WPCM 2HB3X@ Z3|P  (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4/4MtScript RM 518 L3HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,, =NP2 zR@3|wTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT) yP"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ823v hUvTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQXW!0(X h0\  P6QhP"5@^*A]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SoooxooxASofxxfxo]fxooff7.7_S7SSJSJ7S]..S.]SSSAA.]JoSJA:%:_*7777CE7SSoSoSoSoSoSxoJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]xSxSxSxSx]x]x]x]fJoSxSxSxSfJxSfSoSoSoSoJoJoJoJoJoJxSxSxxSxS]]CSASA7ASSoSf.fEx]x]xSxoAoE]A]AN:*SSASSSSSS,2}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[eee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*A]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SoooxooxASofxxfxo]fxooff7.7_S7SSJSJ7S]..S.]SSSAA.]JoSJA:%:_7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xf*ASSSS%S7},Se7}SC[227`S*722S}}}SoooooooooooAAAAxxxxxxx_xxxxxffSSSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]JSCsdYC X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G; DXP#CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)CG Times Bold Italic (Scalable)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2Ppekk@a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vtl a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2   . a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2ElEa6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right 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 Technical2wGUa1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2 5D a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2' 3!"e&a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 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<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8"5@^*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777CE7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}277]]S77SS7]72t7[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7.Sq7SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffff88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ82L@D\9Hp.@( "5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]>y.C8*XC\  P6QP7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQXW!0(X h0\  P6QhPI(!XI,(\  P6Q,P 5PC2X3EXP*f9 xQXX!{,C8*X3,C*f9 xQX.#y.G8*XG4  pQlz-E8*XRE9 xyQ...\-. P&Create...\=. PCancelxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxofo]f]oJoAfJJxJA.oJo]]xJoSxJxffSfSSfJfJofo]fffooASxfffJffff88SSSSoSSSffff8fSJ82M X- X   )\ X-x  #XP\  P6Q DXP#Federal Communications Commission`*(# DA 961474 ă  yxdddy )*2 Before the x Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter ofR#XP\  P6Q DXP#) R)  X_-Investigation of Ameritech's R)hCC Docket No. 96185  XH-New Expanded Interconnection OfferingsR)h R)  X -Ameritech Operating Companies R)hTransmittal No. 981  X -Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1R)h T  X -; ORDER TP  Xy-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:-ԍxId. at 2.@ AT&T also argues that Transmittal No. 981 unjustifiably prohibits interconnectors from using  X-the floor space for switching, hubbing, and for placement of a battery distribution fuse bay.@F {O-ԍxId. at 3.@ Furthermore, AT&T states that Ameritech provides no justification or explanation for proposing to limit interconnectors initially to a maximum of 200 square feet of floor space in each of Ameritech's central offices. AT&T argues that this limitation likely will interfere with interconnectors' ability to locate necessary equipment and facilities in the local exchange  X-carrier's (LEC's) central offices.A f F {O"-ԍxId. at 4. A Finally, AT&T complains that Ameritech's proposed tariff precludes one interconnector in a central office from crossconnecting with another interconnector in that same central office without Ameritech's consent, and argues that this is unreasonably discriminatory and anticompetitive because it creates an artificial incentive for potential customers of interconnectors to obtain special access service directly from"N ,-(-(ZZ"  X-Ameritech.B F {Oy-ԍxId. at 45.B  X-x4.` ` MCI's Petition . In its petition, MCI contends that the rates, terms, and conditions proposed in Transmittal No. 981 are unreasonable and only partially consistent  X-with the 1996 Act.C ZF yO-ԍxMCI Petition at 1.C MCI argues that Ameritech's proposed rates are not consistent with the pricing standards set out in the 1996 Act because the physical collocation rates that Ameritech is proposing in Transmittal No. 981 are based on its embedded costs, a practice that is  X_-prohibited by the Act.C _F {O -ԍxId. at 23. C MCI further argues that Ameritech's proposed terms and conditions do not comply with the Act because they: (1) place limitations on the types of equipment collocators may employ, (2) restrict collocators from interconnecting with other collocators,  X -and (3) prevent collocators from leasing unbundled transport to Ameritech's premises.B  |F {OG-ԍxId. at 35.B  X -x5.