[Federal Register: March 27, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 14978-14980]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27mr03-49]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[WC Docket No. 02-384; FCC 03-57]
Application by Verizon Maryland Inc., Verizon Washington, D.C.
Inc., West Virginia Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/b/a
Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon
Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select
Services Inc., for Authorization To Provide In-Region, InterLATA
Services in Maryland, Washington, DC, and West Virginia
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) grants the section 271 application of Verizon Maryland
Inc., Verizon Washington, DC Inc., West Virginia Inc., Bell Atlantic
Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance
Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks
Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc., for authority to enter the
interLATA telecommunications market in Maryland, Washington, DC, and
West Virginia. The Commission grants Verizon's application based on its
conclusion that Verizon has satisfied all of the statutory requirements
for entry and opened its local exchange markets to full competition.
DATES: Effective March 31, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Cohen, Senior Economist, Wireline
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0939 or via the Internet at
gcohen@fcc.gov. The complete text of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Further information may also be
obtained by calling the Wireline Competition Bureau's TTY number: (202)
418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order in WC Docket No. 02-384, FCC 03-57,
[[Page 14979]]
adopted March 18, 2003, and released March 19, 2003. The full text of
this order may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile
202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com. It is also available on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/ Wireline--
Competition/in-region--applications.
Synopsis of the Order
1. History of the Application. On December 19, 2002, Verizon filed
an application pursuant to section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, with the Commission to provide in-region, interLATA service in
the states of Maryland, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC).
2. The State Commissions' Evaluations. The Maryland Public Service
Commission (Maryland Commission), the District of Columbia Public
Service Commission (DC Commission), and the West Virginia Public
Service Commission (West Virginia Commission), following an extensive
review process, advised the Commission that Verizon has taken the
statutorily required steps to open it local markets in each state to
competition. Consequently, the state commissions recommended that the
Commission approve Verizon's in-region, interLATA entry in their
evaluations and comments in this proceeding.
3. The Department of Justice's Evaluation. The Department of
Justice filed its evaluation on January 27, 2003, recommending approval
of the application, subject to the resolution of questions regarding
Verizon's checklist compliance for certain pricing and directory
assistance issues. Accordingly, the Department of Justice recommends
approval of Verizon's application for section 271 authority in
Maryland, Washington, DC, and West Virginia.
Primary Issues in Dispute
4. 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 Maryland, Washington, DC, and West Virginia.
The record shows that Verizon relies on interconnection agreements with
AT&T, Comcast, eLEC, FiberNet, Starpower, and StratusWave in support of
this showing.
5. Checklist Item 2--Unbundled Network Elements. Based on the
record, the Commission finds that Verizon has provided
``nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the
requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)'' of the Act in
compliance with checklist item 2.
6. Operating Support Systems (OSS). Based on the record, the
Commission finds that Verizon provides ``nondiscriminatory access to
network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)'' of the Act in compliance with checklist item
2. The Commission finds that Verizon provides non-discriminatory access
to its OSS--the systems, databases, and personnel necessary to support
network elements or services. Nondiscriminatory access to OSS ensures
that new entrants have the ability to order service for their customers
and communicate effectively with Verizon regarding basic activities
such as placing orders and providing maintenance and repair services
for customers. The Commission finds that, for each of the primary OSS
functions (pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and
repair, and billing, as well as change management), Verizon provides
access to its OSS in a manner that enables competing carriers to
perform the functions in substantially the same time and manner as
Verizon does or, if no appropriate retail analogue exists within
Verizon's systems, in a manner that permits competitors a meaningful
opportunity to compete. In addition, regarding specific areas where the
Commission identifies issues with Verizon's OSS performance in the
application states, these problems are not sufficient to warrant a
finding of checklist noncompliance.
7. UNE Combinations. Pursuant to section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) a BOC
must demonstrate that it provides nondiscriminatory access to network
elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such
elements and that the BOC does not separate already combined elements,
except at the specific request of the competing carrier. The Commission
concludes, based on the performance data in the record, that Verizon
meets its obligation to provide access to UNE combinations in
compliance with the Commission's rules.
8. Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements. Based on the record, we
find that Verizon's UNE rates in Maryland, Washington, DC, and West
Virginia are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory as required by
section 251(c)(3), and are based on cost plus a reasonable profit as
required by section 252(d)(1). Thus, Verizon's UNE rates satisfy
checklist item 2. The Commission has previously held that it will not
conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will
reject an application only if either ``basic TELRIC principles are
violated or the state commission makes clear errors in the actual
findings on matters so substantial that the end result falls outside
the range that a reasonable application of TELRIC principles would
produce.''
9. The Commission finds that, while Verizon's current recurring UNE
rates were not established via state rate proceedings that applied
TELRIC principles, the recurring UNE rates in all three jurisdictions
are TELRIC-compliant based on a benchmark comparison to Verizon's New
York UNE rates. The Commission concludes that Verizon's current loop
provisioning policy does not preclude us from finding that Verizon's
loop rates in these states are TELRIC-compliant based on a benchmark
comparison. In addition, the Commission confirms that it performs its
benchmark analysis by aggregating non-loop rate elements. Thus, we
conclude that Verizon's UNE rates in Maryland, Washington, DC, and West
Virginia satisfy the requirements of checklist item 2.
10. Checklist Item 12--Dialing Parity. Based on the evidence in the
record, the Commission finds that Verizon provides local dialing parity
in accordance with the Commission's rules. No commenter challenges
Verizon's provision of dialing parity in Maryland or Washington, DC.
However, FiberNet claims that in West Virginia local dialing parity is
not achieved in certain locations where an extended area service (EAS)
crosses LATA and state boundaries. The Commission concludes that
Verizon complies with our dialing parity rules and that our rules
implementing 251(b)(3) do not require Verizon to develop
interconnections arrangements for facilities-based competitive LECs
with third-party carriers.
