Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Deployment of Wireline Services Offering 
Advanced Telecommunications Capability
)
)
)
)


CC Docket No. 98-147

FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER

   Adopted:  July 12, 2001	Released:  August 8, 2001

By the Commission:  Commissioner Abernathy not participating; Commissioner Martin approving 
in part, concurring in part, and issuing a statement.

Para.
I.	INTRODUCTION	1
II.	BACKGROUND	3
III.	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	12
IV.	DISCUSSION	13
A.	OVERVIEW	13
B.	NECESSARY EQUIPMENT UNDER SECTION 251(C)(6)	15
1.	Background	15
2.	Meaning of Necessary	18
3.	Relationship with Sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3)	27
4.	Multi-functional Equipment	32
5.	Other Equipment	44
C.	CROSS-CONNECTIONS BETWEEN COLLOCATORS	55
1.	Competitive LEC Self-Provisioning of Cross-Connects	61
2.	Incumbent LEC Provisioning of Cross-Connects  Section 201	62
3.	Incumbent LEC Provisioning of Cross-Connects  Section 251	79
D.	SPACE ALLOCATION AND ACCESS	85
1.	Background	85
2.	Space Assignments	89
3.	Separate Rooms and Entrances	98
V.	PROCEDURAL MATTERS	105
A.	FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS	105
B.	FINAL PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ANALYSIS	106
VI.	ORDERING CLAUSES	107
APPENDIX A  LIST OF PARTIES	A-1
APPENDIX B  FINAL RULES	B-1
APPENDIX C FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS	C-1

