring Decision shall remain in effect.
62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissions Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration. 
63. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251, and 252 of the 
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 153, 154, 201-205, 251, 252, that the petition for 
declaratory ruling filed by Cox in WC Docket No. 01-338 IS GRANTED to the extent described by this 
Order.
64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.103(a) of the Commissions rules, 47 
C.F.R.  1.103(a), that this Declaratory Ruling SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary                               
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
29
APPENDIX A  
List of Commenters in Docket 01-338
Comments Filed By: Abbreviation
AT&T Corp. AT&T
BellSouth Corporation BellSouth
Real Access Alliance RAA
SBC Communications Inc. SBC
Sigecom, LLC Sigecom
The World Company, d/b/a/ Sunflower Broadband Sunflower
Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest
List of Replies
Replies Filed By: Abbreviation
BellSouth Corporation BellSouth
Cox Oklahoma Telcom, L.L.C. Cox
New Jersey Division of Ratepayer Advocate NJ Ratepayer
SBC Communications Inc. SBC
Verizon Communications Inc. Verizon
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
30
APPENDIX B
List of Commenters in CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260
Comments Filed By: Abbreviation
Independent Multi-Family Communications Council IMCC
National Cable & Telecommunications Association NCTA
Real Access Alliance and the Community Association 
Institute
RAA & CAI
RCN Telecom Services, Inc. RCN
Verizon Verizon
List of Replies
Comments Filed By: Abbreviation
Independent Multi-Family Communications Council IMCC
National Cable & Telecommunications Association NCTA
Real Access Alliance and the Community Association 
Institute
RAA &CAI
RCN Telecom Services, Inc. RCN
Ex Parte filings
Verizon Declaration of Daniel VanRoekel, Senior Engineer, Outside Plant Engineering (June 22, 2005).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
31
APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the RFA)206 an 
Initial Regulatory Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 
CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM Docket No. 92-260 (hereinafter referred to as the Further Notice).207 The 
Commission sought written public comment on the possible impact of the proposed policies and rules on 
small entities in the Further Notice, including comments on the IFRA.  This Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) in this Report and Order (Report and Order) conforms to the RFA.208  
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Regulatory Approaches
2. This Report and Order is issued in response to a decision issued by the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia regarding amendment of the Commissions cable 
television inside wiring rules.209 In its First Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order in 
this proceeding, the Commission modified its rules to provide that home run wiring located behind sheet 
rock is considered to be physically inaccessible for purposes of determining the demarcation point 
between home wiring and home run wiring in multiple dwelling units (MDUs).210 Specifically, the 
Commission amended the Note to Section 76.5(mm)(4) of the rules to include wiring behind sheet rock 
as an example, along with wiring located behind brick, metal conduit or cinder blocks, as wiring 
considered to be physically inaccessible as that term is used in Section 76.5(mm)(4) of the rules and 
the appended Note.  The consequence of that conclusion is to move the point at which a competing 
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) can gain access to wiring located behind sheet rock 
closer to the incumbent cable operators junction box, thereby facilitating competition between MVPD 
providers to serve an MDU.  The Court of Appeals found that the Commission offered no reasoned basis 
for the amendment to add sheet rock as an example of material to be considered as a preexisting 
structural element in defining physical inaccessibility and remanded the case to the Commission for 
further consideration. The Further Notice was issued to seek comment on this matter.  This Report and 
Order finds that the record adequately supports our finding that home run wiring located behind sheet 
rock is physically inaccessible for purposes of determining the demarcation point between home wiring 
and home run wiring.  
B. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply
  
206 The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601  612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
207 Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring, Customer Premises Equipment and Implementation of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Cable Home Wiring, Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 1233, 1239, Appendix (2004)    
208 See 5 U.S.C.  604.  
209 National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of 
America, No. 03-1140, 2004 WL 335201 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 17, 2004, unpublished).
