WPC2 2BVXZ3|C (TT)y.C8*X/C\  P6QP"5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSX\  P6G;,,,P#swP2 *4D Z43|C"5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSX\  P6G;,,,P#swP2 J|vp<   X01Í ÍX01Í ÍTimes New Roman (TT)Arial (TT)Arial (Bold) (TT)Arial (Italic) (TT)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2 k kI  vY a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2Yt u   BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2s  7 a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2uNNa7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2P^ a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2YMa4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2 3e' Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5^88Goo&CCNu8C88oooooooooo88uuuo˅z8dozz888^oCoodoo8oo--d-ooooCd8oddddC4Cu8CCCCPCnzoooooȲdoooo88888888ooooooooodoozodoooooddooooooooPzCzCC8zdoȽdNF8koCzoooooJIoCoC--CCoCCoo-CCCNCnnuPsuoos88Goo&CCNu8C88oooooooooo88uuuo˅z8dozz888^oCoodoo8oo--d-ooooCd8oddddC4Cu-oCooCȅC--CCFoCdC8Coooo4oCJouCnPnCCCsk8CCIozȐ8888uzoooooodoooo8888ooooooonzoooodo"5^8C_oo0CCNu8C88ooooooooooCCuuuzÐz8ozzzC8CuoCozozoCzz88o8zzzzNoCzooodN8Nu8CCCCPCnzoooooȲooooo88888888zzzzzzzzzoozzzozzoooooooozzzzzPzCzCC8zozȽoNF8ooCzoooooJIoCoC88ddoCCoo8dCCNCnnuPsuoos8C_oo0CCNu8C88ooooooooooCCuuuzÐz8ozzzC8CuoCozozoCzz88o8zzzzNoCzooodN8Nu8odooCȅC88ddFoCoC8Coooo8oCJouCnPnCCCso8CCIozȐ8888uzooooooooooo8888zzzzzzznzzzzzoz22d*ZT-/R"5^!!+CCkP((/F!(!!CCCCCCCCCC!!FFFCzPPWWPI]W!s/`C8X"(*X`2p NQXt[5(!X*`h52PQhP1XC8X5{XX2x8QXX      "5^88Goo&CCNu8C88oooooooooo88uuuo˅z8dozz888^oCoodoo8oo--d-ooooCd8oddddC4Cu8CCCCPCnzoooooȲdoooo88888888ooooooooodoozodoooooddooooooooPzCzCC8zdoȽdNF8koCzoooooJIoCoC--CCoCCoo-CCCNCnnuPsuoos88Goo&CCNu8C88oooooooooo88uuuo˅z8dozz888^oCoodoo8oo--d-ooooCd8oddddC4Cu-oCooCȅC--CCFoCdC8Coooo4oCJouCnPnCCCsk8CCIozȐ8888uzoooooodoooo8888ooooooonzoooodo22 R-  @-  -@#Xj\  P6G;XP#X01Í ÍX01Í ÍX01Í ÍX01Í Í#X~xP7jXP#`(#/ DA 981182 ă  P- FBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  P-RWashington, D.C. 20554 ă  Rx-In the Matter of hh,Vpp) ` `  hh,Vpp)  RJ-Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regardingpp)  R3-AT&T's Network Interconnection PolicyVpp)CCBPol 9520 ` `  hh,Vpp)  P - SORDER ă  R-Adopted: June 18, 1998 VppReleased: June 19, 1998 By the Acting Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:  R-   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) 1.  I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) 1. 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) 1. 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) 1. 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1.` ` In this order, we dismiss without prejudice a petition for declaratory ruling   filed by New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph   Company (NYNEX) involving AT&T's network interconnection policies. We conclude that   =this dispute is more appropriately resolved in the context of a pending formal complaint filed by NYNEX against AT&T.  R-  2. ` ` On November 3, 1995, NYNEX filed a petition for declaratory ruling that   0AT&T's network interconnection policy violates sections 201, 202, and 203 of the   Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  201, 202, and 203. On November 9, 1995, the  RP-  Commission established a pleading cycle for the NYNEX petition._P  R- #X~xP7jXP#эPublic Notice, DA 952326, released November 9, 1995. The following parties filed   Lcomments regarding the NYNEX Petition: AT&T Corp. (AT&T), Bell Atlantic, BellSouth   MTelecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth), MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI),   National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA), Rochester Telephone Corp., and   jSprint Corporation (Sprint). The Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, AT&T,   jBell Atlantic, BellSouth, GTE