Opinion ID: 181260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Interconnection Agreement

Text: In 1999, Core was beginning to enter the local Baltimore telephone market. By statute, Core was entitled to connectivity with the existing incumbent network that was (1) “technically feasible”; (2) at least equal in quality to that provided by the ILEC to “itself or to any subsidiary, affiliate, or any other party to which the carrier provides interconnection;” and (3) “on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.” 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(B)-(D). In order to expedite negotiations, Core adopted an existing ICA between Verizon, the ILEC in the region, and American Communications Services, Inc. 1 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 252(i). The adoption of this agreement was approved by the Commission on September 15, 1999. The agreement stated that Verizon would provide interconnection “in accordance with the performance standards set forth in Section 47 U.S.C. § 251 (c) of the Act and the FCC regulations.” J.A. 55. Under 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1), ILECs and CLECs are free to negotiate binding ICAs “without regard to” the baseline interconnection performance standards set forth in the Act and 1 American Communications Services, Inc. was another CLEC who was attempting to enter the telephone market in Baltimore. They had previously negotiated with Verizon to form the ICA which Core later adopted. 5 the corresponding FCC regulations. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b)-(c); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.305, 51.311, 51.313; Verizon Md., Inc. v. Global NAPS, Inc., 377 F.3d 355, 390 (4th Cir. 2004). In such circumstances, the generally applicable performance standards will only apply to the extent that the parties have not contracted around them. All ICAs must be presented to the Commission for approval even when they have been negotiated by the parties. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1)-(2). Commissions have also been vested with the authority to implement and enforce these agreements. Core Commc’n Inc. v. Verizon Pa., Inc., 493 F. 3d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 2007). According to the Commission, delays in interconnection are very costly to a new provider because it “cannot operate and earn revenue while it continues to incur expenses.” J.A. 27677. Delays can benefit the ILEC by reducing the chances that the CLEC is successful. In the summer of 1999, Core initiated contact with Verizon regarding interconnection. On July 27, 1999, Core sent a letter to Verizon requesting an activation date of September 10, 1999. Core calculated this date based on section 4.4.4 of the ICA, which states that interconnection will not occur earlier than forty-five days after the receipt of a request for interconnection by Core. Also, as required by the ICA, Core provided Verizon with forecasts of Core’s technical 6 requirements. The letter stated, “[p]lease confirm in writing if the requested interconnection activation date is acceptable, or, if it is not acceptable, please propose an alternate date, together with an explanation why such alternate date is appropriate.” J.A. 132-33. Verizon did not respond in writing. At a meeting on August 11, 1999, the parties agreed to use the “entrance facility” method of interconnection. J.A. 88. Entrance facilities are dedicated transmission facilities that connect ILEC and CLEC locations. Verizon describes four major steps for provisioning initial interconnection with Core using the entrance facility method: (1) constructing the physical interoffice facility between Verizon’s and Core’s networks; (2) provisioning transport circuits from Verizon’s to Core’s Wire Center; (3) provisioning transport circuit; and (4) establishing interconnection trunks between Verizon’s switch and Core’s switch. Core requested interconnection with Verizon at its Wire Center on the tenth floor of the Court Square building in Baltimore, Maryland. That floor of the building was “on-net” with Verizon, meaning that it was physically connected to Verizon’s central network through fiber feeder cables and an OC-12 multiplexer (hereinafter “OC-12 MUX”). Verizon had turned on an OC-12 Loop Ring at the building in June 1999, meaning that physical construction was complete, the optical signals were 7 transmitting, and the ring was service-ready. At some point, however, the OC-12 Mux was disconnected from the OC-12 Loop Ring. Verizon claims that on August 11, 1999, it estimated that connection would take between four to six months. In an effort to speed things along, Core asked that Verizon expedite the interconnection process by using the existing OC-12 Loop Ring and OC-12 Mux for interconnection, as this would eliminate the need for Verizon to build new facilities. It also requested an interconnection activation date of September 18, 1999. Verizon agreed that using the existing OC-12 Loop Ring would be technically feasible, but would not commit to Core’s proposal at the August 11 meeting until it first checked with other departments. The record indicates that the OC-12 Loop Ring had the capacity sufficient to support Core’s initial request. On August 15, 1999, Verizon informed Core that the OC-12 Mux had been “assigned” to some “customer of record,” the identity of whom Verizon would not disclose. Thus, Verizon claimed that the OC-12 Mux was unavailable for interconnection. Later, Verizon admitted that Core was the customer of record for the OC-12 Mux. However, Verizon claims that Core was assigned to the OC-12 Mux in a retail capacity as a “customer” rather than as a “carrier.” 8 On August 31, 1999, Verizon informed Core that, as a matter of policy, it would not use the OC-12 Loop Ring for interconnection, whether or not it was technically feasible. Verizon further explained on September 7, 1999, that it had previously classified the existing OC-12 Mux as a “customer” facility, rather than a “carrier” facility and that the OC-12 Mux would need to be “reinventoried” as a “carrier” facility in order to use it for interconnection. Instead of using the existing facilities, Verizon stated that it would need to physically detach the OC-12 Mux from the OC-12 Loop Ring, construct a new OC-12 ring interoffice facility ring (“New OC-12 IOF Ring”), and insert the multiplexer into the new ring before subsequent steps in the interconnection process could take place. Core met with Verizon again on September 9, 1999, to express its desire to use the OC-12 Loop Ring for interconnection. As a result of the meeting, Verizon informed Core that it would complete construction of the New OC-12 IOF Ring and establish connection to the Wire Center by November 16, 1999. Core responded on September 24, 1999, that the November 16 date was not acceptable, and that Verizon had not yet articulated a reasonable justification for refusing to use the existing OC-12 Loop Ring for interconnection. 9 The new OC-12 IOF Ring was completed sometime between November 16, 1999 and November 30, 1999. Once the new OC-12 IOF Ring was “turned up,” the parties were able to coordinate subsequent steps in the interconnection process by December 23, 1999, just over four months after the initial meeting between Core and Verizon.