210 Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring, Customer Premises Equipment and Implementation of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Cable Home Wiring, 18 FCC Rcd 1342 (2003).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
32
3. 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 proposed rules, if adopted.211 The RFA generally 
defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small 
organization, and small governmental jurisdiction.212 In addition, the term small business has the 
same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small Business Act.213 A small business 
concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).214
4. Cable and Other Program Distribution.  The Census Bureau defines this category as
follows:  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems 
for broadcast programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual, aural, or textual 
programming received from cable networks, local television stations, or radio networks to consumers via 
cable or direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis. These establishments do not 
generally originate programming material.215 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is:  all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual 
receipts.216 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category 
that operated for the entire year.217 Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, 
and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million.218 Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
5. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small 
business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the Commissions rules, a small 
cable company is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.219  Industry data indicate that, 
  
211 5 U.S.C.  603(b)(3).
212 5 U.S.C.  601(6).
213 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of small-business concern in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C.  632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.
214 15 U.S.C.  632.
215 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, 517510 Cable and Other Program Distribution; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.
216 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517510.
217 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the 
United States:  2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).
218 Id.  An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
219 47 C.F.R.  76.901(e).  The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size 
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues.  Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate 
Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
33
of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard.220 In addition, 
under the Commissions rules, a small system is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.221  
Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, 
and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers.222 Thus, under this second size standard, 
most cable systems are small.    
6. Cable System Operators.  The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a 
size standard for small cable system operators, which is a cable operator that, directly or through an 
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.223 The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 
subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual 
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.224  Industry data indicate that, of 
1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.225 We note that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated 
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,226 and therefore we are unable to 
estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size 
standard.
7. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed 
subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish 
antenna at the subscribers location.  Because DBS provides subscription services, DBS falls within the 
SBA-recognized definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution.227 This definition provides that a 
small entity is one with $13.5 million or less in annual receipts.228 Currently, only four operators hold 
licenses to provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation.  All four 
  
220 These data are derived from:  R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, Top 25 Cable/Satellite 
Operators, pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005);  Warren Communications News, Television & 
Cable Factbook 2006, Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States, pages D-1805 to D-1857.
221 47 C.F.R.  76.901(c).  
222 Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size, 
page F-2 (data current as of Oct. 2005).  The data do not include 718 systems for which classifying data were not 
available.
223 47 U.S.C.  543(m)(2); see 47 C.F.R.  76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.
224 47 C.F.R.  76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small 
Cable Operator, DA 01-158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).
225 These data are derived from:  R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, Top 25 Cable/Satellite 
Operators, pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television & Cable 
Factbook 2006, Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States, pages D-1805 to D-1857.
226 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authoritys finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to  76.901(f) of 
the Commissions rules.  See 47 C.F.R.  76.909(b).
227 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517510.
228 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
34
currently offer subscription services.  Two of these four DBS operators, DIRECTV229 and EchoStar 
Communications Corporation (EchoStar),230 report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for 
a small business.  A third operator, Rainbow DBS, is a subsidiary of Cablevisions Rainbow Network, 
which also reports annual revenues in excess of $13.5 million, and thus does not qualify as a small 
business.231 The fourth DBS operator, Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. (Dominion), offers religious 
(Christian) programming and does not report its annual receipts.232 The Commission does not know of 
any source which provides this information and, thus, we have no way of confirming whether Dominion 
qualifies as a small business.  Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely 
that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS 
licensee.  Nevertheless, given the absence of specific data on this point, we acknowledge the possibility 
that there are entrants in this field that may not yet have generated $13.5 million in annual receipts, and 
therefore may be categorized as a small business, if independently owned and operated. 
8. Private Cable Operators (PCOs) also known as Satellite Master Antenna Television 
(SMATV) Systems.  PCOs, also known as SMATV systems or private communication operators, are video 
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way.  PCOs 
acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple 
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as 
hotels and office buildings.  The SBA definition of small entities for Cable and Other Program 
Distribution Services includes PCOs and, thus, small entities are defined as all such companies 
generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts.233 Currently, there are approximately 135 members in 
the Independent Multi-Family Communications Council (IMCC), the trade association that represents 
PCOs.234 Individual PCOs often serve approximately 3,000-4,000 subscribers, but the larger operations 
serve as many as 15,000-55,000 subscribers.  In total, PCOs currently serve approximately 1.1 million 
subscribers.235 Because these operators are not rate regulated, they are not required to file financial data 
with the Commission.  Furthermore, we are not aware of any privately published financial information 
regarding these operators.  Based on the estimated number of operators and the estimated number of units 
served by the largest ten PCOs, we believe that a substantial number of PCO may qualify as small 
entities.
9. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD 
falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which includes all 
  
229 DirecTV is the largest DBS operator and the second largest MVPD, serving an estimated 13.04 million 
subscribers nationwide; see 2005 Cable Competition Report, 20 FCC Rcd at 2793, para. 55.
230 EchoStar, which provides service under the brand name Dish Network, is the second largest DBS operator and 
the fourth largest MVPD, serving an estimated 10.12 million subscribers nationwide.  Id.
231 Rainbow DBS, which provides service under the brand name VOOM, reported an estimated 25,000 subscribers.  
Id.
232 Dominion, which provides service under the brand name Sky Angel, does not publicly disclose its subscribership 
numbers on an annualized basis.  Id.
233 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517510.
234 See 2005 Cable Competition Report, 20 FCC Rcd at 2816, para. 110.  Previously, the Commission reported that 
IMCC had 250 members; see Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of 
Video Programming, Tenth Annual Report, 19 FCC Rcd 1606, 1666, para. 90 (2004) (2004 Cable Competition 
Report).
235 See 2005 Cable Competition Report, 20 FCC Rcd at 2816, para. 110.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
35
such companies generating $13.5 million or less in revenue annually.236 HSD or the large dish segment 
of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers, and involves the 
home reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency.  Unlike 
DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive 
a wide range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program 
packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers receipt of video programming.  There are 
approximately 30 satellites operating in the C-band, which carry over 500 channels of programming 
combined; approximately 350 channels are available free of charge and 150 are scrambled and require a 
subscription.  HSD is difficult to quantify in terms of annual revenue.  HSD owners have access to 
program channels placed on C-band satellites by programmers for receipt and distribution by MVPDs.  
Commission data shows that, between June 2003 and June 2004, HSD subscribership fell from 502,191 
subscribers to 335,766 subscribers, a decline of more than 33 percent.237 The Commission has no 
information regarding the annual revenue of the four C-Band distributors.
10. Wireless Cable Systems. Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band frequencies of the 
Broadband Radio Service (BRS), formerly Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS),238 and the 
Educational Broadband Service (EBS), formerly Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS),239 to 
transmit video programming and provide broadband services to residential subscribers.240 These services 
were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video programming, similar to that of 
traditional cable systems, but over the past several years licensees have focused their operations instead 
on providing two-way high-speed Internet access services.241 We estimate that the number of wireless 
cable subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005.  Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
(LMDS) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video 
telecommunications.242 As described below, the SBA small business size standard for the broad census 
category of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities generating $13.5 
  
236 13 C.F.F.  121.201, NAICS code 517510.
237 See 2005 Cable Competition Report, 20 FCC Rcd at 2798, para. 64.  HSD subscribership declined more than 28 
percent between June 2002 and June 2003.  See 2004 Cable Competition Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 1654-55, paras. 73-
74.
238 MDS, also known as Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS), is regulated by Part 21 of the 
Commissions rules; see 47 C.F.R. Part 21, subpart K; and has been renamed the Broadband Radio Service (BRS); 
see Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commissions Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and 
Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; 
Part 1 of the Commission's Rules - Further Competitive Bidding Procedures; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to 
Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 
74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules With 
Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service for the 
Gulf of Mexico, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004) (MDS/ITFS Order).
239 ITFS systems are regulated by Part 74 of the Commissions rules; see 47 C.F.R. Part 74, subpart I.  ITFS, an 
educational service, has been renamed the Educational Broadband Service (EBS); see MDS/ITFS Order, 19 FCC 
Rcd 14165.  ITFS licensees, however, are permitted to lease spectrum for MDS operation.
