*Pages 1--72 from  Microsoft Word - 10770.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 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 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 2 
 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).  1  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.  2  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 


 1  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6). 
 2  These  cables  are  referred  to  as  cross-  connections  or  cross-  connects.  We  define  cross-  connects  in  paragraph  58, 
 infra. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 3 
 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),  3  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.  4  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.  5  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.  6 


 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 


 3  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. 


 4  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. 


 5  See  Joint  Commenters  Reply  at  5-  6  (maintaining  that  Congress  did  not  expect  competitive  LECs  to  replicate 


 an  incumbents  network). 
 6  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. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 4 
 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.  7 


 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.  8 
 Other  network  designs  seek  to  migrate  previously  centralized  functions  to  the  networks  edge.  9 
 Still  others  seek  to  disaggregate  what  had  previously  been  considered  inseparable  network 
 functionalities  into  more  discrete  components  that  can  be  distributed  throughout  the  network.  10 
 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.  11 


 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.  12  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 


 7  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). 


 8  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. 
 9  ATG  Comments,  at  Att.  1,  p.  1,  &  Att.  2,  p.  1. 


 10  See  Tachion  Comments  at  2-  3;  Copper  Mountain  Mar.  1,  2001  Letter,  supra  note  7,  at  1-  2. 
 11  See  Supra  Comments  at  5. 
 12  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). 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 5 
 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.  13 


 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.  14  In  1996,  in  the  Local  Competition  Order,  the  Commission 
 adopted  rules  to  implement  section  251(  c)(  6).  15  These  rules  addressed,  among  other  matters, 


 13  See  Joint  Statement  of  Managers,  S.  Conf.  Rep.  No.  104-  230,  104th  Cong.  2d  Sess.  1  (1996)  (Joint 
 Explanatory  Statement). 
 14  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. 


 15  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 
 (continued.) 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 6 
 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.  16 


 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.  17  These  rules  require  incumbent  LECs  to 
 expand  their  collocation  offerings  to  include  cageless  and  shared  collocation,  among  other 
 physical  collocation  arrangements.  18  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.  19  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.  20  The  Commission  specified  that  these  strengthened  collocation  rules  should  serve  as 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 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. 


 16  Local  Competition  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15783-  84,  para.  558. 


 17  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. 


 18  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. 


 19  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. 


 20  Id.  at  4765,  para.  8,  &  4786-  87,  para.  45. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 7 
 minimum  requirements  and  continued  to  recognize  that  the  state  commissions  may  adopt 
 additional  collocation  requirements.  21 


 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.  22  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.  23 
 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.  24  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.  25 
 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.  26 


 III.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
 12.  We  take  several  actions  in  this  Fourth  Report  and  Order,  including: 
 x  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). 


 21  Id.  at  4773-  74,  paras.  23-  24. 
 22  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  420-  27. 
 23  Id.  at  422-  24. 
 24  Id.  at  423-  24. 
 25  Id.  at  424-  26. 
 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. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 8 
 x  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. 


 x  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. 


 x  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. 


 x  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.  27 


 27  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 
 (continued.) 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 9 
 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.  28  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.  29  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 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 the  court  upheld.  Nor  does  it  change  the  Commissions  policy  of  encouraging  the  states  to  take  an  active  role  in 
 resolving  collocation  disputes. 


 28  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). 


 29  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6). 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 10 
 for  either  interconnection  or  access  to  unbundled  network  elements.  30  Consistent  with  this 
 interpretation,  the  Commission  concluded  that  competitive  LECs  may  collocate  transmission 
 equipment,  including  optical  terminating  equipment  and  multiplexers,  at  incumbent  LEC  premises.  31  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.  32  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.  33 


 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.  34  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.  35  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.  36 


 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.  37  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.  38  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 


 30  Local  Competition  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15794-  96,  paras.  579-  81. 
 31  Id.  at  15794,  para.  580. 
 32  Id.  at  15794,  para.  581. 
 33  Id. 
 34  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  4776-  77,  para.  28. 
 35  Id. 
 36  Id. 
 37  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  422. 
 38  Id.  at  423. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 11 
 result  in  unnecessary  takings  of  [incumbent]  LEC  property.  39  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.    40  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).  41 


