Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
Net2000 Communications, Inc.,    )
      Complainant,               )    File No. EB-00-018
                                )
                        v.       )
                                )
Verizon - Washington, D.C.,      )
Inc.                             )
Verizon - Maryland, Inc., and    )
Verizon - Virginia, Inc.,        )
       Defendants.

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  December 21, 2001          Released:  January 9, 
2002

By the Commission:


                       I.     INTRODUCTION

     1.   In  this  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  we  deny  a 
complaint  filed   by  Net2000   Communications  Services,   Inc. 
(``Net2000'') against Verizon - Washington, D.C., Inc., Verizon - 
Maryland,  Inc.  and  Verizon  -  Virginia,  Inc.  (collectively, 
``Verizon'' or  ``Defendants'') pursuant  to section  208 of  the 
Communications Act  of  1934,  as amended  (``Act'').1   As  more 
specifically detailed below, we find that Verizon did not violate 
the Act  or  our rules  by  denying Net2000's  requests  for  the 
conversion  of  certain  special  access  circuits  to   enhanced 
extended links (``EELs'').

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     A.The Parties

     2.   Net2000  is  a   competitive  local  exchange   carrier 
(``CLEC'') that  provides local  exchange, exchange  access,  and 
interexchange telephone services within the service areas of  the 
Defendants and other  local exchange  carriers.2  The  Defendants 
are corporate subsidiaries of  Verizon Communications Inc.3  Each 
is a  common  carrier  that maintains  its  headquarters  in  and 
provides local exchange telephone  services to the public  within 
the state  indicated  by  its name.4   The  Defendants  are  also 
incumbent local exchange carriers (``ILECs'') within the  meaning 
of Section 251(h) of the Act.5

       B.   The  Right  of  CLECs  to  Have  Special  Access 
          Circuits Obtained  from  ILECs  Converted  or  Re-
          Priced as Unbundled Network Elements

     3.   Our rules implementing  Section 251(c)(3)  of the  Act6 
require ILECs, upon request,  to ``convert'' or re-price  certain 
special access circuits into  a combination of unbundled  network 
elements called an ``enhanced extended link'' or ``EEL.''   While 
not an unbundled network element  itself, an EEL is comprised  of 
an   unbundled    loop   (including    multiplexing/concentration 
equipment) and unbundled dedicated transport.7  The conversion of 
existing tariffed special access circuits  to EELs will, in  many 
cases, significantly reduce the CLEC's expense and commensurately 
decrease the ILEC's income for those facilities.8

     4.   The Complaint before us  concerns Net2000's efforts  to 
have its special access circuits converted to EELs and  Verizon's 
responses  to  those  efforts.  The  facts  underlying  Net2000's 
Complaint are  largely  undisputed.9   On  the  other  hand,  the 
parties  substantially  dispute  the  applicable  rules  used  to 
convert special access circuits  to EELs.  Consequently, a  brief 
review of  the  statute and  the  relevant Commission  orders  is 
necessary to understand the positions and actions of the  parties 
with respect to the EEL conversion requests at issue. 

     5.   In our First Report and Order in Implementation of  the 
Local Competition  Provisions in  the Telecommunications  Act  of 
1996 (``Local  Competition  Order''),10 we  prescribed  rules  to 
implement section 251(c)(3) and specified that local loops11  and 
interoffice transmission  facilities12 were  among the  ``network 
elements'' that  ILECs were  required to  provided to  requesting 
carriers on  an  unbundled  basis.  We  also  stated  in  section 
51.315(b) that ``an  incumbent LEC shall  not separate  requested 
network elements that the  incumbent LEC currently  combines.''13  
The implementation of section 51.315(b)  was stayed and the  rule 
was subsequently vacated by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa  Utilities 
Board v. FCC.14  The United States Supreme Court reversed in AT&T 
Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, thus reinstating section 51.315(b) 
of our rules.15  The Supreme Court, however, also determined that 
the  Commission  did  not  apply  the  appropriate  criteria,  in 
accordance with section 251(d)(2) of the Act,16 in specifying  in 
section 51.319  the minimum  ``network  elements'' that  must  be 
provided to requesting carriers  by ILECs.  It therefore  vacated 
section 51.319 and remanded this issue to the Commission for  its 
reevaluation using appropriate criteria.17 