I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we reevaluate provisions of our collocation rules on remand from 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  The remanded rules 
determined which equipment an incumbent local exchange carriers (incumbent LECs) 
competitors might collocate in the incumbents premises pursuant to section 251(c)(6) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act).   Those rules also 
required that an incumbent LEC allow collocating carriers to install and maintain cables 
connecting different carriers collocated equipment within the incumbents premises.   In addition, 
the remanded rules allowed requesting carriers to determine where within the incumbent LECs 
premises their physical collocation space will be located, precluded the incumbent from restricting 
physical collocation to separate or isolated rooms or floors, and precluded the incumbent from 
requiring the construction of separate entrances for physical collocators to use in accessing their 
own equipment. 
2. On remand, we conclude that equipment is necessary for interconnection or 
access to unbundled network elements within the meaning of section 251(c)(6) and thus may be 
collocated if, absent deployment of the equipment, the requesting carrier would, as a practical, 
economic, or operational matter, be precluded from obtaining equal in quality interconnection 
or nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements from the incumbent LEC.  We also 
limit which multi-functional equipment a requesting carrier may collocate.  We further conclude 
that while an incumbent LEC need not allow collocators to install and maintain cross-connects 
between different carriers collocated equipment, an incumbent LEC itself must provide these 
cross-connects upon reasonable request.  We conclude, in addition, that an incumbent LEC may 
decide where collocated equipment will be placed within its premises as long as the incumbent 
acts reasonably and nondiscriminatorily, and we specify minimum standards defining reasonable 
and nondiscriminatory behavior in this context.  We also determine that an incumbent LEC may 
separate the space physical collocators occupy and the entrances to that space from other space 
and entrances within its premises, except in certain limited circumstances. 
II. BACKGROUND
3. In general, in order to interconnect with an incumbent LEC or to access an 
incumbent LECs unbundled network elements, competitors must be able to directly access the 
incumbents facilities with their own equipment.  The most practical and efficient places in an 
incumbents network where this direct access can occur are those centralized points where 
individual, subscriber-generated telecommunications traffic is aggregated onto common links for 
transmitting the traffic through the network or onto other networks.  Collocation allows 
competitors to place their own equipment directly into these centralized points on the incumbents 
network. 
4. In the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996 Act),  Congress specifically required 
incumbent LECs to allow competitive telecommunications carriers to collocate equipment at 
incumbent LEC premises, enabling facilities-based competitors to provide a full array of 
competitive local exchange, exchange access, and other telecommunications services.  Through its 
experience over the last five years in implementing the 1996 Act, the Commission has learned that 
only by encouraging competitive LECs to build their own facilities or migrate toward facilities-
based entry will real and long-lasting competition take root in the local market.   At the same 
time, the Commission has recognized that most facilities-based providers still require the use of 
some component of the incumbents local network in order to be able to compete with the 
incumbent and to justify the huge investments in infrastructure that are necessary to build out their 
own telecommunications networks.   In addition, whether or not a competitor builds a wholly-
owned network or uses parts of the incumbents network, most alternative providers inevitably 
must interconnect their new networks with the existing network of the incumbent in order for 
customers of both networks to communicate with each other.  Therefore, collocation continues to 
play an essential role in fostering competitive facilities-based entry and expansion into the local 
market. 
5. Significantly, over these same five years, the rapid pace of development and 
investment in innovative technologies has ushered in a fundamental change in the potential 
services and capabilities available to end users.  In particular, the increased use of packet-based 
technologies has begun to revolutionize the delivery of telecommunications services.  In part as a 
result of opportunities created by the 1996 Act, a burgeoning of new technologies has enabled 
network builders to begin turning away from the traditional circuit switched network and its 
reliance on single-function equipment and rigid routing hierarchies.  These new networks employ 
cutting edge developments in computing, packet technology, digitization, and optical 
transmission to offer customers both traditional voice services and an ever-increasing array of 
advanced services.  The result has been the deployment of technologies that can perform more 
functions, at greater efficiency and higher speeds, than prior technologies.  
6. These changes in technology have not only resulted in the deployment of new 
equipment that was barely, if at all, used in the public switched telecommunications network five 
years ago when the 1996 Act was passed, but also have enabled dramatically different network 
architectures and designs.  These changes in technology have enabled providers to choose from 
myriad network architectures through which to serve end users.  Some of these networks rely on 
centralized hubs to manage traffic flows and thus resemble, despite achieving far greater 
efficiency, the networks incumbent LECs deployed prior to the enactment of the 1996 Act.   
Other network designs seek to migrate previously centralized functions to the networks edge.   
Still others seek to disaggregate what had previously been considered inseparable network 
functionalities into more discrete components that can be distributed throughout the network.    
In other words, equipment choices and the attendant network architectures are increasingly 
becoming more diverse than those available in yesterdays unitary, circuit-switched network 
environment.  Competitors now can  and do  use equipment and network architecture to 
differentiate themselves.  In the end, not all the new technologies and associated architectures may 
be sustainable.  In the past, however, a single monopoly provider would have made this decision; 
now, the 1996 Act puts the decision in the hands of the marketplace.  
7. Indeed, we have previously recognized that, in adopting the 1996 Act, Congress 
consciously did not try to pick winners or losers, or favor one technology over another.   Rather, 
Congress set up a framework from which competition could develop, one that attempted to place 
incumbents and competitors on generally equal footing, so that each could share the efficiencies of 
an already ubiquitously-deployed local infrastructure while retaining independent incentives to 
deploy new, innovative technologies and alternative infrastructure.  The obligation imposed on 
incumbents to allow for the collocation of competitors equipment at the incumbents premises is 
a critical, if not fundamental, component of this equation.  Without mandatory collocation rights, 
competitors would not be able to achieve direct access to incumbent bottleneck facilities, and 
competitors would be thwarted in their ability to deploy alternative, innovative technologies.  
Such a result would significantly diminish one of the bedrock principles of the 1996 Act  the 
promotion of competition to spur infrastructure investment and technological innovation. 
8. Through innovative technologies, the market is already bringing customers a 
broader offering of new services and capabilities.  Because these technologies are still relatively 
nascent, it is likely that the services available in todays market are only a precursor to an even 
wider array of services that promise to be deployed in the near future.  As a result, the types of 
equipment that competitors seek to collocate in 2001 are dramatically different than the 
equipment being collocated when the 1996 Act was passed.  Similarly, given current trends, it is 
likely that the changes in the types of equipment required for collocation in 2006 will continue to 
reflect this unparalleled speed of technological evolution.  However, although the types of 
equipment being deployed have changed since the passage of the 1996 Act, and likely will 
continue to change, the fundamental purpose for collocation remains the same  to allow 
competitors direct access to bottleneck facilities in order to provide competitive 
telecommunications services, including an ever-increasing array of new, advanced services.
9. One of the 1996 Act's core market-opening provisions is section 251(c)(6) of the 
Communications Act, which requires incumbent LECs to provide . . . for physical collocation of 
equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the premises 
of the local exchange carrier.   In 1996, in the Local Competition Order, the Commission 
adopted rules to implement section 251(c)(6).   These rules addressed, among other matters, 
where competitive LECs could physically collocate equipment, the types of equipment that could 
be collocated, and how incumbent LECs should allocate space in the event insufficient physical 
collocation space is available.  While the Commission adopted specific and detailed national 
collocation rules, the Commission concluded that state commissions should have the flexibility to 
adopt additional collocation requirements that are consistent with the Communications Act and 
the Commission's implementing rules. 
10. Three years later, in the Advanced Services First Report and Order, the 
Commission modified the collocation rules to remove barriers to telecommunications competition, 
particularly in the nascent advanced services market.   These rules require incumbent LECs to 
expand their collocation offerings to include cageless and shared collocation, among other 
physical collocation arrangements.   Further, when collocation space is exhausted at a particular 
incumbent LEC location, the incumbent LEC must permit collocation in adjacent controlled 
environmental vaults or similar structures to the extent technically feasible.   The Commission 
specified, among other requirements, that a collocation method used by one incumbent LEC or 
mandated by a state commission is presumptively technically feasible for any other incumbent 
LEC.   The Commission specified that these strengthened collocation rules should serve as 
minimum requirements and continued to recognize that the state commissions may adopt 
additional collocation requirements. 
11. In GTE v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit affirmed much of the Advanced Services First 
Report and Order, but vacated and remanded for further consideration certain aspects of that 
Order.   Specifically, the court vacated and remanded the requirement that an incumbent LEC 
permit collocation of any equipment that is used or useful for either interconnection or access to 
unbundled network elements, regardless of the other functionalities inherent in such equipment.   
The court also vacated and remanded the requirement that incumbent LECs allow competitive 
LECs to construct cross-connects outside of their immediate physical collocation space.   Finally, 
the court vacated and remanded the Advanced Services First Report and Order to the extent it 
gave requesting carriers the option of selecting physical collocation space from among the unused 
space within the incumbent LECs premises, prohibited the incumbent from placing collocators in 
a room or isolated space separate from the incumbents own equipment, and precluded the 
incumbent from requiring competitors to use separate entrances to access their own equipment.   
The D.C. Circuit found that the remanded rules diverge[d] from any realistic meaning of the 
statute, because the Commission ha[d] favored the [incumbent] LECs competitors in ways that 
exceed what is necessary to achieve reasonable physical collocation and in ways that may 
result in unnecessary takings of [incumbent] LEC property. 
III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
12. We take several actions in this Fourth Report and Order, including:
? We find that equipment is necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled 
network elements within the meaning of section 251(c)(6) if an inability to deploy 
that equipment would, as a practical, economic, or operational matter, preclude the 
requesting carrier from obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled network 
elements as contemplated in sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3).
? We find that multifunction equipment meets the necessary standard only if the 
primary purpose and function of the equipment, as the requesting carrier seeks to 
deploy it, are to provide the requesting carrier with equal in quality 
interconnection or nondiscriminatory access to one or more unbundled network 
elements.  We also find that any function that would not meet our equipment 
standard as a stand-alone function must not cause the equipment to significantly 
increase the burden on the incumbents property.
? We conclude that switching and routing equipment typically meets our equipment 
standard because an inability to deploy that equipment would, as a practical, 
economic, or operational matter, preclude a requesting carrier from obtaining 
nondiscriminatory access to an unbundled network element, the local loop.  As a 
general matter, an incumbent LEC therefore must allow requesting carriers to 
collocate switching and routing equipment.  An incumbent LEC, however, 
generally need not allow collocation of traditional circuit switches, which are very 
large pieces of equipment compared to newer, more advanced switching and 
routing equipment.  We find, in light of the practical, economic, and operational 
availability of the relatively small switches and routers, that traditional circuit 
switches generally do not meet our equipment standard.
? We eliminate the Commissions previous requirement, adopted pursuant to section 
251(c)(6), that an incumbent LEC allow competitive LECs to construct and 
maintain cross-connects outside of their immediate physical collocation space at 
the incumbents premises.  We find, however, that sections 201 and 251(c)(6) 
authorize us to require that an incumbent LEC provision cross-connects between 
collocated carriers, and we require that an incumbent LEC provide such cross-
connects upon reasonable request.
? We eliminate rules that gave carriers requesting physical collocation the option of 
picking their physical collocation space from among the unused space in an 
incumbent LECs premises, that precluded an incumbent LEC from restricting 
physical collocation to space separated from space housing the incumbents 
equipment, and that precluded an incumbent from requiring the construction and 
use of a separate entrance to access physical collocation space.  In their place, we 
establish principles to ensure that the incumbent LECs policies and practices in 
assigning and configuring physical collocation space are consistent with the 
statutory requirement that the incumbent provide for physical collocation on 
rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. 
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Overview
13. On remand, we reinterpret section 251(c)(6) in light of the D.C. Circuits opinion.  
In the first section below, we interpret the term necessary as used in section 251(c)(6) by 
determining that equipment is eligible for collocation only if an inability to deploy that equipment 
would, as a practical, economic, or operational matter, preclude the requesting carrier from 
obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled network elements as contemplated in sections 
251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3).  In the second section below, we adopt a revised cross-connect rule that 
minimizes the intrusion into the incumbent LECs property interests but promotes Congress 
overall statutory purpose in fostering competition and technological innovation.   In the final 
section, we conclude that an incumbent LEC should have ultimate authority over assigning and 
configuring space within its premises, albeit with specific limitations that curtail its ability to use 
this authority in an anti-competitive manner. 
14. We adopt these rule amendments to more appropriately implement the balances 
reflected in the statute, between promoting competition and technological innovation in all 
telecommunications markets, and establishing limits on the scope of the intrusion allowed into the 
incumbent LECs property rights to avoid unnecessary takings of such property.  Nonetheless, 
through these amended rules, we reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that facilities-based 
competitors have the incentive and ability to invest in alternative infrastructure and innovative 
technologies, while, at the same time, ensuring that incumbents retain similar incentives and 
capabilities.
B. Necessary Equipment under Section 251(c)(6)
1. Background
15. Section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act requires incumbent LECs to permit 
collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network 
elements.   In the Local Competition Order, the Commission interpreted section 251(c)(6) as 
requiring incumbent LECs to permit competitors to collocate equipment that is used or useful 
for either interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.   Consistent with this 
interpretation, the Commission concluded that competitive LECs may collocate transmission 
equipment, including optical terminating equipment and multiplexers, at incumbent LEC 
premises.   The Commission also concluded that section 251(c)(6) does not require that an 
incumbent LEC permit the collocation of switching equipment or equipment used to provide 
enhanced services.   The Commission recognized, however, that technological developments 
were tending to blur the line between multiplexing and switching, and indicated that it would 
reexamine the meaning of section 251(c)(6) if such action would further the 1996 Acts 
procompetitive goals. 
16. In the Advanced Services First Report and Order, the Commission did in fact 
reexamine the meaning of section 251(c)(6) and determined that it should be interpreted as 
requiring incumbent LECs to allow collocation of any equipment that is used or useful for either 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements, regardless of whether such equipment 
includes a switching functionality, provides enhanced services capabilities, or offers other 
functionalities.   The Commission required incumbent LECs to permit collocation of such 
equipment as digital subscriber line access multiplexers (DSLAMs), routers, asynchronous 
transfer mode (ATM) multiplexers, and remote switching modules.   The Commission also 
concluded that an incumbent LEC must not limit a competitors ability to use all the features, 
functions, and capabilities of collocated equipment, including, but not limited to, switching and 
routing features and functions. 
17. In GTE v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit determined that the Commissions interpretation 
of necessary under section 251(c)(6) seem[ed] overly broad and disconnected from [that 
provisions] statutory purpose.   The court held that a statutory reference to necessary must 
be construed in a fashion that is consistent with the ordinary and fair meaning of the word, i.e., so 
as to limit necessary to that which is required to achieve a desired goal.   The court was 
particularly concerned that the Commissions construction diverge[d] from any realistic meaning 
of the statute, because the Commission [had] favored the [incumbent] LECs competitors in ways 
that exceed what is necessary to achieve reasonable physical collocation and in ways that may 
result in unnecessary takings of [incumbent] LEC property.   Concluding that the Commissions 
construction of necessary in section 251(c)(6) failed to meet the statutory standard, the court 
vacated and remanded the Advanced Services First Report and Order to the extent it required 
that an incumbent LEC permit physical collocation of equipment that is not directly related to 
and thus necessary, required, or indispensable to interconnection or access to unbundled network 
elements.   The court made clear, however, that the Commission could construe necessary 
differently on remand as long as the Commissions construction stayed within the limits of the 
ordinary and fair meaning of section 251(c)(6). 
2. Meaning of Necessary
18. To determine the meaning of necessary as used in section 251(c)(6), we look 
first to the text of the statute.  Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LECs to provide for 
collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements 
at the premises of the local exchange carrier . . . .   We agree with the D.C. Circuit and many of 
the commenters that any search for [the] plain meaning of necessary as used in this 
provision is fruitless.   As the D.C. Circuits opinion implicitly recognizes, necessary has 
varying degrees.   Neither the statutory language nor the legislative history reveals the degree of 
necessity that Congress intended to require in enacting section 251(c)(6).   We therefore look to 
the broader statutory scheme and the underlying policy goals to determine the meaning of 
necessary as used in section 251(c)(6).   As the court directed, however, any meaning we 
ascribe to that term must be consistent with the ordinary and fair meaning of the word, i.e., so as 
to limit necessary to that which is required to achieve a desired goal.  
19. Section 251 establishes a list of requirements that apply to various types of 
telecommunications carriers.  Section 251(c) sets out those that apply to incumbent LECs.  
Sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3), in particular, impose interconnection and unbundled network 
element obligations on incumbent LECs.  In addition, section 251(d)(2)(A) of the Act requires 
that, in determining which network elements should be unbundled under section 251(c)(3), the 
Commission must consider whether access to such network elements as are proprietary in nature 
is necessary.   Because sections 251(c)(6) and 251(d)(2)(A) both use the same term, 
necessary, in reference to the same concept, access to [unbundled] network elements, we 
believe it reasonable to interpret necessary in the two provisions similarly.
20. The similarity of purpose behind sections 251(c)(6) and 251(d)(2)(A) supports this 
view of necessary.  These provisions grant competitors certain interconnection, unbundled 
access, and collocation rights in order to promote the public interests in competition and 
technological innovation.  But as the Supreme Court determined with regard to unbundled 
network elements and the D.C. Circuit determined with regard to collocation, those rights are not 
unlimited.   Instead, we believe it reasonable to conclude that Congress used the term 
necessary in both provisions to balance two important, but potentially competing purposes.  On 
the one hand, both provisions seek to promote competition and innovation through the grant of 
collocation rights and the right to access unbundled network elements.  On the other hand, both 
provisions seek to protect an incumbent LECs legitimate property interests against unwarranted 
intrusion:  in the case of section 251(d)(2)(A), the property is intellectual property; in the case of 
section 251(c)(6), it is real property.
21. Because of the similarities in statutory language and purpose, we believe it is 
reasonable to conclude that necessary in sections 251(c)(6) and 251(d)(2)(A) balances public 
and private interests in much the same manner.  We therefore also conclude that our standard for 
determining which equipment is necessary within the meaning of section 251(c)(6) should be 
similar to our standard for determining which proprietary network elements are necessary 
within the meaning of section 251(d)(2)(A).   In the UNE Remand Order, we concluded that a 
proprietary network element is necessary within the meaning of section 251(d)(2)(A) if lack of 
access to that element would, as a practical, economic, and operational matter, preclude a 
requesting carrier from providing the services it seeks to offer.   Similarly, as we explain in more 
detail below, we now conclude that equipment is necessary for interconnection or access to 
unbundled network elements within the meaning of section 251(c)(6) if an inability to deploy that 
equipment would, as a practical, economic, or operational matter, preclude the requesting carrier 
from obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.   As we also explain 
below, we conclude, in addition, that the scope of these collocation obligations are co-extensive 
with the interconnection and unbundled access obligations contained in sections 251(c)(2) and 
251(c)(3). 
22. In applying this equipment standard where multiple equipment options exist to 
provide interconnection or access to an unbundled network element, the parties must take into 
account the relative burdens that deployment of the different options would place on the 
incumbent LECs property interests.  Specifically, the record indicates that most 
telecommunications equipment will be available from multiple manufacturers, often in many 
different models.   Where the different options of necessary equipment impose roughly 
comparable demands on the incumbents space and other resources, our standard allows the 
requesting carrier to choose which particular option to deploy.
23. In some circumstances, however, implementing a particular equipment option 
might increase the overall demand on the incumbents resources so significantly as to require the 
requesting carrier to choose a different option.  For instance, extremely large equipment might 
require that the incumbent provide the requesting carrier with more total physical collocation 
space than would be required if other equipment were deployed.  Similarly, extremely heavy 
equipment might require that the incumbent provide floor support beyond that typically available 
in the incumbents premises.  An incumbent also might have to upgrade otherwise sufficient 
power, air conditioning, heating, or similar plant in order to accommodate equipment that places 
unusually great demands on that infrastructure.  We believe that a requesting carrier should not be 
considered practically, economically, or operationally precluded by an inability to deploy a 
particular piece of equipment, if deployment of that particular equipment would burden an 
incumbents property interests, and alternative equipment not imposing such a burden were 
practically, economically, and operationally available to obtain interconnection or access to 
unbundled network elements, as described above.  
24. We reject any suggestion that we must or should adopt a definition of necessary 
significantly different from that adopted with respect to section 251(d)(2)(A).  We find that most 
of the alternative approaches proposed in the record either provide little additional guidance 
beyond the actual statutory language or do not provide an adequate limiting principle, as required 
by the D.C. Circuits remand.  For example, some of the suggested definitions fall outside the 
ordinary and fair meaning of necessary and therefore are inconsistent with the statute and the 
courts remand.   Other proposed definitions substitute equally vague synonyms for an already 
ambiguous statutory term.   Finally, some proposed definitions classify equipment as necessary 
on bases that appear unrelated to the statutory standard.  For instance, certain competitive LECs 
appear to be equating the term necessary with any equipment that an incumbent deploys in its 
premises, regardless of its function.   We find these proposals inconsistent with both the language 
and purposes of section 251(c)(6). 
25. We also reject the argument, advanced by some incumbent LECs and competitive 
LECs, that we should interpret necessary as modifying physical collocation, rather than 
equipment in section 251(c)(6).   Such a reading would wrongly place our focus on whether 
collocation of the equipment is necessary for interconnection and access to unbundled network 
elements as opposed to whether the equipment itself, regardless of its location in the network, is 
necessary for interconnection and access to unbundled network elements.   Section 251(c)(6), 
instead, provides for physical collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or access 
to unbundled network elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier . . . .   We find that 
the most natural reading of this statutory language is that necessary modifies equipment.  
Under this reading, we find that simple grammar dictates that the term necessary modifies 
equipment not physical collocation, which appears earlier in the statutory text.  
26. We find, moreover, that this natural reading is consistent with the overall structure 
of section 251(c)(6).  In addition to requiring physical collocation, section 251(c)(6) states that an 
incumbent LEC may provide for virtual collocation if . . . physical collocation is not practical for 
technical reasons or because of space limitations.   Interpreting section 251(c)(6) as providing 
for the collocation of necessary equipment accords virtual collocation a logical role in the 
statutory scheme.   Specifically, under this interpretation, the incumbent LEC would have to 
allow collocation of any necessary equipment.  This collocation normally would be physical; but 
where physical collocation is impractical, the incumbent could provide for virtual collocation.   In 
contrast, determining that necessary modifies physical collocation would result in a seemingly 
self-contradictory statute.  Under that interpretation, section 251(c)(6) would provide for 
physical collocation whenever the necessary test is met, giving the option for virtual 
collocation no independent meaning.   
3. Relationship with Sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3)
27. Having defined the term necessary, we also must determine the scope of 
activities for which competitors are entitled to collocate.  The specific statutory purpose for which 
an incumbent LECs competitors may collocate necessary equipment is for interconnection or 
access to unbundled network elements.   Several parties argue that interconnection as used in 
section 251(c)(6) refers to interconnection as used in section 251(c)(2) and access to 
unbundled network as used in section 251(c)(6) refers to access to network elements on an 
unbundled basis as used in section 251(c)(3).   We agree with these arguments.  Because section 
251(c), by its terms, applies only to incumbent LECs and because section 251(c)(6) references the 
same obligations  using virtually identical language  detailed in sections 251(c)(2) and 
251(c)(3), we conclude that the most reasonable interpretation of the collocation obligations in 
section 251(c)(6) is that they are coextensive with the requirements of sections 251(c)(2) and 
251(c)(3).   Accordingly, we find that section 251(c)(6) encompasses the scope of the 
interconnection and network access obligations imposed in sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3). 
28. The Communications Act and the Commissions prior orders define the scope of 
the interconnection and network access obligations imposed in sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3).  
Section 251(c)(2) requires each incumbent LEC to provide, for the facilities and equipment of 
any requesting telecommunications carrier, interconnection with the [incumbent LECs]   network 
. . . for the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange   access . . . at 
any technically feasible point within the [incumbents] network.   This interconnection must be 
at least equal in quality to that provided by the [incumbent] to itself or to any subsidiary, affiliate, 
or any other party to which the [incumbent] provides interconnection; and . . . on rates, terms, and 
conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory . . . .   Section 251(c)(3) requires 
each incumbent LEC to provide to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision 
of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled 
basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and 
nondiscriminatory . . . .   The Commission has required that an incumbent LEC must provide 
requesting carriers with nondiscriminatory access to all the features, functions, and capabilities of 
an unbundled network element. 
29. Whether equipment is necessary for interconnection within the meaning of 
section 251(c)(6) logically depends on the equipments effect on the requesting carriers ability to 
obtain interconnection equal to that which the incumbent provides itself or others within the 
meaning of section 251(c)(2).   Similarly, whether equipment is necessary for . . . access to 
unbundled network elements within the meaning of section 251(c)(6) logically depends on the 
equipments effect on the requesting carriers ability to obtain nondiscriminatory access to 
unbundled network elements within the meaning of section 251(c)(3).   Otherwise, collocated 
equipment would provide interconnection and access different from (i.e., either inferior or 
superior to) the quality provided for in sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3).   We therefore conclude 
that section 251(c)(6) allows a requesting carrier to collocate any equipment necessary for 
obtaining equal interconnection or nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements as 
contemplated in sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3).  
30. In the Local Competition Order, the Commission concluded that the equal in 
quality standard in section 251(c)(2) requires that an incumbent LEC design interconnection 
facilities to meet the same technical criteria and service standards, including transmission 
standards, that are used within the incumbents own network.   Accordingly, applying the 
statutory standard set forth in section 251(c)(2), we conclude that section 251(c)(6) allows the 
interconnecting carrier to collocate any equipment necessary for interconnecting with the 
incumbent LEC at a level equal in quality to that which the incumbent obtains within its own 
network or the incumbent provides to any affiliate, subsidiary, or other party. 
31. Similarly, as the Supreme Court held in AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd., a network 
element need not be part of the physical facilities or equipment that an incumbent uses to 
provide local phone service.   Rather, that statutory term includes, in addition to such facilities 
or equipment, the features, functions, and capabilities provided by such facilities or equipment.   
Therefore, in order to obtain nondiscriminatory access to an unbundled network element within 
the meaning of section 251(c)(3), a carrier must be able to obtain more than mere access to the 
physical facilities and equipment included within the element.   The carrier must instead be able to 
access all of the features, functions, and capabilities provided by means of the facilities and 
equipment.   We therefore reject SBCs position that requiring access to an elements features, 
functions, and capabilities expands the meaning of access beyond statutory limits.   Instead, 
such a requirement properly recognizes that the statutory definition of network element, as 
interpreted by the Supreme Court, includes, in addition to a facility or equipment used in the 
provision of a telecommunications service, the features, functions, and capabilities provided by 
such facility or equipment.   Because the incumbent is able to access these features, functions, 
and capabilities, the nondiscrimination requirement in section 251(c)(3) mandates that the 
requesting carrier also be able to achieve similar access.  Therefore, applying the statutory 
standard set forth in section 251(c)(3), we further conclude that section 251(c)(6) allows a 
requesting carrier to collocate any equipment necessary for obtaining nondiscriminatory access 
to an unbundled network element, including any of its features, functions, or capabilities.   
4. Multi-functional Equipment
32. Our standard for determining whether equipment is necessary requires that, absent 
deployment of the equipment, the requesting carrier would, as a practical, economic, or 
operational matter, be precluded from obtaining equal in quality interconnection or 
nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements from an incumbent LEC.  Because the 
D.C. Circuit was particularly troubled by the Commissions previous analysis of multi-functional 
equipment, we find it appropriate to elaborate on how this standard applies to this equipment, 
which we define as equipment that combines functions that meet our equipment standard with 
functions that would not meet that standard as stand-alone functions.   As the D.C. Circuit 
recognized, requiring that an incumbent LEC allow collocation of all multi-functional equipment 
regardless of the unnecessary functions that the equipment may be able to perform might 
unnecessarily take incumbent LEC property.   On the other hand, precluding collocation of 
equipment that provides even a single unnecessary function regardless of the necessary 
functions the equipment would perform, as a practical, economic, or operational matter, might 
relegate collocators to outmoded and inadequate technology in contravention of the 
procompetitive and innovation-enhancing statutory purposes. 
33. The incumbent LECs deploy multi-functional equipment throughout their networks 
and thus are able to realize the productivity increases that developments in micro-processing, 
optical transmission, and other technologies offer.   We agree with several parties that the 
incumbents competitors also must be able to realize these same benefits in order to further 
Congress vision of a fully competitive telecommunications marketplace.   In addition, we 
conclude that allowing the collocation of multi-functional equipment is critical to the realization of 
Congress goal of promoting competition and technological innovation.  Specifically, multi-
functional equipment is designed to enable telecommunications carriers, both incumbents and their 
competitors, to offer their customers an ever-increasing array of telecommunications services, 
including advanced services, with ever-increasing efficiency.  
34. We find that in certain circumstances collocation of multi-functional equipment is 
consistent with the statutory language and purposes.  In doing so, we agree with Qwest and other 
commenters that one of the D.C. Circuits principal concerns with respect to the Commissions 
prior equipment rule was its failure to establish any standard limiting the functions that a 