 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  .  .  .  .  42  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.  43  As  the  D.  C.  Circuits  opinion  implicitly  recognizes,  necessary  has 
 varying  degrees.  44  Neither  the  statutory  language  nor  the  legislative  history  reveals  the  degree  of 
 necessity  that  Congress  intended  to  require  in  enacting  section  251(  c)(  6).  45  We  therefore  look  to 


 39  Id.  at  421. 
 40  Id.  at  424. 
 41  Id.  (quoting  AT&  T  v.  Iowa  Util.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  at  390). 
 42  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6). 
 43  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). 


 44  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  (8  th  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). 


 45  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 
 (continued.) 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 12 
 the  broader  statutory  scheme  and  the  underlying  policy  goals  to  determine  the  meaning  of 
 necessary  as  used  in  section  251(  c)(  6).  46  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.  47 


 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.  48  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.  49  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 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 explicit  physical  collocation  provision,  the  Commission  will  lack[]  the  tools  needed  to  pave  a  high  quality  and 
 affordable  information  superhighway). 


 46  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). 


 47  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). 


 48  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  d)(  2)(  A)  (emphasis  added). 


 49  AT&  T  v.  Iowa  Util.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  at  388;  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  423. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 13 
 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).  50  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.  51  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.  52  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).  53 


 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.  54  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 


 50  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). 


 51  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). 


 52  See  part  IV.  B.  5,  infra  (addressing  switching  and  routing  equipment). 


 53  See  part  IV.  B.  3,  infra. 
 54  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). 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 14 
 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.  55  Other  proposed  definitions  substitute  equally  vague  synonyms  for  an  already 
 ambiguous  statutory  term.  56  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.  57  We  find  these  proposals  inconsistent  with  both  the  language 
 and  purposes  of  section  251(  c)(  6).  58 


 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).  59  Such  a  reading  would  wrongly  place  our  focus  on  whether 


 55  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). 


 56  See,  e.  g.,  Conectiv  Comments  at  iii;  Telergy  Comments  at  3;  SBC  Comments  at  14;  Verizon  Comments  at  4-5. 


 57  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. 


 58  See  SBC  Reply  at  5-  10. 


 59  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 
 (continued.) 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 15 
 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.  60  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  .  .  .  .  61  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.  62  Interpreting  section  251(  c)(  6)  as  providing 
 for  the  collocation  of  necessary  equipment  accords  virtual  collocation  a  logical  role  in  the 
 statutory  scheme.  63  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.  64  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.  65 


 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 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 interconnection  or  access  to  unbundled  network  elements  because  alternatives,  such  a  meet-  point  interconnection, 
 are  available);  ATG  Reply  at  4  (same). 


 60  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). 


 61  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6)  (emphasis  added). 


 62  Id. 
 63  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). 


 64  In  note  14,  supra  we  define  physical  and  virtual  collocation. 


 65  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). 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 16 
 an  incumbent  LECs  competitors  may  collocate  necessary  equipment  is  for  interconnection  or 
 access  to  unbundled  network  elements.  66  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).  67  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).  68  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).  69 


 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.  70  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  .  .  .  .  71  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  .  .  .  .  72  The  Commission  has  required  that  an  incumbent  LEC  must  provide 


 66  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6). 
 67  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). 


 68  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. 


 69  E.  g.,  RCN  Comments  at  7;  Joint  Commenters  Reply  at  8-  9; 


 70  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  2). 
 71  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  2)(  C)-(  D). 
 72  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  3). 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 17 
 requesting  carriers  with  nondiscriminatory  access  to  all  the  features,  functions,  and  capabilities  of 
 an  unbundled  network  element.  73 


 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).  74  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).  75  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).  76  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.  77  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.  78 


 73  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). 