240 See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 
Eleventh Annual Report, 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2565, para. 131 (2006) (2006 Cable Competition Report).
241 Id.
242 See Local Multipoint Distribution Service, 12 FCC Rcd 12545 (1997). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
36
million or less in annual receipts, appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS.243 Other standards also 
apply, as described.
11. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in the context 
of Commission license auctions.  In the 1996 MDS auction,244 the Commission defined a small business 
as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar 
years.245 This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the 
SBA.246 In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses.  Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status 
as a small business.  At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction 
winners, 48 remain small business licensees.  In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA 
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are 
not more than $40 million and are thus considered small entities.247 MDS licensees and wireless cable 
operators that did not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the SBA small 
business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.  Information available to us indicates 
that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess 
of $13.5 million annually.  Therefore, we estimate that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or 
BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commissions auction rules.
12. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the 
Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS).248 We estimate 
that there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held by 
educational institutions.  Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities. 
13. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions,249 the Commission defined a small business as an 
entity that has annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar 
years.250 Moreover, the Commission added an additional classification for a very small business, 
which was defined as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $15 million in the 
previous three calendar years.251 These definitions of small business and very small business in the 
  
243 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517510.
244 MDS Auction No. 6 began on November 13, 1995, and closed on March 28, 1996.  (67 bidders won 493 
licenses.)
245 47 C.F.R.  21.961(b)(1).
246 See ITFS Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9589.
247 47 U.S.C.  309(j).  Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of 
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  309(j).  For these pre-auction licenses, the 
applicable standard is SBAs small business size standards for other telecommunications (annual receipts of $13.5 
million or less).  See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517910.
248 In addition, the term small entity under SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small 
governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with 
populations of less than 50,000).  5 U.S.C.  601(4)-(6).  We do not collect annual revenue data on ITFS licensees.
249 The Commission has held two LMDS auctions:  Auction 17 and Auction 23.  Auction No. 17, the first LMDS 
auction, began on February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998.  (104 bidders won 864 licenses.)  Auction No. 
23, the LMDS re-auction, began on April 27, 1999, and closed on May 12, 1999.  (40 bidders won 161 licenses.)
250 See LMDS Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12545.
251 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
37
context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA.252 In the first LMDS auction, 104 
bidders won 864 licenses.  Of the 104 auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small 
businesses.  In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses.  Based on this information, we 
believe that the number of small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction 
and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined 
by the SBA and the Commissions auction rules.
14. Open Video Systems (OVS). In 1996, Congress established the open video system 
(OVS) framework, one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming 
services by local exchange carriers (LECs).253 The OVS framework provides opportunities for the 
distribution of video programming other than through cable systems.  Because OVS operators provide 
subscription services,254 OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard of Cable and Other 
Program Distribution Services, which consists of such entities having $13.5 million or less in annual 
receipts.255 The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with some now providing service.  
Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or 
local OVS franchises.256 As of June, 2005, BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers, 
representing 1.5 percent of all MVPD households.257 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, 
Inc. (RCN), which serves about 371,000 subscribers as of June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and 
14th largest MVPD.258  RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, 
Washington, D.C. and other areas.  The Commission does not have financial information regarding the 
entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational.  We thus believe that at 
least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
15. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services.  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.259  According to 
Commission data,260 1,307 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent 
  
252 See Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (FCC) from A. Alvarez, 
Administrator, SBA (January 6, 1998).
253 47 U.S.C.  571(a)(3)-(4).  See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of 
Video Programming, Eleventh Annual Report, 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2549, para. 88 (2006) (2006 Cable Competition 
Report).
254 See 47 U.S.C.  573.
255 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517510.
256 See 2006 Cable Competition Report, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549, para. 88.  BSPs are newer firms that are building state-
of-the-art, facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a single network.  
257 See id. at 2507, para. 14.
258 See 2006 Cable Competition Report, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549, para. 89.  WideOpenWest is the second largest BSP 
and 16th largest MVPD, with cable systems serving about 292,000 subscribers as of June, 2005.  The third largest 
BSP is Knology, serving approximately 170,800 subscribers as of June, 2005.  Id. 
