WPC9e 2 BJZCourier3|wx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 1919M RM 534HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\,#sX@ X-#X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#2B<KTXKCourierTimes New Roman"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNA.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gqevt\tkVevttth555PP5GPGPG5PP,,P,|PPPP;>,PPtPPGGPGP*PPPPP5PPPPPPPPP,tGtGtGtGtGknGeGeGeGeG5,5,5,5,vPtPtPtPtPvPvPvPvPtPtGvPtPtPtPvP\PtFtPtFmFmFnPnPv`cFePePcFtPtPtPtPtPvPvP5,PPPP5PuYPPqPc-c:ePc-c-vP]vPvPsPtPtj:j:kPV=V=V=VPc:c-ePvPvPvPvPvPvPttPfFfFfFvPePvPVPePtP`5PP555WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNtttPPP5GAAPPPPPP8PPPP855SSP))PP``yPPtP_YY5SP8"ttPtSttP厎.P55t`tttttttttt5PtPYPtkP5PtGP\t|httttttttttJttttttk`|tD_tttttttPtttttttGttttGtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt5ttt5ttt5ttt5tttttttttttttt`eY`YkGe>hGvPtG5,qGkYYvGkPtGt`\P`PPeGtGk`tY|```tev5Pttt`G````u55PPPPtvPPPttt`5\PG5ؐJppZ`]mmVVjjvvsp}vvJv]VV3J3Jʀ}}}}}}}}M=f}10-13-95 02:31p order on pet. for . rec. of TR&O  a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2p1kk wa4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vN^ a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersC @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2   ; 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 Numbers h` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2 m a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2#&!!["#a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2!&#$"%y%a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . a1orderorder outline!~X ?<A.X2G(S&r&rN''a2orderorder outline1< ?<A. a4ordera5ordera3orderorder outline/ ?<1.2*}y(( ~)!*a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf :` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf!E` ` `  2-"*#+$>,%,a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf"P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf#[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf%q 2MPf -f _9DJ",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d|8|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddxxdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCxCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNopddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddxxddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCxCddoddCdYds`xUvdddCCCCxoxoYNYYYN8YooYdYxxdxddYYxoxxxNdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCxdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx,?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222!2I822F2>>$?2>>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22<qevt\tkVevttth555PP5GPGPG5PP,,P,|PPPP;>,PPtP",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddxxdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCxCdxdoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCxxxoxoYxLoYdYC8YooYdYxxdxddoYoYxxoxxxxxCdooxYxxxxCCddddxdddoooxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L27e Y- X    Y-  Federal Communications Commission`(#3FCC 98199 ă  yxdddy   0 Y-0(2 Before the  Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  Yw-In the Matter of hh@h) x` ` hh@h)  YI-Expanded Interconnection with Local@h)ppCC Docket No. 91141,  Y2-Telephone Company Facilitieshh@h)ppTransport Phase II x` `  hh@h)  X -  ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION  Y -T P  X- xAdopted: August 12, 1998@hppReleased:  August 18, 1998 (#(#X By the Commission:  X- I. INTRODUCTION ă  Y-x1.` ` In its Third Report and Order in the expanded interconnection proceeding, the Commission directed all Tier 1 local exchange carriers (LECs), except National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA) pool members, to provide third parties with the signalling  Y-information necessary for these parties to supply tandem switching.*Y zP -ԍxExpanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, CC Docket No. 91141,Third  zP-Report and Order, Transport Phase II, 9 FCC Rcd 2718 (1994) (Tandem Switching Order). Three parties filed for  Y}-reconsideration of the Tandem Switching Order, but one of the three parties has sought to withdraw its petition. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the two remaining petitions.  Y:-  II. BACKGROUND ă  Y -x2.` ` The Tandem Switching Order required Tier 1 incumbent LECs other than NECA pool members to provide all interested third parties, such as competitive local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers (IXCs), and end users, with the signalling information necessary for those parties to install their own tandems to provide tandem switching services. These third parties, called tandem switch providers (TSPs), would then  Y"-be able to compete with the incumbent LECs in providing tandem switched transport.Z"$*Y zPq'-ԍxId. at 2724. Tandem switched transport refers to traffic transported by means of a tandem switch, which is an intermediate switch between an originating telephone call location and the final destination of the call. TSPs carry traffic of multiple interexchange carriers from LEC end offices to their own tandems, and then"),))$)"  zP-deliver the traffic to the appropriate IXC. Id. at 2719, n.5. The""Z,))[[#" Commission found that availability to third parties of signalling information needed for tandem switching could provide significant public benefits, such as facilitating broader access competition by enabling interconnectors to offer competitive interstate tandem switching and  Y-transport services.:Z#8 zP-ԍxId.: In the Commission's view, small IXCs, which rely heavily on tandem Y-switched transport, would particularly benefit.:#8 zPA -ԍxId.: The Commission also found that competitive tandem switching would yield other benefits, such as putting downward pressure on access charges and longdistance rates, increasing technological innovation, and making more  Y_-efficient use of the country's telecommunications networks.:_~#8 zP -ԍxId.: The Commission determined  YH-that the benefits of allowing this competition outweigh the de minimis potential costs incurred  Y3-by the incumbent LECs in providing the necessary signalling.F3#8 zP-ԍxId. at 272425.F Finally, the Tandem  Y -Switching Order explicitly did not require incumbent LECs to provide signalling information  Y -from their tandem offices.C #8 zP\-ԍxId. at 2725.C The Commission found that the record did not reveal how tandemtotandem interconnection could be competitively viable, either from a service quality  Y -or pricing perspective.; 4 #8 zP-ԍxId. ;  Y -x3.