 74  E.  g.,  AT&  T  Comments  at  13;  Joint  Commenters  Comments  at  24-  26;  RCN  Comments  at  7. 


 75  E.  g.,  DSLnet  Comments  at  28;  Telergy  Comments  at  3. 
 76  See,  e.  g.,  AT&  T  Comments  at  12;  Joint  Commenters  Comments  at  24-  26;  RCN  Comments  at  7. 
 77  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). 


 78  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. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 18 
 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.  79  Rather,  that  statutory  term  includes,  in  addition  to  such  facilities 
 or  equipment,  the  features,  functions,  and  capabilities  provided  by  such  facilities  or  equipment.  80 
 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.  81  The  carrier  must  instead  be  able  to 
 access  all  of  the  features,  functions,  and  capabilities  provided  by  means  of  the  facilities  and 
 equipment.  82  We  therefore  reject  SBCs  position  that  requiring  access  to  an  elements  features, 
 functions,  and  capabilities  expands  the  meaning  of  access  beyond  statutory  limits.  83  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.  84  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.  85 


 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 


 79  See  AT&  T  v.  Iowa  Util.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  at  387. 
 80  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). 


 81  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. 
 82  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. 


 83  See  SBC  Reply  at  7. 


 84  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  29);  see  generally  AT&  T  v.  Iowa  Util.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  at  387. 
 85  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). 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 19 
 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.  86  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.  87  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.  88 


 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.  89  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.  90  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.  91 


 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 


 86  For  convenience,  we  refer  to  these  functions  as  necessary  functions  and  additional  functions. 
 87  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). 
 88  E.  g.    Joint  Commenters  Comments  at  21;  Supra  Comments  at  10. 


 89  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. 
 90  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). 


 91  See,  e.  g.,  Rhythms  Comments  at  13-  15;  Tachion  Comments  at  2-  3. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 20 
 competitor  could  include  in  collocated  multi-  functional  equipment.  92  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.  93 


 35.  On  remand,  we  adopt  an  approach  for  multi-  functional  equipment  similar  to  that 
 suggested  by  Qwest  and  generally  supported  by  several  other  commenters.  94  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.  95 


 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.  96  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.  97  It  will  ensure  that  a  requesting  carrier  will  not 
 include  a  necessary  function  in  equipment  solely  as  a  pretext  for  assuring  its  collocation. 


 92  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. 
 93  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. 


 94  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. 


 95  Qwest  Comments  at  iii. 


 96  See  Qwest  Comments  at  5;  Gluon  Comments  at  4;  WorldCom  Mar.  23,  2001  Letter,  supra  note  7,  at  3. 
 97  See  paras.  28-  29,  supra. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 21 
 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.  98  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.  99  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.  100 


 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.  101  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 


 98  See  Qwest  Comments  at  5;  Gluon  Comments  at  4;  WorldCom  Mar.  23,  2001  Letter,  supra  note  7,  at  3. 
 99  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). 
 100  See  WorldCom  Comments  at  9. 


 101  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. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 22 
 necessary  standard.  102  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.  103 


 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.  104  We  recognize  that  much,  and  perhaps 
 most,  of  the  multi-  functional  equipment  that  requesting  carriers  may  wish  to  collocate  is  smaller 


 102  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  (4  th  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). 


 103  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. 


 104  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). 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 23 
 (and  therefore  requires  less  space),  requires  less  power,  and  generates  less  heat  than  any  available 
 single-  function  equipment.  105  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.  106  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.  107  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.  108  We  find  this  approach  to  be  unreasonably  narrow  and  disconnected  from  the 


 statutory  purposes.  109  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.  110  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.  111  Thus,  we  do  not  find  that 
 section  251(  c)(  6)  compels  that  an  incumbent  must  be  able  to  exclude  from  collocation  any 


 105  @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). 
 106  See,  e.  g.,  Rhythms  Comments  at  13-  14. 


 107  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). 


 108  BellSouth  Comments  at  5;  SBC  Comments  at  10-  11;  Verizon  Comments  at  6. 


 109  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). 