competitor could include in collocated multi-functional equipment.   The court, however, did not 
foreclose a rule allowing collocation of at least some multi-functional equipment, provided the 
rule is consistent with the statutory language and purposes. 
35. On remand, we adopt an approach for multi-functional equipment similar to that 
suggested by Qwest and generally supported by several other commenters.   In this regard, we 
believe it is important to point out that Qwest is both an incumbent LEC and a competitive LEC.  
As Qwest itself emphasizes, it is thus:
[B]oth a major purchaser and provider of collocation.  Accordingly, 
Qwest is in the unique position of having to balance the need and 
desire of a [competitive LEC] for collocation space for its own uses 
with the totally lawful desire of an incumbent LEC to make use of 
its own private property for its own uses. 
Because we believe these to be factors about which the court expressed concern, we find Qwests 
comments particularly persuasive. 
36. We conclude that the best way to address the courts concerns regarding multi-
functional equipment is to require an incumbent LEC to allow collocation of that equipment, if the 
primary purpose and function of the equipment, as the requesting carrier seeks to deploy it, are to 
provide the requesting carrier with equal in quality interconnection or nondiscriminatory 
access to one or more unbundled network elements.   This condition is a direct application of 
the standard we adopt above for determining whether equipment is necessary within the meaning 
of section 251(c)(6).  This condition recognizes the critical relationship between the equipment 
sought to be collocated and the specific interconnection or unbundled network elements the 
requesting carrier seeks from the incumbent LEC.   It will ensure that a requesting carrier will not 
include a necessary function in equipment solely as a pretext for assuring its collocation. 
37. In applying this condition, the parties must consider the extent to which the 
particular equipment, as the requesting carrier seeks to deploy it, would perform functions that 
are practically, economically, or operationally necessary for that carrier to obtain equal in 
quality interconnection or nondiscriminatory access to one or more unbundled network 
elements, as opposed to functions that would not meet our equipment standard as stand-alone 
functions.  In this regard, we agree with Qwest that the requesting carrier must be intending to 
utilize the equipment primarily to obtain equal in quality interconnection or nondiscriminatory 
access to one or more unbundled network elements.   We also find that, for purposes of 
determining whether a piece of equipment is to be utilized primarily to obtain "equal in quality" 
interconnection or "nondiscriminatory access to one or more unbundled network elements, there 
must be a logical nexus between the additional functions the equipment would perform and the 
telecommunication services the requesting carrier seeks to provide to its customers by means of 
the interconnection or unbundled network element.   For instance, if a requesting carrier seeks to 
provide customers with telephone exchange service and exchange access, the additional functions 
should aid in the transmission or routing of those services.   
38. We believe that limiting the functions that a requesting carrier may utilize in 
collocated multi-functional equipment in this manner reasonably balances the competing interests.  
As an initial matter, this approach properly recognizes that an incumbent LEC need not allow 
deployment of multi-functional equipment to the extent the requesting carrier intends to use it to 
perform functions, like payroll processing or certain types of data collection, that are unrelated to 
the requesting carriers ability to obtain equal in quality interconnection or nondiscriminatory 
access to unbundled network elements.   But beyond that, this approach also recognizes that, 
given the statutory requirement that an incumbent LEC provide for collocation of necessary 
equipment, rather than necessary functions, application of our equipment standard to 
particular multi-functional equipment should focus on whether that equipment meets our 
equipment standard on an overall, as opposed to a function-by-function, basis.
39. In the context of multi-functional equipment and in light of the concerns expressed 
by the court, we believe that further refinement of our equipment standard is needed to ensure 
that the additional functions do not unnecessarily burden incumbent LEC property interests.  
Specifically, we find that the parties must consider whether the additional functions increase the 
overall demand on the incumbents space and other resources above the levels that would prevail 
if the functions were excluded from the equipment or not activated.  If the increase in demand due 
to the inclusion of additional functions is significant, the equipment would fail to meet the 
necessary standard.   For example, a difference in the demand on an incumbents space would 
be unacceptable if the incumbent had to reconfigure the outer boundaries of a carriers physical 
collocation space in order to accommodate the additional functions.  Similarly, a difference in 
demand on an incumbents other resources would be unacceptable if the additional functions were 
to require that the incumbent provide floor support beyond that typically available in the 
incumbents premises in order to accommodate extremely heavy equipment or that the incumbent 
upgrade otherwise sufficient power, air conditioning, heating, or similar plant in order to 
accommodate equipment that places unusually great demand on that infrastructure. 
40. We find it reasonable to conclude that an incumbents property interests (as 
opposed to its competitive interests) are not implicated by the inclusion of additional functions in 
collocated equipment or the requesting carriers activation of those functions unless those actions 
affect the demand on the incumbents space and other resources so significantly as to increase the 
relative burden on the incumbents property interests.   We recognize that much, and perhaps 
most, of the multi-functional equipment that requesting carriers may wish to collocate is smaller 
(and therefore requires less space), requires less power, and generates less heat than any available 
single-function equipment.   Collocation of this multi-functional equipment therefore likely 
would not entail any appreciably greater imposition on the incumbents space and supporting 
infrastructure than single-function equipment would entail.  In addition, the record indicates that 
multi-functional equipment is rapidly replacing, if not making obsolete, single-function 
equipment.   To the extent single-function equipment is available, it is unlikely to place 
significantly lesser demand on the incumbents space and supporting infrastructure than multi-
functional equipment that meets our standard.   We therefore find that collocation of multi-
functional equipment in the circumstances described above is consistent with the statutory 
language and purposes.
41. In finding that in certain circumstances collocation of multi-functional equipment is 
consistent with the statutory language and purposes, we reject, on the one hand, positions that 
would result in a blanket prohibition of multi-functional equipment and, on the other hand, 
proposals that would result in the adoption of a standard without real limiting principles.  
Specifically, we reject BellSouths, SBCs, and Verizons argument that an incumbent LEC must 
be allowed to preclude collocation of any equipment that includes one or more functionalities 
whose deployment is unnecessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network 
elements.   We find this approach to be unreasonably narrow and disconnected from the 
statutory purposes.   As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by BellSouths, SBCs, and 
Verizons argument that the statute compels this approach.  On the contrary, this approach would 
require that section 251(c)(6) limit requesting carriers to collocation of functionalities necessary 
for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.   We find no basis in the 
statutory language, broader statutory scheme, or the legislative history for interpreting the statute 
in this way.  Rather, we find it telling that, in the 1996 Act, Congress carefully distinguished 
between equipment and its functions when it wanted to do so.   Thus, we do not find that 
section 251(c)(6) compels that an incumbent must be able to exclude from collocation any 
equipment that contains a single functionality that, if offered on a stand-alone basis, would be 
deemed unnecessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.
42. As discussed above,  section 251(c)(6) reflects the congressional desire to 
promote competition and technological innovation, while recognizing the incumbents interest in 
using and managing its property.  BellSouths, SBCs, and Verizons approach toward multi-
functional equipment fails to balance these congressional goals, instead focusing solely on the 
impact multi-functional equipment may have on their property interests.   We believe that our 
approach reasonably balances these interests because it imposes limits on a requesting carriers 
ability to collocate and deploy multi-functional equipment that protect the incumbents property 
against burdensome intrusions, while permitting requesting carriers a degree of freedom to choose 
the equipment that best fits their technical and competitive needs. 
43. At the other extreme, the proposals of some competitive LECs that would give 
requesting carriers virtually unrestricted rights regarding multi-functional equipment would allow, 
at least conceptually, the collocation and activation of a vast array of multi-functional equipment 
without regard to the effect such actions would have on the incumbents ability to use and manage 
their own property.   While collocation of this equipment might marginally increase a requesting 
carriers ability to compete, such an increase simply does not make any particular piece of 
equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements within the 
meaning of section 251(c)(6).   We find that a more balanced approach, as described above, 
more appropriately advances the congressional goal of promoting competition and technological 
innovation without unnecessarily infringing on an incumbents property interests.
5. Other Equipment
44. A number of commenters, including ATG and Sprint, ask that we determine that 
certain types of equipment are necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network 
elements within the meaning of section 251(c)(6).   This equipment includes optical terminating 
equipment, fiber distribution frames, ATM multiplexers, concentration devices, DSLAMs, and 
microwave transmission facilities,  as well as splitters,  equipment to light dark fiber,  and 
ancillary equipment that enables a requesting carrier to assure proper provisioning and functioning 
of other collocated equipment.   For the most part, there is little, if any, controversy regarding 
the equipment these commenters seek to collocate.   Because we anticipate that incumbents will 
allow collocation of the non-controversial equipment without further regulatory intervention, we 
find no need to address whether much of the equipment these commenters seek to collocate meets 
the equipment standard we adopt in this Order.   We also are concerned that any list of 
necessary equipment we might develop would quickly become obsolete as manufacturers 
develop, and carriers deploy in new ways, the ever-increasing array of equipment that 
technological advances have made possible.  A decision on our part that a particular type of 
equipment is unnecessary, given todays network architectures, might impede the development 
of new architectures that expand the services carriers are able to provide their customers. 
45. The main controversy on this record with regard to single-function equipment 
concerns equipment having switching or routing capability.   Competitive LECs maintain that 
they must perform switching and routing functions to access unbundled local loops, and therefore 
must be able to collocate switching or routing equipment.  As explained below, we now agree 
with competitive LECs that switching or routing capability is necessary to access all the features, 
functions, and capabilities of unbundled local loops.  Specifically, as discussed below, we find 
that, in certain instances, switching and routing equipment meets our equipment standard and is 
thus necessary equipment entitled to collocation pursuant to section 251(c)(6). 
46. Under section 251(c)(3), requesting carriers are entitled to access all the features, 
functions and capabilities of unbundled network elements.  The Commission has previously held 
that this means that competitors are entitled to more than mere physical access to unbundled local 
loops.   Switching and routing equipment allows a competitor to access the features, functions, 
and capabilities that accommodate the transmission of voice and data traffic over that loop, 
between the end user and the specified destination.   For purposes of section 251(c)(3), we 
believe that a switch or router provides a requesting carrier with access to the local loop in a 
manner functionally equivalent to a DSLAM, the equipment incumbents and their competitors 
deploy to access the local loops capability of providing xDSL services and which most 
commenters, including several incumbent LECS, concede satisfies the necessary standard.   
Without equipment such as a DSLAM, switch, or router, the local loop is merely a transmission 
medium theoretically capable of carrying telecommunications traffic.  To access an unbundled 
local loops theoretical capability of providing a telecommunications service, i.e., of 
accommodating the transmission of information between or among points specified by the 
user,  a requesting carrier must, as a practical, economic, and operational matter, be able to 
switch or route traffic to or from that loop.  Therefore, switching and routing equipment is 
necessary for accessing all the features, functions, and capabilities of an unbundled local loop that 
facilitate the transmission of telecommunications traffic.   
47. As explained above,  however, an inability to deploy a particular piece of 
switching or routing equipment may not preclude a requesting carrier from obtaining 
interconnection or obtaining access to unbundled network elements, if deployment of that 
particular equipment would burden an incumbents property interests and alternative equipment 
not imposing such a burden were practically, economically, and operationally available to obtain 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements consistent with sections 251(c)(2) and 
251(c)(3).  We find this statement particularly applicable to switching and routing equipment 
because certain types of switches and routers are dramatically smaller than others, and thus 
impose significantly lesser burdens on an incumbents property interests if collocated.  
Specifically, technological advances have enabled manufacturers to develop relatively small makes 
and models of switches and routers that resemble and generally are roughly the same size as 
consumer electronics equipment, such as stereos.   We conclude that as a practical, economic, 
and operational matter, this innovative equipment is available to a requesting carrier to access 
those features, functions, and capabilities of unbundled local loops for which switching or routing 
is needed.
48. Although application of our equipment standard would allow these smaller types 
of switches and routers to be collocated, it will not generally allow collocation of the circuit 
switches traditionally used to provide telecommunications services.  These circuit switches are 
very large pieces of equipment.   For instance, the circuit switches typically available in 1996 for 
deployment in incumbent LECs central offices are approximately 100 times the size of the more 
modern switches and routers that equipment manufacturers have been able to develop.  The 
traditional circuit switches require a separate room; several of the more modern switches and 
routers can fit comfortably within a typical 10-foot by 10-foot collocation cage.   We agree with 
SBC and Verizon that traditional circuit switching equipment is generally not "necessary" within 
the meaning of section 251(c)(6) because a requesting carrier would not be practically, 
economically, or operationally precluded from interconnecting or accessing unbundled network 
elements pursuant to sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3) if it could not deploy this traditional circuit 
switching equipment.   Specifically, in light of the practical, economic, and operational 
availability of newer and much smaller switches and routers as well as the lesser burden 
collocation of that equipment imposes on an incumbents property interest, we find that traditional 
circuit switches generally do not meet the equipment standard we adopt today. 
49. We emphasize that this finding does not mean that an incumbent LECs 
competitors are entitled to collocate any equipment that utilizes the features, functions, and 
capabilities of the local loop.  Section 251(c)(3) provides only telecommunications carriers with 
the ability to access unbundled network elements.  Therefore, parties seeking to use the local 
loop, for example, only to deliver information services do not have rights under section 251(c)(3) 
to access that unbundled network element.  Since section 251(c)(6) incorporates the obligations 
and limitations contained in sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3), an incumbent LEC need not allow 
these parties to collocate such equipment.
50. We recognize that this conclusion differs from the Commissions prior holding that 
stand-alone switches or routers are not entitled to collocation pursuant to section 251(c)(6) in any 
instance.   We find here, however, that the Commissions prior analyses of the statutory standard 
were incomplete because they did not fully address the different purposes for which requesting 
carriers might deploy necessary equipment.  For instance, in the Local Competition Order, the 
Commission, in finding switching equipment unnecessary, stated that it [did] not appear that [this 
equipment] is used for the actual interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.   
Subsequently, in the Advanced Services First Report and Order, the Commission declined to 
classify equipment used exclusively for switching as necessary, because it did not find sufficient 
support in the record at this time for such a requirement.   In neither case did the Commission 
explain how a requesting carrier could access all the features, functions, and capabilities of a local 
loop without switching or routing equipment. 
51. We now have the benefit of a greatly expanded record that reflects both the 
parties several years of experience with the unbundled network access regime established in the 
1996 Act as well as the technical expertise of many equipment manufacturers.   This greatly 
expanded record has enabled us to refine our analysis within the framework the D.C. Circuit 
established and the equipment standard we adopt in accordance with that framework.   Based on 
this record, we are now convinced that, as a practical, economic, or operational matter, a 
requesting carrier may require switching or routing equipment to be able to access all of the 
features, functions, or capabilities of unbundled local loops. 
52. Although we find, in a reversal of the Commissions previous findings in the 1996 
Local Competition Order and Advanced Services First Report and Order, that switching and 
routing equipment satisfy the necessary standard in certain instances, we emphasize that our 
equipment standard has clear limiting principles that operate to provide more definitive boundaries 
than the Commissions previous standard.  The Commissions previous standard, as applied in the 
Advanced Services First Report and Order, provided requesting carriers with virtually limitless 
control over the types of equipment that they could collocate.
53. The equipment standard we adopt today places clear limits on the types of 
functions for which competitors may collocate equipment.  Our standard does not allow 
competitors to collocate much of the equipment that they must rely on to operate, service, and 
support their own networks.  Therefore, our standard would not result in an incumbent LECs 
premises being used by a competitor to house all of the equipment necessary to operate, service, 
and support its own network.  For example, our standard would not require that an incumbent 
LEC allow collocation of equipment used exclusively for call-related databases, computer servers 
used exclusively for providing information services, and a whole host of operations support 
system (OSS) equipment that most competitors must rely on to support their network operations.  
Nor would our standard let a requesting carrier insist on collocating equipment that generates 
customer orders, manages trouble tickets or inventory, or stores customer records in centralized 
databases.   In addition, in the multifunction context, our standard places significant limits on the 
ability to collocate multifunction equipment by ensuring that the equipments primary functionality 
is used for interconnection or accessing unbundled network elements while ensuring that 
multifunction equipment places no greater relative burden on the incumbents property than 
comparable single-function equipment.  The Commissions previous test did not place such clear 
limits on the types of equipment that are eligible for collocation.  Finally, equipment that does not 
provide telecommunications services would not qualify for collocation under our standard.
54. We believe our standard reasonably reflects the balance required by section 
251(c)(6)s cross-purposes of promoting competition and innovation while ensuring adequate 
protection of the incumbent LECs legitimate property interests.  On one hand, our standard 
ensures that an incumbent LECs telecommunications competitors cannot place equipment in 
collocation space with unfettered discretion, but rather must limit their collocation choices to 
equipment that is necessary for these carriers to achieve the enunciated statutory purposes of 
interconnection and access of unbundled network elements.  On the other hand, it ensures that 
incumbent LECs cannot exercise de facto veto power over their collocated competitors choice of 
equipment and network architecture, and instead grants competitors sufficient flexibility with 
which to make reasonable equipment choices that overcome practical, economic, and operational 
constraints in a manner that protects the incumbents property interests.
C. Cross-Connections Between Collocators
55. In the Local Competition Order, the Commission required incumbent LECs to 
provision (i.e., install and maintain) cross-connects to allow a collocator to connect its collocated 
equipment to the collocated equipment of another carrier within the same incumbent LEC 
premises so long as each collocators equipment was used for interconnection with the incumbent 
or access to the incumbents unbundled network elements.   In the Advanced Services First 
Report and Order, the Commission further required incumbent LECs to permit collocating 
carriers to provision their own cross-connect facilities between equipment collocated at the 
incumbents premises, subject only to the same reasonable safety requirements the incumbent 
places on its own facilities. 
56. In GTE v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the cross-connects rule 
adopted in the Advanced Services First Report and Order.   The court stated that requiring 
[incumbent] LECs to allow collocating competitors to interconnect their equipment with other 
collocating carriers . . . imposes an obligation on [incumbent] LECs that has no apparent basis in 
the statute.   The court found that the Commission had not shown that cross-connects between 
collocators are necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements within 
the meaning of that provision. 
57. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission invited comment on whether 
section 251(c)(6) encompasses cross-connects between collocators.   The Commission also 
invited comment on whether it may, pursuant to section 251(c)(6), require that an incumbent LEC 
permit collocators to construct their own cross-connects as opposed to obtaining them from the 
incumbent.   The Commission invited comment, in addition, on whether it may require an 
incumbent LEC to provide physical connections between two collocators pursuant to any other 
provision of the Communications Act. 
58. As an initial matter, we believe it is important to define cross-connects and 
describe how prevalent they are in a typical central office.  A cross-connection [or cross-
connect] is a cabling scheme between cabling runs, subsystems, and equipment using patch cords 
or jumper wires that attach to connection hardware on each end.   Typically, in a central office, 
the cabling scheme might run from a piece of equipment up into an overhead racking system, 
through that system and down from the racks to connect with another piece of equipment.  Cross-
connects can run through the main distribution frame or an intermediate distribution frame when 
being used to connect two pieces of equipment or when being used to connect equipment to a 
transmission facility, such as a loop or trunk.  When two pieces of equipment are in close 
proximity to each other, the cross-connect may progress directly from one piece of equipment to 
the other without entering the racking system.  Cross-connects generally are present throughout 
the incumbents premises.  Cross-connects interconnect incumbent LEC equipment to other 
incumbent LEC equipment and incumbent LEC equipment to collocator equipment.  Cross-
connects also interconnect one piece of a collocators equipment to another piece of that 
collocators equipment.  Finally, because of the Commissions previous cross-connect rule 
adopted in the Local Competition Order, cross-connects have been used to interconnect one 
collocators equipment to another collocators equipment. 
59. At issue in this Order are the cables that cross-connect two collocated competitive 
LECs.  As explained below, we find that, in light of GTE v. FCC, we may not require an 
incumbent LEC to allow competitive LECs to provision cross-connects outside of their immediate 
physical collocation space at the incumbents premises.  However, we find that pursuant to 
section 201 that it would be unjust and unreasonable for an incumbent LEC to refuse to provision 
cross-connects between two collocated competitive LECs.  We also find that, in the alternative, 
such a refusal would be unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory within the meaning of section 
251(c)(6).  Accordingly, we return to the obligations set forth in the Local Competition Order 
that required incumbent LECs to provision cross-connects to collocators.  
60. We find that there are significant differences between requiring the incumbent to 
provision the cross-connects for collocated competitive LECs and requiring an incumbent LEC to 
allow competitive LECs to provision cross-connects within the incumbents premises.  First, there 
is a fundamental difference as to who owns and controls the cross-connect cabling.  When 
competitive LECs provision their own cross-connects, the competitive LECs own and control the 
cabling; whereas, when the incumbent provisions the cross-connects, the incumbent owns and 
controls the cabling.  Second, for competitive LECs to provision cross-connects, they typically 
must access common areas, which may include a racking system, of the incumbents premises to 
install and maintain the cross-connects.   In contrast, if the incumbent provisions the cross-
connects, the competitive LECs need not have access to the common areas for the purpose of 
provisioning the cross-connects.  Thus, the latter approach is substantially less invasive of the 
incumbents property rights (e.g., in terms of security, safety, and risk to incumbent LEC 
equipment). 
1. Competitive LEC Self-Provisioning of Cross-Connects
61. We find that neither section 201 nor section 251 authorizes us to adopt a rule 
requiring physical collocation by which incumbent LECs allow competitive LECs to provision 
cross-connects outside of their immediate collocation space.  Specifically, we conclude, in 
accordance with the D.C. Circuits decision, that competitive LEC provisioning of cross-connects 
between two separate collocation arrangements constitutes physical collocation because the 
competitive LEC-owned cable would typically occupy space in the incumbents premises outside 
of the collocators immediate collocation space and because the collocator would have to access 
areas of the incumbents premises outside that immediate collocation space in order to install and 
maintain the cabling.   Thus, such a requirement would have to satisfy the necessary prong of 
section 251(c)(6).   In addition, as SBC points out, the D.C. Circuit has determined that the 
Commissions authority under section 201(a) does not extend to requiring a carrier to allow 
physical collocation within its premises.   Because we also find that the competitive-LEC 
provisioning of cross-connects constitutes physical collocation, we must conclude that our 
authority under section 201 does not extend to requiring that an incumbent LEC allow such 
provisioning.
2. Incumbent LEC Provisioning of Cross-Connects  Section 201
62. We agree with Sprint, Qwest, Focal, and the Joint Commenters that we may order 
incumbent LECs to provide cross-connects to collocators pursuant to section 201.   We find that 
we have such authority under both sections 201(a) and 201(b).  We conclude that the 
Commission has authority pursuant to section 201 to require incumbent LECs to provision cross-
connects for carriers collocated at the incumbents premises, and we exercise this authority to 
require such cross-connects upon reasonable request.  Unlike the situation with competitive LEC-
owned and provisioned cross-connects, we conclude that an incumbent LECs provisioning of 
cross-connects between two separate collocation arrangements does not constitute physical 
collocation.  In the instance of incumbent-provisioned cross-connects, because the competitive 
LEC does not own or provision the cross-connects, there is no collocator-owned equipment being 
placed or collocator activity occurring outside of the immediate collocation space.  In other 
words, the cabling being used to facilitate the cross-connect is owned, controlled, and provisioned 
by the incumbent LEC.
63. We find that the Commission has authority under section 201(a) of the Act to 
require incumbent LECs to provision cross-connects between two collocated carriers.    Section 
201(a) requires every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or 
radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor.   As explained 
below, under the circumstances presented here, we find that incumbent LEC-provisioned cross-
connects between collocators within the incumbents premises constitute a communications 
service necessary or desirable in the public interest within the meaning of section 201(a).   
We find that the provisioning of cross-connects between collocated competitive LECs merely puts 
each collocator in a position to achieve the same interconnection with other collocators that the 
incumbent itself is able to achieve.   Because most facilities-based competitive LECs must 
collocate at incumbent LECs premises, incumbents have the opportunity to efficiently 
interconnect with competitive LECs.  If an incumbent LEC refuses to provision cross-connects 
between competitive LECs collocated at the incumbents premises, the incumbent would be the 
only LEC that could interconnect with all or even any of the competitive LECs collocated at a 
common, centralized point  the central office.   In addition, if collocating competitive LECs 
cannot interconnect with each other at the incumbents premises, they typically must use 
incumbent LEC transport facilities to obtain access to competitive transport facilities.  The costs 
associated with purchasing incumbent LEC transport in addition to the costs associated with 
purchasing the competitive transport likely would severely restrict the viability of competitive 
transport.
64. The most direct and efficient way for two carriers collocated within the same 
incumbent LEC premises to exchange traffic is to cross-connect within that premises.  For 
instance, for two competitive LECs collocated at the same central office to exchange traffic 
without a cross-connect, each competitive LEC would have to carry its own telecommunications 
traffic into its collocation space and then, in the typical case, have the incumbent LEC transport 
that traffic over incumbent-owned facilities to an interconnection point outside the incumbents 
premises.  From this interconnection point, the other competitive LEC would likely then carry the 
traffic back to its own collocation space in the same central office to be transported through the 
competitive LECs network.   This approach creates additional potential points of failure, may 
require otherwise unnecessary signal boosting, and, perhaps most importantly and most 
dramatically, imposes significant wasteful economic costs on competitive LECs  costs that 
incumbent LECs themselves do not face and costs that the incumbents do not impose on 
competitive LECs that utilize the incumbents transport services.   These additional costs would 
severely impede the deployment of the innovative, competitive services that the 1996 Act seeks to 
facilitate.   
65. We find that cross-connects between collocators within an incumbents premises 
are essential to the development of a fully competitive transport market.   Incumbents, of course, 
provide cross-connects within their premises to collocators that purchase the incumbents 
transport services.  However, a collocating competitive LEC that cannot deliver its traffic to 
another collocator via a cross-connect at the incumbents premises would likely be forced either 
to use incumbent LEC transport services or to build its own transport facilities.   Surely, such 
results would run directly counter to the fundamental purposes of the Communications Act.  First, 
the Act attempts to lessen, not entrench, incumbent LEC control over local markets, including the 
local transport market.  Second, the Act clearly recognizes that competitors are unlikely to find it 
economic to build entirely redundant facilities and therefore allows competitors to fill in those 
gaps in infrastructure through the wholesale market.   To this end, cross-connects between 
collocated carriers allow competitive LECs to use the facilities of other competitive LECs rather 
than relying solely on the incumbent LEC to fill in the gaps in their network.  
66. Without the ability to cross-connect at the incumbents premises, a collocated 
competitive LEC that has its own transport facilities would be severely restricted in its ability to 
optimize the utilization of their transport facilities through the wholesale provision of transport 
services to other competitive LECs.   In addition, a competitive LEC wishing to purchase 
transport from another competitive LEC with transport facilities would be in the untenable 
position of having to purchase additional transport from the incumbent out of the incumbents 
premises in order to access and interconnect with the other competitive transport providers 
facilities at some point outside of the incumbents premises.  Once interconnected, the carrier 
could utilize the competitive transport service.  This added expense, however, almost assuredly 
would make the competitive transport cost-prohibitive and would be economically wasteful.   
The effect would be to entrench the incumbent LECs power in the transport market in direct 
contradiction of the Acts fundamental purpose to open[] all telecommunications markets to 
competition.  
67. Importantly, we find that providing cross-connects between collocated carriers will 
not materially burden incumbent LECs.  The provisioning of cross-connects in a central office is 
not an extraordinary occurrence.  The central office and other incumbent LEC premises are, by 
design, places where a carrier can cross-connect equipment.  Moreover, such provisioning is far 
less burdensome than requiring incumbents to allow competitive LECs to self-provision their own 
cross-connects.  After balancing the interest of promoting competition with the property interest 
of the incumbent, we conclude that requiring incumbent LECs to provision cross-connects 
between two collocating carriers substantially furthers Congress goal of promoting competition 
while minimizing, if not eliminating, any invasion on the incumbents property interests.  While 
cross-connects between collocators within incumbent LEC premises are critical to the 
development of facilities-based competition, a requirement that incumbents provide cross-
connects to competitors collocated at their premises constitutes at most a minimal invasion of the 
incumbents property rights, particularly since this service would only have to be provided 
between two already collocated competitive LECs.  Because the incumbent would maintain 
control over the provisioning and maintenance, we find that this requirement imposes little, if any, 
additional burden on the incumbents property interest.  We believe that whatever burden this 
requirement does place on this interest, it is significantly outweighed by the requirements pro-
competitive effects.  
68. We find that the Commission has authority to compel carriers to make a cross-
connect service generally available to similarly situated customers, especially when it uses that 
authority in such a targeted and discrete fashion.  Courts generally have affirmed the ability of 
administrative agencies to impose specific common carriage obligations on entities that are 
regulated as common carriers.   We note that our action here is similar in many respects to the 
Commissions prior actions pursuant to section 201(a).  In the Specialized Common Carrier 
Proceeding, for example, the Commission relied on section 201(a) in requiring the LECs then 
affiliated with AT&T to provide specialized common carriers with interconnection facilities and 
services that those carriers needed to provide private line services.   This action was an 
important early step in opening the long-distance market to competition.  Similarly, in the Virtual 
Collocation Order, the Commission relied on section 201(a) in requiring incumbent LECs to 
provide virtual collocation within their central offices.   This action was designed to promote 
competition in the transport market.  
69. We view our instant action as comparable to those prior Commission actions.  
Indeed, requiring incumbent LECs to provision cross-connects between collocated carriers 
furthers Congress decision in the 1996 Act to open all telecommunications markets to 
competition and is consistent with (though less intrusive than) the Acts requirement that 
