********************************************************
                                         NOTICE
    ********************************************************
                This document was converted from
           WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
   Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
             will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
    original document will not show up in this text version.
        Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
           will not be preserved in the text version.
        If you need the complete document, download the
  WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
                                                           Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Application of
GTE CORPORATION,
Transferor,
And
BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION,
Transferee
For Consent to Transfer Control of Domestic
And International Section 214 and 310
Authorizations and Applications to Transfer
Control of a Submarine Cable Landing
License
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CC Docket No. 98-184
                             ORDER
   Adopted:  September 26, 2001         Released:  September 26, 2001
By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:
     I.   Introduction
1.     On May 1, 2001, Verizon filed a letter with the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau
seeking permission to accelerate Verizon's right to provide advanced services without using its
separate advanced services affiliate, Verizon Advanced Data, Inc. (VADI).  Verizon states that
expediting this sunset period is in the public interest because it will address a unique issue in one
state, facilitate deployment of advanced services, and allow Verizon to compete fairly against its
competitors.  For the reasons explained below, we grant Verizon's request.
     II.  BACKGROUND
3.     To obtain Commission approval of their proposed merger, Bell Atlantic and GTE
proposed several conditions designed to promote advanced services deployment, among other
things. These conditions were adopted by the Commission on June 16, 2000 in the Bell Atlantic-
GTE Merger Order.  Included among these conditions was Bell Atlantic/GTE's agreement to
offer advanced services through a separate affiliate until such time as provided for in the sunset
provisions contained in the Bell Atlantic-GTE Merger Order.  One of the three means by which
Verizon's advanced services affiliate requirements would terminate automatically occurs nine
months after the date upon which a final and non-appealable judicial decision determines that the
separate advanced services affiliate is deemed a successor or assign of the incumbent, unless that
decision is based substantially on conduct by or between Verizon and its affiliate that was not
expressly permitted by these conditions.
4.     Verizon makes several arguments why accelerating the sunset of its advanced services
affiliate is appropriate.  According to Verizon's May 1st letter, absent Commission action, it will
soon be forced to turn away prospective digital subscriber loop (xDSL) customers in New Jersey.
Unlike other state commissions in the Verizon region, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
(NJ BPU) has not approved Verizon's application to transfer advanced services assets to its
affiliate, VADI.  Verizon argues that because of the NJ BPU's inaction, it is unable to purchase
additional equipment to provide xDSL service to new customers served out of certain central
offices.  Verizon states that it is already out of capacity in two central offices and will be unable
to fill customer orders in 70 others in the coming months.
5.     Verizon also argues that the separate advanced services affiliate requirement is
hindering its deployment of new technology that would enable it to offer wholesale xDSL packet
transport service to other carriers.  According to Verizon, under the Bell Atlantic-GTE Merger
Conditions, Verizon's incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) are unable to procure, install,
and test advanced services equipment (such as optical concentration devices and integrated
xDSL-capable cards for remote terminals).  It contends that the sooner its affiliate requirements
terminate, the earlier its LECs will be able to install and test this equipment, and offer these
services to carriers and retail customers.  Finally, Verizon states that the structural separation
requirement increases its costs of doing business and places Verizon at a competitive
disadvantage relative to carriers such as AT&T and WorldCom.
6.     Only one commenter expressly opposes Verizon's request to terminate the nine-month
sunset period; however, most commenters would like the Commission first to confirm
Verizon's compliance with existing rules and conditions, impose new obligations on Verizon, or
clarify Verizon's responsibilities  in light of ASCENT v. FCC.  Verizon disagrees with opening
a proceeding  to examine Verizon's obligations post-VADI reintegration, arguing that the Bell
Atlantic-GTE Merger Conditions already establish such obligations.  Moreover, Verizon
opposes imposing new separation requirements on Verizon and also opposes investigating
whether Verizon complies with its current affiliate responsibilities.  According to Verizon, the
Commission does not have the authority to re-impose separate affiliate requirements, and the
results of a recent audit concerning Genuity have no bearing on how Verizon has interacted with
VADI or how it will interact with its advanced services division after the sunset of the affiliate
requirement.  Finally, Verizon contends that many of the issues raised by commenters have
either been considered and rejected or are pending before the Commission in other proceedings,
and, thus, are inappropriate subjects for consideration in this proceeding.
     VII. DISCUSSION
8.     We conclude that permitting Verizon to reintegrate VADI prior to the completion of
the automatic sunset period is in the public interest and furthers the goal of promoting
deployment of advanced services.  Given the fact that Verizon has already expressed its intent to
eliminate its separate affiliate at the end of the sunset period and commenters generally do not
oppose its request to accelerate this reintegration, we see no reason to require Verizon to
maintain a separate affiliate for the remaining several months, only to backtrack and begin the
reintegration process, which Verizon estimates will take up to six months, immediately
afterward.  This seems unnecessarily costly and time-consuming for Verizon and its customers
under the circumstances presented here.  We therefore are persuaded that acceleration of the
nine-month sunset provision is in the public interest.