     6.   On  remand,  we  issued   the  UNE  Remand  Order   and 
reinstated section 51.315(b).  There we concluded that ILECs were 
required to provide requesting carriers access to combinations of 
loops and dedicated transport network elements that are currently 
combined  and  purchased  through  special  access  tariffs,  and 
moreover, ``requesting carriers  [were] entitled  to obtain  such 
existing loop-transport combinations at unbundled network element 
prices.''18  

     7.   Shortly  after  the  UNE  Remand  Order  was  released, 
however, we  issued an  order  supplementing that  decision19  to 
respond to serious policy concerns relating to the potential  for 
ILECs to be required to re-price  a large part of their  exchange 
access facilities at the much lower ``unbundled network element'' 
rates.20 The Commission modified the UNE Remand Order to  provide 
that,  pending  consideration  and  resolution  of  these  policy 
concerns  in  the  pending  Fourth  Further  Notice  of  Proposed 
Rulemaking,21 ``interexchange carriers (``IXCs'') may not convert 
special access services  to combinations of  unbundled loops  and 
transport network elements, whether or not the IXCs  self-provide 
entrance facilities (or  obtain them from  third parties).''  The 
Commission emphasized, however, that ``[t]his constraint does not 
apply if an IXC uses  combinations of unbundled network  elements 
to provide a  significant amount  of local  exchange service,  in 
addition to exchange access service, to a particular customer.'' 
22  

     8.   We also stated  that it  would ``not  be necessary  for 
incumbent LECs and requesting  carriers to undertake an  auditing 
process to monitor whether or  not requesting carriers are  using 
unbundled  network  access  solely  to  provide  exchange  access 
service.''23   Rather,  we  stated   that  an  ILEC  must   allow 
requesting carriers to ``self-certify  that they are providing  a 
significant amount  of local  exchange service,''  in order  that 
their ability  to convert  their  facilities to  combinations  of 
unbundled loops  and transport  network  elements ``will  not  be 
delayed.''24  

     9.   Thereafter, the Commission, on June 2, 2000, released a 
Supplemental Order Clarification.25   This order  was adopted  by 
the Commission in response to a joint submission by several ILECs 
and  CLECs   requesting  that   the  Commission   ``clarify   the 
Supplemental Order regarding the minimum amount of local  service 
a requesting carrier  must provide  in order  to convert  special 
access services to combinations  of unbundled loop and  dedicated 
transport network  elements.''26 We  defined more  precisely  the 
``significant amount of  local exchange  service'' threshold  for 
circuit conversion by  adopting three  ``safe harbor''  scenarios 
that a circuit  must meet  to be eligible  for EEL  conversion.27  
The first two  prescribed safe-harbor options  are applicable  to 
carriers whose operations  are collocated  in at  least one  ILEC 
central office.  The third option applies to requesting carriers, 
such as  Net2000, whose  operations are  not collocated  at  ILEC 
offices.   Besides  the  significant  amount  of  local  exchange 
traffic  requirement,  the  third   option  had  two   additional 
requirements:  (1)  when  a loop-transport  combination  includes 
multiplexing (e.g., DS1  multiplexed to DS3  level), each of  the 
individual DS1 circuits  must meet these  requirements; and   (2) 
the loop-transport  combination  must  not be  connected  to  the 
incumbent LEC's tariffed services.28

