[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20455-20457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10090]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 01-9; FCC 01-130]


Application by Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic 
Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance 
Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions) and Verizon Global 
Networks Inc., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, for Authorization To Provide In-Region InterLATA Services in the 
State of Massachusetts

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission grants 
the section 271 application of Verizon New England Inc., et al. 
(Verizon) for authority to enter the interLATA telecommunications 
market in the state of Massachusetts. The Commission grants Verizon's 
application based on our conclusion that Verizon has satisfied all of 
the statutory requirements for entry, and opened its local exchange 
markets to full competition.

DATES: Effective May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Einhorn, Attorney-Advisor, Policy 
and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1580, 
or via the Internet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cca9a9a5a2a4a3bea28caaafafe2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b7e7e7275737469755b7d7878357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order in CC Docket No. 01-9 released April 16, 
2001. The complete text of this document is available for inspection 
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Services (ITS, Inc.), CY-B400, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is also available on the Commission's 
website at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/ppp/2001ord.html.

Synopsis of the Order

    1. History of the Application. On January 16, 2001, Verizon filed 
an application (Massachusetts II Application), pursuant to section 271 
of the Communications Act of 1996, with the Commission to provide in-
region, interLATA service in the state of Massachusetts. The 
Massachusetts II Application incorporated by reference the record that 
developed in an earlier

[[Page 20456]]

proceeding evaluating Verizon's first Massachusetts application 
(Massachusetts I Application), which was filed on September 22, 2000, 
and withdrawn on December 18, 2000.
    2. The State Commission's Evaluation. The Massachusetts Department 
of Telecommunications and Energy (Massachusetts Department) advised the 
Commission, following sixteen months of extensive review, that Verizon 
met the checklist requirements of section 271(c) and has taken the 
statutorily required steps to open its local markets to competition. 
Consequently, the Massachusetts Department recommended that the 
Commission approve Verizon's in-region, interLATA entry in both its 
October 16, 2000 evaluation of the Massachusetts I Application, and its 
February 6, 2001 evaluation of the Massachusetts II Application.
    3. The Department of Justice's Evaluation. The Department of 
Justice (DOJ) filed its evaluation of Verizon's Massachusetts I 
Application on October 27, 2000. It recommended that the Commission not 
approve the application until Verizon had demonstrated that it provides 
nondiscriminatory access to and suitable performance measures regarding 
DSL loops. The DOJ submitted an evaluation of Verizon's Massachusetts 
II Application on February 21, 2001. It stated that although ``a number 
of changes have taken place'' since its evaluation of the Massachusetts 
I Application, it still could not find at that stage of the proceeding 
that Verizon had adequately demonstrated its ability to provide 
nondiscriminatory access to DSL loops. Recognizing that its evaluation 
reflected only the evidence in the record at the time, however, the DOJ 
urged the Commission to consider the full record in its final 
determination.

