Opinion ID: 785238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Network Modification Requirements

Text: 84 In Iowa Utilities I, the Eighth Circuit struck down an FCC rule that required ILECs to provide interconnection and UNEs superior in quality to those that the ILEC provided for itself. 120 F.3d at 812-13. But the court nonetheless endorse[d] the Commission's statement that `the obligations imposed by sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3) include modifications to incumbent LEC facilities to the extent necessary to accommodate interconnection or access to network elements.' Id. at 813 n. 33. The line between impermissible superior quality requirements and permissible modification requirements is not always clear. 85 In the Order under review, the Commission require[d] incumbent LECs to make routine network modifications to unbundled transmission facilities used by requesting carriers where the requested transmission facility has already been constructed. Order ¶ 632. The Commission elaborated that routine network modifications include those activities that incumbent LECs regularly undertake for their own customers, but do not include construction of new wires ... for a requesting carrier. Id. Applying this standard, the Commission determined that when ILECs supply high-capacity loops as unbundled elements, they must engage in activities necessary to activate loops that are not currently activated in the network. Id. ¶ 633. The FCC gave as examples of such necessary loop modifications: rearrangement or splicing of cable; adding a doubler or repeater; adding an equipment case; adding a smart jack; installing a repeater shelf; adding a line card; and deploying a new multiplexer or reconfiguring an existing multiplexer. Id. ¶ 634. 86 The ILECs claim that these passages manifest a resurrection of the unlawful superior quality rules. We disagree. The FCC has established a clear and reasonable limiting principle: the distinction between a routine modification and a superior quality alteration turns on whether the modification is of the sort that the ILEC routinely performs, on demand, for its own customers. While there may be disputes about the application, the principle itself seems sensible and consistent with the Act as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit. Indeed, the FCC makes a plausible argument that requiring ILECs to provide CLECs with whatever modifications the ILECs would routinely perform for their own customers is not only allowed by the Act, but is affirmatively demanded by § 251(c)(3)'s requirement that access be nondiscriminatory. We needn't reach that claim, however, since the FCC's principle is at the very least reasonable and consistent with Iowa Utilities I. 87 The ILECs further object that the Order unlawfully permits states to find that ILECs are not entitled to compensation for making the requested modifications. We agree with the FCC that this challenge will not be ripe for judicial review until a state actually decides how much an ILEC may charge for a specific network modification.