     10.  The  Commission  reiterated  that  ILECs  ``must  allow 
requesting carriers  to self-certify  that  the are  providing  a 
significant amount of local exchange service over combinations of 
unbundled elements.''29  Although the procedures specified in the 
Supplemental Order  did not  permit ILECs  to conduct  audits  to 
verify that  the  requesting  carriers complied  with  the  local 
exchange usage requirements, the  Commission determined that,  in 
light of  its action  to continue  the temporary  constraints  on 
usage, it should permit the  ILECs to conduct limited audits  for 
this purpose,  but  only  subsequent to  the  processing  of  the 
requesting carriers' conversion orders.30

     C.Net2000's Conversion Requests and Verizon's Responses 
          Thereto

     11.  In the instant  matter, Net2000  made written  requests 
for the  conversion  of  its  special  access  circuits  to  EELs 
subsequent  to  the  UNE  Remand  Order.   These  requests   were 
interspersed among  the other  subsequent relevant  orders.   The 
first such request was made on March 23, 2000.  Net2000 requested 
that Verizon  convert  24  DS1 special  access  circuits  in  the 
District of  Columbia  to  EELs.31  In  an  accompanying  letter, 
Net2000 certified  that  the circuits  provided  ``a  significant 
amount of  local exchange  service  to the  particular  customers 
served by  those facilities.''32   Verizon subsequently  rejected 
Net2000's conversion request  because, according  to Verizon,  it 
failed to conform to the Commission's requirements.33 

     12.  On May  9, 2000,  Net2000  sent its  second  conversion 
request letter  to Verizon.   In this  letter, Net2000  requested 
that all of  its special  access circuits be  converted to  EELs, 
retroactively to  the effective  date of  the UNE  Remand  Order, 
February  17,   2000.34  Net2000   again  ``self-certified   that 
Net2000's special  access  circuits  [were]  used  to  provide  a 
significant amount of  local exchange service  to the  particular 
customers served by those  facilities.''35  Verizon rejected  the 
conversion request again stating that it was defective.36 

     13.  On October  17, 2000,  Net2000 sent  another letter  to 
Verizon,  in  which  Net2000  made  its  third  request  for  the 
conversion of its  circuits.37  This  letter was  in response  to 
Verizon's objections that the May 9, 2000 conversion request  was 
invalid, in part, because Net2000 had not specified the  circuits 
to be converted. With this conversion request, Net2000 provided a 
list,  specifically  identifying  the  circuits  subject  to  the 
conversion request.  Net2000 stated that this list comprised  all 
of its  circuits  in service.   Net2000  with that  request  also 
confirmed the self-certification  contained in its  prior May  9, 
2000 letter.38 

     14.  Verizon responded on October  20, 2000,39 stating  that 
it would begin to process this latest conversion request and that 
the circuits that are converted would be re-priced  retroactively 
from the  first  day of  the  month  following the  date  of  the 
request, in this  case November 1,  2000.  Verizon, however,  did 
not  complete  its  processing  of  Net2000's  October  17,  2000 
conversion request until December 1,  2000 - after the  complaint 
and answer were filed in this proceeding.40 

     15.  On December 15,  2000, Net2000 sent  its fourth  letter 
and  requested  the  conversion   of  additional  DS3   circuits, 
containing some  of the  previously  requested DS1  circuits  for 
which conversion had been denied  by Verizon on the grounds  that 
they were commingled with prohibited tariffed services.  It  also 
submitted a list for conversion of additional circuits  currently 
in service that were omitted from the conversion list attached to 
its October 17, 2000 letter.   Net2000 confirmed its May 9,  2000 
self-certification that all of  its special access circuits  were 
``used to provide a significant amount of local exchange  service 
to the particular customers served by those facilities in  accord 
with the orders of the Federal Communications Commission.''  With 
respect to  the  additional  circuits requested  in  the  letter, 
Net2000 stated that ``these special  access circuits are used  to 
provide a significant  amount of  local exchange  service to  the 
particular customers served  by those facilities  in accord  with 
option 3 of the FCC Supplemental Order Clarification.''41