11. Checklist Item 1--Interconnection. Based on the evidence in the
record, the Commission concludes that Verizon provides access and
interconnection on terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and
nondiscriminatory, 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. Verizon's
performance generally satisfies the applicable benchmark or
[[Page 14980]]
retail comparison standards for this checklist item. Verizon also
demonstrates that it offers interconnection in Maryland, Washington,
DC, and West Virginia to other telecommunications carriers at just,
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, in compliance with checklist
item 1.
Other Items in Dispute
12. Checklist Item 4--Unbundled Local Loops. Verizon demonstrates
that it provides unbundled local loops in accordance with the
requirements of section 271 and our rules, in that it provides ``local
loop transmission from the central office to the customer's premises,
unbundled from local switching or other services.'' The Commission's
conclusions are based on Verizon's performance for all loop types,
which include, as in past section 271 orders, voice grade loops, hot
cut provisioning, xDSL-capable loops, digital loops, high capacity
loops, as well as our review of Verizon's processes for line sharing
and line splitting.
13. Checklist Item 7--911-E911 Access & Directory Assistance/
Operator Services. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(I), (II), and (III)
require a BOC to provide nondiscriminatory access to ``911 and E911
services,'' ``directory assistance services to allow the other
carrier's customers to obtain telephone numbers'' and ``operator call
completion services,'' respectively. Additionally, section 251(b)(3) of
the 1996 Act imposes on each LEC ``the duty to permit all [competing
providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service] to
have nondiscriminatory access to ``* * * operator services, directory
assistance, and directory listing with no unreasonable dialing
delays.'' Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission concludes
that Verizon offers nondiscriminatory access to its 911-E911 databases,
operator services (OS), and directory assistance (DA).
14. Checklist Item 8--White Pages. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(viii) of
the Act requires a BOC to provide ``[w]hite page directory listings for
customers of the other carrier's telephone exchange service.'' The
Commission has previously found that a BOC satisfies the requirements
of checklist item 8 by demonstrating that it: (1) Provides
nondiscriminatory appearance and integration of white page directory
listings to competitive LECs' customers; and (2) provides white page
listings for competitors' customers with the same accuracy and
reliability that it provides its own customers. Based on the evidence
in the record, the Commission concludes that Verizon satisfies
checklist item 8.
15. Checklist Item 10--Databases and Associated Signaling. Section
271(c)(2)(B)(x) of the Act requires a BOC to provide
``nondiscriminatory access to databases and associated signaling
necessary for call routing and completion.'' Based on the evidence in
the record, the Commission finds that Verizon provides
nondiscriminatory access to databases and signaling networks in the
application states.
16. Checklist Item 11--Local Number Portability. Section 251(b)(2)
requires all LECs ``to provide, to the extent technically feasible,
number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the
Commission.'' Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission finds
that Verizon complies with the requirements of checklist item 11.
17. Checklist Item 13--Reciprocal Compensation. Section
271(c)(2)(B)(xiii) of the Act requires BOCs to enter into
``[r]eciprocal compensation arrangements in accordance with the
requirements of section 252(d)(2).'' In turn, section 252(d)(2)(A)
specifies the conditions necessary for a state commission to find that
the terms and conditions for reciprocal compensation are just and
reasonable. The Commission concludes that Verizon provides reciprocal
compensation as required by checklist item 13.
18. Checklist Item 14--Resale. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv) of the Act
requires that a BOC make ``telecommunications services * * * available
for resale in accordance with the requirements of section 251(c)(4) and
section 252(d)(3).'' Based on the record in this proceeding, the
Commission concludes as that Verizon satisfies the requirements of this
checklist item. Verizon has demonstrated that it has satisfied its
legal obligation to make retail telecommunications services available
for resale to competitive LECs at wholesale rates.
19. Remaining Checklist items (3, 5, 6 and 9). In addition to
showing that it is in compliance with the requirements discussed above,
an applicant under section 271 must demonstrate that it complies with
checklist item 3 (access to poles, ducts, and conduits), item 5
(unbundled transport), item 6 (local switching unbundled from
transport), and item 9 (numbering administration). Based on the
evidence in the record, the Commission concludes that Verizon
demonstrates that it is in compliance with the requirements of these
checklist items. It notes that no party objects to Verizon's compliance
with these checklist items (other than checklist item 5, which is
addressed as part of checklist item 4).
20. Section 272 Compliance. Based on the record, Verizon provides
evidence that it maintains the same structural separation and
nondiscrimination safeguards in the application states as it does in
Virginia, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts--where Verizon has
already received section 271 authority. Based on the record before us,
we conclude that Verizon has demonstrated that it will comply with the
requirements of section 272.
21. Public Interest Analysis. The Commission concludes that
approval of this application is consistent with the public interest.
From its extensive review of the competitive checklist, which embodies
the critical elements of market entry under the Act, we find that
barriers to competitive entry in the local exchange markets have been
removed and the local exchange markets in Maryland, Washington, DC and
West Virginia are open to competition. The Commission further finds
that, as noted in prior section 271 orders, BOC 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. Verizon demonstrates that there is significant
local competition in Maryland, Washington, DC and West Virginia and
that Verizon's local market will remain open to competition, and that
section 271 approval would enhance local and long distance competition
in Maryland, Washington, DC and West Virginia.
22. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement Authority. Working with each of
the state commissions, the Commission intends to closely monitor
Verizon's post-approval compliance to ensure that Verizon continues to
meet the conditions required for section 271 approval. It stands ready
to exercise its various statutory enforcement powers quickly and
decisively in appropriate circumstances to ensure that the local market
remains open in each of the states.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-7332 Filed 3-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P