WPCu 2BQX Z3|P (TT)WP MultinationalA Roman (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)WP MultinationalA Roman (TT)^*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.WRSc PE37,,,G!P2e *44D3|w WP MultinationalA Roman (TT)Times New Roman (TT)c PE37\\^!YP X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#C\  P6Q/P##C\  P6Q/P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#XP\  P6QXP#2Svp k}ka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2 v* t  a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2   *  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2  |Da5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right 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 2vTech 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. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2/*a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2a3*]a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 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<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddxxddd~ooCsdF"dsddCCxCddoddCdYds`xUvdddCCCCxoxoYNYYYN8YooYdYxxdxddYYxoxxxNdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCxdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"5^2BoddȦ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BBBBPBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNBNoddȐoNNF2ldBdddddd><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxd<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdHHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHHQD^ yOF-ԍ LECC petition at 45.> Sprint urges the Commission to delay the compliance date and to  X:-require the industry to adopt and implement national standards for access to OSS.@:^ yO-ԍ Sprint petition at 57.@ Both petitioners assert that the January 1, 1997 deadline does not realistically allow carriers to  X -complete and implement national standards for access to OSS functions.W d ^ yO!-ԍ Sprint petition at 57; LECC petition at 45.W In addition, several  X-ex parte presentations made by incumbent LECs sought clarification of their obligations to  X-provide access to OSS functions.\ ^ yO"- xZԍ Letter from Dee May, Director, Federal Regulatory Issues, NYNEX, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary,  {OM#- xFCC (Sep. 8, 1996) (NYNEX Sep. 8 Ex Parte); Letter from Lawrence E. Sarjeant, VicePresident, U S West, to  {O$-William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Oct. 7, 1996) (U S West Oct 7 Ex Parte).  X-x4. Several parties maintain that the Commission should retain the January 1, 1997",-(-(ZZ"  X-deadline for access to OSS functions.  ^ yOy- xJԍ WorldCom opposition to petition for recon. at 78; MCI opposition to petition for recon. at 2021; CompTel opposition to petition for recon. at 4; AT&T opposition at 35; GCI opposition to petition for recon. at 9.  MCI opposes allowing industry to set national standards before requiring access to OSS functions, arguing that incumbent LECs will abuse the standards setting process to delay and postpone new entrants' electronic access to OSS  X-functions.  ^ yO- xԍ MCI reply at 12 ("Electronic access to OSS functions is essential to the ability of new entrants to compete effectively in the local exchange market"). LECC responds that incumbents do not have an incentive to delay the standardssetting process, because implementation of national standards will avoid expensive manual or  X-interim electronic solutions.; x^ yO -ԍ LECC reply at 4.; Other parties support Sprint's and LECC's petitions to delay the  Xv-date by which access to OSS functions is required. v^ yO/- xԍ NYNEX opposition to petition for recon. at 2; SNET opposition to petition for recon. at 1112; USTA  x+ opposition to petition for recon. at 27; BellSouth opposition to petition for recon. at 7 (BellSouth anticipates meeting  xZthe Georgia commission's March 31, 1997 deadline, but notes that other incumbent LECs may not have made as  ximuch progress); GTE reply at 12 (arguing that incumbents need more time to resolve issues relating to consumer privacy concerns, and that new entrants themselves have yet to resolve what type of access they need). USTA and Ameritech argue that the Commission should not set a date certain for the establishment of national standards for  XH-access to OSS. H ^ yO-ԍ USTA opposition to petition for recon. at 27; Ameritech opposition to petition for recon. at 14.  X - III. DISCUSSION ă  X -x5. Section 251(c)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by the  X -Telecommunications Act of 1996, H ^ {O-Ѝ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C.  151 et. seq. (1996 Act). requires incumbent LECs "to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carriers for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and  Xy-nondiscriminatory."By^ yO -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(3).B The Commission was charged with identifying network elements and  Xb-determining whether it is technically feasible for incumbent LECs to provide access to such  XK-elements on an unbundled basis.VK2^ yO.