Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 98-147, FCC 99-48]

Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced

Telecommunications Capability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, we propose to establish certain spectrum

compatibility and management rules in order to promote the timely

deployment of advanced services without significantly degrading the

performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band

services. These rules rest upon currently established technical

standards and practices. We recognize that, in the long term, more

comprehensive standards and practices must be developed. The Commission

is therefore issuing this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)

seeking comment on proposed regulations to resolve, in a timely manner,

the host of long-term spectrum compatibility and management issues. In

addition, the FNPRM tentatively concludes that it is technically

feasible for two different carriers sharing a single line to provide

traditional voice service and advanced services. The FNPRM seeks

comment on a host of issues associated with the ramifications of

mandating such line sharing.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 15, 1999 and Reply Comments

are due on or before July 15, 1999. Written comments by the public on

the proposed information collections are due June 15, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,

Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Janice Myles of

the Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 5-C327,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any

documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor,

International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Staci Pies, Attorney, Common Carrier

Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, (202) 418-1580. Further

information may also be obtained by calling the Common Carrier Bureau's

TTY number: 202-418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted March 18, 1999 and

released March 31, 1999. The full text of this FNPRM is available for

inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, 445 12th St., S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C.

The complete text also may be obtained through the World Wide Web, at

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common Carrier/Orders/fcc9948.wp, or may be

purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Spectrum Compatibility--Long-Term Standards and Practices

1. Overview

1. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM 63 FR 45134, August 24,

1998, we requested comment on loop spectrum issues. We asked commenters

to address any degradation of service that may result from provision of

advanced services using different signal formats on copper pairs in the

same bundle. In the Order, we establish spectrum compatibility and

management rules to the extent currently feasible in order to promote

the timely deployment of advanced services without significantly

degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional

voice band services. These rules rest upon currently established

technical standards and practices. We recognize that, in the long term,

more comprehensive technical standards and practices must be developed.

We therefore adopt this Further NPRM, through which we hope to resolve,

in a timely manner, the host of long-term spectrum compatibility and

management issues.

2. Discussion

2. In the companion Order, we find that incumbent LECs may not

unilaterally set spectrum compatibility and spectrum management

policies. In place of incumbent LEC-determined standards and practices,

we found in the companion Order that there should be a competitively

neutral spectrum standards setting process to investigate the actual

level of interference between technologies to determine what

technologies are deployable and under what circumstances. In this

Further NPRM, we tentatively conclude that this process should include

the active participation of the incumbent LECs, competitive LECs,

equipment suppliers, and the Commission. We further tentatively

conclude the following: the process should be competitively neutral in

both structure and procedure; representation should be equitably spread

over all segments of the industry; and representatives should have

equal authority, with no party or groups of parties presuming to have

greater weight or ``veto'' power. We seek comment on these tentative

conclusions and how to establish such a process to develop long-term

standards and practices. We also seek comment on our authority to

direct industry bodies to engage in the process of developing spectrum

compatibility and management policies, and our authority to compel

industry bodies to adhere to any requirements we establish for the

functioning of such bodies.

3. In this Further NPRM we seek comment on two broad and

interrelated issues: spectrum compatibility and spectrum management.

With regard to spectral compatibility, we generally believe, as

indicated in the Order, that the industry, via its standards bodies,

can create acceptable standards for xDSL and other advanced services.

Much of the standards development process is continuous in nature, and

our hope is that the industry will fairly and expeditiously develop

standards beyond completion of this proceeding. Future technologies

will require the T1E1.4, or other standards bodies, to develop these

compatibility standards in a timely, fair, and open manner. We believe,

however, that the Commission can play a role in fostering timely, fair,

and open development of standards for current and future technologies.

4. We seek comment on the best process or forum for developing

future power spectral density (PSD) masks. We tentatively conclude that

T1E1.4 is the best choice for this task. Commenters have expressed

concern, however, that T1E1.4 is not representative of the developing

advanced services industry as a whole and may be overly represented by

incumbent carriers and large manufacturers. We seek comments on how to

foster broader representation and participation in this standards body.

We also ask commenters to suggest other forums or methods of

guaranteeing fair and timely resolution of spectrum compatibility

problems.