     16.  Verizon reported by  letter of March  15, 2001 that  it 
had  completed  processing   of  Net2000's   December  15,   2000 
conversion request as well as the supplemental circuit data  that 
Net2000 provided pursuant  to its  October 17,  2000 request  for 
circuits in  the District  of Columbia,  Maryland, Virginia,  New 
Jersey and  Pennsylvania.   Some  DS1s,  however,  were  rejected 
because, according to Verizon, they violated our  ``co-mingling'' 
prohibition.42

     D.Pleadings and Procedural History

     17.  Net2000's Complaint was filed on November 6, 2000.   It 
sets forth  three  counts.  In  Count  I, Net2000  contends  that 
Verizon's failure  to  accept Net2000's  self-certifications  and 
refusal to convert special  access circuits requested by  Net2000 
in compliance with our applicable orders constituted an  ``unjust 
and  unreasonable   practice   under  section   201(b)   of   the 
Communications Act, 47  U.S.C.   201(b).  In  Count II,  Net2000 
charges that  Verizon's  attempts  to  conduct  an  alleged  pre-
conversion audit of Net2000's conversion requests constitutes  an 
unlawful use restriction  in violation of  Section 251(c) of  the 
Act and our rules  and order thereunder.   In Count III,  Net2000 
contends that Verizon's  failure to allow  conversion of  special 
access circuits to EELs  is a violation  of the cancellation  and 
reconfiguration provisions  of Verizon's  special access  tariff, 
and as  such,  violates  section  203(a)  and  (c)  of  the  Act.  
Further, Net2000  contends,  Verizon  has  unlawfully  imposed  a 
prohibition on the  transport of tariffed  and unbundled  network 
element (``UNE'')  traffic over  a shared  DS3 circuits,  and  by 
failing to include  and describe this  practice in its  effective 
special access  tariff,  Verizon  is operating  in  violation  of 
Section 203(a) and (c) of the Act.

                        III.  DISCUSSION

     I.A.      Verizon Did Not Violate Section 201(b) and Section 
          251(c) of the Act and Our Orders by Refusing to Convert 
          Net2000's Designated  Special Access  Circuits to  EELs 
          Despite Net2000's Self-Certification

     18.  Count I of Net2000's  complaint asserts that  Verizon's 
refusal to convert promptly  Net2000's designated special  access 
circuits to  EELs  was an  unjust  and unreasonable  practice  in 
violation of  section  201(b)  of  the Act  and  of  our  Orders.  
Net2000 contends that once it  had certified to Verizon that  the 
requested  circuits  carried  a  ``significant  amount  of  local 
exchange service traffic,''43  Verizon was  obligated to  convert 
those circuits to EELs.  Verizon was not permitted, according  to 
Net2000,  to   challenge   that   self-certification   prior   to 
conversion.   We  disagree  with  Net2000's  characterization  of 
Verizon's actions.  Although an ILEC  may not question, prior  to 
conversion, the  requesting carrier's  self-certification of  the 
substantial use of the circuits for local exchange service, ILECs 
are not required to convert circuits when the requested  circuits 
do not on their  face meet the  other requirements specified  for 
conversion.

     19.  Net2000 made  three conversion  requests prior  to  the 
filing of  its  complaint  and one  further  conversion  request, 
following up on its prior requests, after the complaint had  been 
filed, but before the close of the record in this proceeding.  In 
the case of each request, Net2000 claims that Verizon conducted a 
pre-conversion audit  prohibited by  the Commission's  rules  and 
refused to convert certain designated circuits as a result.44  We 
disagree and believe  that the record  reflects that Verizon  did 
not audit Net2000's certification  claims regarding its  carriage 
of a  significant  amount  of local  exchange  traffic  over  the 
circuits  in  question.    Rather,  Verizon  accepted   Net2000's 
certification, but refused to  convert circuits that it  believed 
did not meet the criteria for conversion prescribed by our rules.

