[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44969-44971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22548]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 97-137; FCC 97-298]


Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, To Provide In-Region, InterLATA 
Services in Michigan

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order) in CC Docket No. 97-
137 concludes that Ameritech Michigan (Ameritech) has not satisfied the 
requirements of section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (Act). The Commission therefore denies Ameritech's application 
for authorization to provide in-region, interLATA services in Michigan. 
The Order declines to grant Ameritech authority to provide in-region, 
interLATA services in Michigan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Waksman, Attorney, Policy and 
Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
adopted and released August 19, 1997. The full text of this Order is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M St., NW, Room 239, Washington, DC. The 
complete text also may be obtained through the World Wide Web, at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common Carrier/Orders/fcc97-298.wp, or may 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th St., NW, 
Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of Order

    1. On May 21, 1997, Ameritech Michigan (Ameritech) filed an 
application for authorization under section 271 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, to provide in-region, interLATA services in 
the State of Michigan. In this Order, the Commission finds that 
Ameritech has met its burden of demonstrating that it is providing 
access and interconnection to an unaffiliated, facilities-based 
provider of telephone exchange service to residential and business 
subscribers in Michigan, as required by section 271(c)(1)(A) of the 
statute. The Commission further concludes, however, that Ameritech has 
not yet demonstrated that it has fully implemented the competitive 
checklist in section 271(c)(2)(B). In particular, the Commission finds 
that Ameritech has not met its burden of showing that it meets the 
competitive checklist with respect to: (1) Access to its operations 
support systems; (2) interconnection; and (3) access to its 911 and 
E911 services. In addition, the Commission finds that Ameritech has not 
demonstrated that its ``requested [in-region, interLATA authorization] 
will be carried out in accordance'' with the structural and 
transactional requirements of sections 272(b)(3) and 272(b)(5), 
respectively. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 
271(d)(3) of the Communications Act of

[[Page 44970]]

1934, as amended, (the Act), denies Ameritech's application to provide 
in-region, interLATA services in Michigan.
    2. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(A). The Commission finds that 
Ameritech has entered into binding agreements with Brooks Fiber, MFS 
WorldCom, and TCG that have been approved under section 252 and that 
specify the terms and conditions under which Ameritech is providing 
access and interconnection to its network facilities for the network 
facilities of these three competing providers of telephone exchange 
service to residential and business subscribers. In addition, the 
Commission determines that Brooks Fiber is offering such telephone 
exchange service exclusively over its own telephone exchange service 
facilities. Thus, the Commission concludes that Ameritech has satisfied 
the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) through its interconnection 
agreement with Brooks Fiber. Because Ameritech has satisfied section 
271(c)(1)(A) through its agreement with Brooks Fiber, the Commission 
does not reach the issue of whether Ameritech has also satisfied this 
provision through its agreements with MFS WorldCom and TCG.
    3. Compliance with the Competitive Checklist in section 272(B). 
Because the Commission has concluded that Ameritech satisfies section 
271(c)(1)(A), the Commission must next determine whether Ameritech has 
``fully implemented the competitive checklist in subsection 
(c)(2)(B).'' For the reasons set forth below, the Commission concludes 
that Ameritech has not yet demonstrated by a preponderance of the 
evidence that it has fully implemented the competitive checklist.
    4. As a preliminary matter, the Commission concludes that a BOC 
``provides'' a checklist item if it actually furnishes the item at 
rates and on terms and conditions that comply with the Act or, where no 
competitor is actually using the item, if the BOC makes the checklist 
item available as both a legal and a practical matter. The Commission 
emphasizes that the mere fact that a BOC has ``offered'' to provide 
checklist items will not suffice for a BOC petitioning for entry 
pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(A) (i.e, ``Track A''), to establish 
checklist compliance. To be ``providing'' a checklist item, a BOC must 
have a concrete and specific legal obligation to furnish the item upon 
request pursuant to state-approved interconnection agreements that set 
forth prices and other terms and conditions for each checklist item. 
Moreover, the petitioning BOC must demonstrate that it is presently 
ready to furnish each checklist item in the quantities that competitors 
may reasonably demand and at an acceptable level of quality.
    5. With respect to the first checklist item addressed, the 
Commission concludes, consistent with the findings of the Department of 
Justice and the Michigan Public Service Commission, that Ameritech has 
failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it 
provides nondiscriminatory access to all of the operations support 
systems (OSS) functions provided to competing carriers, as required by 
the competitive checklist. First, the Commission outlines its general 
approach to analyzing the adequacy of a BOC's operations support 
systems. Second, the Commission briefly describes the evidence in the 
record on this issue. Third, the Commission analyzes Ameritech's 
provision of access to OSS functions. The Commission emphasizes that 
Ameritech must demonstrate that it is providing nondiscriminatory 
access to OSS functions associated with unbundled network elements. The 
Commission then concludes that Ameritech has not demonstrated that the 
access to OSS functions that it provides to competing carriers for the 
ordering and provisioning of resale services is equivalent to the 
access it provides to itself. Because Ameritech fails to meet this 
fundamental obligation, the Commission need not decide, in the context 
of this application, whether Ameritech complies with its duty to 
provide nondiscriminatory access to each and every other remaining OSS 
function. Therefore, although the Commission does not address every 
OSS-related issue raised in the context of this application, the 
Commission makes clear that it has not affirmatively concluded that 
those OSS functions not addressed in this decision are in compliance 
with the requirements of section 271. Fourth, the Commission concludes 
that Ameritech has failed to provide the Commission with empirical data 
necessary for it to analyze whether Ameritech is providing 
nondiscriminatory access to all OSS functions, as required by the Act. 
Finally, in order to provide additional guidance, the Commission 
concludes by highlighting a number of other OSS-related issues that are 
of concern to the Commission.
    6. The next checklist item the Commission addresses is 
interconnection. The Commission concludes, consistent with the 
Department of Justice's finding, that Ameritech has not established by 
a preponderance of the evidence that it is providing interconnection in 
accordance with the requirements of the Act. First, the Commission 
finds that the data Ameritech submitted provide the Commission with an 
inadequate basis to compare the quality of the interconnection that 
Ameritech provides to other carriers to that which Ameritech provides 
itself. For example, Ameritech's data contain insufficient information 
regarding the actual level of trunk blockage and no information about 
the rate of call completion. Next, the Commission concludes that even 
if it were to evaluate the quality of interconnection that Ameritech 
provides based solely on the data that Ameritech submitted, the 
difference between the blocking rates on trunks that interconnect 
competing LECs' networks with Ameritech's network and the blocking 
rates on Ameritech's retail trunks suggests that Ameritech's 
interconnection facilities do not meet the technical criteria and 
service standards that Ameritech uses within its own network, contrary 
to the requirements imposed by section 251(c)(2)(C).
    7. The Commission also addresses the checklist item that requires 
Ameritech to provide nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 services, 
and concludes, in agreement with the Michigan Public Service 
Commission, that Ameritech has not met its burden of demonstrating that 
it satisfies this obligation. Specifically, the Commission finds that 
Ameritech maintains entries in its 911 database for its own customers 
with greater accuracy and reliability than it does the entries for the 
customers for competing local exchange carriers. In reaching this 
conclusion, the Commission finds it significant that there have been at 
least three instances involving customers of competing carriers, one as 
recently as May 21, 1997, where incorrect end user information was sent 
to emergency services personnel. Ameritech, which acknowledged fault in 
all three incidents, has presented no evidence to demonstrate that the 
911 database error rate for competing local exchange carrier customer 
information is equivalent to the error rate for Ameritech's own 
customers. The Commission also concludes that Ameritech has not 
demonstrated that it provides facilities-based competitors that 
physically interconnect with Ameritech access to the 911 database in a 
manner that is at parity with the access it provides itself. In 
addition to these parity issues, the Commission expresses concerns 
regarding Ameritech's efforts to detect and remedy