incumbent LECs allow physical collocation within their premises under section 251(c)(6).  Thus, 
our instant action promotes competition by permitting carriers that collocate for purposes of 
competing against the incumbent to select the transport provider of their own choosing, rather 
than being forced to rely solely on the incumbent LEC or their own facilities for provision of that 
service.  At the same time, this competitive goal is achieved without requiring the incumbent LEC 
to permit competitive LECs to own, install, and maintain these cross-connects.
70. For these reasons, we find that that the provision of cross-connects by incumbent 
LECs to collocated competitive LECs is a common carrier service pursuant to section 201(a).   
As discussed above, without the ability to cross-connect at an incumbents premises, competitive 
transport would likely be cost-prohibitive and economically wasteful.  The effect would be to 
entrench the incumbent LECs power in the transport market.   These adverse effects on the 
public interest persuade us that we should exercise our authority under section 201 to require 
incumbent LECs to provision cross-connects as described above. 
71. We reject SBCs argument that the Commission cannot rely on section 201(a) to 
require incumbent LECs to provide cross-connects between collocated carriers.   That argument 
is based on the D.C. Circuits holding in Bell Atlantic v. FCC that section 201(a) does not 
authorize the Commission to provide for physical collocation within an incumbent LECs central 
offices.   That holding, however, does not preclude the Commission from mandating that an 
incumbent provide facilities and equipment dedicated to a particular carriers use, as long as that 
carrier does not have access to the incumbents property for the purpose of installing or 
maintaining the facilities or equipment.   As the Commission recognized in the Virtual 
Collocation Order, incumbent LECs frequently dedicate facilities and equipment to particular 
customers in their normal course of business.   Our requirement that incumbent LECs install and 
maintain cabling that permits a collocator to cross-connect with another telecommunications 
carrier within the incumbents premises is not only consistent with that practice, but also 
necessary or desirable in the public interest.
72. In addition, section 201(b) supports Commission authority to require incumbent 
LECs to provision cross-connects between two collocated competitive LECs.  Section 201(b) 
states that [a]ll charges, practices, classifications and regulations for and in connection with such 
communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification 
or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.   Under section 
201(b), we find an incumbent LECs refusal to provision cross-connects to be an unjust and 
unreasonable practice in connection with existing services of incumbent LECs.
73. Ultimately, we agree with Qwest that cross-connects are not functionally different 
from other nonswitched services, such as special access services, that incumbent LECs provide to 
other carriers and end users.   Like these other services, the cross-connect provides a dedicated 
transmission path between two points, in this case between collocated carriers.  Therefore, our 
requirement to provide cross-connects between collocated competitive LECs is not burdensome; 
rather, it is a practice needed in connection with an incumbent LECs existing special access 
services to render the provisioning just and reasonable under section 201(b).   Without this 
specific offering, an incumbent instead could require, as reasoned above, that the collocator 
purchase incumbent transport to carry the traffic out of the incumbents premises to an 
interconnection point outside the incumbents premises.  From this interconnection point, the 
competitive transport provider likely would then carry the traffic back to the incumbents 
premises for carriage through the competitive transport providers transport network.
74. In making available a cross-connect offering, we find that, pursuant to its 
obligations to provide a communications service upon reasonable request, and to engage in just 
and reasonable practices, an incumbent LEC must provide the appropriate cross-connect as 
requested by the collocated competitive LECs.  We note that the appropriate cross-connect 
facility may constitute a lit service or a dark fiber service depending upon the requirements of 
the two collocated competitors.  Requiring carriers to purchase a lit service when they only 
require unlit fiber cabling would add significant expense and almost assuredly would make the 
competitive transport cost-prohibitive and uneconomical.
75. Our decision to include dark fiber as part of the cross-connect service that 
incumbents must provide to collocators upon request is limited in scope.  Indeed, we are not 
requiring incumbent LECs to provide a general dark fiber service.  Rather, only in the limited 
context of cross-connects between collocated carriers must incumbent LECs provide dark fiber 
service under this Order.   Our decision to require this is due to the technical and competitive 
circumstances existing in the marketplace.  We find that incumbent LEC provisioned cross-
connects, including cross-connects in the form of lit or unlit fiber, are essential to allow the 
development of a competitive transport market in light of existing technological and economic 
factors.
76. We also note that in provisioning cross-connects, incumbent LECs should use the 
most efficient interconnection arrangements available that, at the same time, impose the least 
intrusion on their property interest.  For example, in cases where incumbents interconnect with 
collocators at equipment that is closer to the collocators space than the incumbents main 
distribution frame, we would expect the cross-connect to be provisioned, where technically 
feasible, at or near that equipment, rather than at the main distribution frame.  This provides 
competitive LECs with the most efficient interconnection arrangements while minimizing the 
amount of cable that has to be routed through the incumbents central office.  We recognize that 
incumbent LECs, however, are not required to provide competitors better interconnection or 
access to the network than already exists.  This requirement merely allows the collocator to use 
the existing network in as efficient a manner as the incumbent uses it for its own purposes.  
Furthermore, we expect that incumbent LECs should be able to provision these cross-connects in 
a time frame no longer than that which the incumbent provides itself or any affiliate or 
subsidiary. 
77. We recognize, of course, that the Commissions exercise of its authority under 
section 201 historically has been limited to interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio.  
Physical connections between collocators and other carriers, like other portions of the 
telecommunications network, typically transmit both interstate and intrastate traffic.  We have 
previously determined that special access lines carrying both interstate and intrastate traffic are 
subject to the Commissions jurisdiction where it is not possible to separate the uses of the special 
access lines by jurisdiction.   We have typically exercised that jurisdiction, however, only when 
the amount of interstate traffic transmitted over a special access line constitutes more than ten 
percent of all traffic transmitted over that line.   We have reasoned that lesser percentages of 
interstate traffic should be considered de minimis. 
78. We conclude that a similar approach is appropriate with regard to a cross-connect 
service between collocators and other carriers provided pursuant to section 201.  As with special 
access traffic, we would expect that the traffic carried through these cross-connects typically 
includes interstate or foreign communication.  To the extent that our cross-connect requirements 
are dependent upon our authority under section 201, we require incumbent LECs to provide a 
cross-connect within its premises where:  (1) two collocated carriers request such a cross-
connect; and (2) more than a de minimis amount of the traffic to be transmitted through the cross-
connect will be interstate.   Where the interstate or foreign traffic would be more than de 
minimis, the incumbent LEC must provision the cross-connect through its interconnection 
facilities or equipment.  Where a collocator is requesting this cross-connect solely pursuant to our 
action under section 201, it shall provide a certification to the incumbent that it satisfies the de 
minimis threshold of ten percent.  Upon receipt of such certification, the incumbent shall promptly 
provision the service.  The incumbent cannot refuse to accept the certification but instead must 
provision the service promptly.  If the incumbent feels that the certification is inaccurate, it can file 
a section 208 complaint with the Commission. 
3. Incumbent LEC Provisioning of Cross-Connects  Section 251
79. Similar to our reasoning under section 201, we find, as a second, alternative 
ground, that incumbent LEC-provisioned cross-connects between two collocators, and the 
attendant obligations to make dark fiber available as a cross-connect and to use the most efficient 
arrangement available, are also supported by section 251 of the Act.  Incumbent LEC-provisioned 
cross-connects are properly viewed as part of the terms and conditions of the requesting carriers 
collocation in much the same way as the incumbent LEC provisions cables that provide electrical 
power to collocators.  Once equipment is eligible for collocation, the incumbent LEC must install 
and maintain power cables, among other facilities and equipment, to enable the collocator to 
operate the collocated equipment.  The power cables are not collocated merely because the 
incumbent LEC installs and maintains these cables in areas outside the requesting carriers 
immediate collocation space.  Instead, the incumbent provides the power cables as part of its 
obligation to provide for interconnection and collocation on rates, terms, and conditions that are 
just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.   As with power cables, an incumbent installs and 
maintains cross-connect cables  or refuses to install and maintain them  as part of the terms and 
conditions under which the incumbent provides collocation.  Indeed, the Commission has long 
considered cross-connects to be part of the terms and conditions under which LECs provide 
interconnection.   The exercise of our authority under section 251(c)(6) is also quite limited in 
scope and should not be read as implying that a requesting carrier is entitled to obtain services 
from the incumbent superior to those the incumbent provides itself, its affiliates, subsidiaries, or 
other parties.  On the contrary, our action reflects our overriding concern that an incumbent LEC 
would be acting in an unreasonable and discriminatory manner if it refused to provide cross-
connects between collocators.
80. The requirement that incumbent LECs provision cross-connects between 
collocated carriers is consistent with the original obligation for cross-connects that the 
Commission imposed in the Local Competition Order.   Although it did not fully amplify its 
reasoning there, the Commission concluded that cross-connects were required under section 
251(c)(6) to ensure that collocation be provided on . . . terms and conditions that are just, 
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory . . . .   That conclusion is consistent with our view that an 
incumbent LECs refusal to provide a cross-connect between two collocated carriers would 
violate the incumbents duties under section 251(c)(6) to provide collocation on . . . terms and 
conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.   Although we now conclude that 
the Commission overreached in further extending competitors cross-connect rights in the 
Advanced Services First Report and Order, we believe the initial approach in the Local 
Competition Order was a reasonable interpretation of the applicable statutory language.   In 
particular, we find Qwests arguments in favor of this approach to be persuasive in view of its 
market position as both an incumbent LEC and a competitive LEC. 
81. Our decision to require incumbent LEC-provided cross-connects pursuant to 
section 251(c)(6) is not inconsistent with the D.C. Circuit Courts opinion.  In GTE v. FCC, the 
court found that the Commission appeared to have overstepped its authority under section 
251(c)(6) when it required physical collocation of cross-connects in the Advanced Services First 
Report and Order.   The D.C. Circuit stated that [s]ection 251(c)(6) is focused solely on 
connecting new competitors to [incumbent] LECs networks.   We disagree with SBCs 
position that this statement forecloses us from requiring, pursuant to section 251(c)(6), that an 
incumbent LEC provision cross-connects between collocated carriers upon request.  The courts 
statement is part of a larger discussion that uses cross-connects as an example of how the 
Commissions prior interpretation of necessary in section 251(c)(6) might unnecessarily take 
incumbent LEC property.   The court had before it a Commission requirement that an incumbent 
LEC allow collocators to self-provision and thus collocate cross-connects outside of their 
immediate collocation space.   The court stated that such a requirement has no apparent basis 
in the statute and observed that the Commission had not attempted to show that cross-connects 
are necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.   The court did 
not address specifically whether we could require incumbent LEC provisioned cross-connects 
pursuant to the rates, terms, and conditions clause of section 251(c)(6).  Nor did the court 
address specifically whether we could require incumbent LEC provisioned cross-connects 
pursuant to other provisions of the Communications Act.   
82. Our conclusion that an incumbent LECs provisioning of cross-connects to two 
collocated carriers is required under section 251(c)(6) reaffirms obligations imposed under the 
Local Competition Order and is based, in part, on the same reasons discussed above regarding 
section 201s requirement to provide services in a just and reasonable manner.  An incumbent 
also has a duty to provide collocation terms and conditions that are nondiscriminatory pursuant 
to section 251(c)(6).   The provisioning of cross-connects within the incumbents premises 
merely puts the collocator in position to achieve the same interconnection with other competitive 
LECs that the incumbent itself is able to achieve.  Thus, the refusal to provision such cross-
connects would be discriminatory toward competitive LECs. 
83. In addition, because incumbents provide cross-connects within their premises to 
those collocators that purchase the incumbents transport services, an incumbent LECs failure to 
provide cross-connects within its premises to collocators that wish to utilize a competitive 
transport provider also raises this nondiscrimination issue.  Specifically, we find that it would be 
discriminatory not to provide such cross-connects because of the vast disparity in costs and 
efficiency associated with the two alternatives.  In fact, a failure to provide cross-connects would 
in effect force the competitive LEC to purchase incumbent LEC transport in order to access a 
competitive providers transport service.
84. Requiring incumbent LECs to provision cross-connects between requesting 
carriers is consistent with the statutory scheme outlined in section 251 and is consistent with 
Congress explicit goal of ensuring interconnected networks.  Indeed, pursuant to section 
251(a)(1), all telecommunications carriers have a statutory obligation to interconnect directly or 
indirectly with the facilities or equipment of other telecommunications carriers.   As we 
recognized in the Local Competition Order, the duty to interconnect directly or indirectly is 
central to the 1996 Act and achieves important policy objectives.   Thus, we believe our cross-
connect requirement is consistent with and furthers Section 251s fundamental purpose of 
promoting the interconnection of all telecommunications networks by ensuring that incumbent 
LECs are not the only carriers that are able to interconnect efficiently with other carriers.  As has 
been the practice in the past, we anticipate that cross-connect disputes, like other interconnection-
related disputes, can be addressed in the first instance at the state level.
D. Space Allocation and Access
1. Background
85. Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LECs to provide for physical collocation on 
rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.   In the Local 
Competition Order, the Commission required incumbent LECs to make physical collocation space 
available to requesting carriers on a first-come, first-served basis.  The Commission also required 
that collocators seeking to expand their collocated space should be allowed to use contiguous 
space where available, and that incumbents should not be required to lease or construct additional 
space to provide physical collocation where existing space had been exhausted.   In addition, 
observing that physical security arrangements surrounding collocation space protect both 
incumbent and collocator equipment from interference by unauthorized parties, the Commission 
permitted incumbent LECs to require reasonable security arrangements to separate collocation 
space from the incumbents facilities.  
86. In the Advanced Services First Report and Order, the Commission amended its 
physical collocation rules to require that an incumbent LEC must give competitors the option of 
physically collocating equipment in any unused space within the incumbent's premises, to the 
extent technically feasible.   The Commission precluded an incumbent LEC from restricting 
physical collocation to a room or isolated space separate from the incumbent's own 
equipment.   The Commission specified that, while an incumbent LEC could require physical 
collocators to use a central entrance to the incumbents premises, the incumbent could not require 
construction of a new entrance for these collocators use.  
87. In GTE v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit determined that the Commission had not 
adequately justified these revised rules adopted in the Advanced Services First Report and Order. 
The court stated that these rules appear to favor the [incumbent] LECs competitors in ways that 
exceed what is necessary to achieve reasonable physical collocation and in ways that may 
result in unnecessary takings of [incumbent] LEC property.   The court therefore vacated and 
remanded these rules.  The court stated, however, that the Commission would have the 
opportunity on remand to refine [its] regulatory requirements to tie the rules to the statutory 
standard, which only mandates physical collocation as necessary for interconnection or access to 
unbundled network elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier. 
88. As discussed below, we find that, in adopting the physical collocation rules 
overturned by the D.C. Circuit, the Commission focused primarily on the 1996 Acts goal of 
promoting competition and innovation, without giving sufficient weight to the incumbent LECs 
property interests.  To correct this problem, we adopt rules that return decision-making authority 
regarding space assignments to the incumbents, while requiring that incumbents exercise this 
authority in accordance with certain principles designed to ensure that their space assignment 
decisions are made in a just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory manner, as section 251(c)(6) 
requires.  These principles will guide the incumbents space assignment decisions and provide 
general parameters for more detailed physical collocation rules that the state commissions may 
craft.  We also establish certain presumptions for use in evaluating an incumbent LECs space 
assignment policies and practices.  In addition, we discuss incumbent LECs ability to restrict 
physical collocators to separated space and entrances, recognizing the incumbents right to 
address legitimate security concerns, but balancing that right with the statutory goal of promoting 
competition and innovation.
2. Space Assignments
89. With regard to the requirement that an incumbent LEC allow requesting carriers to 
physically collocate in any unused space within its premises, the D.C. Circuit held that the 
Commission had not adequately explained why a competitor, as opposed to the [incumbent] 
LEC, should choose where to establish collocation on the LECs property . . .   In the Second 
Further Notice, the Commission therefore invited comment on what space assignment policies are 
necessary to achieve reasonable and nondiscriminatory physical collocation that does not result in 
any unnecessary taking of incumbent LEC property.   Based on the D.C. Circuits opinion and 
the record developed in response to the Second Further Notice, we agree with several parties that 
the rules adopted in the Advanced Services First Report and Order failed to properly balance the 
congressional goal of promoting competition against the need to protect an incumbent LECs 
property interests against unwarranted intrusion.   
90. In recognition of the incumbents right to use and manage its own property, we 
find that each incumbent should maintain ultimate responsibility for assigning collocation space 
within its premises.  An incumbent is far more familiar with the design and layout of its premises 
than are its competitors, who neither own nor manage those premises.   The incumbent is also 
the only party with direct knowledge of all competitive LEC collocation requests, as well as all 
other tenant requirements.   In addition, unlike the incumbent LEC, an individual requesting 
carrier has no duty to consider the impact of its collocation space choices on the incumbent and 
other collocators.   Therefore, we believe the revised physical collocation rules adopted in the 
Advanced Services First Report and Order went too far in removing the incumbent LECs ability 
to use and manage its own property.  Importantly, section 251(c)(6) does not turn an incumbent 
LECs premises into common property.  Rather, that provision requires that an incumbent LEC 
make space available to competitors within the confines of its own private property.
91. In light of the D.C. Circuits opinion, we disagree with the approach of those 
commenters that recommend blanket re-adoption, albeit with some clarification, of the rules 
vacated in GTE v. FCC to ensure that physical collocation space is allocated in accordance with 
the statute.   As the D.C. Circuit noted, [i]t is one thing to say that [incumbent] LECs are 
forbidden from imposing unreasonable minimum space requirements on competitors; it is quite 
another thing, however, to say that competitors, over the objection of [incumbent] LEC property 
owners, are free to pick and choose preferred space on the [incumbent] LECs premises, subject 
only to technical feasibility.   Ultimately, it is the incumbent who will be responsible for 
planning and maintaining the premises for the benefit of all users  the incumbent, its affiliates and 
subsidiaries, and other collocators.   Allowing requesting carriers to exercise primary decision-
making authority over space assignment decisions would give those carriers the ability to usurp an 
incumbent LECs right to manage its own property.  Such a result would go beyond the limits 
established by the statute.
92. An incumbent LEC, however, must assign space in accordance with the statutory 
requirement that it provide for physical collocation on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, 
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.  We recognize that an incumbent LEC has powerful 
incentives that, left unchecked, may influence it to allocate space in a manner inconsistent with 
this statutory duty.  We conclude that to meet the statutory standard, an incumbent LEC must act 
as a neutral property owner and manager, rather than as a direct competitor of the carrier 
requesting collocation, in assigning physical collocation space.  To ensure that competitive 
concerns do not influence an incumbent LECs space assignment decisions, we believe that we 
should enunciate principles that give more specific meaning to the incumbents statutory duty to 
provide for physical collocation on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and 
nondiscriminatory.  Of course, state commissions should continue to play a primary role in 
resolving specific space assignment disputes.
93. First, we require that an incumbent LECs space assignment policies and practices 
must not materially increase a requesting carriers collocation costs or materially delay a 
requesting carriers occupation and use of the incumbent LECs premises.  Physical space 
assignments that require costly conditioning or lengthy provisioning intervals, when less expensive 
and quicker alternatives are available, simply do not meet the statutory just, reasonable, and 
nondiscriminatory standard.   Such space assignment policies could also drive competitors to 
opt for virtual collocation even though physical collocation is technically feasible, frustrating the 
1996 Acts preference for physical collocation.   For example, it would be presumptively 
unreasonable for an incumbent to assign non-conditioned collocation space to a competitor when 
technically feasible, conditioned space is available within the incumbents premises.  This 
presumption should promote the efficient use of conditioned space and will help ensure that 
physical collocation space is made available in a timely manner.  An incumbent LEC that assigns 
unconditioned space when conditioned space is available must show that operational constraints, 
unrelated to the incumbents or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries competitive concerns, require 
that the requesting carrier be assigned unconditioned space.
94. Second, an incumbent LEC must not assign physical collocation space that will 
impair the quality of service or impose other limitations on the service a requesting carrier wishes 
to offer.   For example, the incumbents choice of space must not materially reduce a requesting 
carriers ability to reach potential customers. 
95. Third, an incumbent LECs space assignment policies and practices must not 
reduce unreasonably the total space available for physical collocation or preclude unreasonably 
physical collocation within the incumbents premises.   We recognize that certain space within an 
incumbent LECs premises will not be suitable for physical collocation and, thus, may be withheld 
from physical collocation without violating section 251(c)(6).  We find that space within an 
incumbents premises is generally suitable for physical collocation unless it is:  (a) physically 
occupied by non-obsolete equipment; (b) assigned to another collocator in accordance with our 
rules; (c) used to provide physical access to occupied space; (d) used to enable technicians to 
work on equipment located within occupied space; (e) properly reserved for future use, either by 
the incumbent LEC or by another carrier; or (f) essential for the administration and proper 
functioning of the incumbent LECs premises.   The incumbent may allocate any space that falls 
outside these categories among different uses, including physical collocation, provided that the 
incumbent performs this allocation in accordance with the statute, our rules, and any consistent 
state rules.
96. Although a requesting carrier may not make the final determination as to the 
location of its particular physical collocation space, an incumbent LEC must allow a requesting 
carrier to submit physical collocation space preferences prior to assigning that carrier space.  This 
will enable the requesting carrier to request the space that best fits its operational needs.  To 
request specific space intelligently, a requesting carrier will require more information than our 
existing space report rule expressly requires that an incumbent provide.   We therefore amend 
that rule to require that, upon request, an incumbent LEC must submit to the requesting carrier a 
report describing in detail the space that is available for collocation in a particular incumbent LEC 
premises.  This report is due within ten days of its being requested, the same time period as in our 
existing rule. 
97. We believe the approach set forth above will help limit disputes over the 
availability of physical collocation space as well as the appropriateness of specific space 
assignments.  This approach also will provide requesting carriers with information that will help 
them assess whether the incumbent is meeting its statutory obligations, while discouraging each 
incumbent from abusing its discretion in assigning physical collocation space.  We do not intend 
to preclude state commissions from imposing additional space assignment requirements, as long 
as they are consistent with the terms of the Communications Act and our implementing rules.  A 
competitive LEC may challenge a space assignment with the appropriate state commission if the 
competitive LEC believes that the assignment is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory, violates 
our rules, or violates any additional consistent rules the state commission has established.
3. Separate Rooms and Entrances
98. In the Advanced Services First Report and Order, the Commission stated that 
incumbent LECs must allow competitors to physically collocate without requiring the 
construction of a room, cage, or similar structure, and without requiring the creation of a separate 
entrance to the competitors collocation space.   Although the D.C. Circuit affirmed the 
Commissions rule requiring incumbent LECs to allow cageless collocation, the court held that 
the Commission had not reasonably justified the portions of the rule that forbade incumbent LECs 
from requiring competitors to use separate entrances to access their own equipment and from 
requiring competitors to use separate or isolated rooms or floors.   The Commission invited 
comment on whether it might, consistent with section 251(c)(6), preclude incumbents from 
placing collocators in a room or isolated space separate from the incumbents own equipment.   
The Commission also invited comment on whether section 251(c)(6) permits an incumbent LEC 
to require requesting carriers to construct or pay for new entrances to the incumbents premises 
for the collocators use. 
99. Although we find that it is not per se unreasonable or discriminatory for an 
incumbent LEC to restrict physical collocation to space segregated from space housing the 
incumbents equipment, or to require the construction and use of a separate entrance to access 
physical collocation space, we find that it would be unreasonable for the incumbent to require 
such separation measures as a general policy.  As competitive LECs contend, mandatory 
separation of physical collocation space can substantially increase physical collocation costs.   In 
addition, placement of DSL equipment, such as DSLAMs, in isolated or separate space can affect 
a collocators ability to access unbundled local loops.   Moreover, a requirement that all 
collocators place their equipment solely in a particular area of a central office could prematurely 
exhaust physical collocation space.   Similarly, a requirement that separate entrances always be 
built could decrease the space available in the central office for collocation;  and adding a new 
entrance to an existing structure could simply delay the requesting carriers occupation and use of 
the incumbent LECs premises, and increase the requesting carriers costs. 
100. As a general matter, we find it reasonable to interpret section 251(c)(6) in a 
manner that reduces the likelihood that space limitations will preclude physical collocation.  
Although, as Verizon points out, virtual collocation is available where separate physical 
collocation space is exhausted,  section 251(c)(6) establishes a clear preference for physical over 
virtual collocation  permitting an incumbent LEC to substitute the latter for the former only if the 
incumbent demonstrates to the State commission that physical collocation is not practical for 
technical reasons or because of space limitations.   An interpretation that would allow an 
incumbent to require separation of equipment or separate entrances in all cases, regardless of the 
potential effect on competition, would fail to properly balance the statutes competing interests.  
This is especially true since, in many instances, separated equipment and separate entrances are 
not needed to ensure that the incumbent is able to protect its own property. 
101. We find, based on the record before us, that there is simply insufficient evidence to 
support a finding that incumbent LECs security concerns require physical separation of 
collocated equipment from the incumbents own equipment in every instance.  Incumbents claim 
that the placement of competitors equipment in the incumbents premises raises serious security 
concerns that can only be or are best addressed by physical segregation of the competitors 
equipment from the incumbents equipment.   In contrast, competitors argue that the D.C. 
Circuit rejected this argument, finding that there were alternative means available to [incumbent] 
LECs to ensure . . . security.   Competitors also contend that security is not one of the limits 
established in section 251(c)(6) on the incumbents obligation to provide physical collocation.   
The D.C. Circuit recognized that incumbents security concerns could be addressed by alternative 
measures.   Our rules currently permit incumbent LECs to install security cameras or other 
monitoring systems, and to require competitive LEC personnel to use badges with computerized 
tracking systems while on the incumbents premises, among other security options.   We find 
that such measures will provide sufficient security for an incumbents equipment in most 
circumstances. 
102. While we recognize that incumbents, like other users of incumbent LEC premises, 
have a right to protect their equipment from harm,  incumbents also have incentives to overstate 
security concerns so as to limit physical collocation arrangements and discourage competition.   
We therefore conclude that an incumbent LEC may require the separation of collocated 
equipment from its own equipment only if the proposed separated space is:  (a) available in the 
same or a shorter time frame as non-separated space; (b) at a cost not materially higher than the 
cost of non-separated space; and (c) is comparable, from a technical and engineering standpoint, 
to non-separated space.  We also conclude that an incumbent LEC may require such separation 
measures only where legitimate security concerns, or operational constraints unrelated to the 
incumbents or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries competitive concerns, warrant them.  We 
believe this policy will help promote the efficient use of limited space and thereby advance the 
statutory preference for physical over virtual collocation.  We also believe that this policy 
reasonably balances the congressional goal of promoting competition against the incumbents 
right to use and manage its own property.
103. While we reject an interpretation of section 251(c)(6) that would allow incumbent 
LECs to require, without exception, that competitors use segregated collocation space and 
separate entrances, this does not mean an incumbent LEC may never make use of segregated 
collocation space and separate entrances.  Separate entrance requirements will meet the just, 
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory standard only where a separate entrance already exists that 
provides access to the collocation space at issue, or where construction of such an entrance is 
technically feasible, and will neither artificially delay collocation provisioning nor materially 
increase the requesting carriers costs.   In addition, an incumbent LEC may construct or require 
the construction of a separated entrance only where legitimate security concerns, or operational 
constraints unrelated to the incumbents or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries competitive 
concerns, warrant them.  Similarly, where an incumbent LEC assigns separated space for 
collocation or requires requesting carriers to access their collocated equipment through a separate 
entrance, the incumbent LECs affiliates and subsidiaries and their employees and contractors 
must also be subject to such restrictions.  An incumbent LEC may require collocators to pay only 
for the least expensive, effective security option that is viable for the physical collocation space 
assigned.   Otherwise, the incumbent would be providing collocation on unreasonable terms and 
conditions.
104. As with space assignment objections generally, a competitive LEC may challenge a 
separate space assignment or a separate entrance requirement with the appropriate state 
commission if the competitive LEC believes the assignment or requirement is unjust, 
unreasonable, discriminatory, violates our rules, or violates any additional, consistent rules the 
state commission has established.
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
105. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),  an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-147.   The Commission sought written public comment on 
the proposals in Second Further Notice, including comment on the IRFA.   Appendix C sets 
forth a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the present Fourth Report and Order.
B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
106. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from which this Fourth 
Report and Order issues proposed changes to the Commission's collocation requirements.  As 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission sought comment from the 
public and from OMB on the proposed changes.   This Order contains new or modified 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements or burdens that are being submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.  Implementation of these information collections is 
subject to OMB approval, as prescribed by the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
107. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 
271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151-54, 201, 
202, 251-54, 256, 271, and 303(r), that this Fourth Report and Order IS ADOPTED. 
108. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-54, 256, 
271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151-54, 201, 
202, 251-54, 256, 271, and 303(r), that Part 51 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 51, IS 
AMENDED, as set forth in Appendix B, and that those rule amendments SHALL BECOME 
EFFECTIVE thirty days after publication of the text or summary thereof in the Federal Register, 
unless the Commission publishes a document in the Federal Register to delay or withdraw them.
109. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information 
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Fourth Report and Order, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.  

					FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


				
					Magalie Roman Salas 
					Secretary

APPENDIX A -- LIST OF PARTIES 

Comments
1. @Link Networks, Inc. (@Link)
2. Advanced Telecom Group, Inc. (ATG)
3. Alcatel USA, Inc. (Alcatel)
4. AT&T Corp. (AT&T)
5. BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth)
6. Catena Networks, Inc. (Catena)
7. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco)
8. CompTel (CompTel)
9. Conectiv Communications, Inc. (Connectiv)
10. CoreComm, Inc., Vitts Networks, Inc., and Logix, Inc. (CoreComm)
11. Covad Communications Company (Covad)
12. CTSI, Inc. and Waller Creek Communications Inc. d/b/a Pontio Communications 
Corporation (CTSI)
13. DSLnet Communications, LLC (DSLnet)
14. Fiber Technologies, LLC (Fiber Technologies)
15. Florida Public Service Commission (Florida Commission)
16. Focal Communications Corporation (Focal)
17. Gluon Networks (Gluon)
18. General Services Administration (GSA)
19. IntraSpan Communications, Inc. (IntraSpan)
20. IP Communications Corporation (IP Communications)
21. Arbros Communications, Inc., the Association for Local Telecommunications Services, 
the Competitive Telecommunications Association, e.spire Communications, Inc., Fairpoint 
Communications Solutions, Inc., Intermedia Communications Inc., KMC Telecom, Inc., 
NewSouth Communications, Inc., and Pathnet (Joint Commenters)
22. LightBonding.com, Inc. (LightBonding.com)
23. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc. (Metromedia)
24. McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (McLeod)
25. Mpower Communications Corp. (Mpower)
26. Network Access Solutions Corporation (NAS)
27. Network Telephone Corporation (Network Telephone)
28. New York State Department of Public Service (New York Commission)
29. Nortel Networks Inc. (Nortel)
30. NorthPoint Communications, Inc. (NorthPoint)
31. Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications 
Companies (OPASTCO)
32. PF.Net Communications, Inc. (PF.Net)
33. Rhythms NetConnections, Inc. (Rhythms)
34. RCN Telecom Services Inc. (RCN)
35. Rural Independent Competitive Alliance (RICA)
36. SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC)
37. Sprint Corporation (Sprint)
38. Supra Telecommunications & Information Systems, Inc. (Supra)
39. Tachion Networks, Inc. (Tachion)
40. The Walt Disney Company (Walt Disney)
41. Telergy, Inc., Adelphia Business Solutions, Inc. and Business Telecommunications, Inc. 
(Telergy)
42. Qwest Corporation (Qwest)
43. United States Telecom Association (USTA)
44. Verizon Telephone Companies (Verizon)
45. Winstar Communications, Inc. (Winstar)
46. WorldCom (WorldCom)

Replies
1. ATG
2. Alcatel 
3. AT&T
4. Aptonix, Ltd. (Aptonix)
5. BellSouth
6. Catena 
7. CompTel
8. Focal
9. GSA
10. IP Communications
11. Joint Commenters
12. Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Lucent)
13. Metromedia
14. Mpower 
15. NAS 
16. Network Telephone
17. Qwest Communications International, Inc. (Qwest)
18. Rhythms 
19. SBC 
20. Sprint
21. Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
22. Verizon
23. WorldCom

Ex Parte Letters

1. Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (Allegiance)
2. Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)
3. ATG
4. AT&T
5. Birch Telecom (Birch)
6. BroadSlate Networks, Inc. (Broadslate)
7. BellSouth 
8. Catena
9. Cbeyond Communications (Cbeyond)
10. Comptel
11. Conversent Communications (Conversent)
12. Copper Mountain Networks (Copper Mountain)
13. Covad
14. DSLnet
15. Focal
16. Global Metro Networks (Global Metro)
17. Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans (Kellogg, Huber)
18. Metromedia
19. Mpower 
20. Network Telephone
21. Qwest
22. Rhythms
23. SBC
24. Sprint
25. Tachion
26. Taqua Systems, Inc.
27. Verizon
28. Westwave Communications (Westwave)
29. WorldCom
30. Zhone Technologies, Inc. (Zhone)

APPENDIX B  FINAL RULES

Part 51 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

VII. PART 51 -- INTERCONNECTION
1.	The authority for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271, 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as 
amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 157, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271, 332, unless 
otherwise noted.

2.	 51.5 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a definition of multi-
functional equipment to read as follows:
*****

Multi-functional equipment.  Multi-functional equipment is equipment that combines one or more 
functions that are necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements with 
one or more functions that would not meet that standard as stand-alone functions.  

*****

3.	 51.321 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
*****

(h)	Upon request, an incumbent LEC must submit to the requesting carrier within ten 
days of the submission of the request a report describing in detail the space that is available for 
collocation in a particular incumbent LEC premises.  This report must specify the amount of 
collocation space available at each requested premises, the number of collocators, and any 
modifications in the use of the space since the last report.  This report must also include measures 
that the incumbent LEC is taking to make additional space available for collocation.  The 
incumbent LEC must maintain a publicly available document, posted for viewing on the 
incumbent LECs publicly available Internet site, indicating all premises that are full, and must 
update such a document within ten days of the date at which a premises runs out of physical 
collocation space.

*****

4.	 51.323 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (k) to 
read as follows:
*****

(b)	An incumbent LEC shall permit the collocation and use of any equipment 
necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.
  
(1)	Equipment is necessary for interconnection if an inability to deploy that equipment 
would, as a practical, economic, or operational matter, preclude the requesting carrier from 
obtaining interconnection with the incumbent LEC at a level equal in quality to that which the 
incumbent obtains within its own network or the incumbent provides to any affiliate, subsidiary, 
or other party.  

(2)	Equipment is necessary for access to an unbundled network element if an inability 
to deploy that equipment would, as a practical, economic, or operational matter, preclude the 
requesting carrier from obtaining nondiscriminatory access to that unbundled network element, 
including any of its features, functions, or capabilities.

(3)	Multi-functional equipment shall be deemed necessary for interconnection or 
access to an unbundled network element if and only if the primary purpose and function of the 
equipment, as the requesting carrier seeks to deploy it, meets either or both of the standards set 
forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.  For a piece of equipment to be utilized 
primarily to obtain equal in quality interconnection or nondiscriminatory access to one or more 
unbundled network elements, there also must be a logical nexus between the additional functions 
the equipment would perform and the telecommunication services the requesting carrier seeks to 
provide to its customers by means of the interconnection or unbundled network element.  The 
collocation of those functions of the equipment that, as stand-alone functions, do not meet either 
of the standards set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section must not cause the 
equipment to significantly increase the burden on the incumbents property.

(c)	Whenever an incumbent LEC objects to collocation of equipment by a requesting 
telecommunications carrier for purposes within the scope of section 251(c)(6) of the Act, the 
incumbent LEC shall prove to the state commission that the equipment is not necessary for 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements under the standards set forth in 
paragraph (b) of this section.  An incumbent LEC may not object to the collocation of equipment 
on the grounds that the equipment does not comply with safety or engineering standards that are 
more stringent than the safety or engineering standards that the incumbent LEC applies to its own 
equipment.  An incumbent LEC may not object to the collocation of equipment on the ground 
that the equipment fails to comply with Network Equipment and Building Specifications 
performance standards or any other performance standards.  An incumbent LEC that denies 
collocation of a competitors equipment, citing safety standards, must provide to the competitive 
LEC within five business days of the denial a list of all equipment that the incumbent LEC locates 
at the premises in question, together with an affidavit attesting that all of that equipment meets or 
exceeds the safety standard that the incumbent LEC contends the competitors equipment fails to 
meet.  This affidavit must set forth in detail:  the exact safety requirement that the requesting 
carriers equipment does not satisfy; the incumbent LECs basis for concluding that the requesting 
carriers equipment does not meet this safety requirement; and the incumbent LECs basis for 
concluding why collocation of equipment not meeting this safety requirement would compromise 
network safety.

*****

(e)	When providing virtual collocation, an incumbent LEC shall, at a minimum, install, 
maintain, and repair collocated equipment meeting the standards set forth in paragraph (b) of this 
section within the same time periods and with failure rates that are no greater than those that 
apply to the performance of similar functions for comparable equipment of the incumbent LEC 
itself. 

(f)	An incumbent LEC shall provide space for the collocation of equipment meeting 
the standards set forth in paragraph (b) of this section in accordance with the following 
requirements:

*****

(5)	An incumbent LEC shall relinquish any space held for future use before denying a 
request for virtual collocation on the grounds of space limitations, unless the incumbent LEC 
proves to the state commission that virtual collocation at that point is not technically feasible;

(6)	An incumbent LEC may impose reasonable restrictions on the warehousing of 
unused space by collocating telecommunications carriers, provided, however, that the incumbent 
LEC shall not set maximum space limitations applicable to such carriers unless the incumbent 
LEC proves to the state commission that space constraints make such restrictions necessary;

(7)	An incumbent LEC must assign collocation space to requesting carriers in a just, 
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory manner.  An incumbent LEC must allow each carrier 
requesting physical collocation to submit space preferences prior to assigning physical collocation 
space to that carrier.  At a minimum, an incumbent LECs space assignment policies and practices 
must meet the following principles:
 
(A)	An incumbent LECs space assignment policies and practices must not materially 
increase a requesting carriers collocation costs.

(B)	An incumbent LECs space assignment policies and practices must not materially 
delay a requesting carrier occupation and use of the incumbent LECs premises.

(C)	An incumbent LEC must not assign physical collocation space that will impair the 
quality of service or impose other limitations on the service a requesting carrier wishes to offer.

(D)	An incumbent LECs space assignment policies and practices must not reduce 
unreasonably the total space available for physical collocation or preclude unreasonably physical 
collocation within the incumbents premises.

*****

(h)	As described in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph, an incumbent LEC 
shall permit a collocating telecommunications carrier to interconnect its network with that of 
another collocating telecommunications carrier at the incumbent LEC's premises and to connect 
its collocated equipment to the collocated equipment of another telecommunications carrier within 
the same premises, provided that the collocated equipment is also used for interconnection with 
the incumbent LEC or for access to the incumbent LEC's unbundled network elements.

(1)	An incumbent LEC shall provide, at the request of a collocating 
telecommunications carrier, a connection between the equipment in the collocated spaces of two 
or more telecommunications carriers, except to the extent the incumbent LEC permits the 
collocating parties to provide the requested connection for themselves or a connection is not 
required under paragraph (h)(2) of this section.  Where technically feasible, the incumbent LEC 
shall provide the connection using copper, dark fiber, lit fiber, or other transmission medium, as 
requested by the collocating telecommunications carrier.

(2)	An incumbent LEC is not required to provide a connection between the equipment 
in the collocated spaces of two or more telecommunications carriers if the connection is requested 
pursuant to section 201 of the Act, unless the requesting carrier submits to the incumbent LEC a 
certification that more than 10 percent of the amount of traffic to be transmitted through the 
connection will be interstate.  The incumbent LEC cannot refuse to accept the certification, but 
instead must provision the service promptly.  Any incumbent LEC may file a section 208 
complaint with the Commission challenging the certification if it believes that the certification is 
deficient.  No such certification is required for a request for such connection under section 251 of 
the Act.

(i)	As provided herein, an incumbent LEC may require reasonable security 
arrangements to protect its equipment and ensure network reliability.  An incumbent LEC may 
only impose security arrangements that are as stringent as the security arrangements that the 
incumbent LEC maintains at its own premises for its own employees or authorized contractors.  
An incumbent LEC must allow collocating parties to access their collocated equipment 24 hours a 
day, seven days a week, without requiring either a security escort of any kind or delaying a 
competitor's employees' entry into the incumbent LEC's premises.  An incumbent LEC may 
require a collocating carrier to pay only for the least expensive, effective security option that is 
viable for the physical collocation space assigned.  Reasonable security measures that the 
incumbent LEC may adopt include:

*****

(4)	Restricting physical collocation to space separated from space housing the 
incumbent LECs equipment, provided that each of the following conditions is met:  

(i)	Either legitimate security concerns, or operational constraints unrelated to the 
incumbents or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries competitive concerns, warrant such separation;

(ii)	Any physical collocation space assigned to an affiliate or subsidiary of the 
incumbent LEC is separated from space housing the incumbent LECs equipment;

(iii)	The separated space will be available in the same time frame as, or a shorter time 
frame than, non-separated space;

(iv)	The cost of the separated space to the requesting carrier will not be materially 
higher than the cost of non-separated space; and 

(v)	The separated space is comparable, from a technical and engineering standpoint, to 
non-separated space.	

(5)	Requiring the employees and contractors of collocating carriers to use a central or 
separate entrance to the incumbent's building, provided, however, that where an incumbent LEC 
requires that the employees or contractors of collocating carriers access collocated equipment 
only through a separate entrance, employees and contractors of the incumbent LECs affiliates 
and subsidiaries must be subject to the same restriction.  

(6)	Constructing or requiring the construction of a separate entrance to access 
physical collocation space, provided that each of the following conditions is met:

(i)	Construction of a separate entrance is technically feasible; 

(ii)	Either legitimate security concerns, or operational constraints unrelated to the 
incumbents or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries competitive concerns, warrant such separation;

(iii)	Construction of a separate entrance will not artificially delay collocation 
provisioning; and

(iv)	Construction of a separate entrance will not materially increase the requesting 
carriers costs.

*****

	(k)	An incumbent LEC's physical collocation offering must include the following:

*****

(2)	Cageless collocation.  Incumbent LECs must allow competitors to collocate 
without requiring the construction of a cage or similar structure.  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 
incumbent's network if technically feasible.  An incumbent LEC must make cageless collocation 
space available in single-bay increments, meaning that a competing carrier can purchase space in 
increments small enough to collocate a single rack, or bay, of equipment.