 110  See  SBC  Feb.  1,  2001  Letter,  supra  note  104,  at  3. 


 111  See,  e.  g.,  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  29)  (definition  of  network  element). 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 24 
 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,  112  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.  113  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.  114 


 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.  115  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).  116  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. 


 112  See  para.  20,  supra. 


 113  See  generally  RCN  Comments  at  14  (maintaining  that  precluding  collocation  of  multi-  functional  equipment 
 would  thwart  competition). 
 114  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). 


 115  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). 


 116  See  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  424;  see  also  AT&  T  v.  Iowa  Util.  Bd.,  525  U.  S.  at  389-  90. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 25 
 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).  117  This  equipment  includes  optical  terminating 
 equipment,  fiber  distribution  frames,  ATM  multiplexers,  concentration  devices,  DSLAMs,  and 
 microwave  transmission  facilities,  118  as  well  as  splitters,  119  equipment  to  light  dark  fiber,  120  and 
 ancillary  equipment  that  enables  a  requesting  carrier  to  assure  proper  provisioning  and  functioning 
 of  other  collocated  equipment.  121  For  the  most  part,  there  is  little,  if  any,  controversy  regarding 
 the  equipment  these  commenters  seek  to  collocate.  122  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.  123  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 


 117  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. 
 118  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). 


 119  E.  g.,  Sprint  Comments  at  9. 


 120  Cisco  Comments  at  7. 
 121  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). 


 122  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). 


 123  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). 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 26 
 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.  124 


 45.  The  main  controversy  on  this  record  with  regard  to  single-  function  equipment 
 concerns  equipment  having  switching  or  routing  capability.  125  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).  126 


 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.  127  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.  128  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.  129 
 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,  130  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 


 124  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). 
 125  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). 
 126  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. 
 127  UNE  Remand  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  3772-  73,  para.  167;  see  47  C.  F.  R.    51.307(  c). 


 128  Cf.  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  43)  (defining  telecommunications). 
 129  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  Comments  at  13-  14;  Sprint  Comments  at  8;  Verizon  Comments  at  7. 
 130  See  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  43),  153(  45)  (defining  telecommunications  and  telecommunications  service). 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 27 
 necessary  for  accessing  all  the  features,  functions,  and  capabilities  of  an  unbundled  local  loop  that 
 facilitate  the  transmission  of  telecommunications  traffic.  131 


 47.  As  explained  above,  132  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.  133  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.  134  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.  135  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 


 131  See  paragraph  53,  infra,  for  examples  of  functions  that  carriers  may  not  collocate  under  our  equipment 
 standard. 
 132  See  para.  23,  supra. 


 133  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. 


 134  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). 


 135  Corecomm  Comments  at  27;  DSLnet  Comments  at  32;  Telergy  Comments  at  28. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 28 
 switching  equipment.  136  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.  137 


 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.  138  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.  139 
 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.  140  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.  141 


 136  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. 
 137  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. 


 138  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. 
 139  Local  Competition  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15795,  para.  581. 


 140  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  4778-  79,  para.  31. 
 141  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). 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 29 
 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.  142  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.  143  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.  144  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 


 142  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. 
 143  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). 


 144  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. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 30 
 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.  145  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.  146 


 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.  147  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.  148  The  court  found  that  the  Commission  had  not  shown  that  cross-  connects  between 


 145  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)). 


 146  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  4779-  80,  para.  33. 


 147  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  423-  24  (vacating  and  remanding  offending  portions  of  the  Advanced  Services 
 First  Report  and  Order). 
 148  Id.  at  423. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 31 
 collocators  are  necessary  for  interconnection  or  access  to  unbundled  network  elements  within 
 the  meaning  of  that  provision.  149 


 57.  In  the  Second  Further  Notice,  the  Commission  invited  comment  on  whether 
 section  251(  c)(  6)  encompasses  cross-  connects  between  collocators.  150  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.  151  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.  152 


 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.  153  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.  154 


 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 


 149  Id. 
 150  Second  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  17846,  para.  88. 
 151  Id.  at  17847,  para.  91. 
 152  Id.  at  17846,  para.  89. 
 153  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  (15  th  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. 