[[Page 44971]]

errors in competitors' end user 911 data and in the proper functioning 
of competitors' trunking facilities.
    8. Compliance with Section 272. In addition to making findings 
regarding Ameritech's compliance with section 271(c)(1)(A) and with the 
competitive checklist, the Commission addresses, pursuant to section 
271(d)(3)(B), whether Ameritech has demonstrated that the requested 
authorization will be carried out in accordance with section 272. The 
Commission concludes that, based on its current and past behavior, 
Ameritech has failed to demonstrate that it will carry out the 
requested authorization in accordance with the requirements of section 
272.
    9. Specifically, the Commission concludes that Ameritech's 
corporate structure is not in compliance with the section 272(b)(3) 
requirement that its interLATA affiliate (ACI) maintain ``separate'' 
directors from the operating company (Ameritech Michigan). In 
particular, the Commission finds that under Delaware and Michigan 
corporate law, Ameritech Corporation has the duties, responsibilities, 
and liabilities of a director for both ACI and Ameritech Michigan. As a 
result, ACI lacks the independent management intended by the separate 
director requirement.
    10. Additionally, the Commission concludes that Ameritech has 
failed to demonstrate that it will carry out the requested 
authorization in accordance with the section 272(b)(5) requirements 
that all transactions between Ameritech Michigan and ACI be conducted 
on an arm's length basis, be reduced to writing, and be available for 
public inspection. Specifically, the Commission finds that Ameritech 
has failed to disclose publicly the rates for all of the transactions 
between Ameritech and ACI. Moreover, it appears that Ameritech and ACI 
have not disclosed publicly all of their transactions as required by 
section 272(b)(5). Accordingly, if Ameritech continues its present 
behavior, and does not remedy these problems, it would not be in 
compliance with the requirements of section 272(b)(5).
    11. Public Interest. Based on the Commission's conclusions that 
Ameritech has not implemented fully the competitive checklist and has 
not complied with the requirements of section 272, the Commission 
denies Ameritech's application for authorization to provide in-region, 
interLATA telecommunications services in Michigan. As a result, the 
Commission need not reach the further question of whether the requested 
authorization is consistent with the public interest, convenience and 
necessity, as required by section 271(d)(3)(C). The Commission 
believes, however, that, provided the competitive checklist, public 
interest, and other requirements of section 271 are satisfied, BOC 
entry into the long distance market will further Congress' objectives 
of promoting competition and deregulation of telecommunication markets. 
In order to expedite such entry, the Commission believes it would be 
useful to identify certain issues for the benefit of future applicants 
and commenting parties, including the relevant state commission and the 
Department of Justice, relating to the meaning and scope of the public 
interest inquiry mandated by Congress. Accordingly, the Commission 
identifies the various factors it will consider and balance in 
undertaking a public interest analysis. The Commission notes that the 
presence or absence of any one factor will not dictate the outcome of 
its public interest inquiry. The Commission emphasizes, however, that 
it is not examining the public interest showing made in Ameritech's 
application, nor is the discussion intended to be an exhaustive 
analysis of the scope of the Commission's public interest inquiry 
generally.
    12. Other Matters. In order to provide guidance to Ameritech, the 
Department of Justice, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and 
other interested parties, the Commission briefly addresses, but does 
not make any findings with respect to, certain other matters raised in 
the record. These matters include: the pricing requirements of the 
competitive checklist; Ameritech's compliance with remaining checklist 
requirements; Ameritech's inbound telemarketing script; Ameritech's 
intraLATA toll service; and access to customer proprietary network 
information.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22548 Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P