Service Corporation, MCI, NYNEX Telephone Companies, Pacific Bell, and Sprint all filed reply comments. The petition concerns   Zchanges in AT&T's network interconnection policy that NYNEX alleges alter the terms and   conditions of interconnection arrangements that have existed between AT&T and local   exchange carriers since divestiture. NYNEX states that the revised policy requires   <NYNEX to deploy separate equipment to provide access services to customers other than   /AT&T at each of AT&T's Points of Presence, thus prohibiting NYNEX from using the"0*0*0* "  R-same network equipment to provide access to all NYNEX customers.n) Ry-#X~xP7jXP#эNYNEX Petition at 12.n  R-  3. ` ` On October 9, 1996, NYNEX filed a formal complaint challenging the   lawfulness of AT&T's interconnection practices under sections 201, 202, 203, and 251 of  R-  the Communications Act.0yy) R- #X~xP7jXP#эComplaint, New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone Company   v. AT&T Corp., File No. E9701, filed Oct. 16, 1996. On November 15, 1996, the Bureau   >gave notice to AT&T of the filing of NYNEX's formal complaint. New York Telephone  R -  ^Company, New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Notice of Formal  Rr -  ]Complaint, File No. E9701, dated Nov. 16, 1996. AT&T submitted its first set of   interrogatories to NYNEX, its motion to dismiss, and its verified answer and affirmative   ydefenses on December 16, 1996. AT&T filed a stipulation of facts on January 15, 1997.  R--   NYNEX filed it's first set of interrogatories to AT&T, its opposition to the motion to   Mdismiss, and its reply to affirmative defenses on January 31, 1997. On February 18,   .1997, AT&T filed a motion for leave to take additional discovery. AT&T filed it's second   set of interrogatories to NYNEX on February 28, 1997. On April 10, 1997, both parties   filed a joint motion to enter a protective order. That protective order was granted on April   22, 1997. New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph  R-  .Company v. AT&T Corp., Order, File No. E9701, DA 97850, rel. Apr. 23, 1997. AT&T   and NYNEX filed their briefs April 24, 1998. NYNEX filed its reply brief on May 15, 1998,   and filed an erratum to that reply brief on May 19, 1998. AT&T filed its reply brief on May 15, 1998. 0 That formal complaint raises issues that are virtually identical   to the issues raised in NYNEX's petition for declaratory ruling. Moreover, the NYNEX   complaint was filed after passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and takes into  R_-account relevant changes in the Communications Act.v_) R- #X~xP7jXP#эNYNEX adds to its complaint an allegation that AT&T's revised policy violates   .section 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  251. Section 251, which imposes an obligation on   <every telecommunications carrier to interconnect with the equipment and facilities of other   ztelecommunication carriers, was added to the Communications Act after the NYNEX   petition for declaratory ruling was filed. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.  RW-104104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C.  151 et. seq.  R1-  4. ` ` The Bureau concludes that the NYNEX complaint is the more appropriate   iproceeding by which to address these issues. We therefore dismiss without prejudice the petition for declaratory ruling filed by NYNEX. " 0*((] "  R-  5. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under   Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F R.  0.91, 0.291, that the   petition for declaratory ruling filed by New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company IS DISMISSED without prejudice to the petitioner.      ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,VRichard K. Welch ` ` hh,VActing Deputy Chief ` ` hh,VCommon Carrier Bureau