 154  See  Local  Competition  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15801-  02,  para.  594. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 32 
 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.  155  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).  156 


 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.  157  Thus,  such  a  requirement  would  have  to  satisfy  the  necessary  prong  of 


 155  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. 


 156  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. 


 157  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 
 (continued.) 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 33 
 section  251(  c)(  6).  158  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.  159  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.  160  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. 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 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. 


 158  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. 


 159  Bell  Atlantic  Telephone  Cos.  v.  FCC,  24  F.  3d  1441,  1446  (D.  C.  Cir.  1994)  (Bell  Atlantic  I);  SBC  Reply  at  27. 


 160  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. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 34 
 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.  161  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.  162  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).  163 
 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.  164  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.  165  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.  166  This  approach  creates  additional  potential  points  of  failure,  may 


 161  See,  e.  g.,  Focal  Comments  at  18  (asserting  that  section  201(  a)  requires  common  carriers  to  furnish 
 telecommunications  services  upon  reasonable  request). 
 162  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). 


 163  47  U.  S.  C.    201(  a). 


 164  See,  e.  g.,  Mpower  Comments  at  27. 
 165  See,  e.  g.,  AT&  T  Comments  at  33-  34. 
 166  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  (15  th  ed.  1999). 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 35 
 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.  167  These  additional  costs  would 
 severely  impede  the  deployment  of  the  innovative,  competitive  services  that  the  1996  Act  seeks  to 
 facilitate.  168 


 65.  We  find  that  cross-  connects  between  collocators  within  an  incumbents  premises 
 are  essential  to  the  development  of  a  fully  competitive  transport  market.  169  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.  170  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.  171  To  this  end,  cross-  connects  between 


 167  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). 


 168  See  WorldCom  Comments  at  11. 


 169  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). 


 170  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). 


 171  See  AT&  T  v.  FCC,  220  F.  3d  607,  611  (D.  C.  Cir.  2000);  Joint  Explanatory  Statement,  supra  note  13,  at  1. 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 36 
 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.  172 


 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.  173  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.  174 
 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.  175 


 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 


 172  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. 


 173  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). 
 174  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). 


 175  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). 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 37 
 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.  176  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.  177  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.  178  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).  179 


 176  See  Akron,  Canton  &  Youngstown  R.  R.  v.  ICC,  611  F.  2d  1162  (6  th  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). 


 177  See  Bell  Telephone  Co.  of  Pennsylvania  v.  FCC,  503  F.  2d  1250,  1253-  54  (3  rd  Cir.  1974). 


 178  Virtual  Collocation  Order,  9  FCC  Rcd  at  5161-  62,  paras.  18-  19. 
 179  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 
 (continued.) 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 38 
 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.  180  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.  181 


 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.  182  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.  183  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.  184  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.  185  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.  186  Under  section 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 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. 


 180  See,  e.  g.,  Focal  Comments  at  17. 


 181  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). 


 182  See  SBC  Reply  at  27. 


 183  Bell  Atlantic  I,  24  F.  3d  at  1444-  46. 
 184  Virtual  Collocation  Order,  9  FCC  Rcd  at  5163-  34  paras.  25-  26. 
 185  Id. 
 186  47  U.  S.  C.    201(  b). 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 39 
 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.  187  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).  188  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.  189  Our  decision  to  require  this  is  due  to  the  technical  and  competitive 
 circumstances  existing  in  the  marketplace.  We  find  that  incumbent  LEC  provisioned  cross- 


 187  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). 


 188  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. 


 189  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. 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 40 
 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.  190 


 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.  191  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.  192  We  have  reasoned  that  lesser  percentages  of 
 interstate  traffic  should  be  considered  de  minimis.  193 


 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 


 190  See  generally,  AT&  T  Apr.  20,  2001  Letter,  supra  note  93,  at  5. 
 191  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). 
 192  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). 