$-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2).V The Commission identified OSS functions as a network element, and determined that it is technically feasible for incumbent LECs to provide access"4,-(-(ZZ"  X-to OSS functions for unbundling and resale.J\^ {Oy-Ѝ First Report and Order at paras. 516, 524. The Commission defined OSS functions as consisting of pre {OC-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing. Id. at para. 523 n.1273. See also 47 C.F.R.  51.319.J This determination reflects the Commission's  X-conclusion that access to OSS functions is necessary for meaningful competition, and that failing to provide such access would impair the ability of requesting telecommunications  X-carriers to provide competitive service.^ {OX-ԍ First Report and Order at para. 516. See 47 U.S.C.  251(d)(2).Ċ  X-x6. In the First Report and Order, we concluded that obligations imposed by section 251(c)(3) to provide access to unbundled network elements require !2R s  the incumbent LEC to make modifications to the extent necessary to accommodate a request from a  XJ-telecommunications carrier.SJ~^ {Oy-ԍ First Report and Order at para. 198.S In the case of access to OSS functions, we recognized that, "although technically feasible, providing nondiscriminatory access to operations support systems functions may require some modifications to existing systems necessary to  X -accommodate such access by competing providers."@ ^ {O-ԍ Id. at para. 524.@ For example, incumbent LECs may need to decide upon interface design specifications and modify and test software.  X - x7. We further concluded in the First Report and Order, based on the record, that January 1, 1997 was a reasonable date by which most, if not all, incumbent LECs could provide access to OSS functions. We concluded that:  ` p` pXxin order to comply fully with section 251(c)(3) an incumbent LEC must provide, upon request, nondiscriminatory access to operations support systems functions for preordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing of unbundled network elements under section 251(c)(3) and resold services under section 251(c)(4). Incumbent LECs that currently do not comply with this requirement of section 251(c)(3) must do so as expeditiously as possible, but in any event no later than  X-January 1, 1997.@j {O!-ԍ Id. at para. 525.@x  `      The Commission found it "reasonable to expect that by January 1, 1997, new entrants will be able to compete for end user customers by obtaining nondiscriminatory access to operations  Xi-support systems functions."2i4  {ON&-ԍ Id.2 Thus, under our rules, incumbent LECs must have made  XR-modifications to their OSS necessary to provide access to OSS functions by January 1, 1997. "R ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍx8. In order to comply with its obligation to offer access to OSS functions as an unbundled network element by January 1, 1997, an incumbent LEC must, at a minimum, establish and make known to requesting carriers the interface design specifications that the incumbent LEC will use to provide access to OSS functions. Information regarding interface design specifications is critical to enable competing carriers to modify their existing systems and procedures or develop new systems to use these interfaces to obtain access to the incumbent LEC's OSS functions. For example, if an incumbent LEC adopted the Electronic  X_-Data Interchange (EDI) standard_ {O-ԍ The EDI standard is defined by the Telecommunications Industry Forum. First Report and Order at para. 513. to provide access to some or all of its OSS functions, it would need to provide sufficiently detailed information regarding its use of this standard so that requesting carriers would be able to develop and maintain their own systems and procedures to make effective use of this standard. As with all other network elements, the obligation arises only if a telecommunications carrier has made a request for access to OSS functions pursuant to section 251(c)(3), and the actual provision of access to OSS functions by an incumbent LEC must be governed by an implementation schedule established through negotiation or arbitration.  X-x9. The issue of nondiscrimination under several provisions of sections 251(c)(3) and (c)(4) is independent of the issue of access to unbundled network elements under section  Xb-251(c)(3). We concluded in the First Report and Order that section 251 establishes a separate basis for requiring incumbent LECs to provide access to their OSS functions. Specifically, we found that the obligation to offer access to OSS functions was an essential component of an incumbent LEC's duty to offer nondiscriminatory access to all network elements under section 251(c)(3), and to provide services for resale without conditions or  X-limitations that are unreasonable or discriminatory under section 251(c)(4).FZ {O-ԍ Id. at paras. 316, 517.F We observed that the "just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory" standard of section 251(c)(3) requires incumbent LECs to provide network elements on terms and conditions that "provide an  X-efficient competitor with a meaningful opportunity to compete."