     20.  Verizon refused  to process  Net2000's March  23,  2000 
conversion request  because  it believed  that  at that  time  we 
required  conversion   only  of   circuits  that   terminate   in 
collocation arrangements.45  Thus,  Verizon's refusal to  convert 
the requested circuits requested did not result from its  refusal 
to accept Net2000 self-certification that the requested  circuits 
were used for ``a significant amount of local exchange traffic.''  
Instead, the request  was denied because  in Verizon's view,  the 
conversion request did  not, on its  face, meet the  Commission's 
requirements for conversion.   While we  disagree with  Verizon's 
interpretation of our requirements, as  set forth below, we  find 
that the March 23 requests contained other defects that justified 
Verizon's denial of Net2000's requests.46

     21.   Consistent with  its treatment of  Net2000's March  23 
requests,  Verizon  did  not   process  Net2000's  May  9,   2000 
conversion request  because it  believed at  that time  that  the 
applicable  Commission  orders   only  permitted  conversion   of 
circuits   that   terminated   in   collocated    arrangements.47  
Nevertheless we find that Verizon  was justified in denying  this 
request because of Net2000's failure  to specify the circuits  to 
be converted.  In any case, Verizon did not reject or ignore this 
request  because  of  its  refusal  to  accept  Net2000's   self-
certification.

     22.  Verizon did proceed  to process  Net2000's October  17, 
2000 and  December  15,  2000 requests.   During  the  course  of 
processing, it discovered that some of the circuits requested for 
conversion were no  longer in  service, could not  be located  in 
Verizon's records, or did not  comprise EELs.  In some cases,  it 
was discovered  that the  DS1 circuits  requested for  conversion 
were multiplexed  onto DS3  circuits that  would continue  to  be 
provided via tariff and Verizon refused to convert these circuits 
because it  believed that  this  would violate  the  Commission's 
prohibition against  co-mingling  under  Option 3  of  EELs  with 
tariffed services.  Verizon, however, had not refused to  convert 
any circuits because it failed to accept Net2000's  certification 
that the circuits were  used to provide  a significant amount  of 
local exchange services.

     23.  Our orders  require that  ``once a  requesting  carrier 
certifies that  it is  providing a  significant amount  of  local 
exchange service,'' an  ILEC must begin  processing the  requests 
without delay.48 We conclude, however, that while an ILEC may not 
question   the   requesting   carrier's   self-certification   of 
substantial use  for  local exchange  service,  the ILEC  is  not 
required to convert circuits  when in fact they  do not meet  the 
other requirements specified  for conversion  by the  Commission.  
Accordingly, Net2000 has  failed to support  the contention  that 
Verizon  refused  to   accept  Net2000's  self-certification   in 
violation of the Act or our rules. Because Net2000 has failed  to 
demonstrate that  Verizon  conducted a  pre-conversion  audit  in 
contradiction of our  rules, Net2000's second  count relating  to 
the alleged  audit  of  Net2000's  conversion  requests  is  also 
denied.

     I.B.      Verizon Did Not Refuse  to Convert Special  Access 
          Circuits  to  EELs  That   Met  Our  Requirements   for 
          Conversion In Violation of The Act and Our Rules

     24.  As discussed above,  an ILEC  may refuse  to convert  a 
designated special access circuit so long as it fails to  satisfy 
our criteria  for  conversion.   Net2000  contends  however  that 
Verizon violated the Act and our rules by improperly refusing  to 
convert EEL-eligible circuits.   Verizon refused  to convert  the 
designated special access circuits  because (1) the circuits  did 
not  terminate  in  a  collocation   space,  (2)  all  the   DS1s 
multiplexed onto  the  DS3s do  not  satisfy the  EEL  conversion 
criteria, and (3) a loop/transport combination cannot be combined 
with an  access  service.  Net2000  alleges  that none  of  these 
reasons for denial  was lawful.   We deny  Net2000's claims  that 
Verizon's  refusal  to  convert  the  designated  special  access 
circuits  violated  our  rules   and  will  address  each   issue 
separately below.