 193  GTE  ADSL  Service  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  22479,  para.  23. 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 41 
 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.  194  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.  195 


 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.  196  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.  197  The  exercise  of  our  authority  under  section  251(  c)(  6)  is  also  quite  limited  in 


 194  Our  authority  to  impose  cross-  connect  requirements  under  section  251(  c)(  6)  does  not  depend  upon  the 
 presence  of  interstate  traffic. 
 195  47  U.  S.  C.    208. 


 196  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6). 
 197  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). 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 42 
 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.  198  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  .  .  .  .  199  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.  200  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.  201  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.  202 


 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.  203  The  D.  C.  Circuit  stated  that  [  s]  ection  251(  c)(  6)  is  focused  solely  on 
 connecting  new  competitors  to  [incumbent]  LECs  networks.  204  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 


 198  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. 


 199  Local  Competition  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  15499  at  15801,  para.  594. 


 200  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6). 
 201  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  4779-  80,  para.  32-  33. 
 202  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). 


 203  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  416  (D.  C.  Cir.  2000). 


 204  Id.  at  423-  24. 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 43 
 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.  205  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.  206  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.  207  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.  208 


 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).  209  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.  210 


 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 


 205  Id. 


 206  See  id. 
 207  Id.  (emphasis  added). 
 208  See  id. 
 209  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. 


 210  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  33;  Qwest  Reply  at  5-  6;  WorldCom  Reply  at  13-  14. 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 44 
 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.  211  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.  212  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.  213  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.  214  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.  215 


 211  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  a)(  1). 
 212  Local  Competition  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15991,  para.  997. 
 213  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6). 
 214  Local  Competition  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  15797-  98,  para.  585. 
 215  Id.  at  15803,  para.  598. 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 45 
 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.  216  The  Commission  precluded  an  incumbent  LEC  from  restricting 
 physical  collocation  to  a  room  or  isolated  space  separate  from  the  incumbent's  own  equipment.  217  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.  218 


 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.  219  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.    220 


 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. 


 216  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  4784-  85,  para.  42  (adopting  47  C.  F.  R. 
   51.323(  k)(  2)). 
 217  Id. 


 218  Id. 
 219  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  426. 
 220  Id.  (quoting  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6)). 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 46 
 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  .  .  .  221  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.  222  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.  223 


 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.  224  The  incumbent  is  also 
 the  only  party  with  direct  knowledge  of  all  competitive  LEC  collocation  requests,  as  well  as  all 
 other  tenant  requirements.  225  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.  226  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.  227  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 


 221  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  426. 
 222  Second  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  17848,  para.  96;  see  also  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  426. 
 223  E.  g.,  SBC  Comments  at  26-  27;  Verizon  Comments  at  14. 
 224  SBC  Comments  at  27-  28. 
 225  Qwest  Comments  at  23;  SBC  Reply  at  27-  28. 
 226  SBC  Comments  at  28;  Verizon  Reply  at  8. 
 227  CoreComm  Comments  at  30-  31;  Covad  Comments  at  32;  DSLnet  Comments  at  41-  42;  Joint  Commenters 
 Comments  at  35-  36. 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 47 
 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.  228  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.  229  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.  230  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.  231  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 


 228  See  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  426. 
 229  See,  e.  g.,  Qwest  Comments  at  23;  Verizon  Comments  at  14-  15. 
 230  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. 


 231  See  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6). 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 48 
 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.  232  For  example,  the  incumbents  choice  of  space  must  not  materially  reduce  a  requesting 
 carriers  ability  to  reach  potential  customers.  233 


 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.  234  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.  235  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.  236  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 


 232  See  Northpoint  Comments  at  21-  22;  Sprint  Reply  at  7;  Sprint  Apr.  26,  2001  Letter,  supra  note  121,  at  Att.,  p. 
 2. 
 233  See  Sprint  Comments  at  14. 


 234  See  CTSI  Comments  at  18;  Sprint  Reply  at  7;  Sprint  Apr.  26,  2001  Letter,  supra  note  121,  at  Att.,  p.  2. 
 235  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. 