*****


APPENDIX C

FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),  a Supplemental Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) was incorporated in the Order on 
Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice) in 
CC Docket 98-147.  The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
Second Further Notice, including comment on the Supplemental IRFA.   We received comments 
from The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications 
Companies (OPASTCO) specifically directed toward the Supplemental IRFA.  These comments 
are discussed below.  This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Fourth Report and Order 
2. This Fourth Report and Order (Order) continues the Commissions efforts to 
facilitate the development of competition in telecommunications services.  In the Advanced 
Services First Report and Order, the Commission strengthened its collocation rules to reduce the 
costs and delays faced by carriers that seek to collocate equipment at the premises of incumbent 
local exchange carriers (incumbent LECs).  In GTE v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit vacated several of 
those rules and remanded the case to the Commission.  In this Order, we address the remanded 
issues and take additional steps toward implementing Congress goals in enacting section 
251(c)(6) of the Communications Act.  Specifically, we adopt rule amendments that more 
appropriately implement the balance reflected in the Communications Act, between promoting 
competition and technological innovation, and establishing limits on the scope of the intrusion 
allowed into the incumbent LECs property rights to avoid unnecessary takings of such property. 
Nonetheless, through these amended rules, we reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that facilities-
based competitors, including those that are small entities, have the incentive and ability to invest in 
alternative infrastructure and innovative technologies, while, at the same time, ensuring that 
incumbents retain similar incentives and capabilities.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to 
the Supplemental IRFA
3. In the Supplemental IRFA, we stated that any rule changes would impose 
minimum burdens on small entities, including both telecommunications carriers that request 
collocation and the incumbent LECs that, under section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act, 
must provide collocation to requesting carriers.  We also solicited comments on alternatives to the 
proposed rules that would minimize the impact that any changes to our rules might have on small 
entities.   In their comments, OPASTCO states that the Supplemental IRFA did not provide the 
flexibility necessary to accommodate the needs of small [incumbent LECs] and their customers.   
OPASTCO also states that the Supplemental IRFA does not specify the specific requirements that 
might be imposed on small incumbent LECs or the extent to which those requirements might 
burden small incumbent LECs.   Finally, OPASTCO states that the Supplemental IRFA failed to 
describe the significant alternatives for small [incumbent LECs] that [were] presumptively under 
consideration in this rulemaking.   As noted above, OPASTCO filed comments specifically 
directed to the Supplemental IRFA and to issues that were raised in the Notice but not addressed 
in this Order which is limited to issues that the D.C. Circuit remanded.  In making the 
determinations reflected in the Order, we have considered the impact of our actions on small 
entities.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which Rules 
Will Apply
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an 
estimate of the number of entities that will be affected by the rules.   The RFA defines small 
entity as having the same meaning as the term small business, small organization, and small 
governmental jurisdiction.   In addition, the term small business has the same meaning as the 
term small business concern under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has 
developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.   Under the Small 
Business Act, a small business concern is one that:  (1) is independently owned and operated; 
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).   In this Order, we take a number of steps that may affect 
small entities that either provide or obtain collocation pursuant to section 251(c)(6) of the 
Communications Act.  The requirements we adopt will require small incumbent LECs to change 
their collocation practices.  As Congress contemplated in enacting section 251(c)(6), however, 
our collocation requirements benefit small competitive local exchange carriers (competitive LECs) 
in their efforts to compete against incumbent LECs in the provision of telecommunications 
services, including advanced services.  We believe that, on balance, the benefits to small 
competitive LECs of our actions in this Order far outweigh any burdens these place on small 
incumbent LECs.
5. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain 
common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless 
entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report, 
which encompasses data compiled from FCC Form 499-A Telecommunications Reporting 
Worksheets.   According to data in the most recent report, there are 4,822 service providers.   
These carriers include, inter alia, providers of telephone exchange service, wireline carriers and 
service providers, LECs, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, and resellers.
6. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis.  A small 
business under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and is not 
dominant in its field of operation.   The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA 
purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such 
dominance is not national in scope.   We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this 
RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and 
determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
7. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected.  The United States Bureau of 
the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in 
providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year.   This number contains a 
variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, 
competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, 
pay telephone operators, covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers.  It seems 
certain that some of these 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small 
incumbent LECs because they are not independently owned and operated.   For example, a 
personal communications service (PCS) provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier 
having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business.  It is 
reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone 
service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rules, herein 
adopted. 
8. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers.  The SBA has developed a definition 
of small entities for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies.  The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in 
operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.   According to the SBA's definition, a small 
business telephone company other than a radiotelephone (wireless) company is one employing no 
more than 1,500 persons.   All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone (wireless) companies 
listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees.  Thus, even if all 
26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 
non-radiotelephone (wireless) companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent 
LECs.  We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently 
owned and operated, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the 
number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns 
under the SBA's definition.  Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 2,295 small telephone 
communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies are small entities or 
small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rules, herein adopted.
9. Local Exchange Carriers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
definition for small providers of local exchange service (LECs).  The closest applicable definition 
under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone 
(wireless) companies.   According to the most recent data, there are 1,395 incumbent and other 
LECs.   We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in 
their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 
employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of LECs 
that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition.  Consequently, we 
estimate that fewer than 1,395 providers of local exchange service are small entities or small 
incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rules, herein adopted.  
10. Interexchange Carriers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services (IXCs).  
The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies 
other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.   According to the most recent data, there are 
204 carriers engaged in the provision of interexchange services.   We do not have data specifying 
the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 
1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of 
IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition.  Consequently, we 
estimate that there are less than 204 small entity IXCs that may be affected by the proposed rules, 
herein adopted.
11. Competitive Access Providers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to competitive access services 
providers (CAPs).  The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone 
communications companies other than except radiotelephone (wireless) companies.   According 
to the most recent data, there are 349 CAPs and competitive LECs engaged in the provision of 
competitive local exchange services.   We do not have data specifying the number of these 
carriers that are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and 
thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of CAPs that would 
qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition.  Consequently, we estimate that 
there are less than 349 small entity CAPs providing competitive local exchange services that may 
be affected by the proposed rules, herein adopted.
12. Resellers (including debit card providers).  Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to resellers.  The closest 
applicable SBA definition for a reseller is a telephone communications company other than 
radiotelephone (wireless) companies.   According to the most recent data, there are 541 local and 
toll resellers engaged in the resale of telephone service.   We do not have data specifying the 
number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 
employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of 
resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition.  Consequently, 
we estimate that there are fewer than 541 small local and toll resellers that may be affected by the 
proposed rules, herein adopted.
13. Wireless Communications Services.  This service can be used for fixed, mobile, 
radiolocation and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses.  The Commission defined small 
business for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a very small business as an 
entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years.  The SBA 
has approved these definitions.   The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS 
service.  In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as very small business 
entities, and one that qualified as a small business entity.  We conclude that the number of 
geographic area WS licenses affected includes these eight entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
14. The Order imposes nominal increases in projected reporting, record keeping, and 
other compliance requirements.  Both of these changes affect small and large companies equally.  
First, the order requires a competitive LEC that is requesting incumbent-LEC provisioned cross-
connects pursuant to section 201 of the Act to provide a short certification that the amount of 
interstate traffic to be transmitted over the cross-connect constitutes more than ten percent of all 
traffic transmitted over that cross-connect.  This certification requirement stems from 
jurisdictional considerations.  Thus, it is not possible to exempt small entities from compliance 
with the certification requirement.
15. In the Order, we require that an incumbent LEC must allow a requesting carrier to 
submit physical collocation space preferences prior to assigning that carrier space.  This will 
enable the requesting carrier to request the space that best fits its operational needs.  We also 
amend our existing space report rule to require that, upon request, an incumbent LEC must 
submit to the requesting carrier a report describing in detail the space that is available for 
collocation in a particular incumbent LEC premises.  Thus, the new rule requires more detailed 
information within a report that already must be provided.  A professional would likely prepare 
the additional information in a limited period of time.  To give the rule any meaning, this report 
must be generated by small and large entities alike.  Otherwise, carriers requesting collocation at a 
small incumbent LECs facility would not have the all of the information available to make an 
educated space preference request.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
16. 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 
(among others):  (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. 
17. In this Order, we adopt collocation rules in implementation of section 251(c)(6) of 
the Communications Act.  These rules respond to the D.C. Circuits decision in GTE v. FCC, 
remanding certain rules the Commission had adopted to implement that provision.  Our actions 
will affect both telecommunications carriers that request collocation and the incumbent LECs that, 
under section 251(c)(6), must provide collocation.  As indicated above, both groups of carriers 
include entities that, for purposes of this FRFA, are classified as small entities.  Neither section 
251(c)(6) nor the D.C. Circuit decision permits the Commission to exempt any incumbent LECs, 
including those that are small entities, from their collocation obligations.  Indeed, section 10(d) of 
the Communications Act precludes the Commission from forbearing from the application of 
section 251(c)(6) to any entity prior to that sections full implementation, an event that has not yet 
occurred. 
18. In this Order, we take a number of steps that may affect small entities that either 
provide or obtain collocation pursuant to section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act.  The 
requirements we adopt will require incumbent LECs to change their collocation practices.  As 
Congress contemplated in enacting section 251(c)(6), our collocation requirements benefit small 
competitive LECs in their efforts to compete against incumbent LECs, both large and small, in the 
provision of telecommunications services, including advanced services.  We believe that, on 
balance, the benefits to small competitive LECs of our actions in this Order far outweigh any 
burdens the Order places on small incumbent LECs.
19. As set forth more fully below, we believe that our actions in this Order are 
consistent with the RFA.  Specifically, as OPASTCO urges, the requirements we adopt provide 
substantial flexibility to incumbent LECs, including small incumbent LECs, in implementing 
section 251(c)(6).   Our requirements, however, stop short of allowing any incumbent LEC to act 
inconsistent with that statutory provision.  Any such action would be inconsistent with the 
requirements of section 251(c)(6) and would upset the balance reflected in the statute.  Such 
action also would substantially burden competitive LECs, including those that are small entities, in 
their efforts to compete against incumbent LECs.
20. The record makes clear that, absent the adoption of rules addressing the matters 
remanded by the D.C. Circuit, incumbent LECs will impede requesting carriers collocation 
efforts.  Our actions in this Order should benefit requesting carriers, many of which may be small 
entities, by reducing barriers they encounter in seeking to compete effectively in the provision of 
advanced services and other telecommunications services.  Our actions seek to balance the 
property interests of the incumbent LECs, including small incumbent LECs, with the public 
interest in promoting innovation and competition.  We conclude that rules that are more 
restrictive or less restrictive would not strike the appropriate balance.  
21. In this Order, we adopt standards that determine which competitive LECs, 
including small carriers, may collocate equipment at incumbent LEC premises pursuant to section 
251(c)(6).  These standards provide that equipment is necessary for interconnection or access to 
unbundled network elements within the meaning of section 251(c)(6) if an inability to deploy that 
equipment would, as a practical, economic, or operational matter, preclude the requesting carrier 
from obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled network elements as contemplated in 
sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3).  We also find that multifunction equipment meets the 
necessary standard only if the primary purpose and function of the equipment, as the requesting 
carrier seeks to deploy it, would be practically, economically, or operationally necessary for that 
carrier to obtain equal in quality interconnection or nondiscriminatory access to one or more 
unbundled network elements.  We reject incumbent LEC and competitive LEC requests for 
alternative equipment standards because we believe such standards would be inconsistent with 
section 251(c)(6).   We also find that standards more favorable to the incumbent LECs would 
thwart competition without significantly improving the interests of the incumbent LECs, while 
standards more favorable to competitive LECs would not properly take into consideration the 
property interests of the incumbent LECs.  Therefore, we select the alternative that best balances 
the impact on each party, including small entities, and maximizes benefits.
22. We also conclude that switching and routing equipment generally meets our 
equipment standard because an inability to deploy that equipment would, as a practical, economic, 
and operational matter, preclude a requesting carrier from accessing all the features, functions, 
and capabilities of unbundled local loops.  An incumbent LEC therefore generally must allow 
requesting carriers to collocate the relatively small switching and routing equipment that 
technological advances have enabled manufacturers to develop.  An incumbent LEC, however, 
generally need not allow collocation of traditional circuit switches, which are very large pieces of 
equipment.  We find, in light of the practical, economic, and operational availability of the 
relatively small switches and routers and the materially lesser burden collocation of these switches 
and routers imposes on an incumbents property interests, that traditional circuit switches 
generally do not meet our equipment standard.  We believe that this approach toward switching 
and routing equipment furthers the purposes behind the RFA, because it allows small competitive 
LECs flexibility in configuring their networks while precluding the collocation of switching and 
routing equipment that would infringe small incumbent LECs property interests.  We note that 
any alternative that might allow a small incumbent LEC to generally preclude the collocation of 
relatively small switches and routers within its premises would violate the statutory mandate that 
incumbent LECs, both large and small, provide for the collocation of necessary equipment. 
23. In addition, in this Order, we eliminate the requirement that, pursuant to section 
251(c)(6), an incumbent LEC allow competitive LECs to construct and maintain cross-connects 
outside of their immediate physical collocation space at the incumbents premises.  We considered 
maintaining this requirement, but that alternative would be inconsistent with the Communications 
Act and would not properly take into consideration the property interests of the incumbent LECs.  
The elimination of this requirement gives small incumbent LECs flexibility that was not available 
under the Commissions prior collocation rules.  
24. We find that sections 201 and 251 of the Communications Act provide statutory 
authority to require an incumbent LEC to provision cross-connects between collocated carriers, 
and we require that an incumbent LEC provide such cross-connects upon reasonable request.  We 
considered not requiring incumbent LECs to provision cross-connects between collocated 
carriers, but that alternative would allow incumbent LECs to provide collocation to competitive 
LECs in an unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory manner.  We note that all incumbent LECs, 
including those that are small carriers, cross-connect their own equipment within their premises.  
Indeed, those premises are, by design, places where a carrier can cross-connect equipment.  The 
benefits to competition from requiring that a small incumbent LEC provision cross-connects 
between collocators within its premises far outweigh any additional burden such a requirement 
may impose on that carrier.  In addition, allowing a small incumbent LEC to refrain from 
provisioning cross-connects between collocated carriers would allow the incumbent to impose 
unreasonable and discriminatory terms and conditions on collocators, in violation of the 
Communications Act.
25. In this Order, we eliminate the requirement that incumbent LECs allow the 
requesting carrier to select its physical collocation space from among the unused space in the 
incumbents premises as well as requirements constraining how incumbents LEC may configure 
physical collocation space.  We now allow incumbent LECs, in certain circumstances, to restrict 
physical collocation to space separated from space housing the incumbents equipment and to 
require the construction and use of a separate entrance to access physical collocation space.  We 
reject the alternative of retaining the prior rules, because they failed to properly balance the 
congressional goal of promoting competition against the need to protect an incumbent LECs 
property interests against unwarranted intrusion.  The elimination of these prior rules gives 
incumbent LECs, including small entities, flexibility that was not previously available.
26. We recognize, however, that an incumbent LEC has powerful incentives that, left 
unchecked, may influence it to allocate space in a manner inconsistent with its statutory duty to 
provide for physical collocation on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and 
nondiscriminatory.  Accordingly, we establish specific principles that each incumbent LEC, 
including those that are small carriers, must follow in assigning physical collocation space.  These 
rules are designed to ensure that incumbent LECs, both large and small, act as neutral property 
owners and managers, rather than as direct competitors of the carriers requesting collocation, in 
assigning physical collocation space to requesting carriers.  Alternatives that would give a small 
incumbent LEC more flexibility in assigning space might enable it to act unreasonably and 
discriminatorily in violation of section 251(c)(6).  Those alternatives also would burden requesting 
carriers, including those that are small carriers, by increasing the costs they incur in competing 
against incumbent LECs.  Therefore, for both statutory and public policy reasons, we do not 
adopt a different standard for incumbent LECs that are small entities.
27. We also reject the alternative of allowing incumbent LECs, including those that are 
small entities, to restrict physical collocation to space separated from space housing the 
incumbents equipment and to require the construction and use of a separate entrance to access 
physical collocation space in all instances, because we find that such separation measures would 
be unreasonable and discriminatory in certain circumstances.  We conclude, for example, that an 
incumbent LEC may require such separation measures only where legitimate security concerns, or 
operational constraints unrelated to the incumbents or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries 
competitive concerns, warrant them.  We note that this is consistent with the D.C. Circuits 
recognition that alternatives other than separation are sufficient to address incumbent LECs 
security concerns.  To the extent small incumbent LECs encounter security concerns or 
operational constraints that differ from those incumbent LECs encounter, our rules permit small 
incumbent LECs to take those differences into account in their space assignment and 
configuration policies and practices. 
F. Report to Congress
28. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to 
be sent to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA.   In addition, the Commission will send a copy of 
the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.  A copy of the 
Order and the FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. 
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).
 	These cables are referred to as cross-connections or cross-connects.  We define cross-connects in paragraph 58, 
infra.
 	Pub.L. 104-104, Title VII, 110 Stat. 153 (1996), codified at 47 U.S.C.  151 et seq.  All citations in this 
Order to the 1996 Act are to the 1996 Act as codified in the United States Code.  The 1996 Act amended the 
Communications Act of 1934.
 	See, e.g., Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans 
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Second Report, CC Docket No. 98-146, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 21004, para. 
246 (2000) (Second Report on Advanced Telecommunications Capability).  In addition to facilities-based entry, the 
1996 Act envisions competitive entry through purchase of unbundled network elements and resale.  We note, in 
particular, that it may not be economically feasible for most carriers to compete for residential customers without 
substantial use of unbundled network elements, at least based on the costs associated with some current 
technologies.
 	See Joint Commenters Reply at 5-6 (maintaining that Congress did not expect competitive LECs to replicate 
an incumbents network).
 	See, e.g., Cisco Comments at 5 (arguing that collocation is the key to allowing competitive LECs to enter the 
market without replicating an incumbents loop architecture); WorldCom Comments at 5-6 (contending that 
Congress viewed collocation as fundamental to local competition); Focal Reply at 11-12.
 	See, e.g., Cisco Comments at 2; Lucent Reply at 2-3; Letter from Christine Mailloux, Regulatory Strategist, 
Copper Mountain Networks, Inc., to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (filed Mar. 1, 2001) (Copper 
Mountain Mar. 1, 2001 Letter); Letter from Richard S. Whitt, Directory/Senior Counsel, Internet/Data Law & 
Policy, WorldCom, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 2 (filed Mar. 23, 2001) (WorldCom Mar. 23, 2001 
Letter).
 	Copper Mountain Mar. 1, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 1; see also DSLnet Comments at i; Aptonix Reply at 
2-3; ATG Reply at i.
 	ATG Comments, at Att. 1, p. 1, & Att. 2, p. 1.
 	See Tachion Comments at 2-3; Copper Mountain Mar. 1, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 1-2.
 	See Supra Comments at 5.
 	Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 24011, 24014, para. 2, &  
24017, para. 11 (1998) (Advanced Services Order), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 17044 (2000).
 	See Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. 1 (1996) (Joint 
Explanatory Statement).
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).  Each incumbent LEC has the duty to provide, on rates, terms, and conditions that are 
just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or 
access to unbundled network elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier, except that the carrier may 
provide for virtual collocation if the local exchange carrier demonstrates to the State commission that physical 
collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space limitations.  Id.  In a physical collocation 
arrangement, a competitor leases space at an incumbent LEC's premises for its equipment.  The competing 
provider has physical access to this space to install, maintain, and repair its equipment.  In a virtual collocation 
arrangement, the competitor designates the equipment to be placed at the incumbent LEC's premises.  The 
competing provider, however, does not have physical access to the incumbent's premises.  Instead, the equipment is 
under the physical control of the incumbent LEC, and the incumbent is responsible for installing, maintaining, and 
repairing equipment designated by the competing provider.  Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 17806, 17812, para. 9 (2000) (Collocation Reconsideration Order or Second 
Further Notice), petitions for further recon. pending.
 	Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and 
Order, CC Docket No. 96-98, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15782-807, paras. 555-607 (1996) (Local Competition Order), 
aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 
1997) & Iowa Util. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), affd in part, revd in part, and remanded sub nom. 