259 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in Oct. 2002).
260 FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service 
at Table 5.3, page 5-5 (Feb. 2007) (Trends in Telephone Service).  This source uses data that are current as of 
October 20, 2005.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
38
local exchange services.  Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
288 have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of 
incumbent local exchange service are small businesses.
16. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers  (CAPs), Shared-
Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers.  The appropriate 
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.261 According to Commission 
data,262 859 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access 
provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services.  Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees.  In addition, 16 carriers have 
reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.  In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.  Of the 
44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, 
competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers 
are small entities.
17.  MDU Operators.  Under the Commissions Rules, an MDU is a residential multiple 
dwelling unit building (e.g., an apartment building, condominium building or cooperative).  47 C.F.R.  
76.800(a).  The Census Bureau has created two broad Economic Census categories that appear pertinent.  
The first category, Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings, is described as follows:  This 
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in acting as lessors of buildings used as residences 
or dwellings, such as single-family homes, apartment buildings, and town homes. Included in this 
industry are owner-lessors and establishments renting real estate and then acting as lessors in subleasing 
it to others. The establishments in this industry may manage the property themselves or have another 
establishment manage it for them.263 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Lessors 
of Residential Buildings and Dwellings, which is:  all such firms having $6.5 million or less in annual 
receipts.264 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 44,165 firms in this category that 
operated for the entire year.265 Of this total, 43,031 firms had annual sales of under $5 million, and 671
firms had sales of $5 million or more but less than $10 million.266 Thus, the majority of firms in this 
category can be considered small.
18. The second category is that of Residential Property Managers, which comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in managing residential real estate for others.267 The SBA has 
  
261 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517110.
262 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
263  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, 531110 Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND531110.HTM#N531110.
264 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 531110.
265 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, Table 4, 
Revenue Size of Firms for the United States:  2002, NAICS code 531110 (issued November 2005).
266 Id.  An additional 463 firms had annual sales of $10 million or more.
267 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, 531311 Residential Property Managers; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND531311.HTM#N531311.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
39
developed a small business size standard for Residential Property Managers, which is:  all such firms 
having $2 million or less in annual receipts.268 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 
19,359 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.269 Of this total, 16,057 firms had annual 
sales of under $1 million, and 2,141 firms had sales of $1 million or more but less than $2.5 million.270  
Thus, the majority of firms in this category can be considered small.
C. Description of Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping and other Compliance
Requirements
19. The retention of the word sheet rock to the Note to Section 76.5(mm)(4) of the 
Commissions rules will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements.  With 
regard to other compliance requirements, we note as indicated above, that the Report and Order is 
initiated in response to a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia regarding amendment of the Commissions cable television inside wiring rules.   The Court 
seeks support for the Commissions decision to add wiring behind sheet rock as an example of wiring 
considered to be physically inaccessible as that term is defined by Section 76.5(mm)(4) of the 
Commissions rules and the appended Note.  As stated, the consequence of the Commissions underlying 
decision is to move the point at which a competing video provider can gain access to wiring located 
behind sheet rock closer to the incumbent cable operators junction box, thereby facilitating competition 
between video providers to serve an MDU.  This poses no negative impact on smaller entities.  This 
decision may save competing video providers, including small entity providers, some costs is accessing 
wiring, as we have described supra.271
D. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and Significant 
Alternatives Considered
20. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has 
considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 
or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design 
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.272
21. We believe that this Report and Order will have a positive impact on small entities.  This 
determination will foster opportunities for competing MVPDs to provide service in MDUs by providing 
the needed support for amendment of our rules addressing circumstances under which the existing cable 
home run wiring in MDUs could be made available to alternative video service providers.  This 
determination will also be helpful to small MDUs that compete for tenants because they will be able to 
provide the potential to offer multiple MVPD service to building subscribers.  In addition, the interior of 
  
268 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 531311.
269 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, Table 4, 
Revenue Size of Firms for the United States:  2002, NAICS code 531311 (issued November 2005).