` ` WilTel, Inc. (WilTel) @ #8 xP$-ԍxWilTel, Inc., Petition for Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 91141, filed July27, 1994 (WilTel Petition). The following parties filed oppositions to or comments on the WilTel Petition: Ameritech; AT&T Corporation (AT&T); Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic); BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth); Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel); GTE Service Corporation (GTE); MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI); Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell (Pacific); Rochester Telephone Corporation (Rochester); Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET); SWBT; and the United States Telephone Association (USTA). NYNEX, GTE, and WilTel filed replies to the oppositions to and comments on the WilTel Petition. and the Association for Local Telecommunications  Y-Services (ALTS) #8 xP#-ԍxAssociation for Local Telecommunications Services, Petition for Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 91141, filed July27, 1994 (ALTS Petition). The following parties filed oppositions to or comments on the ALTS Petition: AT&T; Bell Atlantic; BellSouth; CompTel; GTE; MCI; Pacific; Rochester; SNET; SWBT; and USTA. NYNEX and GTE filed replies to the oppositions to, and comments on, the ALTS Petition. filed petitions for reconsideration of the Tandem Switching Order urging the Commission to reconsider its decision not to require tandemtotandem interconnection. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) also filed a petition for clarification and"j ,,(,([[X"  Y-reconsideration of the Tandem Switching Order, claiming technical difficulties in  Y-implementing that order. #8 xPd-ԍxSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company, Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration, CC Docket No.91141, filed July27, 1994 (SWBT Petition). SWBT subsequently filed a motion to withdraw its petition.  #8 xP-ԍxSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company, Motion to Withdraw Southwestern Bell Telephone's Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration, CC Docket No.91141, filed Oct.30, 1997. x  Y-m III. DISCUSSION ă  Y-x4.` ` We deny the WilTel and ALTS petitions to reconsider the Commission's decision not to require incumbent LECs to provide signalling from their tandems in its  Yb-Tandem Switching Order.@ Zbx#8 xP -ԍxALTS Petition at 6; WilTel Petition at 3. ALTS and MCI claim that the LEC cost estimates in the  zPS-record on which the Tandem Switching Order are based ranged too widely and were inadequately supported. ALTS Petition at 34; MCI Comments at 34. @ The Commission explicitly considered and decided against  YM-requiring LECs to provide tandemtotandem interconnection,jM#8 zP-ԍxTandem Switching Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 272223, 2725.j finding that the costs of tandemtotandem signalling were not shown to be justified by either the benefits of, or  Y -demand for, such signalling.G , #8 zP-ԍxSee id. at 2725.G Nothing in the record on reconsideration persuades us to alter this finding. First, the petitioners have not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that  Y -demand for this service exists or that this is a viable service.k #8 xP`-ԍxThe LECs generally claim that there is no demonstrated demand for tandemtotandem signalling that  zP(-would justify the costs of its implementation. See NYNEX Reply at 6; SNET Opposition at 3; Rochester Opposition at 2; Bell Atlantic Opposition at 4; Pacific Opposition at 5; USTA Opposition at 23; SWBT Opposition at 47; GTE Opposition at 912; GTE Reply at 5. AT&T claims that such a service would likely be  zP-unattractive due to increased postdial delay. AT&T Opposition at 78; see also Pacific Opposition at 45.k Even WilTel admits that the  Y -demand for this service is speculative.C r#8 xP-ԍxWilTel Reply at 4.C In addition, while some commenters claim that  Y -tandemtotandem switching is necessary to provide ubiquitous service, #8 zPv -ԍxWilTel Petition at 46; CompTel Comments at 34; MCI Comments at 3; but see Pacific Opposition at 45. they do not dispute that such a goal may be achieved by collocating at LEC tandems and routing traffic from  Y-those tandems to their own tandems, using separate trunk groups for each IXC.S\#8 zP$-ԍxSee Pacific Opposition at 3.S Instead,  Y~-these commenters argue only in general terms that this option is not costefficient.~#8 zP'-ԍxSee WilTel Petition at 45; WilTel Reply at 34; CompTel Comments at 34; ALTS Petition at 5. Second,"~,,(,([[h" petitioners have failed to support their claim that the costs associated with tandemtotandem interconnection would be minimal. The LECs claim that they would incur significant costs  Y-to develop standards and upgrade software to provide tandemtotandem signalling. #8 zPK-ԍxSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 2; SWBT Opposition at 45. The LECs first argue that the necessary standards for tandemtotandem interconnection are not yet developed. GTE Opposition at 34; SNET  zP-Response at 2; SWBT Opposition at 4; see also AT&T Opposition at 8; Bell Atlantic Opposition at 23;  zP-BellSouth Opposition at 2; USTA Opposition at 6; but see CompTel Comments at 23. The LECs, as well as AT&T, also argue that the necessary software upgrades to enable tandemtotandem interconnection are expensive, technically difficult, and timeconsuming to implement. Ameritech Comments at 2 (estimating the cost of the necessary modifications to its switches at upwards of $6 million); SWBT Opposition at 45  zP -(estimating the cost of its necessary switch modifications at $5 to 18 million); Pacific Opposition at 2, 45; see  zP -also AT&T Opposition at 78; SNET Opposition at 3.  