 236  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). 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 49 
 premises.  This  report  is  due  within  ten  days  of  its  being  requested,  the  same  time  period  as  in  our 
 existing  rule.  237 


 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.  238  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.  239  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.  240 
 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.  241 


 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 


 237  See  id. 
 238  See  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  4785,  para.  42  (adopting  47  C.  F.  R. 
   51.323(  k)(  2)). 
 239  See  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  426;  Advanced  Services  First  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  4785,  para.  42; 


 240  Second  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  17849,  para.  97. 
 241  Id.  at  para.  98. 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 50 
 separation  of  physical  collocation  space  can  substantially  increase  physical  collocation  costs.  242  In 
 addition,  placement  of  DSL  equipment,  such  as  DSLAMs,  in  isolated  or  separate  space  can  affect 
 a  collocators  ability  to  access  unbundled  local  loops.  243  Moreover,  a  requirement  that  all 
 collocators  place  their  equipment  solely  in  a  particular  area  of  a  central  office  could  prematurely 
 exhaust  physical  collocation  space.  244  Similarly,  a  requirement  that  separate  entrances  always  be 
 built  could  decrease  the  space  available  in  the  central  office  for  collocation;  245  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.  246 


 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,  247  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.  248  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.  249 


 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 


 242  @Link  Comments  at  30;  Covad  Comments  at  34;  Mpower  Comments  at  30;  Rhythms  Comments  at  39. 
 243  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. 


 244  See  @Link  Comments  at  30;  Joint  Commenters  Comments  at  40;  Northpoint  Comments  at  21;  Rhythms 


 Comments  at  42-  43. 
 245  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). 


 246  Covad  Comments  at  34;  Mpower  Comments  at  30-  31;  Rhythms  Comments  at  39. 


 247  Verizon  Comments  at  17. 
 248  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  c)(  6);  see  also  Rhythms  Reply  at  29  (stating  preference  for  physical,  rather  than  virtual, 
 collocation). 
 249  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. 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 51 
 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.  250  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.  251  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.  252 
 The  D.  C.  Circuit  recognized  that  incumbents  security  concerns  could  be  addressed  by  alternative 
 measures.  253  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.  254  We  find 
 that  such  measures  will  provide  sufficient  security  for  an  incumbents  equipment  in  most 
 circumstances.  255 


 102.  While  we  recognize  that  incumbents,  like  other  users  of  incumbent  LEC  premises, 
 have  a  right  to  protect  their  equipment  from  harm,  256  incumbents  also  have  incentives  to  overstate 
 security  concerns  so  as  to  limit  physical  collocation  arrangements  and  discourage  competition.  257 
 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 


 250  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). 


 251  See,  e.  g.,  Joint  Commenters  Reply  at  18  (quoting  GTE  v.  FCC,  205  F.  3d  at  425);  see  also  Rhythms  Comments 


 at  43. 
 252  Id.  at  31-  32. 


 253  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.). 
 254  47  C.  F.  R.    51.323(  i). 


 255  Rhythms  Comments  at  43. 
 256  SBC  Reply  at  32-  33. 
 257  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. 
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 52 
 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.  258  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.  259  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),  260  an  Initial  Regulatory 
 Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  was  incorporated  in  the  Second  Further  Notice  of  Proposed 
 Rulemaking  in  CC  Docket  No.  98-  147.  261  The  Commission  sought  written  public  comment  on 


 258  Separate  entrances  must  also  comply  with  the  applicable  fire  code. 
 259  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. 


 260  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603. 


 261  Second  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  17864,  para.  137. 
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 53 
 the  proposals  in  Second  Further  Notice,  including  comment  on  the  IRFA.  262  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.  263  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. 


 262  Id. 
 263  Id.  at  17864,  para.  138. 
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 54 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Magalie  Roman  Salas 
 Secretary 
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 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) 
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 A-  2 
 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) 
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 A-  3 
 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) 
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 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. 
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 B-  2 
 (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. 