270 Id.  An additional 1,161 firms had annual sales of $2.5 million or more.
271 See Order, paras. 45-46.
272 See 5 U.S.C.  603.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
40
the building structures will not be subject to damage because of access to home run wiring at the junction 
box. The alternative of determining otherwise on this issue would not be helpful to small entities.
E. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Commissions 
Proposals
22. None.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
41
STATEMENT OF 
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN
Re:  Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring Customer Premises Equipment, CS Docket No. 95-
184, Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: 
Cable Home Wiring, MM Docket No. 92-260, Clarification of the Commissions Rules and 
Policies Regarding Unbundled Access to Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Inside Wire 
Subloop, WC Docket No. 01-338, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling
  
Today we take action to ensure that the pro-competitive, deregulatory goals of the 1996 Act are 
realized by removing economic and operational barriers to infrastructure investment in the 
communications market.  Competition is ultimately the best protector of the consumers interest.  It is the 
best method of delivering the benefits of choice, innovation, and affordability to American consumers. 
Consistent with my commitment to fostering a competitive marketplace and consumer choice, I 
have and will continue to encourage new entrants trying to break into both the voice and video markets.  
Today we take an important step to facilitate competition in both markets by addressing the ability of 
new competitors to use the internal wiring of both incumbent telephone and cable operators in a 
consistent fashion.  
Specifically, we are granting Coxs petition for declaratory ruling regarding the scope of access 
to incumbent telephone companies inside wire in apartment buildings. This decision allows a new 
entrant competing to provide telephone service to gain access to inside wiring, thereby facilitating 
competition between telephone providers to serve customers who live in apartment buildings.
Similarly, the Order also finds that a new entrant competing to provide cable service can gain 
access to inside cable wiring that is physically inaccessible.  This ruling thereby facilitates competition 
between cable providers to serve customers who live in apartment buildings.
The action we take today seeks to foster competition across different platforms and is 
competitively and technologically neutral.  Importantly, we are seeking to support all new entrants and do 
not favor one technology or industry over another.  Moreover, we achieve regulatory parity by applying a 
consistent regulatory framework across platforms.  This Order demonstrates the Commissions 
commitment to ensure that all consumersincluding those living in apartment buildingsbenefit from 
competition in the provision of voice and video services.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
42
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS 
Re:  Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring Customer Premises Equipment, CS Docket No. 95-
184, Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: 
Cable Home Wiring, MM Docket No. 92-260, Clarification of the Commissions Rules and 
Policies Regarding Unbundled Access to Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Inside Wire 
Subloop, WC Docket No. 01-338, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling
This item brings together two sets of inside wiring rules in the multi-tenant environment  the 
rules that apply to common carriers under Title II, and the rules that apply to cable operators under Title 
VI. But while the lineage of the rules is different, the underlying goal is very much the same  to bring 
the fruits of phone and cable competition to consumers who live and work in multi-unit buildings. The 
clarification of our inside wiring rules on both the telephone and cable sides address the legal and 
practical bottlenecks that may currently stand in the way of fledgling competition. I see no reason why 
Americans who happen to live or work in multi-unit buildings should have a narrower range of choices 
when it comes to phone, video and broadband services than Americans who live in single-family homes.
But while the underlying policies are important, I want to stress that they are not before us 
today. That is, the basic rules themselves are not at issue. Rather, this item deals with narrow 
implementation questions. On the phone side, the issue is the logistics of physically transferring the 
wiring from one provider to another. On the cable side, the issue is even narrower  whether wiring 
behind sheet rock is physically inaccessible under the specific standard set forth in our rules. In each 
case, todays Order interprets our rules in a way that promotes competition and more choices for phone, 
internet and video customers. I am pleased to support it.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
43
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Re: Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring Customer Premises Equipment, CS Docket No. 95-
184, Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: 
Cable Home Wiring, MM Docket No. 92-260, Clarification of the Commissions Rules and 
Policies Regarding Unbundled Access to Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Inside Wire 
Subloop, WC Docket No. 01-338, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling
We often hear about the challenges of providing last mile connections for competitive video, 
voice, and broadband services, but for residents of multi-tenant buildings (referred to as MDUs) another 
significant challenge is often that of the last 100 feet.  I support this Order which clarifies the 
Commissions rules for inside wiring used to serve MDUs because it should reduce the barriers of those 
last 100 feet and promote choice for customers of these buildings, including renters, homeowners, and 
small businesses.