5. We seek comment on whether generic masks would be an appropriate

means to address spectrum compatibility. We seek comment on whether

this approach might restrict deployment of technologies that otherwise

would not harm the network.

6. We seek comment on whether a calculation-based approach, in

addition

[[Page 23248]]

to a power spectral density mask-based approach, provides a better tool

for defining spectral compatibility We specifically seek comment

whether such an approach provides a more accurate predictor of spectrum

compatibility.

7. With regard to spectrum management, we believe that comments in

response to this Further NPRM can provide the information necessary to

establish long-term spectrum management rules. Our goal is that the

rules developed as a result of the Further NPRM will encourage

technical innovation while preserving network reliability. Although we

believe that T1E1.4 could serve as the common ground where industry

resolves these issues, we think the Commission can facilitate industry

development of fair standards through this Further NPRM. We seek

specific comment and clarification on the following items initially

raised in the NPRM, but not sufficiently explicated in the record.

8. We seek comment on methods to encourage the industry to develop

fair and open practices for the deployment of advanced services

technologies. We tentatively conclude that T1E1.4 should serve as the

forum to establish fair and open deployment practices. This conclusion

is premised on the assumption that a method will be developed by which

to ensure the active participation of all segments of the industry in

T1E1.4. What role should the Commission play in facilitating broad

participation in this process?

9. We ask commenters to consider how to maximize the deployment of

new technologies within binder groups while minimizing interference. We

seek comment on the development of xDSL binder group administration

practices, including specifications on the types and numbers of

technologies that can be deployed within a binder group. This should

include procedures allowing for deployment of various xDSL-based

services in a nonrestrictive manner. We seek comment on the procedures

for maintaining and updating these administrative practices so as to

minimize interference with future technologies. We seek comment on the

practice of segregating services based on the technology. For example,

we recognize AMI T1 as a potential disturber and understand that

incumbent LECs currently assign AMI T1 to separate binder groups.

Competitive LECs have expressed concern that incumbent LECs might apply

a similar segregation practice to xDSL technology--a practice

competitive LECs claim is not necessary or beneficial. We seek comment

on whether to allow incumbent LECs to segregate xDSL technology in such

a manner.

10. We seek comment on whether we should establish a grandfathering

process for interfering technologies. For example, should the

Commission establish a sunset period for services such as AMI T1? As

noted above, we recognize that carriers have a substantial base of AMI

T1 in deployment and that in some areas AMI T1 provides the only

feasible high-speed transmission capability. We seek comment on whether

carriers should be required to replace AMI T1 with new and less

interfering technologies, and, if so, what time frame would be

reasonable. We ask commenters to propose rules for a possible

grandfathering process which will not disrupt the network and

simultaneously encourage investment in, and deployment of, new

technology.

11. We seek comment on whether to develop a dispute resolution

process regarding the existence of disturbers in shared facilities.

Specifically, we ask commenters to suggest how best to resolve disputes

arising out of claims that a technology is ``significantly degrading''

the performance of other services. We also seek comment on whether, and

if so, how we should define ``significantly degrade'' so as to ensure

that consumers have the broadest selection of services from which to

choose without harming the network. If we develop a dispute resolution

process, should it rely on an outside party as an arbitrator, such as

the state commission, the FCC, or a neutral third party, or should the

procedures simply provide the rules by which players must conform?

12. We seek comment to determine whether the Commission should

solicit the assistance of a third party in developing loop spectrum

management policies. What role could such a third party serve in

facilitating communication between the industry and regulatory bodies?

Should it serve a role similar to the role served by the administrator

for local number portability? Should it be empowered to develop binder

group management procedures, facilitate the development of future PSD

masks, and resolve disputes between carriers over the existence of

disturbers in shared facilities? We also ask parties to comment on

whether a voluntary industry effort could effectively address loop

management issues.