          I.B.1.    ILECs Were Required to Convert Special Access 
               Circuits That  Did  Not Terminate  In  Collocation 
               Arrangements

     25.  Verizon argues that  the conversion  of special  access 
circuits to EELs that do not terminate in collocated arrangements 
was not required by the Commission in its UNE Remand Order or  in 
its Supplemental Order.  It contends that  this was not  required 
until the Commission issued its Supplemental Order Clarification, 
which set forth ``safe-harbor option 3, as a basis for which non-
collocated carriers are  permitted to request  the conversion  of 
their special access circuits.49   Verizon relies principally  on 
the following language from the UNE Remand Order:

     In  particular,   any   requesting  carrier   that   is 
     collocated in a  serving wire center  is free to  order 
     loops and  transport to  that  serving wire  center  as 
     unbundled network elements because those elements  meet 
     the unbundling standard, as discussed above.  Moreover, 
     to the  extent  those unbundled  network  elements  are 
     already combined  as  a  special  access  circuit,  the 
     incumbent may not separate  them under rule  51.315(b), 
     which was  reinstated by  the Supreme  Court.  In  such 
     situations, it would be impermissible for an  incumbent 
     LEC to  require that  a requesting  carrier provided  a 
     certain amount of local service over such facilities.50

     26.  Although  the   language  quoted   above   specifically 
addressed the situation of collocated carriers, we did not  state 
or imply  that  only  collocated  carriers had  a  right  to  use 
unbundled network elements or convert special access circuits  to 
EELs.  Indeed, following the paragraph relied upon by Verizon, we 
specifically clarified ``that interexchange carriers are entitled 
to use unbundled dedicated transport from their POP to a  serving 
wire  center  in  order  to  provide  local  telephone   exchange 
service.''51   This  language  recognizes  the  viability  of   a 
conversion to an EEL in a non-collocation network  configuration.  
Also, as Verizon points out, our Supplemental Order  specifically 
modified paragraph 486  in the  UNE Remand Order,  to the  extent 
that that  paragraph would  have allowed  collocated carriers  to 
convert  their  special  access  circuits  to  EELs  without  any 
restrictions requiring  local exchange  service use.52   However, 
the language in the Supplemental Order permitting the  conversion 
of special  access to  EELs for  use ``to  provide a  significant 
amount of  local  exchange  service''  clearly  applies  to  both 
collocated and non-collocated situations.53

     27.  Finally, we note that Verizon does not dispute that the 
term ``significant amount  of local exchange  service'' in  safe-
harbor  Option  3  relates  to  non-collocated  circuits.   Since 
nothing in the Supplemental Order Clarification suggest that  the 
Commission  intended  to  make   a  change  in  any   collocation 
requirement, we find  this to  be further  evidence that  special 
access  circuits   that   did  not   terminate   in   collocation 
arrangements were eligible for conversion to EELs.

          I.B.2.    All Individual DS1 Circuits Multiplexed  Onto 
               DS3  Circuits  Must  Meet  the  Applicable   Local 
               Exchange  Service  Use   Criteria  to  Have   DS3s 
               Converted to EELs

     28.  Net2000 argues that whether  circuits are used for  ``a 
significant amount  of  local exchange  service''  and  therefore 
qualify for conversion to EEL should be judged on an  ``end-user-
by-end-user basis.''   It should  not matter,  Net2000  contends, 
whether a  dedicated  DS1  between  the  CLEC's  office  and  the 
customer's premises  that  is  used  to  provide  local  exchange 
service is carried  on a multiplexed  DS3 transport channel  that 
includes other DS1s used for  other services.54 It proposes  that 
DS3 circuits derived from both EEL-eligible and  non-EEL-eligible 
DS1 circuits be priced utilizing ``ratcheting,'' similar to mixed 
use DS3 circuits carrying both special access and switched assess 
DS1s,55 so  that proportionate  unbundled network  element  rates 
would apply  to  the  converted DS1s  and  proportionate  special 
access rates  would  apply  to  the  non-converted  DS1s.56   The 
arguments made by Net2000, however, ignore the specific  language 
of Option 3.  There is no provision anywhere in the  Supplemental 
Order Clarification, or in prior orders for ``ratcheting.''   The 
language of  Option  3  clearly and  specifically  requires  that 
``[w]hen  a  loop-transport  combination  includes   multiplexing 
(e.g., DS1 multiplexed to DS3 level), each of the individual  DS1 
circuits must meet [the  substantial local exchange service  use] 
criteria.''57  There is no ambiguity in this language.   Although 
Net2000 argues that it would be better if CLECs were permitted to 
convert only the  parts of their  DS3s that are  used to  provide 
local exchange service  and to continue  to obtain the  remaining 
parts of the DS3s by tariff, this clearly is not permitted  under 
our rules.