Primary Issues in Dispute

Checklist Item 2--Unbundled Network Elements

    4. Pricing of Network Elements. The Commission finds that Verizon's 
charges for UNEs made available in Massachusetts to other 
telecommunications carriers are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory 
in compliance with checklist item 2. Verizon relies on switching, 
transport, and signaling rates equivalent to those currently in place 
in New York. The Commission finds that Verizon's voluntarily-adopted 
rates that are equivalent to those currently in place in New York 
provide competitive LECs with rates that are within a reasonable TELRIC 
(total element long-run incremental costs) range. As the Commission 
noted in the SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order (66 FR 8596, February 1, 2001), 
under appropriate circumstances, a BOC's UNE rates will be entitled to 
a presumption of TELRIC compliance if they are adopted in whole from 
another state whose rates have been found to comply with TELRIC, and if 
costs are demonstrated to be at or above the costs in the state whose 
rates were adopted. The Commission finds that Verizon's Massachusetts 
rates meet the TELRIC-presumption test set forth in the SWBT Kansas/
Oklahoma Order. Additionally, the Commission finds the Massachusetts 
loop rates to be within the range that the reasonable application of 
TELRIC principles would produce.
    5. Access to Operations Support Systems (OSS). The Commission 
concludes that Verizon provides nondiscriminatory access to its 
operations support systems (OSS). Verizon demonstrates that its pre-
ordering systems permit competing carriers to build and use 
application-to-application interfaces and integrate pre-ordering and 
ordering interfaces. The interfaces are consistently available and 
provide reasonably prompt response times. The Commission also finds 
that Verizon offers nondiscriminatory access to the OSS functions 
associated with determining whether a loop can support DSL. With 
respect to Verizon's ordering OSS, the Commission finds that Verizon's 
OSS provides timely confirmation notices, rejection notices, completion 
notices, and jeopardy information. The Commission also finds that 
Verizon's OSS are capable of achieving high overall levels of flow-
through. Regarding provisioning, the Commission concludes that Verizon 
provisions competing carriers' resale and UNE-P orders in substantially 
the same time and manner as it provisions orders for its own retail 
customers. With respect to maintenance and repair, the Commission finds 
that Verizon offers requesting carriers access to the same functions 
that are available to Verizon's retail representatives, and that it 
provides nondiscriminatory access to the maintenance and repair systems 
and processes. With respect to billing, Verizon demonstrates that it 
provides timely and accurate usage information to competing carriers, 
as well as wholesale bills in a manner that affords competing carriers 
a meaningful opportunity to compete. Finally, the Commission concludes 
that Verizon has a sufficient process in place for handling changes to 
its OSS, that competing carriers have input in this process, and that 
Verizon adheres to it over time. Verizon also provides the 
documentation and help desk support that competitors need to build 
interfaces and make full use of the OSS Verizon provides to them.
    6. UNE Combinations. The Commission concludes that Verizon provides 
nondiscriminatory access to combinations of UNEs. The record indicates 
first that Verizon provides access to UNE combinations, and also that 
it provides access to UNEs in a manner that allows requesting carriers 
to combine those elements. The Commission bases its conclusion on 
evidence of actual commercial usage, and also on Verizon's legal 
obligation to provide such access as established in its tariff and 
interconnection agreements.
    7. Checklist Item 4--Unbundled Local Loops. Verizon has adequately 
demonstrated that it provides unbundled local loops as required by 
section 271. More specifically, Verizon establishes that it provides 
access to loop make-up information in compliance with the UNE Remand 
Order and nondiscriminatory access to stand alone xDSL-capable loops 
and high-capacity loops. Also, Verizon provides voice grade loops, both 
as new loops and through hot-cut conversions, in a nondiscriminatory 
manner. Finally, Verizon has demonstrated that it has a line-sharing 
and line-splitting provisioning process that affords competitors 
nondiscriminatory access to these facilities.
    8. In the Commission's overview of Verizon's performance data, it 
relies on Massachusetts performance data collected and submitted by 
Verizon under the state-adopted carrier-to-carrier standards. Verizon 
provides evidence and performance data establishing that it can 
efficiently furnish unbundled loops, for the provision of both 
traditional voice services and various advanced services, to other 
carriers in a nondiscriminatory manner. Verizon also establishes that 
it provides competing services with voice grade unbundled loops through 
new stand-alone loops and hot-cuts in substantially the same time and 
manner compared to its retail affiliates.
    9. The Commission also finds that Verizon provides 
nondiscriminatory access to the high-frequency portion of the loop and 
it makes it possible for competing carriers to provide voice and data 
service over a single loop (``line splitting''). Moreover, Verizon 
demonstrates that it provides maintenance and repair functions, for 
both line-shared and stand-alone xDSL-capable and voice-grade loops, 
for competing carriers in substantially the

[[Page 20457]]

same time and manner as Verizon does for its own retail services.