9.     The standard for considering a change of merger conditions was stated most recently
in the Pronto Modification Order.  In considering Verizon's request, we will decide whether
waiving the Bell Atlantic-GTE Merger Conditions in this limited manner is in the public interest,
and whether this waiver is tailored in a way that affirmatively and identifiably promotes the
underlying purpose of the condition.  In the Bell Atlantic-GTE Merger Order, the Commission
noted that the goal of establishing a separate advanced services affiliate was to promote equitable
and efficient advanced services deployment.  Specifically, the Commission found that the
affiliate requirement will provide a "structural mechanism to ensure that competing providers of
advanced services receive effective, nondiscriminatory access to the facilities and services of the
merged firm's incumbent LECs that are necessary to provide advanced services,"  and will
"greatly accelerate competition in the advanced services market by lowering the costs and risks
of entry and reducing uncertainty, while prodding all carriers, including the Applicants, to hasten
deployment."
10.    In the Verizon May 1st Letter and reply comments, Verizon indicates that, due to
unique circumstances, it is unable to offer xDSL services to certain prospective customers in
New Jersey.  No commenter disputes Verizon's characterization of the situation specific to New
Jersey (i.e., that Verizon cannot purchase new advanced services equipment to address capacity
problems).   Denying prospective customers the opportunity to purchase the xDSL service of one
carrier clearly does not promote the goal of equitable and efficient deployment of advanced
services.  However, our determination that the reintegration of VADI prior to January 2002 is in
the public interest stretches beyond the confines of one state and, thus, we choose not to grant
Verizon a waiver solely for New Jersey.
11.    Additionally, no commenter challenges Verizon's assertion that truncating the sunset
period will enable its LECs to purchase, install, and test new technologies and next generation
networks, and to make available to competitors advanced services enabled by this equipment.
Thus, we also find that earlier deployment of next generation equipment, the resulting services of
which will benefit competitors and consumers, is in the public interest and furthers the equitable
and efficient deployment of advanced services goal that underlies the separate affiliate
requirement.  The two commenting equipment manufacturers, Alcatel and Catena, support this
view, arguing that terminating the sunset period will result in faster deployment of integrated
xDSL-capable cards, permitting a "significant portion of the residential population [to] obtain
competitive options for high speed services."  Moreover, as discussed below, to ensure the
continued equitable deployment of advanced services by competitors, the Bell Atlantic-GTE
Merger Conditions apply operational safeguards to Verizon post-reintegration of VADI.
12.     We also note that giving Verizon permission to reintegrate VADI immediately will
enable competitors to negotiate and arbitrate with one carrier, not two.  We understand the
challenges to competitors, as were expressed by Sprint, of having to negotiate with and, if
necessary, conduct two arbitrations against, two entities to obtain complete access to the network
in Verizon territories.  Once this Order becomes effective, we expect Verizon to negotiate and
arbitrate immediately on behalf of itself and VADI to the extent it is permitted to do so under
state law.  We understand that Verizon must take interim steps before VADI is completely
reintegrated.  However, these procedural formalities should not slow a competitor's ability to
deploy advanced services in states where Verizon is the incumbent or delay Verizon's
provisioning of unbundled network elements and services to its wholesale customers.
13.    As mentioned above, only ALTS opposes terminating the automatic nine-month
sunset period.  However, ALTS's opposition to Verizon's request is premised not on concerns
about any public interest harm that may result from accelerating the sunset of VADI but, rather,
on its belief that denying the request will "send a clear message to the industry that the
Commission will enforce all [C]ommission orders without exception."  Other parties suggest
that the Commission first confirm Verizon's compliance with existing rules and conditions,
impose new conditions, or clarify previous Commission rulings before granting Verizon's
request.  For reasons discussed below, we decline to adopt these suggestions.
14.    The Commission's authority to oversee and enforce Verizon's obligations under the
Bell Atlantic-GTE Merger Order, and under all other applicable Commission orders and rules,
continues.  It does not cease simply because Verizon may offer advanced services through a
separate corporate division rather than through a separate affiliate.  The Bell Atlantic-GTE
Merger Conditions provide that "nothing in these Conditions shall relieve Bell Atlantic/GTE
from the requirements of [the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act)] or those
[Commission or state decisions implementing the 1996 Act]," a principle noted by AT&T in its
comments.  Thus, we find that there is no need to open a proceeding to review Verizon's
compliance with its legal and regulatory obligations, as advocated by some commenters, because
such an action simply would be duplicative.  The Commission's review of such compliance is
ongoing.