While the parties seeking tandemtotandem interconnection urge that the costs associated with such interconnection are minimal, they have not provided any precise information to support those  Y-assertions.#8 zP-ԍxSee, e.g., WilTel Petition at 8 ("based on our understanding of LEC network planning and development, we believe that the cost of implementing the required changes can be held to a reasonable level"). On this record, we thus conclude that WilTel and ALTS have not met their  Yv-burden of persuading us to reconsider the Commission's earlier decision in the Tandem  Ya-Switching Order.  Y5-x5.` ` We note here that the record suggests no reason why carriers desiring signalling from LEC tandems cannot obtain that signalling through the separate, yet to some extent parallel, interconnection requirements mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Commission's subsequent order establishing rules implementing those  Y -requirements. #8 xP-ԍxTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (1996 Act);  zPN-Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and  zP-Order, CC Docket No. 96-98, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (Local Competition Order), aff'd in part and vacated  zP-in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997), vacated in part  zP-on reh'g, Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, further vacated in part sub nom. California Public Utilities  zPv-Comm'n v. FCC, 124 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 1997), writ of mandamus issued sub nom. Iowa Utilities Bd. v. FCC,  zP@-No. 963321 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 1998), petition for cert. granted (collectively, Iowa Util. Bd.), Order on Recon., 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), Second Order on Recon., 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996), Third Order on Recon. and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 12460 (1997), further recon. pending. Sections251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, obligate incumbent LECs to provide interconnection and access to unbundled elements, upon request, at any "technically feasible  Y-point."#8 zP#-ԍx47 U.S.C. 251(c)(2), (3); Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15606. As explained in the Local Competition Order, the term "technically feasible" refers solely to technical or operational concerns, rather than economic, space, or site  Yh-considerations.dhj#8 zP&-ԍxLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15602.d"h,,(,([["Ԍ Y-ԙx6.` ` Finally, we agree with many of the LEC commenters that consideration of modification of the Commission's new services test for LECs subject to price cap regulation  Y-is beyond the scope of this proceeding. #8 xPK-ԍxBellSouth Opposition/Comments at 6; Ameritech Comments at 34; Bell Atlantic Opposition at 5; Rochester Opposition at 23; GTE Opposition at 1516. WilTel had argued that price cap LECs that file tariffs to provide tandem signalling information under the new services test can discriminate against TSPs by maximizing direct and overhead costs. WilTel Petition at 1011. Such arguments are more properly raised in petitions filed regarding individual tariffs, and we therefore decline to consider them here. For the reasons discussed above, we affirm our decision not to require LECs to provide tandemtotandem signalling.  Y_-1 IV. CONCLUSION ă  Y2-x7.` ` For the reasons discussed above, we deny the petitions for reconsideration of  Y -our Tandem Switching Order. We also grant the motion filed by SWBT to withdraw its petition for reconsideration.  X - V. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION X -  Y -x8.` ` In the Tandem Switching Order, the Commission noted that it certified in the  Y-Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the conclusions it proposed to adopt would not  Y-have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.#8 zP-ԍxTandem Switching Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 2734 (citing Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone  zP-Company Facilities, Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7740, 7749 (1992)). No comments were submitted in response to the Commission's request for comment on its  YR-certification.aR #8 zP-ԍxTandem Switching Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 2734.a In this present Order on Reconsideration, the Commission promulgates no additional final rules, and our action does not affect the previous analysis.  Y- VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Y-x9.` ` Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4, and 201205 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, and 201205, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration of the Association for Local Telecommunications Services and the petition for reconsideration of WilTel, Inc. ARE DENIED to the extent described herein. "o,,(,([[]"Ԍ Y-x 10.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw Southwestern Bell Telephone's Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration IS GRANTED.  Y-x 11.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Late Reply of WilTel, Inc. IS GRANTED.  Yv-x 12.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a summary of this Order on Reconsideration shall be published in the Federal Register. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMagalie Roman Salas x` `  hhSecretary