@ {OI-ԍ Id.Ġat para. 315.@ Incumbent LECs must offer network elements on terms and conditions equally to all requesting carriers, and, where applicable, those terms and conditions must be equal to the terms and conditions on which an  Xg-incumbent LEC provisions such elements to itself or its customers.2g~ {O!-ԍ Id.2 Therefore, we held that the duty to provide nondiscriminatory access imposed by section 251(c)(3) and the duty to provide resale services under nondiscriminatory conditions imposed by section 251(c)(4) mandates equivalent access to OSS functions that an incumbent uses for its own internal  X -purposes or offers to its customers or other carriers.x  {O&-ԍ Id. at paras. 316, 517. See also 47 C.F.R.  53.311(b)(c).x By January 1, 1997, to the extent that" ,-(-(ZZy" an incumbent LEC provides electronic preordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, or billing to itself, its customers, or other carriers, the incumbent LEC must provide at least equivalent electronic access to requesting carriers in the provision of unbundled network elements or services for resale that it is obligated to provide pursuant to an agreement approved by the state commission.  Xv-x 10. In the First Report and Order, we noted the progress that had been made by several incumbent LECs toward meeting their obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access  XJ-to OSS functions to requesting carriers.SJ {O -ԍ First Report and Order at para. 525.S We are encouraged by reports that this progress has  X3-continued since the release of !2R the our Order.3Z yO> - xԍ Letter from Bruce Cox, Government Affairs Director, AT&T, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Nov.  {O - x21, 1996) (AT&T Nov. 21 Ex Parte); Letter from Antoinette Cook Bush, Counsel for Ameritech, to William Caton,  {O - xiActing Secretary, FCC (Nov. 15, 1996) (Ameritech Nov. 15 Ex Parte) ; Letter from Dee May, Director, Federal  {O- xhRegulatory Issues, NYNEX, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Nov. 15, 1996) (NYNEX Nov. 15 Ex Parte);  xLetter from Bruce Cox, Government Affairs Director, AT&T, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Nov. 8,  {O,- x1996) (AT&T Nov. 8 Ex Parte); Letter from Lawrence Sarjeant, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, U S West, to  {O- xA. Richard Metzger, Jr., Deputy Bureau Chief (Nov. 8, 1996) (U S West Nov. 8 Ex Parte); Letter from Whit Jordan,  xExecutive Director, Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Sept. 25, 1996)  {O- x(BellSouth Sept. 25 Ex Parte); Letter from Jay Bennett, Director, Federal Regulatory Relations, Pacific Telesis, to  {OR-William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Aug. 22, 1996) (Pacific Telesis Aug. 22 Ex Parte). Further, for the most part, incumbent LECs have set implementation schedules for themselves that would bring them into compliance with  X -section 251(c) by early 1997.oh   yO- xԍ Letter from Joseph Mulieri, Director, FCC Relations, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Nov. 20, 1996)  x,(Bell Atlantic, by January 1, 1997, plans to provide access to most preordering (except for "address verification"),  xrepair and maintenance and billing. It will provide some ordering and provisioning functions for services for resale,  {O- xbut it is still developing these functions for unbundled network elements.); BellSouth Sept. 25 Ex Parte (BellSouth  xYplans to provide access to most OSS functions by March 31, 1997, although it has developed some interim solutions  {O- xthat will be available by January 1, 1997.); Pacific Telesis Aug. 22 Ex Parte) (Pacific Bell has indicated that it will  yOj- ximplement access to OSS functions during 1997.); Letter from Todd Silbergeld , Director, Federal Regulatory, SBC  x,Communications, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Oct. 8, 1996) (SBC Communications stated that it will  xcomply in Texas with the Texas commission's implementation schedule for access to OSS functions in its arbitration  {O- xaward.); Ameritech Nov. 15 Ex Parte (Ameritech states that it will provide access to OSS functions by January 1,  {O- x1997); NYNEX Nov. 15 Ex Parte (NYNEX states that it provides access to OSS functions for resold services and unbundled network elements by January 1, 1997.).o Therefore, we find no basis in the record for postponing the date by which access to OSS must be offered. We believe that many individual carriers are taking actions to modify their systems to provide the necessary access to OSS functions required by the 1996 Act. We also note that several state arbitrations completed thus far have adopted schedules that require substantial implementation of access to OSS functions by  X-January 1, 1997.x ^ 0 {Os%-  ,ԍ See In re Arbitration of: AT&T Communications of the Midwest, and MCI Metro Access Transmission Services  {O=&-  and U S West Communications, Final Arbitration Decision, Docket Nos. ARB961, ARB962, Iowa