15.    We also find it unnecessary to clarify Verizon's obligations or impose additional
safeguards on Verizon post-reintegration of its advanced services affiliate in the manner
requested by the commenters.  Indeed, the Bell Atlantic-GTE Merger Order expressly
contemplated this eventuality and created another regulatory framework to last until 48 months
after the merger closing date.  Namely, Verizon is required to provide:
     all advanced services through a separate office or division that will continue using
     the same OSS interfaces, processes and procedures that are made available to
     unaffiliated entities .In addition, [Verizon] will continue the surrogate line-
     sharing and advanced services OSS discounts, and its incumbent LECs will
     continue to provide unaffiliated carriers with the same [operation, installation, and
     maintenance (OI&M)] services that its retail operations use, as well as those
     OI&M services that previously were made available under the conditions.
These provisions are clear and, with just two clarifications mentioned below, require no
elaboration in this Order.  Also, the requirements provide adequate assurance that
Verizon will continue to provide nondiscriminatory access to the facilities and services
required by competitors for their advanced services offerings. This language is responsive
to WorldCom's concern about Verizon no longer offering a feature or service, process or
procedure once VADI is reintegrated.  Indeed, WorldCom states in its comments that
"even if the separate affiliate requirement is terminated, the Merger Conditions provide
safeguards to ensure a level playing field for competitors."  We agree.  Moreover,
Verizon has not sought relief from these provisions and they remain unaffected by the
ASCENT v. FCC ruling.  Finally, we expect that the continuing oversight and audit
mechanisms will ensure that Verizon complies with the post-affiliate safeguards.
16.    We recognize that VADI's reintegration will have an impact on the Carrier-to-Carrier
Performance Plan established in the Bell Atlantic-GTE Merger Conditions.  Specifically,
Verizon's provision of advanced services, such as line sharing, to unaffiliated carriers is currently
measured against Verizon's performance providing the same services to VADI.  With VADI's
reintegration, these measurements must be re-tooled. Therefore, Verizon should propose to the
Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau new performance standards for the affected measurements
within 30 days of this Order's release.
17.    Several carriers urge the Commission to clarify Verizon's obligations to provide
xDSL service for resale over resold lines pursuant to section 251(c)(4).  The Commission did
this in its July 20, 2001 order approving Verizon's application to offer interLATA
telecommunications services in Connecticut pursuant to section 271 of the 1996 Act.
Specifically, we concluded that Verizon must make available to resellers, at a wholesale
discount, the same package of voice and xDSL services that it provides to its own retail end-user
customers, and that this "package" includes xDSL service over lines on which the competitive
LEC resells Verizon's voice service. Any concerns regarding Verizon's compliance with section
251(c)(4) may be addressed in a section 208 formal complaint proceeding.  Additionally, on
July 6, 2001, Verizon requested Special Temporary Authority (STA) allowing it to cooperate
with VADI to offer this service to competitors in Connecticut prior to the automatic termination
of its affiliate requirements.  The Commission sought and received comments on Verizon's
request and granted the STA on July 19, 2001.  Verizon sought and received similar authority to
provide this same service in Pennsylvania.  In approving Verizon's request to reintegrate VADI
prior to the termination of the sunset period and consistent with our findings in the Verizon
Connecticut Order, we determine that Verizon should immediately make available this service to
competitors throughout its territory.
18.    Finally, CompTel argues that the nine-month sunset period was designed to benefit
the Commission by providing it with additional time during which to adopt clarifications or
transitional requirements to protect competition and the public interest.  CompTel cites no
Commission authority for this argument, nor can it.  The Bell Atlantic-GTE Merger Order is
silent on this point.  While CompTel's assertion has a superficial appeal, a more persuasive
interpretation is that the sunset period was designed to allow Verizon adequate time to prepare,
among other things, its systems, procedures and processes, address personnel matters and prevent
customer disruption during this reintegration.  The Commission has determined in this instance
that it does not require additional time to "adopt any further clarifications or transitional
requirements," and that Verizon will make all necessary preparations to prevent customer
disruptions.  We do not establish a deadline in this Order by which Verizon must reintegrate
VADI but, rather, we will leave it to Verizon's discretion to determine when it has completed the
required steps to comply with its remaining advanced services obligations contained in the Bell
Atlantic-GTE Merger Conditions.  We expect that Verizon will promptly and expeditiously take
the action outlined in its ex parte and will ensure that there is no customer disruption.  Finally,
Verizon shall immediately inform the Commission, in writing, when it completes its
reintegration work for each state.
     XIX. ORDERING CLAUSES
20.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to sections 1-4, 201-205, 214, 251, 303(r),
and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the
Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C.  151-154, 201-205, 214, 251, 303(r), and 309, and 47 C.F.R 
0.91 and 0.291, that Verizon's May 1, 2001, request to accelerate the sunset of its advanced
services affiliate IS GRANTED.
21.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 408 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  408, that this Order is effective immediately upon release.
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                              Dorothy T. Attwood
                              Chief
                              Common Carrier Bureau