13. We acknowledge that the industry, via the T1E1.4, is currently

engaged in developing standards for various varieties of xDSL

technologies. We recognize further that the industry can best address

many of the details concerning spectral compatibility. Furthermore, we

acknowledge that many of the spectral compatibility issues will require

on-going analysis and oversight beyond the completion of this

proceeding. Although we have initiated this Further NPRM in order to

develop rules to address long-term spectrum management concerns, we

expect that the industry, via the T1E1.4 or other bodies, will continue

to develop standards and procedures to promote deployment of advanced

services and resolve the problems that arise when multiple carriers

deploy multiple technologies over the same facilities. We encourage the

industry, through its standards bodies, to continue its independent

efforts to develop long-term standards and practices for spectrum

management. We expect that the industry will conduct this ongoing role

in a expeditious, fair and open manner.

14. We ask commenters to address any additional measures the

Commission could take to ensure that spectrum compatibility and

management concerns are resolved in a fair and expeditious manner. We

also ask commenters to consider what measures the Commission could take

to ensure that spectral compatibility requirements are forward-looking

and able to evolve over time to encourage, rather than stifle,

innovation and deployment of advanced services.

B. Line Sharing

1. Overview

15. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on

whether two different service providers should be allowed to offer

services over the same line, with each provider utilizing different

frequencies to transport voice or data over that line. We asked

commenters whether we should mandate such line sharing, specifically

whether the competitive LEC should have the right to run high frequency

data signals, or other advanced services, over the same line as the

incumbent LEC's voice signal.

16. Shared line access makes it possible for a competing carrier to

offer advanced services over the same line that a consumer uses for

voice service without requiring the competing carrier to take over

responsibility for providing the voice service. Such shared line access

would enable new entrants to focus solely on the advanced services

market without having to acquire the resources or the expertise to

provide other types of telecommunications services, such as analog

voice service. Shared line access could also remove

[[Page 23249]]

any cost disadvantage that an advanced services only provider might

face if it had to provide advanced services over a stand-alone line. A

competitive LEC, therefore, may want to take advantage of the ability

of advanced services technology, such as ADSL, to run on the frequency

above the analog voice channel by providing only high-speed data

service, without voice service, over a loop.

17. We believe each end user customer should be able to choose from

a broad array of services and from whom to obtain these services. In

particular, we believe allowing consumers to keep their voice service

provider while allowing them to obtain advanced services on the same

line from a different provider will foster consumer choice and promote

innovation and competitive deployment of advanced services.

18. Line sharing assumes that a requesting carrier will have access

to the incumbent LEC's local loop. While the Supreme Court, in Iowa

Utilities Board, has directed the Commission to reevaluate the standard

for defining the local loop as an unbundled network element, we see no

reason to delay seeking comment in this proceeding on whether competing

carriers may have access to the high frequency portion on an incumbent

LEC's loop. To the extent that any redefinition of the local loop, or

other network elements, affects any conclusions drawn from this

proceeding, we will revise our analysis and conclusions accordingly.

2. Discussion

19. The existing record indicates that incumbent LECs have denied

competitors the option of offering advanced services over the same line

on which the incumbent LEC provides voice service.

20. We decline, however, to mandate line sharing at the federal

level at this time under the accompanying Report and Order. Although we

find no evidence that line sharing is not technically feasible, we find

that the record does not sufficiently address the operational, pricing,

and other practical issues that may arise if LECs are compelled to

share lines with competitors. We acknowledge that the Commission has

concluded that a ``determination of technical feasibility does not

include consideration of economic, accounting, billing, space, or site,

concerns.'' Several incumbent LECs have raised, however, billing,

accounting, and other operational issues, that we would like to

consider before we determine whether to mandate line sharing

nationwide. While none of the issues raised by the incumbents challenge

the technical feasibility of line sharing, we believe that there may be

practical considerations that have not been adequately addressed in the

existing record. Moreover, there may be policy considerations that

weigh against line sharing, even if the Commission were to conclude

that technical and operational concerns could be met. As a result, we

seek additional comments in the Further NPRM in order to develop a more

comprehensive record on the policy and practical ramifications of

federally mandated line sharing, including any policy considerations

that weigh against line sharing.

a. Authority to Require Line Sharing

21. In Iowa Utilities Board, the Supreme Court held that we have

jurisdiction to implement the local competition provisions of the Act

and that our rulemaking authority extends to sections 251 and 252. We

therefore tentatively conclude that we have authority to require line

sharing. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Finally, we

tentatively conclude that nothing in the Act, our rules, or caselaw

precludes states from mandating line sharing, regardless of whether the

incumbent LEC offers line sharing to itself or others, and regardless

of whether it offers advanced services. We seek comment on these

tentative conclusions.