Consumers are starved for more choice in video, telecommunications, and broadband services.  
Competition in these markets is critical as a means to constrain prices.  Ive often said that this 
Commission should do what it can within the scope of the law to facilitate increased competition because 
it benefits American consumers, promotes deployment of broadband networks and services, and 
enhances the free exchange of ideas in our democratic society.  Americans living in MDUs  which often 
contain a disproportionate number of persons with disabilities, seniors, minorities and low income 
citizens  deserve to benefit from a choice of providers, too.  Similarly, these citizens, like their 
counterparts in single unit dwellings, stand to benefit greatly from the expanded educational, career, and 
health opportunities that are available through broadband.  Although this Order addresses two distinct 
legal frameworks  one for inside wiring owned by incumbent telephone companies, the other for inside 
wiring owned by cable system operators  the effect of both decisions is to advance the ability of new 
entrants to access multi-tenant buildings to provide competitive voice, video, and broadband offerings.
Even as we take these worthwhile steps, I must highlight my concern that our consumer notice 
rules for the use of cable inside wiring may be in need of an overhaul.  Under our current rules, 
consumers or alternative cable providers have the option to purchase cable home wiring when the 
customer terminates its cable service.  These rules, as written, contemplate a scenario in which only one 
service  a video service  could be provided over any given cable wire, and only one provider would 
seek to use that wire.  However, technological innovations and cross-platform competition are now 
allowing multiple services to be provided over that same wire.  Commenters have observed that, unless 
consumers only purchase bundles of services from either their cable or telephone company, customers 
may need to make decisions about which provider is entitled to use the existing wire, and which provider 
must install new inside wire.  Just as many customer have been slammed by misleading long distance 
providers, it is easy to imagine customers being misled or confused by providers seeking to use inside 
wiring to provide their services.  We should make revisiting our consumer notice rules a priority, so that 
customers do not find themselves charged expensive installation fees or unnecessarily locked into 
bundles.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-111
44
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
Re:  Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring Customer Premises Equipment, CS Docket No. 95-
184, Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: 
Cable Home Wiring, MM Docket No. 92-260, Clarification of the Commissions Rules and 
Policies Regarding Unbundled Access to Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Inside Wire 
Subloop, WC Docket No. 01-338, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling
To help create an environment where investment, innovation and competition can flourish, it is 
imperative that government treat like services alike, preferably with a light regulatory touch.  Todays 
order is a pro-competitive, deregulatory decision and is our latest effort to achieve regulatory parity 
between incumbent telephone companies, incumbent cable companies and new entrants into the voice, 
video and data markets.  
Todays action takes necessary steps to assure that new entrants seeking to compete with incumbent 
cable and telecommunications providers in multiple dwelling units (MDUs) and multi-unit premises have 
appropriate access to inside wiring.  
In this Order, we conclude that wiring installed by incumbent video providers behind sheetrock is 
physically inaccessible under our rules for determining the demarcation point between home wiring and 
home run wiring.  Our ruling will help spur competition among video distributors in MDUs by making 
existing cable wiring available to alternative providers at a point that is not physically difficult and costly 
to reach.
Similarly, by granting the Cox Oklahoma Telcom petition for declaratory ruling, we make certain 
that competitors have the right of direct access to incumbent local exchange carriers unbundled inside 
wire subloops at the terminal block to a multi-unit premise.  At the same time, all parties bear a 
responsibility to make sure their actions do not harm their competitors facilities in multi-unit premises.  
Such anti-competitive and tortuous behavior will not be tolerated.
As I have said before, as regulators we need to make sure that competition for all services, and 
across all platforms does not stop, literally at the doorstep of multi-unit buildings across the country.  I 
thank both the Media and Wireline Competition Bureaus for their work and I support this Order.