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Util. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd.), affd in part and vacated in part on 
remand, Iowa Util. Bd. v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. granted sub nom. Verizon Communications 
Corp. v. FCC, 121 S.Ct. 877 (2001), Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996) (Local Competition 
First Reconsideration Order), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996) (Local Competition 
Second Reconsideration Order), Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 
FCC Rcd 12460 (1997) (Local Competition Third Reconsideration Order), further recon. pending.  
 	Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15783-84, para. 558.
 	Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, 
First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 4761, 4773-74, paras. 23-24 
(1999) (Advanced Services First Report and Order), aff'd in part, and vacated and remanded in part sub nom. 
GTE Service Corp. v. FCC, 205 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (GTE v. FCC), on recon., Collocation Reconsideration 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 17806-39, paras. 1-69. 
 	Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4784-86, paras. 41-43.  In a shared physical 
collocation arrangement, two or more competitive LECs share caged collocation space pursuant to terms and 
conditions agreed to by the competitive LECs.  Id. at 4784, para. 41.  In a caged physical arrangement, a 
competitive LEC leases and has direct physical access to caged space at an incumbent LEC structure for its 
equipment.  Cageless physical collocation eliminates the cage surrounding the competitive LECs equipment.  Id. 
at 4784-85, para. 42.
 	47 C.F.R.  51.323(k)(3).  In adjacent physical collocation, the competitive LECs equipment is located within 
a controlled environmental vault or similar structure that the competitive LEC or its contractor constructs on 
property leased from the incumbent LEC.  Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786, para. 
44.
 	Id. at 4765, para. 8, & 4786-87, para. 45.
 	Id. at 4773-74, paras. 23-24.
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 420-27.
 	Id. at 422-24.
 	Id. at 423-24.
 	Id. at 424-26.
 	Id. at 421.  Following the courts decision in GTE v. FCC, the Commission issued a Second Further Notice to 
invite comment on what actions the Commission should take in response to the remand.  This Notice invited 
comment on, among other matters, the definition of necessary as used in section 251(c)(6), whether section 
251(c)(6) encompasses cross-connects between collocators, and what physical collocation requirements the 
Commission should adopt to replace those vacated by the court.  Second Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17839-49, 
paras. 71-98.
 	The D.C. Circuit affirmed some of the rules adopted in the Advanced Services First Report and Order.  The 
court upheld rules requiring incumbent LECs to expand their collocation offerings to include cageless and adjacent 
collocation, and to allocate the costs of preparing space for collocation among potential collocators, as well as the 
rule precluding incumbent LECs from imposing unreasonable minimum space requirements on collocators.  See 
GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 420-27.  This Order does not address or change in any way those collocation rules that 
the court upheld.  Nor does it change the Commissions policy of encouraging the states to take an active role in 
resolving collocation disputes.
 	We note that the statutory purpose of promoting competition, investment, and innovation is furthered through 
actions that enable both incumbent LECs and their competitors to compete in the provision of telecommunications 
services or to provide more innovative telecommunications services.  In promoting these interests, we recognize 
that we must adopt rules that enable competition, investment, and innovation in furtherance of the publics 
interest, not rules that merely favor one type of competitor over another.  See generally Disney Comments at 3 
(suggesting that the collocation rules should encourage deployment of as many broadband networks as possibly, as 
quickly as possible, in a competitive environment).
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).
 	Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15794-96, paras. 579-81.
 	Id. at 15794, para. 580. 
 	Id. at 15794, para. 581. 
 	Id.
 	Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4776-77, para. 28. 
 	Id.
 	Id.
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 422.
 	Id. at 423.
 	Id. at 421.
 	Id. at 424.
 	Id. (quoting AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd., 525 U.S. at 390).
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).
 	See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 9; Disney Comments at 5; Joint Commenters Comments at 18-19; Rhythms 
Comments at 3; see also AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. at 397 (stating that the 1996 Act is not a model of 
clarity).
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 423; accord McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 414 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.) 
(The word necessary . . . has not a fixed character, peculiar to itself. . . .  A thing may be necessary, very 
necessary, absolutely or indispensably necessary.); Milligan v. City of Red Oak, Iowa, 230 F.3d 355, 359 (8th Cir. 
2000) (per curiam) (under Iowa law, the test for determining whether a taking is necessary is whether the 
condemning authority can reasonably expect to achieve its public purpose); Montana Power Co. v. Burlington 
Northern R.R. Co., 900 P.2d 888, 891 (Mont. 1995) (necessary means reasonable, requisite, and proper for the 
accomplishment of the end in view); see also MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone and 
Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218, 226 (1994) (required can mean either demanded as essential or demanded as 
appropriate) (internal quotation marks omitted).
 	The legislative history makes clear that Congress intended to provide explicit statutory authorization for 
physical collocation, but does not define necessary or otherwise directly address what equipment an incumbent 
LEC must allow a requesting carrier to collocate.  See, e.g., Joint Explanatory Statement supra note 13, at 117-28; 
H. Rep. No. 104-204(1), 104th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 & 73 (1995) (1995 House Report); S. Rep. No. 104-23, 104th 
Cong., 1st Sess., 19-22 & 92 (1995) (1995 Senate Report); compare Bell Atlantic Telephone Cos. v. FCC, 24 F.3d 
1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Bell Atlantic I) (holding that the Communications Act of 1934 did not authorize the 
Commission to require LECs to permit physical collocation of their property) with 140 Cong. Rec. H5216, 5230 
(June 28, 1994) (statements of Rep. Markey) (stating 18 days after the decision in Bell Atlantic I that without an 
explicit physical collocation provision, the Commission will lack[] the tools needed to pave a high quality and 
affordable information superhighway).
 	See Bell Atlantic Tel. Cos. v. FCC, 131 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Bell Atlantic II); Advanced 
Services Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24045, para. 71; CTSI Comments at 7 (to properly interpret section 251(c)(6), the 
Commission should read statute in its entirety and in light of Congress objectives).
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 423; see AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd., 525 U.S. at 388 (in determining the meaning of 
necessary under section 251(d)(2)(A), the Commission must apply some limiting standard, rationally related to 
the goals of the Act).
 	47 U.S.C.  251(d)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
 	AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd., 525 U.S. at 388; GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 423.
 	See Cisco Comments at 5-6; Supra Comments at 11; see also GSA Comments at 5-6 (arguing that a definition 
of necessary in section 251(c)(6) similar to that adopted for section 251(d)(2)(A) would appropriately ensure that 
a competitive LEC will not be required to implement impractical solutions, employ uneconomic network 
configurations, or breach reasonable operational constraints).
 	Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report 
and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 3696, 3721, at para. 44 (1999) 
(emphasis in original & subsequent history omitted) (UNE Remand Order).
 	See part IV.B.5, infra (addressing switching and routing equipment).
 	See part IV.B.3, infra.
 	See, e.g., Rhythms Comments at 13; Letter from Scott P. Anderson, Manager, Regulatory Affairs & Industry 
Relations, Broadslate Networks, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 3-9 (filed Mar. 14, 2001) (Broadslate 
Mar. 14, 2001 Letter).
 	See, e.g., DSLnet Comments at 31 (arguing that any commercially available equipment that enables 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements meets the necessary standard); Intraspan Comments at 
7 (proposing that the marketplace should determine which equipment is necessary); NAS Comments at 2-6 
(urging readoption of the used or useful standard).
 	See, e.g., Conectiv Comments at iii; Telergy Comments at 3; SBC Comments at 14; Verizon Comments at 4-
5.
 	See, e.g., Corecomm Comments at 20; CTSI Comments at 6; Supra Comments at 10.  An incumbent LEC, 
however, may use its premises for activities other than interconnecting or accessing the different parts of its 
network.  The equipment an incumbent deploys within its premises therefore bears no intrinsic relationship to 
equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements in section 251(c)(6).  See SBC 
Reply at 10-11; Verizon Reply at 6-8.  Similarly, authorizing the collocation of any telecommunications-related 
equipment whose deployment would facilitate a competitive LECs ability to compete, as Focal proposes, would 
give requesting carriers virtually unlimited access to an incumbents property irrespective of any relationship 
between the equipment sought to be collocated and the collocators ability to interconnect and access unbundled 
network elements.  See Focal Comments at 3.
 	See SBC Reply at 5-10.
 	See, e.g., Joint Commenters Comments at 20-23; Qwest Comments at 3-4; Verizon Comments at 2-3; see also 
Comptel Comments at 4 (arguing that the Commission should focus on whether collocating equipment having a 
particular function makes the competitive LEC materially more efficient than if the function were provided from 
elsewhere).  But see Telergy Comments at 14 (pointing out that collocation is not absolutely required for 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements because alternatives, such a meet-point interconnection, 
are available); ATG Reply at 4 (same).
 	Letter from Frank S. Simone, Government Affairs Director, AT&T, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, 
at Att., p. 7 (filed Apr. 5, 2001) (AT&T Apr. 5, 2001 Letter) (stating that the plain terms of section 251(c)(6) focus 
not on whether equipment needs to be collocated. but simply on whether it is needed, broadly speaking, for 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements).
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6) (emphasis added).
 	Id.
 	Section 251(c)(6) provides for virtual collocation if the [incumbent] local exchange carrier demonstrates to 
the State commission that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space 
limitations.  47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6). 
 	In note 14, supra we define physical and virtual collocation.
 	See, e.g., 1995 House Report, supra note 45, at 73 (stating that the risk of discriminatory interconnection 
grows the farther one gets away from the central office and that for this reason, the legislation mandates actual, 
or physical, collocation, except where physical collocation is impractical).
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).
 	See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 11-13; Joint Commenters Reply at 8-9; RCN Comments at 7; Telergy 
Comments at 16-17; Focal Reply at 9; see also Bell Atlantic II, 131 F.3d at 1047 (stating that [c]ontext serves an 
especially important role in textual analysis of a statute when Congress has not expressed itself as unequivocally as 
might be wished).  But see SBC Reply at 7-9 (arguing, in effect, that an incumbent need not allow collocation of 
equipment necessary to achieve interconnection equal in quality to that which the incumbent provides itself or to 
access all the features, functions, and capabilities of an unbundled network element).
 	See WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 246 F.3d 690, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (noting relationship between collocation 
obligations and obligations under sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3)); Corecomm Comments at 13; RCN Comments 
at 7.
 	E.g., RCN Comments at 7; Joint Commenters Reply at 8-9;
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(2).
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(2)(C)-(D).
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(3).
 	47 C.F.R.  51.307(c); see, e.g., UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3772-73, para. 167 (defining an 
unbundled local loop as including all the features, functions, and capabilities of the transmission facilities between 
an incumbent LEC's central office and the loop demarcation point at the customer premises); see also DSLnet 
Comments at 28-29 (arguing that a requesting carrier must be able to employ equipment that can interact with the 
features, functions, and capabilities of unbundled network elements).
 	E.g., AT&T Comments at 13; Joint Commenters Comments at 24-26; RCN Comments at 7.
 	E.g., DSLnet Comments at 28; Telergy Comments at 3.
 	See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 12; Joint Commenters Comments at 24-26; RCN Comments at 7.
 	Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15614-15, para. 224; cf. Iowa Util. Bd. v. FCC, 219 F.3d at 757 
(finding it self-evident that the Act prevents an [incumbent LEC] from discriminating between itself and a 
requesting competitor with respect to the quality of the interconnection provided). 
 	See Cisco Comments at 9 (in the context of modern technology, quality of service functions are critical to an 
ability to interconnect); WorldCom Mar. 23, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 2 (interconnection encompasses the 
ability to move traffic intelligently from point to point).  Thus, for instance, if a link in the incumbents network is 
able to accommodate traffic with a particular throughput rate and quality of service, a carrier that requests and pays 
for a similar link must have the opportunity to transmit traffic through the interconnection with the same 
throughput rate and quality of service.  See generally AT&T Comments at Att. 2 (Frontera Declaration), pp. 9-13.
 	See AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd., 525 U.S. at 387.
 	47 U.S.C.  153(29); see AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd., 525 U.S. at 387 (holding that vertical switching features, 
such as call forwarding and call waiting, are functions that that fall squarely within the statutory definition of 
network element).
 	See Telergy Comments at 16-17; AT&T Reply at 12; AT&T Apr. 5, 2001 Letter, supra note 60, at Att., pp. 4-
5.
 	See, e.g., @link Comments at 20 (arguing that access to the features, functions, and capabilities of a 
unbundled network element is part of access to the unbundled network element); Conectiv Comments at 9 
(maintaining that in order to access unbundled network elements effectively and on the same basis as incumbents, 
competitive LECs must deploy equipment fully capable of interacting with the elements features, functions, and 
capabilities); DSLnet Comments at 28-29; AT&T Reply at 12.
 	See SBC Reply at 7.
 	47 U.S.C.  153(29); see generally AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd., 525 U.S. at 387.
 	See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 12; Telergy Comments at 3-4 (for access to an unbundled network element to 
be meaningful, a requesting carrier must be able to take advantage of all the elements feature, functions, and 
capabilities); AT&T Apr. 5, 2001 Letter, supra note 60, at Att., p. 5; Letter from Cristin L. Flynn, Associate Policy 
Counsel, Internet/Data Law & Policy, WorldCom, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at Att., p. 5 (filed 
Mar. 12, 2001) (WorldCom Mar. 12, 2001 Letter).
 	For convenience, we refer to these functions as necessary functions and additional functions. 
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 421; see SBC Comments at 12; Letter from Priscilla Hill-Ardoin, Senior Vice-
President, SBC, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at Att. (filed May 23, 2001) (SBC May 23, 2001 Letter).
 	E.g. Joint Commenters Comments at 21; Supra Comments at 10.
 	Letter from Teresa Marrero, Senior Attorney, AT&T, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 4 (filed 
Feb. 21, 2001) (AT&T Feb. 21, 2001 Letter); WorldCom Mar. 23, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 5.
 	See, e.g., ATG Comments at 2 (precluding collocation and use of multi-functional equipment would severely 
hinder the emergence of telecommunications competition); Rhythms Comments at 16-18; Joint Commenters Reply 
at 12-13; Network Telephone Reply at 4 (Congress did not intend to deny competitive providers the benefits of 
efficient, technologically advanced equipment); WorldCom Mar. 23, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 2 (competitive 
LECs that cannot collocate multi-functional equipment will be about as useful as telephone switch operators  
unable to compete in todays marketplace).
 	See, e.g., Rhythms Comments at 13-15; Tachion Comments at 2-3.
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 423; see, e.g., Telergy Comments at 16; RCN Comments at ii; Rhythms Comments 
at 4-5; Qwest Reply at 2-3.
 	See GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 423-24; Qwest Reply at 2-3; Letter from Frank S. Simone, Government Affairs 
Director, AT&T, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (filed Apr. 20, 2001) (AT&T Apr. 20, 2001 Letter).  
But see SBC Comments at 10-14 (arguing that court has determined that the Commission cannot under any 
circumstances require that an incumbent permit collocation of multi-functional equipment); Verizon Comments at 
6-8.
 	Qwest Comments at 3-4; see, e.g., Rhythms Reply at 2-3; Joint Commenters Reply at 5-6; Letter from Robert 
B. McKenna, Associate General Counsel, Qwest, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at Att., p.1 (filed Mar. 
5, 2001) (Mpower and Qwest Mar. 5, 2001 Letter); WorldCom Mar. 23, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 3.
 	Qwest Comments at iii.
 	See Qwest Comments at 5; Gluon Comments at 4; WorldCom Mar. 23, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 3.
 	See paras. 28-29, supra.
 	See Qwest Comments at 5; Gluon Comments at 4; WorldCom Mar. 23, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 3.
 	See ATG Comment at 3 (indicating that any additional function of collocated equipment that ATG might use 
are inextricably intertwined with the primary use of the equipment such that the function cannot be removed).
 	See WorldCom Comments at 9.
 	See GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 424; see NAS Comments at 5 (noting that manufacturers have no operational, 
economic, or technical incentive to integrate payroll and data collection into multi-functional equipment); 
WorldCom Mar. 23, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 3.
 	See AT&T Comments at 18 (section 251(c)(6) requires incumbents to permit collocation of multi-functional 
equipment if the additional functions do not cause the equipment to consume appreciably more space than single-
use equipment); WorldCom Mar. 23, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 3 (contending that the Commission could avoid 
any conceivable takings concerns by requiring that multi-functional equipment cannot occupy more space than 
similar equipment that provides only the interconnection and access functionality); Salvaty v. Falcon Cable 
Television, 165 Cal. App. 3d 798, 803, 212 Cal. Rptr. 31, 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (Salvaty v. Falcon Cable) 
(attachment of television cable held within the scope of easement permitting placement of poles with telephone and 
electrical wires on private property because the addition of cable television equipment to a preexisting utility pole 
[did not] materially increase burden on [that] property); accord Joint Commenters Reply at 13 (arguing that 
incumbent LECs have not explained how using the additional functions of multi-functional equipment would 
constitute a greater taking than collocation of that equipment); see also C/R TV, Inc. v. Shannondale, Inc., 27 F.3d 
104, 107-08 (4th Cir. 1994) (C/R TV v. Shannondale) (examining whether proposed use would substantially 
burden private property as part of determination whether attaching television cable to poles falls within easement 
for the installation and maintenance of poles having telephone and electrical wires attached).
 	A difference in the demands on an incumbents space would be insignificant if the incumbent did not have to 
reconfigure the outer boundary of a carriers collocation space in order to accommodate the additional functions.  
A difference in the demands on an incumbents other resources would be insignificant if the demands on those 
resources as a result of the additional functions were roughly comparably to (or less than) the levels that would 
prevail if those functions were excluded from the equipment or not activated.  Thus, the incumbents property 
interests would not be burdened simply because the requested equipment is somewhat taller, wider, or heavier, 
requires marginally more power, produces marginally more heat, or requires some additional maintenance or 
repair than alternative equipment excluding those functions. 
 	See AT&T Comments at 18-19; CompTel Reply at 4 (asserting that incumbents that are truly concerned about 
space considerations would not seek to foreclose collocation of all multi-functional equipment); Qwest Reply at 4-5 
(characterizing as not well-founded the suggestion that collocation of multi-functional equipment will 
necessarily lead to a taking of more incumbent LEC space than the Communication Act authorizes); see also 
Salvaty v. Falcon Cable, 165 Cal. App. 3d at 803, 212 Cal. Rptr. at 35; C/R TV v. Shannondale, 27 F.3d at 107-08.  
But see Letter from Michael K. Kellogg, Counsel for SBC, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 3-4 (filed 
Feb. 1, 2001) (SBC Feb. 1, 2001 Letter) (arguing that statute limits scope of authorized collocation by reference to 
equipments functions and that collocation of additional functions would impermissibly take incumbent LEC 
property).
 	@tlink Comments at 24-25; Nortel Comments at 5 (with todays technology, single-function equipment is 
unlikely to be small or consume less space than multi-functional equipment).
 	See, e.g., Rhythms Comments at 13-14.
 	ATG Comments at 4 (contending that collocation of innovative equipment reduces the imposition on an 
incumbents property interests that a collocator causes) & Att. 1, p. 1 (asserting that the multifunctional equipment 
now being developed conforms to accepted compliance standards for space, power, and heat dissipation).
 	BellSouth Comments at 5; SBC Comments at 10-11; Verizon Comments at 6.
 	See Florida Commission Comments at 3 (arguing that it would be unreasonable to conclude that a specific type 
of equipment may be collocated only if its sole purpose interconnection or access to unbundled network elements); 
Tachion Comments at 4 (artificially dis-integrating technology or precluding new entrants from using available 
functions in collocated equipment would create an enormous barrier to competition).
 	See SBC Feb. 1, 2001 Letter, supra note 104, at 3.
 	See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  153(29) (definition of network element).
 	See para. 20, supra.
 	See generally RCN Comments at 14 (maintaining that precluding collocation of multi-functional equipment 
would thwart competition).
 	See, e.g., Cisco Comments at 11 (observing that limiting the functions that qualify for collocation would place 
additional burdens on an incumbents space and other resources); Florida Commission Comments 3 (contending 
that it is appropriate to consider breath of multi-functional equipment and it use for interconnection or access to 
unbundled network elements relative to other purposes); Gluon Comments at 3 (asserting that market-opening 
provisions of 1996 Act would have no point if restrictive equipment functionality were to create artificial barriers 
to entry); NAS Comments at 6 (contending that precluding collocation of multi-functional equipment would stifle 
technological innovation); ATG Reply at 3-4; Letter from Christine Mailloux, Regulatory Strategist, Copper 
Mountain, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 3 (filed May 23, 2001) (Copper Mountain May 23, 2001 
Letter) (maintaining that overly rigid collocation rules would discourage innovation and widespread deployment of 
affordable broadband services).
 	See, e.g., Connectiv Comments at 12 (arguing that incumbent LECs should be required to allow collocation of 
any multi-functional equipment that contains features or functions that enable interconnection or access to 
unbundled network elements); Covad Comments at 16 (proposing that a requesting carrier be able collocate any 
equipment that performs a function necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements); Focal 
Comments at 12-13 (proposing that a requesting carrier be able to collocate any multi-functional equipment that, 
as a technical matter, may feasibly be deployed at the incumbents premises if deployment would facilitate the 
requesting carriers ability to compete).
 	See GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 424; see also AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd., 525 U.S. at 389-90.
 	E.g., AT&T Comments at 20-24; ATG Comments at 2-3 & Att. 1, pp. 2-3; Joint Commenters Comments at 
28-29; Northpoint Comments at 3-4; Sprint Comments at 5-7.
 	E.g., AT&T Comments at 20-23 (transmission equipment, including DSLAMs); ATG Comments at 3 & Att. 
1, pp. 2-3 (concentrators, transport equipment, cross-connect systems, multiplexers, DSLAMs, and power 
distribution equipment); Joint Commenters Comments at 28-29 (transmission equipment, including optical 
terminating equipment, concentrators, multiplexers); MFN Comments at 13-14 (fiber distribution frames); NAS 
Comments at 8-14 (arguing that competitive LECs cannot, as a practical, economic, or operational matter, provide 
digital subscriber line (DSL) service without DSLAMs and ATM equipment); Northpoint Comments at 5-8 
(aggregation devices and DSLAMs); Verizon Comments at 7 (classifying as necessary multiplexers, 
concentrators, and DSLAMs used in connection with DSL services); Sprint Comments at 8-9 (ATM multiplexers, 
DSLAMs, fiber optic terminating equipment, and cross-connect panels); Winstar Comments at 1-6 (microwave 
transmission facilities).
 	E.g., Sprint Comments at 9.
 	Cisco Comments at 7.
 	See, e.g., Gluon Comments at 3-4 (maintaining that requesting carriers should be able to add equipment 
management software to collocated equipment); Sprint Comments at 8-9 (referring to network management 
devices, testing equipment, portable testing equipment, test heads, surveillance equipment, fuse and alarm panels, 
timing sources, and cabinets for spares); WorldCom Reply at 8-9 (indicating that absent the ability to collocate 
remote surveillance and telemetry equipment, a carrier could not practicably assure the integrity or proper 
operation of collocated equipment).
 	Compare, e.g. Sprint Comments at 8-9 (proposing safe harbor list of equipment) with Letter from Richard 
Juhnke, General Attorney, Sprint, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at Att., p. 1 (filed Apr. 26, 2001) 
(Sprint Apr. 26, 2001 Letter) (stating that incumbents have not resisted collocation of equipment on proposed safe 
harbor list).  But see SBC Reply at 17-21 (arguing that some of the equipment listed by Sprint falls outside SBCs 
proposed definition of necessary).  
 	See AT&T Comments at 20 (observing that the Commission cannot possibly, in the face of rapidly changing 
technology, determine in advance whether each type of equipment qualifies for collocation). 
 	Letter from Kathleen, M. Marshall, Executive Director, ATG, to William A. Kehoe III, Special Counsel, FCC, 
at 2 (filed Feb. 25, 2001) (ATG Feb. 25, 2001 Letter).
 	See Letter from W. Scott Randolph, Director  Regulatory Affairs, Verizon, to Magalie Roman Salas, 
Secretary, FCC, at Att., p. 5 (filed May 25, 2001) (Verizon May 25, 2001 Letter).
 	As explained below, application of our equipment standard may allow for certain specific types of switches or 
routers, but not others.  See paras. 46-48, infra.
 	UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3772-73, para. 167; see 47 C.F.R.  51.307(c).
 	Cf. 47 U.S.C.  153(43) (defining telecommunications).
 	See, e.g., Qwest Comments at 13-14; Sprint Comments at 8; Verizon Comments at 7.
 	See 47 U.S.C.  153(43), 153(45) (defining telecommunications and telecommunications service).
 	See paragraph 53, infra, for examples of functions that carriers may not collocate under our equipment 
standard.
 	See para. 23, supra.
 	E.g., Corecomm Comments at 27; Nortel Comments at 2-3.  This equipment includes remote switching 
modules, which are small switches that are used in conjunction with host switches located in different premises.  
E.g., AT&T Comments at 25 & Att. 2 (Culmone Declaration), pp. 11-12.