Other Checklist Items

    10. Checklist Item 1--Interconnection. Based on the evidence in the 
record, the Commission concludes that Verizon demonstrates that it 
provides interconnection in accordance with the requirements of section 
251(c)(2) and as specified in section 271 and applied in the 
Commission's prior orders. Pursuant to this checklist item, Verizon 
must allow other carriers to interconnect their networks to its network 
for the mutual exchange of traffic, using any available method of 
interconnection at any available point in Verizon's network. The 
Commission finds that Verizon makes interconnection available at any 
technically feasible point, including the option interconnect at only 
one technically feasible point within a LATA.
    11. Verizon demonstrates that its collocation offerings in 
Massachusetts satisfy the requirements of sections 251 and 271 of the 
Act. Verizon provides physical and virtual collocation through state-
approved tariffs. Verizon's Massachusetts physical and virtual 
collocation tariffs are virtually identical to the New York physical 
and virtual collocation tariffs, which we found to satisfy checklist 
item 1 in our Bell Atlantic New York Order. Verizon demonstrates that 
it offers interconnection in Massachusetts to other telecommunications 
carriers at just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, in 
compliance with checklist item 1.
    12. Checklist Item 3--Poles, Ducts, Conduits and Rights of Way. 
Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission concludes, as the 
Massachusetts Department does, that Verizon demonstrates that it 
provides nondiscriminatory access to its poles, ducts, conduits, and 
rights-of-way at just and reasonable rates in accordance with section 
271(c)(2)(B)(iii). The Commission rejects commenters' requests to find 
Verizon's policies and practices nondiscriminatory, because section 
224(c)(1) gives Massachusetts jurisdiction over such matters.
    13. Checklist Item 5--Unbundled Local Transport. Section 
271(c)(2)(B)(v) of the competitive checklist requires a BOC to provide 
``local transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange 
carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.'' The 
Commission concludes, based upon the evidence in the record, that 
Verizon demonstrates that it provides both shared and dedicated 
transport in compliance with the requirements of checklist item 5.
    14. Checklist Item 13--Reciprocal Compensation. Based on the 
evidence in the record, the Commission concludes that Verizon 
demonstrates that it has entered into reciprocal compensation 
arrangements in accordance with the requirements of section 252(d)(2) 
and is making all required payments in a timely fashion. Verizon thus 
satisfies the requirements of checklist item 13.
    15. Checklist Item 14--Resale. Based on the evidence in the record, 
we conclude that Verizon demonstrates that it makes telecommunications 
services available in Massachusetts for resale in accordance with 
sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3), and thus satisfies the requirements 
for checklist item 14. The Commission rejects commenters' assertions 
that Verizon should fail this item because its advanced services 
affiliate was not offering advanced services at resale discounts in 
accordance with ASCENT v. FCC, because the mandate in that decision had 
not been issued when Verizon filed its Massachusetts II Application.
    16. Checklist Items 6-12. An applicant under section 271 must 
demonstrate that it complies with checklist item 6 (unbundled local 
switching), item 7 (911/E911 access and directory assistance/operator 
services), item 8 (white page directory listings), item 9 (numbering 
administration), item 10 (databases and associated signaling), item 11 
(number portability), and item 12 (local dialing parity). Based on the 
evidence in the record, and in accordance with Commission rules and 
orders concerning compliance with section 271 of the Act, the 
Commission concludes that Verizon demonstrates that it is in compliance 
with checklist items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Massachusetts. The 
Massachusetts Department also concludes that Verizon complies with the 
requirements of each of these checklist items.
    17. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(A). The Commission concludes 
that Verizon demonstrates that it satisfies the requirements of section 
271(c)(1)(A) based on the interconnection agreements it has implemented 
with competing carriers in Massachusetts. The record demonstrates that 
competing LECs serve a sufficient number of business and residential 
customers using predominantly their own facilities. The Massachusetts 
Department likewise concluded that Verizon satisfies the requirements 
of section 271(c)(1)(A).
    18. Section 272 Compliance. Verizon has demonstrated that it 
complies with the requirements of section 272. Significantly, Verizon 
provides evidence that it maintains the same structural separation and 
nondiscrimination safeguards in Massachusetts as it does in New York, a 
state in which Verizon has already received section 271 authority.
    19. Public Interest Analysis. The Commission concludes that 
approval of this application is consistent with the public interest. It 
views the public interest requirement as an opportunity to review the 
circumstances presented by the applications to ensure that no other 
relevant factors exist that would frustrate the congressional intent 
that markets be open, as required by the competitive checklist, and 
that entry will therefore serve the public interest as Congress 
expected. While no one factor is dispositive in this analysis, the 
Commission's overriding goal is to ensure that nothing undermines its 
conclusion that markets are open to competition.
    20. Among other factors, the Commission may review the local and 
long distance markets to ensure that there are not unusual 
circumstances that would make entry contrary to the public interest 
under the particular circumstances of this Application. The Commission 
finds that, consistent with its extensive review of the competitive 
checklist, barriers to competitive entry in the local market have been 
removed and the local exchange market today is open to competition. The 
Commission also finds that the record confirms our view that a BOC's 
entry into the long distance market will benefit consumers and 
competition if the relevant local exchange market is open to 
competition consistent with the competitive checklist.
    21. The Commission also finds that the performance monitoring and 
enforcement mechanisms developed in Massachusetts, in combination with 
other factors, provide meaningful assurance that Verizon will continue 
to satisfy the requirements of section 271 after entering the long 
distance market.
    22. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement Authority. Working with the 
Massachusetts Department, the Commission intends to monitor closely 
post-entry compliance and to enforce the provisions of section 271 
using the various enforcement tools Congress provided us in the 
Communications Act.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10090 Filed 4-19-01; 1:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>