b. Access to ``High-Frequency Portion'' of the Loop

22. We tentatively conclude that incumbent LECs must provide

requesting carriers with access to the transmission frequencies above

that used for analog voice service on any lines that LECs use to

provide exchange service when the LEC itself provides both exchange and

advanced services over a single line. We tentatively conclude that,

without such a ruling, competitive LECs will be hampered in their

ability to compete in providing advanced services to end users because

the competitive LEC would have to obtain a new line from the incumbent

LEC in order to provide advanced services whereas the incumbent LEC

could provide advanced services far less expensively by using the

existing line. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.

Moreover, in the absence of line sharing, the competing carrier

effectively may be forced to provide both voice and data over the local

loop it leases from the incumbent. This means that the competing

carrier potentially must invest in two technologies--circuit switched

technology for voice transmissions and packet switched technologies for

data. The competing carrier may need to make this investment in circuit

technology even though that technology may become obsolete over time.

We seek comment on the extent to which the absence of line sharing

requires such dual investment and the competitive effect of such dual

investment.

23. We also seek comment in this proceeding on whether we should

more precisely define what constitutes the frequency above that used

for analog voice service, so that it is clear to all parties what the

incumbent must unbundle, in the event we require line sharing. We ask

commenters to address whether setting a specific dividing line between

a low frequency channel and a high frequency channel on the loop would

arbitrarily freeze technological development and deny carriers

opportunities to use the loop to provision services that rely on

different frequencies bands within the loop.

24. We also tentatively conclude that any rules we adopt on line

sharing should not mandate a particular technological approach to the

use of a line for multiple services. We believe that shared line access

is a rapidly evolving technology and any rules we adopt must be

forward-looking and flexible enough to stimulate, rather than stifle,

technological innovation. We ask commenters to address how we can

construct regulations that promote local competition and technological

innovation so that American consumers can take full advantage of the

line's features, functionalities, and capabilities.

c. Technical, Operational, Economic, Pricing, and Cost Allocation

Issues Associated with Line Sharing

25. The current record in this proceeding reveals that incumbent

LECs have opposed line-sharing with xDSL-based providers on the grounds

that simultaneous provision of advanced service and voice service over

a single line by separate providers is not technically feasible. These

parties broadly argue that allowing new entrants to acquire rights to

the high frequency channel of the line, while declining to purchase the

voice channel of the line, would harm the network. We find that

incumbent LECs have placed nothing on the record in this proceeding

demonstrating that a competitor's advanced services equipment is likely

to cause any network problems.

26. Technical Issues. We find nothing in the existing record to

persuade us that line sharing is not technically feasible. In fact,

incumbent LECs are

[[Page 23250]]

already sharing the line for the provision of both voice and advanced

services. Because incumbent LECs are already using single lines to

provide both voice and advanced services and are even sharing lines

with other providers for the provision of both voice and advanced

services, it appears that there exists no bona fide issue of technical

infeasibility. As such, we tentatively conclude that line sharing is

technically feasible. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

27. Although not set forth in the record, we can conceive of some

circumstances in which advanced services cannot share a line with

analog voice service. We tentatively conclude that such isolated

situations can be remedied and should not interfere with the

incumbent's general obligation to share the line. We tentatively

conclude that, to the extent that an incumbent LEC can demonstrate to

the state commission that digital loop conditioning would interfere

with the analog voice service of the line, line sharing is not

technically feasible on that particular line, and the incumbent is not

obligated to share that line. We tentatively conclude that incumbent

LECs would be required to perform other sorts of conditioning, such as

removing bridge taps or cleaning up splices along the loop, that would

not interfere with the analog voice signal. We seek comment on these

tentative conclusions. We ask commenters to address any other technical

problems that may arise in line sharing arrangements and to suggest

remedies for such problems.