 	E.g., Corecomm Comments at 27 (stating that a traditional circuit switch requires hundreds of square feet of 
floor space, while several modern switches or routers can fit comfortably within the space of a typical collocation 
area).
 	Corecomm Comments at 27; DSLnet Comments at 32; Telergy Comments at 28.
 	See paras. 21-23, supra; SBC Comments at 14; Verizon Reply at 2-3; SBC May 23, 2001 Letter, supra note 
87, at Att.; see also AT&T Reply at 34. 
 	We note that the record indicates that equipment housing newer, packet-based switching and routing 
technology generally is dramatically smaller than traditional, circuit switches and continues to evolve through the 
use of even smaller components.  See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 25-26; Cisco Comments at 7; Tachion Comments 
at 2; AT&T Reply at 23.  To the extent this trend does not continue in the future and, instead, the size of switching 
and routing equipment begins to significantly increase, we may need to revisit our finding.
 	See Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4778-79, para. 31; Local Competition Order, 
11 FCC Rcd at 15794, para. 581. 
 	Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15795, para. 581.
 	Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4778-79, para. 31.
 	See Cisco Comments at 7 (noting that the treatment of switching in the Local Competition Order focused 
solely on interconnection for circuit-switched technologies); Corecomm Comments at 22 (pointing out that the 
Commission has never found that switches do not perform interconnection or network access functions). 
 	See, e.g., Copper Mountain Mar. 1, 2001 Letter, supra note 7, at 1-2; Gluon Comments at 2-3; AT&T 
Comments at 24-32.
 	See generally Telergy Comments at 28-29 (arguing that we must periodically review our collocation rules in 
light of technological developments); Letter from Frank S. Simone, Government Affairs Director, AT&T, to 
Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at Att. 2 (Physical Collocation White Paper), p. 5 (filed Dec. 12, 2001) 
(AT&T Dec. 12, 2001 Letter) (maintaining that the Commission is entitled, if not obligated, to reassess whether it 
can require that incumbents permit collocation of switching equipment).
 	See generally ATG Feb. 25, 2001 Letter, supra note 124, at 3-4; ATG Feb. 25, 2001 Letter, supra note 124, at 
3-4.  We note that as network architectures and equipment offerings evolve, additional types of equipment may 
become necessary to obtaining equal in quality interconnection or nondiscriminatory access to unbundled 
network elements.  We do not preclude a requesting carrier from asserting that any particular telecommunications-
related function meets our equipment standard.
 	Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15801-02, para. 594-95.  This rule was never directly challenged on 
appeal.  See generally Iowa Util. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 818 (finding the Commissions rules and policies 
regarding an incumbent LECs duty to provide physical collocation to be consistent with section 251(c)(6)).
 	Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4779-80, para. 33.  
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 423-24 (vacating and remanding offending portions of the Advanced Services 
First Report and Order).
 	Id. at 423.
 	Id.
 	Second Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17846, para. 88.
 	Id. at 17847, para. 91.
 	Id. at 17846, para. 89.
 	John Vacca, The Cabling Handbook, 151 (Prentice Hall 1998).  As used in this definition, a cabling run 
includes dark fiber; see also Newtons Telecom Dictionary, 206 (15th ed. 1999) (a cross-connection or cross-
connect is  [a] connection scheme between cabling runs, subsystems, and equipment using patch cords or jumpers 
that attach to connecting hardware on each end); see also UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3778, n.332.
 	See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15801-02, para. 594. 
 	As used in this Order, common areas refers to areas on an incumbent LECs premises outside of a physical 
collocators immediate collocation space.  Many common areas contain facilities or equipment serving multiple 
carriers.
 	We note that on March 15, 2001, the Coalition of Competitive Fiber Providers filed a petition for a declaratory 
ruling seeking pursuant to sections 224(f)(1) and 251(b)(4) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  224(f)(1), 
251(b)(4), that incumbent LECs must provide to telecommunications carriers non-discriminatory access to any 
duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by an incumbent and leading to, or located in the incumbents 
central office.  This Order does not address that petition or otherwise determine any entitys rights and obligations 
under section 224.
 	We note that prior to the D.C. Circuits decision in GTE v. FCC the Commission viewed cross-connects 
between a collocator and another carrier (i.e., either the incumbent or another collocator) as a means of connecting 
the collocators equipment to the other carriers network.  See UNE Remand Order 15 FCC Rcd at 3778, para. 
179; Local Competition Order 11 FCC Rcd at 15801-02, para. 594.  However, as the D.C. Circuit implicitly 
recognized, a collocator that installs a cross-connect cable or wire in an incumbent LEC premises is physically 
collocating that cable or wire.  See GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 423.
 	Id. at 423-24.  An incumbent LEC, of course, must permit a competitive LEC to cross-connect cables and 
equipment within the competitive LECs own physical collocation space.  To find otherwise would render section 
251(c)(6) meaningless.  In addition, although we find no statutory support for requiring that an incumbent LEC 
permit competitive LEC-provisioned cross-connects outside of their physical collocation space, we believe that 
competitive LEC provisioning of cross-connects imposes a much lesser burden on the incumbents property in 
certain circumstances, such as when the carriers being cross-connected occupy immediately adjacent collocation 
space, than when the cross-connects would traverse common areas of the incumbent LECs premises.  Therefore, 
we encourage incumbent LECs to adopt flexible cross-connect policies that would not prohibit competitive LEC-
provisioned cross-connects in all instances.
 	Bell Atlantic Telephone Cos. v.  FCC, 24 F.3d 1441, 1446 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Bell Atlantic I); SBC Reply at 27.
 	See, e.g., Qwest Reply at 6; Focal Comments at 18-20; Joint Commenters Comments at 53-55; Letter from 
Richard Juhnke, General Attorney, Sprint, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket Nos. 98-147 and 
96-98 at 1-2 (filed May 10, 2001) (Sprint May 10, 2001 Letter); see also Northpoint Comments at 11-13.  We note 
that the court in GTE v. FCC, 205 F 3d. 416 (D.C. Cir. 2000) did not have before it the question of whether the 
Commission could require an incumbent LEC to provide such cross-connects pursuant to its authority under 
section 201 of the Communications Act.
 	See, e.g., Focal Comments at 18 (asserting that section 201(a) requires common carriers to furnish 
telecommunications services upon reasonable request).
 	47 U.S.C.  201(a).  Section 201(a) also authorizes the Commission, where necessary or desirable in the 
public interest, to order common carriers to establish physical connections with other carriers, whether or not the 
common carriers might choose to do so voluntarily.  See Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone 
Facilities, 9 FCC Rcd 5154, 5161-62, para. 18 (1994) (Virtual Collocation Order), remanded for consideration of 
1996 Act sub nom. Pacific Bell. v. FCC, 81 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
 	47 U.S.C.  201(a).
 	See, e.g., Mpower Comments at 27.
 	See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 33-34.
 	See, e.g., WorldCom Comments at 11. A communications channel is back hauling when it takes traffic 
beyond its destination and back.  Newtons Telecom Dictionary, 84 (15th ed. 1999).
 	See, e.g., Focal Comments at 17 (arguing that it would be prohibitively expensive for competitive LECs to pull 
fiber through manholes and the streets at substantial costs in order to utilize a carrier other than the incumbent 
LEC for interoffice transport).
 	See WorldCom Comments at 11.
 	The Commission has long recognized the importance of a competitive transport market.  In fact, over the last 
decade, the Commission has adopted specific rules in its Expanded Interconnection Proceeding to facilitate 
competition in the competitive transport market.  Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company 
Facilities, First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 7369 (1992) (Special Access Order), vacated in part and remanded, 
Bell Atlantic I, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994); First Reconsideration, 8 FCC Rcd 127 (1993); vacated in part and 
remanded, Bell Atlantic I, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Second Reconsideration, 8 FCC 7341 (1993); Second 
Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7374 (1996) (Switched Transport Order), vacated in part and remanded, Bell 
Atlantic Telephone Cos. v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Remand Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5154 (1994) (Virtual 
Collocation Order), remanded for consideration of 1996 Act, Pacific Bell, et. al. v. FCC, 81 F.3d 1147 (D. C. Cir. 
1996) (collectively referred to as Expanded Interconnection).  In addition, in furtherance of the procompetitive, 
deregulatory framework established by the 1996 Act, the Commissions pricing flexibility rules place significant 
importance on the presence of competitive transport providers in order to grant pricing flexibility to incumbent 
LECs.  See Access Charge Reform, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC 
Docket No. 96-262, 14 FCC Rcd 14221 (1999), affd sub nom. WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 
2001).
 	See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 13 (arguing that if Sprint cannot deliver traffic from its collocation space in an 
incumbent LEC office to another collocated competitive LEC, it would be forced either to use the incumbents 
transport services or to build out its own local transport facilities); Focal Comments at 17 (asserting that an 
inability to cross-connect would place competitive LECs at a competitive disadvantage because they would 
essentially lack any choice for transport from non-incumbent LEC sources).
  See AT&T v. FCC, 220 F.3d 607, 611 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Joint Explanatory Statement, supra note 13, at 1.
 	Although incumbent LECs argue that competitive LECs could also have a competitive transport provider pull 
individual fibers to each collocation space, see, e.g., Verizon Reply 4-5, this approach could require the 
competitive transport provider to obtain local permits and dig up the streets every time it wishes to reach a new 
competitive LEC in the same incumbent LEC premises.
 	See Sprint Comments at 13 (contending that the competitive LECs alternative would be to build facilities 
that, given the very high capacity of fiber optic cable today, may be so underutilized as to be uneconomic).
 	See Detariffing the Installation and Maintenance of Inside Wiring, 7 FCC Rcd 1334, 1335, para. 8 (1992) 
(recognizing that requiring telephone subscribers to purchase inside wiring service from a LEC, even if they wish 
to purchase those services from the LECs competitors, would eliminate virtually all potential for competition for 
inside wiring services); see also NARUC v. FCC, 880 F.2d 422, 430 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (NARUC III).
 	Joint Explanatory Statement, supra note 13, at 1; see, e.g., Focal Comments at 17 (arguing that Congress 
enacted the 1996 Act to facilitate competition, not ensure the incumbents an interoffice transport monopoly).
 	See Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. v. ICC, 611 F.2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 830 
(1980) (upholding requirement that railroad carrier transport spent fuel and radioactive waste even though the 
railroad had not held itself out as a common carrier with respect to such cargo); cf. Associated Gas Distributors v. 
FERC, 824 F.2d 981, 995-101 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (upholding Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision to 
impose common carriage open access requirements on interstate gas pipeline companies in order to prevent 
pipelines from discriminating against non-pipeline gas suppliers and to ensure that consumers are able to obtain 
gas at competitive levels.); see also NARUC II, 533 F.2d at 609 (where the agency has imposed such obligations, 
that is adequate to confer common carrier status).
 	See Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania v. FCC, 503 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (3rd Cir. 1974).
 	Virtual Collocation Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5161-62, paras. 18-19. 
 	There are two ways to determine that a communications service qualifies as a common carrier service.  A 
communications service will be considered a common carrier service if:  (1) a common carrier holds out the service 
to the general public on a common carrier basis or (2) the Commission finds that it is necessary or desirable in the 
public interest for the service to be provided on a common carrier basis.  See NARUC v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630, 641, 
644 n.76 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (NARUC I); see also NARUC v. FCC, 533  F.2d 601, 608-9 (D.C. Cir. 1976 (NARUC 
II) (binding requirement by agency that company provide service on indifferent basis is adequate to confer common 
carrier status).  We exercise our authority under the second prong to designate the provision of cross-connects 
between two collocated carriers as a common carrier service.
 	See, e.g., Focal Comments at 17.
 	See Joint Commenters at 53-55 (arguing that as a final  and least desirable  alternative, the Commission 
should require incumbent LECs to tariff a cross-connection service, in accordance with sections 201(a) and 
251(a)(1)); see also Bell Telephone Co. of Pa. v. FCC, 503 F.2d 1250, 1270-73 (3d Cir. 1974) (Pennsylvania Bell 
v. FCC).
 	See SBC Reply at 27.
 	Bell Atlantic I, 24 F.3d at 1444-46.
 	Virtual Collocation Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5163-34 paras. 25-26.
 	Id. 
 	47 U.S.C.  201(b).
 	See Qwest Reply at 6 (asserting that there can be little doubt that the Commission can require an incumbent 
LEC to provide special access services between two locations outside the incumbents central office and that the 
Commission similarly can require the incumbent to provide a special access interconnection service (i.e., a cross-
connect) within a central office for competitive LECs that are lawfully collocated in that office).  
 	This offering includes what amounts to the provision of a dedicated circuit or line (carrying both interstate and 
intrastate traffic) that connects collocated equipment to the competitive LECs transport provider of choice when 
that transport provider is collocated.
 	We note that this is not the same situation that was present in Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 19 
F.3d 1475 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Southwestern Bell v. FCC).  In Southwestern Bell v. FCC, the court found that the 
Commission did not have adequate support for its conclusion that LECs had offered dark fiber service on a 
common carrier basis.  However, in the instant case, the Commission is declaring that a dark fiber service with 
respect to cross-connects is a common carrier service using the second prong under NARUC II.  See note 179, 
supra.
 	See generally, AT&T Apr. 20, 2001 Letter, supra note 93, at 5.
 	GTE Telephone Operating Cos., GTOC Tariff No. 1, GTOC Transmittal No. 1148, 13 FCC Rcd 22466, 22478-
22481, paras. 22-27 (1998) (GTE ADSL Service Order).
 	Id. at 22479, para. 23; see also MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 36 of the Commissions 
Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Decision and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 1352, 1357, para. 30-32 (Jt. Bd. 1989); 
adopted MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 36 of the Commissions Rules and Establishment of 
a Joint Board, 4 FCC Rcd 5660, 5660-61, paras. 6-9 (1989) (MTS and WATS Market Structure Order) (adopting 
ten percent rule for jurisdictional separations purposes).
 	GTE ADSL Service Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 22479, para. 23.
 	Our authority to impose cross-connect requirements under section 251(c)(6) does not depend upon the 
presence of interstate traffic.
 	47 U.S.C.  208.
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).
 	Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 
7369, 7442, para. 157 (1992) (Special Access Order) (addressing LEC-to-collocator cross-connects), vacated in 
part and remanded, Bell Atlantic I, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994); First Reconsideration, 8 FCC Rcd 127 (1993); 
vacated in part and remanded, Bell Atlantic I, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Second Reconsideration, 8 FCC 
7341 (1993); Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7374 (1996) (Switched Transport Order), vacated in part and 
remanded, Bell Atlantic Telephone Cos. v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Remand Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5154 
(1994) (Virtual Collocation Order), remanded for consideration of 1996 Act sub nom. Pacific Bell. v. FCC, 81 
F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (collectively referred to as Expanded Interconnection Proceeding).
 	See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 at 15588, para. 173.  As indicated previously, see note 145, 
supra, the Eighth Circuit generally affirmed the collocation rules adopted in the Local Competition Order without 
specifically addressing the cross-connects rule adopted in that Order.  See Iowa Utilities Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 
818.
 	Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 at 15801, para. 594.
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).
 	Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4779-80, para. 32-33.
 	See Qwest Comments at 16 (arguing that it would not be just and reasonable to prohibit a competitive LEC 
from cross-connecting with other competitive LECs when those competitive LECs have otherwise legitimately 
obtained collocation under the Act).
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
 	Id. at 423-24.
 	Id.
 	See id.
 	Id. (emphasis added).
 	See id.
 	Verizon argues that such a requirement would turn their central office into a hub.  Verizon Reply at 5 
(asserting that collocators do not have a right to use precious central office space as a hub to connect to each other, 
regardless of whether it would be more or less expensive than connecting on their own premises, and that Congress 
would not have restricted collocation to that which is necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled 
network elements if it intended to allow unfettered occupation of central office space by competing carriers); see 
also SBC Reply at 26.  We disagree.  Requiring incumbent LECs to provision cross-connects between two 
collocated competitive LECs does not expand the number of competitive LECs that can collocate at an incumbent's 
premises.  Incumbent LEC provisioning of cross-connects does not allow unfettered occupation of central office 
space by competing carriers.  See Verizon Reply at 5.  Indeed, competitive LECs must continue to meet the same 
statutory requirements to qualify for collocation at an incumbent LECs premises.  See Qwest Comments at 16 
(stating that the Act does not allow a competitive LEC to obtain collocation from an incumbent LEC for the sole or 
primary purpose of cross-connecting to other competitive LECs).  Our cross-connect requirement is very limited in 
scope  an incumbent LEC must provision cross-connects between carriers that are lawfully collocated at the 
incumbents premises.
 	See AT&T Comments at 33; Qwest Reply at 5-6; WorldCom Reply at 13-14.
 	47 U.S.C.  251(a)(1).
 	Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15991, para. 997. 
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).
 	Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15797-98, para. 585.
 	Id. at 15803, para. 598.
 	Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4784-85, para. 42 (adopting 47 C.F.R.                     
 51.323(k)(2)).
 	Id.
 	Id.
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 426.
 	Id. (quoting 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6)). 
 	GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 426.
 	Second Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17848, para. 96; see also GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 426.
 	E.g., SBC Comments at 26-27; Verizon Comments at 14.
 	SBC Comments at 27-28.
 	Qwest Comments at 23; SBC Reply at 27-28.
 	SBC Comments at 28; Verizon Reply at 8.
 	CoreComm Comments at 30-31; Covad Comments at 32; DSLnet Comments at 41-42; Joint Commenters 
Comments at 35-36.
 	See GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 426.
 	See, e.g., Qwest Comments at 23; Verizon Comments at 14-15.
 	The record makes clear that when space assignments have been left to the incumbents unfettered discretion, 
the incumbents policies and practices have frequently resulted in central offices with large, unused areas 
unavailable for physical collocation, little adequate space available for physical collocation, and extremely high 
physical collocation construction charges.  Covad Comments at 32-33; CTSI Comments at 18; Rhythms Comments 
at 39-40; Mpower Reply at 7.
 	See 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).
 	See Northpoint Comments at 21-22; Sprint Reply at 7; Sprint Apr. 26, 2001 Letter, supra note 121, at Att., p. 
2.
 	See Sprint Comments at 14.
 	See CTSI Comments at 18; Sprint Reply at 7; Sprint Apr. 26, 2001 Letter, supra note 121, at Att., p. 2.
 	We note that the Second Further Notice invited comment on whether the Commission should adopt national 
standards governing the periods for which incumbent LECs and collocating carriers may reserve space for future 
use in incumbent LEC premises.  See Second Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17856, para. 117.  We will address 
this area at a later date. 
 	That rule requires that an incumbent LEC must provide, upon request, a report indicating the incumbent 
LECs available collocation space in a particular LEC premises. 47 C.F.R.  51.321(h).
 	See id.
 	See Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4785, para. 42 (adopting 47 C.F.R.                    
 51.323(k)(2)).
 	See GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 426; Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4785, para. 42; 
 	Second Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17849, para. 97.
 	Id. at para. 98.
 	@Link Comments at 30; Covad Comments at 34; Mpower Comments at 30; Rhythms Comments at 39.
 	Covad Comments at 33.  Specifically, relegating collocators to isolated or separated space can increase the 
distance between the DSLAM and a customers premises.  This is a particular problem for DSL service providers 
because a DSLAM must be placed within a reasonable distance, usually less than 18,000 feet, of a DSL customers 
premises if service is to be provided.  See id.; see also Collocation Reconsideration Order & Second Further 
Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17812, para. 10.
 	See @Link Comments at 30; Joint Commenters Comments at 40; Northpoint Comments at 21; Rhythms 
Comments at 42-43.
 	See @Link Comments at 41-42 (asserting that separate entrances require new doors, walls, and hallways, 
wasting space that might otherwise be used for collocation); CTSI Comments at 19 (stating that there is no 
apparent reason for mandatory equipment segregation requirements except to inhibit competitors from 
collocating).
 	Covad Comments at 34; Mpower Comments at 30-31; Rhythms Comments at 39.
 	Verizon Comments at 17.
 	47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6); see also Rhythms Reply at 29 (stating preference for physical, rather than virtual, 
collocation).
 	Rhythms Comments at 43 (stating that less obstructive alternatives, such as locked cabinets, can ensure 
protection of the incumbents equipment); Rhythms Reply at 28-29.
 	See Verizon Comments at 17-18 (arguing that an incumbent should not be required to allow placement of 
physically collocated equipment in same room as its own equipment because segregation of equipment is the only 
effective means of providing security in a collocated environment). 
 	See, e.g., Joint Commenters Reply at 18 (quoting GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 425); see also Rhythms Comments 
at 43.
 	Id. at 31-32.
 	See GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 425 ([I]t is hardly surprising that the FCC opted to prohibit [mandatory caged 
collocation], particularly given the alternative means available to LECs to ensure the security of their premises.).
 	47 C.F.R.  51.323(i).
 	Rhythms Comments at 43.
 	SBC Reply at 32-33.
 	Despite the D.C. Circuits explicit finding that the Commissions decision to allow cageless collocation was 
hardly surprising . . . particularly given the alternative means available to LECs to ensure the security of their 
premises, Verizon insists that equipment segregation is the only effective means of providing security in a 
collocated environment.  Compare GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d at 425 with Verizon Comments at 17-18.
 	Separate entrances must also comply with the applicable fire code.
 	For example, SBC has indicated that, where it installs partitions between competitors equipment and its own, 
SBC will only charge the lesser of the cost of the partitions or other viable security measures, such as cameras, to 
address the security risks posed by collocation.  SBC Comments at 29.
 	See 5 U.S.C.  603.
 	Second Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17864, para. 137.
 	Id.
 	Id. at 17864, para. 138.
 	See 5 U.S.C.  603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America 
Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA).  Title II of the CWAAA is the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
 	Second Further Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17882-87, paras. 26-42.
 	Id. at 17882, para. 26.
 	Id. at 17886, para. 41.
 	See OPASTCO Comments at 6.
 	Id.
 	Id.
 	5 U.S.C.  603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).
 	5 U.S.C.  601(6).
 	5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of small business concern in 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, established one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition in the Federal Register.
 	15 U.S.C.  632.
 	FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, 
Table 1 (October 2000) (Carrier Locator). 
 	FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Carrier Locator at Table 1. 
 	5 U.S.C.  601(3). 
 	Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 
27, 1999).  The Small Business Act contains a definition of small business concern, which the RFA incorporates 
into its own definition of small business.  See 15 U.S.C.  632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C.  601(3) 
(RFA).  SBA regulations interpret small business concern to include the concept of dominance on a national 
basis.  13 CFR 121.102(b).  Since 1996, out of an abundance of caution, the Commission has included small 
incumbent LECs in its regulatory flexibility analyses.  See, e.g., Implementation of the Local Competition 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket, 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 
16144-45 (1996), 61 FR 45476 (Aug. 29, 1996).
 	U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and 
Utilities:  Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (1992 Census).
 	See generally 15 U.S.C.  632(a)(1).
 	1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1-123.
 	13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS codes 51331, 51333, and 51334.
 	13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS codes 51331, 51333, and 51334.
 	FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Carrier Locator at Table 1. 
 	13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS codes 51331, 51333, and 51334.
 	FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Carrier Locator at Table 1.
 	13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS codes 51331, 51333, and 51334.
 	FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Carrier Locator at Table 1.
 	13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS codes 51331, 51333, and 51334.
 	FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Carrier Locator at Table 1.
 	See Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis 
Division, FCC (Dec. 2, 1998).
 	5 U.S.C.  603(c).
 	47 U.S.C.  160(d).
 	See OPASTCO Comments at 6; para. 3, supra.  We note that OPASTCO does not address directly any of the 
issues remanded by the D.C. Circuit and thus does not raise any specific alternatives we might consider in this 
Order.
 	See Order at part V.B.2.
 	See 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).
 	See 5 U.S.C.  604(b).
 

(Continued from previous page)   
(continued.)

 
 
	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-204


53

33


	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-204



	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-204

53

A-3


	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-204


	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-204

53

B-5



	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-204



C-10

	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-204