 ***** 
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 B-  3 
 (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 
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 B-  4 
 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; 
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 B-  5 
 (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. 


 ***** 
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 APPENDIX  C 
 FINAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS 
 1.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  (RFA),  1  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.  2  The  Commission  sought  written  public  comment  on  the  proposals  in  the 
 Second  Further  Notice,  including  comment  on  the  Supplemental  IRFA.  3  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 


 1  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). 


 2  Second  Further  Notice,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  17882-  87,  paras.  26-  42. 


 3  Id.  at  17882,  para.  26. 
63
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 C-  2 
 proposed  rules  that  would  minimize  the  impact  that  any  changes  to  our  rules  might  have  on  small 
 entities.  4  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.  5 
 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.  6  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.  7  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.  8  The  RFA  defines  small 
 entity  as  having  the  same  meaning  as  the  term  small  business,  small  organization,  and  small 
 governmental  jurisdiction.  9  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.  10  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).  11  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, 


 4  Id.  at  17886,  para.  41. 
 5  See  OPASTCO  Comments  at  6. 
 6  Id. 
 7  Id. 
 8  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  b)(  3),  604(  a)(  3). 
 9  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  6). 
 10  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. 


 11  15  U.  S.  C.    632. 
64
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 C-  3 
 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.  12  According  to  data  in  the  most  recent  report,  there  are  4,822  service  providers.  13 
 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.  14  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.  15  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.  16  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, 


 12  FCC,  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  Division,  Carrier  Locator:  Interstate  Service  Providers, 
 Table  1  (October  2000)  (Carrier  Locator). 
 13  FCC,  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  Division,  Carrier  Locator  at  Table  1. 


 14  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3). 
 15  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). 


 16  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). 
65
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 C-  4 
 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.  17  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.  18  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.  19  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.  20  According  to  the  most  recent  data,  there  are  1,395  incumbent  and  other 
 LECs.  21  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. 


 17  See  generally  15  U.  S.  C.    632(  a)(  1). 
 18  1992  Census,  supra,  at  Firm  Size  1-  123. 
 19  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  codes  51331,  51333,  and  51334. 
 20  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  codes  51331,  51333,  and  51334. 
 21  FCC,  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  Division,  Carrier  Locator  at  Table  1. 
66
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 C-  5 
 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.  22  According  to  the  most  recent  data,  there  are 
 204  carriers  engaged  in  the  provision  of  interexchange  services.  23  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.  24  According 
 to  the  most  recent  data,  there  are  349  CAPs  and  competitive  LECs  engaged  in  the  provision  of 
 competitive  local  exchange  services.  25  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.  26  According  to  the  most  recent  data,  there  are  541  local  and 
 toll  resellers  engaged  in  the  resale  of  telephone  service.  27  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. 


 22  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  codes  51331,  51333,  and  51334. 
 23  FCC,  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  Division,  Carrier  Locator  at  Table  1. 
 24  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  codes  51331,  51333,  and  51334. 
 25  FCC,  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  Division,  Carrier  Locator  at  Table  1. 
 26  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  codes  51331,  51333,  and  51334. 
 27  FCC,  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  Division,  Carrier  Locator  at  Table  1. 
67
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 C-  6 
 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.  28  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 


 28  See  Letter  from  A.  Alvarez,  Administrator,  SBA,  to  Amy  Zoslov,  Chief,  Auctions  and  Industry  Analysis 
 Division,  FCC  (Dec.  2,  1998). 
68
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 C-  7 
 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.  29 


 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.  30 


 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).  31  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 


 29  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  c). 
 30  47  U.  S.  C.    160(  d). 
 31  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. 
69
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 C-  8 
 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).  32  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 


 32  See  Order  at  part  V.  B.  2. 
70
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 C-  9 
 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 
71
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  204 
 C-  10 
 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.  33  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.  34 


 33  See  5  U.  S.  C.    801(  a)(  1)(  A). 
 34  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604(  b). 
72