Department  {O'-  of Commerce Utilities Board (Nov. 27, 1996); In the Matter of the Petition of AT&T Communications of Ohio for"',-(-(&'"  {O-  YArbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms, and Conditions and Related Arrangements with GTE North,Arbitration  {OZ-  Panel Report, Case No. 96832TPARB, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (Nov. 16 1996); Petition by AT&T   Communications of the Southern States for Arbitration of Certain Terms and Conditions of a Proposed Agreement   with BellSouth Telecommunications Concerning Interconnection and Resale Under the Telecommunications Act of  {O-  1996, et. al., Docket No. 960833TP, Florida Public Service Commission (Nov. 14, 1996); In the Matter of AT&T   JCommunications of the Midwest's Petition for Arbitration with Contel of Minnesota, d/b/a GTE Minnesota, Pursuant  {OF-  to Section 252(b) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Arbitration Decision, OAH 782500107332,  {O-  MPUC P442, 407/M96939, State of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, (Nov. 12, 1996); In the Matter of the   -Petition of AT&T Communications of the Mountain States for Arbitration of Interconnection Rates, Terms, and  {O-  wConditions with U S West Communications, Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  yOl -  X Opinion and Order, Docket No. U242896417, Docket No. E105196417, Arizona Corporation Commission (Nov.  {O4 -  11, 1996);  Petition of MFS Communications Company for Arbitration of Pricing of Unbundled Loops, et. al.,   =Arbitration Award, PUC Consolidated Docket Nos. 16189, 16196, 16226, 16285, and 16290, Public Utility Commission of Texas, FTA96  252 Arbitration Panel (Nov. 7, 1996).x " ,-(-(ZZj"Ԍ X-ԙx 11. Although the requirement to provide nondiscriminatory access to network elements and services for resale includes an obligation to provide access to OSS functions no later than January 1, 1997, we do not anticipate initiating enforcement action against incumbent LECs that are making good faith efforts to provide such access within a reasonable period of time, pursuant to an implementation schedule approved by the relevant state commission. We do not, however, preclude initiating enforcement action where circumstances warrant. We further note that providing access to OSS functions is a critical requirement for complying with section 251, and incumbent LECs that do not provide access  XH-to OSS functions, in accordance with the First Report and Order, are not in full compliance  X3-with section 251. 3  {Or- x,ԍ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  271(c)(2)(B) (requiring compliance with provisions of section 251 as a precondition for Bell Operating Company (BOC) entry into inregion interLATA markets).  X -x 12. We also note that, if an incumbent LEC with fewer than two percent of the subscriber lines nationwide is unable to offer nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions by January 1, 1997, it may seek a suspension or modification of this requirement from the  X -relevant state commission.B!  yOY-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(f)(2).B In addition, rural telephone companies are exempt from the requirements of section 251(c), as set forth in section 251(f)(1), except when and to the extent  X-otherwise determined by state commissions.B"x yO -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(f)(1).B  Xd-x 13. Finally, it is apparent from arbitration agreements and ex parte submissions that  XO-access to OSS functions can be provided without national standards.B#O {O%-ԍ See supra para. 10.B We therefore reject the petitions of LECC and Sprint to delay the requirement to provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions until national standards have been fully developed. We conclude that such a"!#,-(-(ZZ"  X-requirement would significantly and needlessly delay competitive entry. In the First Report  X-and Order, we stated that, in order to ensure continued progress in establishing national standards, we would "monitor closely the progress of industry organizations as they  X-implement the rules adopted in this proceeding."S$ {O8-ԍ First Report and Order at para. 528.S We continue to encourage parties to develop national standards for access to OSS functions, but decline to condition the requirement to provide access to OSS functions upon the creation of such standards.  Xc- IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ĐTP  X5-x 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 14, 201205, 214, 251, 252, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151154, 201205, 251, 252, and 303(r), the Second Order on Reconsideration is ADOPTED.  X -x15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106 (1995), that the petitions for reconsideration filed by the Local Exchange Carrier Coalition and the Sprint Corporation are DENIED, to the extent that they seek deferral of the January 1, 1997 date regarding access to OSS functions. x` ` FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` William F. Caton x` ` Acting Secretary