` ` MCI also contends that Ameritech is proposing to impose unnecessary costs on  X -interconnectors for physical collocation service.B F {O-ԍxId. at 56.B MCI states that Ameritech's proposed central office buildout charge of $39,015 per 100 square foot is unreasonably high, because it  X -includes extraneous costs related to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning upgrades.A F {O-ԍxId. at 6. A MCI further states that Ameritech unreasonably proposes to charge for accompanying  Xy-interconnectoremployees to washrooms and restrooms without a secure entrance.Ay2 F {O\-ԍxId. A Moreover, MCI complains about Ameritech's proposed 200 square foot maximum space restriction and argues that Ameritech has provided no justification for placing this "severe  X4-restriction" on the availability of space. @4 F {O-ԍxId. at 7.@ Finally, MCI complains that Ameritech has failed to commit to any specific timetable for fulfilling interconnector requests or to explain why it has excluded over 50 of its central offices from the tariff's list of offices at which physical  X-collocation is available.@V F {O#-ԍxId. at 8.@  X- x6.` ` MFS's Petition . MFS argues that Ameritech's tariff is unnecessarily restrictive because it does not permit interconnectors to connect with other services associated with",-(-(ZZ" unbundled network elements for local telephone services or other services that the incumbent  X-LECs already provide or have stated that they intend to provide.QF yOb-ԍxMFS Petition at 56.Q In addition, MFS complains that Transmittal No. 981 limits interconnection to six different types of equipment that Ameritech can install and maintain in its transmission node for the termination of basic  X-transmission facilities in a central office.@XF {O-ԍxId. at 6.@ MFS argues that such limitations on interconnection services and transmission equipment are inconsistent with the 1996 Act's procompetitive collocation and interconnection mandates, and serve to impede the development  X_-of competitive alternatives for consumers.;_F {O -ԍxId. ;  X1-x7.` ` MFS also contends that Ameritech's physical collocation rates are  X -unreasonable.C |F {OG-ԍxId. at 714.C MFS argues, for example, that it is unreasonable for Ameritech to require interconnectors to pay for the entire cost associated with the central office buildout up X -front.F F {O-ԍx  Id. at 7.F MFS argues that a 50 percent payment should be required instead and that the  X -remainder be paid at the time the construction is completed.; F {O&-ԍxId. ; In addition, MFS complains about Ameritech's charges for cancellation of service, "extraordinary costs," splicing costs, power consumption and delivery costs, the 200conductor electrical crossconnection block,  X-repeaters, commercial general liability insurance, abatement, and floor space.C2 F {Os-ԍxId. at 714.C  Xb-x8.` ` MFS argues that Ameritech's floor space limitations are inconsistent with Commission rules requiring incumbent LECs to plan for the provision of collocator space  X4-when expanding their building site.D4 F {O-ԍxId. at 1415.D MFS argues that there should be no maximum space limitation for collocation space, except for those central offices for which Ameritech is able  X-to demonstrate that there is insufficient space to permit unlimited collocation expansion.DV F {O #-ԍxId. at 1516.D MFS also objects to Ameritech's requirement that collocators begin to utilize central office space for the purposes of interconnection within 180 days of notice that the space is ready for  X-the customer's use.DF {OZ'-ԍxId. at 1617.D MFS argues that this provision is unnecessary and that this time frame"z,-(-(ZZ" should be extended in cases where interconnectors encounter certain obstacles, such as rights X-ofway problems.;F {Ob-ԍxId. ;  X-x9.` ` MFS also complains that, although Ameritech's cocarrier agreement with MFS permits MFS to reclaim the physical collocation space for which MFS previously submitted payment, or to be credited for the money previously paid for such space, there is no such  Xv-provision contained anywhere in Ameritech's tariff.AvZF {O -ԍxId. at 17.A In addition, MFS suggests that because Ameritech requires interconnectors to notify Ameritech of any significant outages within the customer's transmission node when such outages could affect any of the services provided by Ameritech, Ameritech should be required to notify the interconnector of any significant  X -outages that could affect the interconnector's operations within Ameritech's premises.D F {O-ԍxId. at 1718.D Furthermore, MFS argues that Ameritech's provisions that prohibit crossconnections between  X -collocators in Ameritech's central offices are unreasonable and discriminatory.D ~F {O-ԍxId. at 1819.D MFS also argues that Ameritech's relocation provision is unreasonably discriminatory and inconsistent  X -with the Commission's previous physical collocation policies.D! F {O-ԍxId. at 1920.D Finally, MFS argues that Ameritech's tariff provisions that address applicability of the tariff to patrons of the interconnector, indemnification, maintenance and repair, assignment and subletting,  Xy-condemnation, and limitation of liability are unreasonable and should, therefore, be revised.D"yF {O-ԍxId. at 2022.D  X4-x 10.