28. Operational Issues. In addition to technical feasibility

concerns, commenters raise concerns about operational barriers to line

sharing. We ask commenters to discuss the operational issues that may

arise with line sharing. For example, what effect will line sharing

have on existing analog voice service? Should carriers be allowed to

request just the voice channel of a line? Should carriers be allowed to

request any unused portion of a line? How will line sharing affect

existing and evolving operations support systems? To what extent will

LEC operations support systems needed to be modified in order to allow

two carriers to share a line? Which entity should manage the

multiplexing equipment if two carriers are offering services over the

same loop? Should different customers be allowed on the same physical

loop? How and by whom should problems on the line be handled? What

happens if conditioning a loop for advanced services requires removal

of repeaters or load coils, which are needed to preserve the quality of

the analog voice signal? These examples are merely illustrative of

issues that may arise from two carriers providing services over the

same line. We ask commenters to address these issues and any other

operational, administrative, and pricing concerns with specificity.

29. Economic, Pricing, and Cost Allocation Issues. We also seek

comment on the economic, pricing, and cost allocation issues that may

arise from line sharing. For example, how might line sharing affect

federal and state access charge regimes and universal service

mechanisms? What are the pricing consequences of requiring line sharing

(e.g., what consequences will line sharing have on the price of the

unbundled local loop)? Should the entire cost of the loop be imputed to

the voice channel or divided equally or otherwise between the two

services sharing the facility? What cost allocation issues, if any, are

raised by line sharing? What effect will line sharing have on new

entrants' ability to compete with incumbents? How will line sharing

stimulate or retard innovation? How will line sharing affect investment

in local exchange facilities?

30. Finally, we ask commenters to address the continued viability

of line sharing arrangements as telecommunications network

architectures migrate from a circuit to a packet environment. As

carriers deploy ATM and other packet technologies, and as voice traffic

moves from the circuit-switched network to Internet Protocol (IP) or

ATM networks, is a line sharing requirement commercially or technically

feasible? Commenters should address whether a competitive LEC's ability

to deliver voice service over a packet-switched network obviates the

need to share a loop with the incumbent LEC.

C. Procedural Matters

1. Ex Parte Presentations

31. The matter in Docket No. 98-147, initiated by the Further NPRM

portion of this item, shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''

proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons

making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda

summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance

of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to

oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) as

well.

2. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

32. The Further NPRM contains either a proposed or modified

information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in this Notice, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB

comments are due June 29, 1999. Comments should address: (a) whether

the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

3. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

33. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C.

603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible impact on small entities of the

proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in the

Appendix. Written public comments are requested with respect to the

IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing

deadlines for comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they must have a

separate and distinct heading, designating the comments as responses to

the IRFA. The Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division,

will send a copy of this NPRM , including the IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in

accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

4. Comment Filing Procedures

34. The proceeding, Deployment of Wireline Services Offering

Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, is

initiated by the Further NPRM portion of this item. Pursuant to

Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415,

1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before June 15, 1999

and reply comments on or before July

[[Page 23251]]

15, 1999. All filings should refer only to Deployment of Wireline

Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No.

98-147. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through

the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://

www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an

electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal

screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service

mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number, which

in this instance is CC Docket No. 98-147. Parties may also submit an

electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for

e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and

should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get

form jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB

Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503

or via the Internet to fain__t@al.eop.gov.

5. Further Information

39. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact

Michael Pryor, Deputy Division Chief, Policy and Program Planning

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at 202-418-1580 or mpryor@fcc.gov.

Further information may also be obtained by calling the Common Carrier

Bureau's TTY number: 202-418-0484.

VI. Ordering Clauses

40. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1-4, 10, 201, 202,

251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 160, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and

303(r), the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.

41. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public

Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of the

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected significant

economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in

the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM). Written

public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified

as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for

comments on the Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the

Further NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of

the Small Business Admininistration in accordance with section 603(a)

of the Flexibility Act.

I. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule

2. The Commission is issuing the Further NPRM to seek comment on

issues related to spectral compatibility and spectral management. We

ask commenters to consider whether the Commission should establish

rules for deployment of central office equipment similar to those set

forth in part 68 of our rules. We also ask commenters to address the

technical, operational, pricing, legal or policy ramifications of line

sharing. We tentatively conclude that there are no technical, legal,

regulatory or policy obstacles to line sharing among competing

carriers. Further, we seek comment on our tentative conclusions that

incumbent LECS must provide requesting carriers with unbundled access

to the transmission frequencies above that used for analog voice

service on any loops that LECs use to provide exchange service when the

LEC itself provides both exchange and advanced services over a single

loop. We ask commenters to address any other technical problems that

may arise in line sharing arrangements and to suggest remedies for such

problems.

II. Legal Basis

3. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the

Further NPRM is contained in sections 1-4, 10, 201, 202, 251-254, 271,

and 303(r) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154,

160, 201, 202, 251-254, 271, and 303(r).

III. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected

by the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be

affected by the proposals in this Further NPRM, if adopted. The RFA

generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning

as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small

governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''

has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the

Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is

independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of

operation; and (3) satisfies any

[[Page 23252]]

additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration

(SBA).

5. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small

entities that may be affected by the proposals in this Further NPRM, if

adopted.

6. The most reliable source of information regarding the total

numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as

well as the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data

the Commission publishes annually in its Telecommunications Industry

Revenue report, regarding the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).

According to data in the most recent report, there are 3,459 interstate

carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers

(LECs), wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange

carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of

telephone exchange service, and resellers.

7. The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing

``Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone'' to be small

businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees. Below, we

discuss the total estimated number of telephone companies and small

businesses in this category, and we then attempt to refine further

those estimates.

8. Although some affected incumbent LEC may have 1,500 or fewer

employees, we do not believe that such entities should be considered

small entities within the meaning of the RFA because they are either

dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned

and operated, and therefore by definition not ``small entities'' or

``small business concerns'' under the RFA. Accordingly, our use of the

terms ``small entities'' and ``small businesses'' does not encompass

small incumbent LECs. Out of an abundance of caution, however, for

regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will separately consider

small incumbent LECs within this analysis and use the term ``small

incumbent LECs'' to refer to any incumbent LECs that arguably might be

defined by the SBA as ``small business concerns.''

9. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has

developed a definition for small LECs. The closest applicable

definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to

the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 1,371

carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local

exchange services. We do not have data specifying the number of these

carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not

independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees,

and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the

number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the

SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,371

providers of local exchange service are small entities or small

incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.

10. Competitive LECs. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed

a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of

competitive LECs. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules

is for telephone communications companies except radiotelephone

(wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding

the number of competitive LECs nationwide is the data that we collect

annually in connection with the TRS Worksheet. According the most

recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 109 companies reported

that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local

exchange service or competitive access service, which are placed

together in the data. We do not have information on the number of

carriers that are not independently owned and operated, nor have more

than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of competitive LECs that would qualify as

small business concerns under the SBA definition. Consequently, we

estimate that there are fewer than 109 small competitive LECs or

competitive access providers.

IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements

11. We were unable to gather a sufficient record on the development

of rules relating to procedures for equipment testing and compliance,

so we seek additional comments on this issue. We are seeking comments

on whether the Commission should establish rules for deployment of

central office equipment similar to those set forth in Part 68 of our

rules. We also ask commenters to address whether the Commisison should

be involved with the actual testing and compliance procedures or

whether the industry is better suited to serve this function through

the use of independent and accredited labs. We ask commenters to

address any additional measures the Commission could take to ensure

that spectrum compatibility and management concerns are resolved in a

fair and expeditious manner. We seek comment on the level of demand for

line sharing, and on technical and operational obstacles to sharing a

single loop between two service providers.

V. Significant Alternatives to Proposed Rule Which Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities and Small Incumbent LECs, and

Accomplish Stated Objectives

12. In this Further NPRM, we seek to develop a record sufficient

enough to adequately address issues related to developing long-term

standards and practices for spectral compatibility and management. In

addressing these issues, we seek to ensure that competing carriers,

including small entity carriers, obtain access to inputs necessary to

the provision of advanced services. We tentatively conclude that our

proposals in the Further NPRM would impose minimum burdens on small

entities. We seek comment on these proposals and the impact they may

have on small entities.

VI. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the

Proposed Rule

13. None.

[FR Doc. 99-10833 Filed 4-29-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P