` ` Ameritech's Reply . Ameritech argues that the terms and conditions of  X-Transmittal No. 981 are in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations,I#4 F yO-ԍxAmeritech Reply at 217.I and that the  X-rates and charges for its physical collocation offering are just and reasonable.D$ F {O{!-ԍxId. at 1823.D Ameritech argues that Transmittal No. 981 should be evaluated as a "voluntary service offering" since, at this time, there are no Commission rules specifically pertaining to physical collocation, either in the context of expanded interconnection for interstate access services or for implementing  X-the provisions of the 1996 Act.F%V F {O&-ԍxId. at 1.F Ameritech states that its filing is, nonetheless, fully"%,-(-(ZZ" consistent with the physical collocation rules that were established by the Commission in  X-CC Docket No. 91141.;&F {Ob-ԍxId. ; Ameritech argues that petitioners' arguments that its tariff is not in  X-compliance with the 1996 Act are "completely misplaced";'ZF {O-ԍxId. ; because this offering provides for expanded interconnection through physical collocation to interstate access services, "an area  X-left untouched" by the 1996 Act.B(F {OA -ԍxId. at 12.B  Xv- III. DISCUSSION ă  XH-x 11.` ` We disagree with Ameritech's assertion that there are no Commission rules that apply to physical collocation and that Transmittal No. 981 should, therefore, be evaluated as a  X -"voluntary service offering." Although in Bell Atlantic v. FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for  X -the D.C. Circuit found that we did not have the authority to require physical collocation,>) ~F yO4-ԍx24 F.3d 1441.> and LECs were no longer required to provide physical collocation service after December 14,  X -1994, the date virtual collocation tariffs were required to go into effect, the Virtual  X -Collocation Order states that if LECs voluntarily choose to offer physical collocation in lieu of virtual collocation service, it will be "subject to full regulation by the Commission as a  X-communications common carrier service.*\F {OU-  ԍxVirtual Collocation Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5156, 5166.  See In the Matter of Ameritech Operating Companies,  {O- xetc., et al., CC Docket No. 9497, Erratum, at 2 (Com. Car. Bur. 1994) (the effective date in which LECs were required to offer virtual collocation service was changed from December 15, 1994 to December 14, 1994)." The Virtual Collocation Order states, "[b]ecause we envision, under the new collocation policy, that some local telephone companies may voluntarily provide physical collocation as a regulated common carrier service, we are also reaffirming many of our rules relating to the rates, terms, and conditions of physical  X<-collocation offerings."L+<2 F {O-ԍxId. at 5157, 5166. L Accordingly, we will evaluate Transmittal No. 981 under the rules  X%-and policies adopted for voluntary physical collocation in the Virtual Collocation Order.  X-x 12.` ` Based on our review of the record, we find that the physical collocation provisions in Ameritech's Transmittal No. 981 raise significant questions of lawfulness regarding cost allocations, rate levels, rate structures, and terms and conditions of service. We therefore suspend Transmittal No. 981 for one day and initiate an investigation into the lawfulness of its provisions. In addition, we will issue a separate order designating the issues to be investigated and establish a pleading cycle for discussion of those issues. The rates in Transmittal No. 981 will be subject to an accounting order to facilitate any refunds that may later prove necessary. "X +,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-ԙ IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X-x 13.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions to suspend and investigate Ameritech Operating Companies' Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 981, filed by AT&T Corporation, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, and MFS Communications Company,  X-Inc., ARE GRANTED . pp  X_-x 14. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  204(a), and Section 0.291 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, the revisions to Ameritech Operating Companies'  X -Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 981 ARE SUSPENDED for one day and an  X -investigation of the referenced tariff transmittal IS INSTITUTED.  X -x15.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameritech Operating Companies SHALL  X -FILE tariff revisions within five business days of the release date of this Order to reflect this suspension.  Xy-x16.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  204(a), Ameritech Operating Companies  XK- SHALL KEEP ACCURATE ACCOUNT of all earnings, costs, and returns associated with the rates that are subject to this investigation and of all amounts paid thereunder and by whom such amounts are paid. ` p`  x` ` FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` Jane E. Jackson x` ` Deputy Chief, Competitive Pricing Division x` ` Common Carrier Bureau