          I.B.3.    The Commission's  Rules  prohibit  the  ``Co-
               mingling''  or  Combining  of  Unbundled   Network 
               Elements  with   Access  Services   on  the   Same 
               Facilities 

     29.  As described  above,  for a  DS3  circuit to  meet  the 
conversion criteria  under Option  3  of the  Supplemental  Order 
Clarification, all  of its  derived DS1  circuits must  meet  the 
prescribed ``significant local  exchange service'' criteria.   In 
addition, we specified that, ``[t]his option does not allow loop-
transport combinations  to be  connected to  the incumbent  LEC's 
tariffed services.''58   This restriction  prevents Net2000,  for 
example, from converting  a DS1 special  access circuit from  its 
customer's premises and terminating at a local Verizon  switching 
center, which is connected  to a mixed  use DS3 facility  between 
the Verizon switching center and a Net2000 operating office.   In 
that case, Net2000 must continue to obtain the DS3 circuit  under 
tariff  because  the  DS3   circuit  contains  exchange   access, 
interstate  or   other  traffic   that   does  not   qualify   as 
``significant local exchange service''  use under the  prescribed 
criteria.  Accordingly, Net2000 is prevented from converting  not 
only the mixed use DS3 but also any DS1 circuits connected to the 
tariffed DS3.

     30.  Net2000 argues that the prohibition against co-mingling 
``applies to  the connection  of converted  circuits to  tariffed 
circuits and  not to  the provisioning  of EEL-eligible  circuits 
over  the  same  facilities  also  used  to  support   additional 
services.''   ``Any  other  interpretation,''  Net2000  contends, 
``renders the Commission's option to convert multiplexed circuits 
at non-collocated arrangements meaningless, since a carrier would 
be forced to  convert each  and every  DS1 circuit  riding a  DS3 
circuit  in  every  instance.''59   Net2000  again  makes  policy 
arguments that, whatever their merits, are inconsistent with  the 
actual language  of  the  rule  in effect  at  the  time  of  its 
requests, as clarified in Option  3.  The criteria prescribed  in 
the Commission's Supplemental Order Clarification under Option  3 
without ambiguity prohibit the conversion of DS3s carrying  mixed 
traffic and  also  prohibit  the  conversion  of  otherwise  EEL-
eligible circuits  which  connect  to  non-eligible  DS3.60   The 
Commission, moreover,  in  its Supplemental  Order  Clarification 
specifically refused to modify these restrictions.  At  paragraph 
28, we stated:

     We further reject the suggestion that we eliminate  the 
     prohibition on ``co-mingling''  (i.e., combining  loops 
     or loop-transport  combinations with  tariffed  special 
     access services) in the  local usage options  discussed 
     above.  We  are  not  persuaded  on  this  record  that 
     removing this prohibition would not lead to the use  of 
     unbundled network elements by IXCs solely or  primarily 
     to bypass special access services.''61 

          I.B.4.    Converted  Circuits  Need  Not  Be  Re-Priced 
               Retroactive to the Date of the UNE Remand Order

     31.  Net2000 contends  that  all  of  its  existing  special 
access circuits  should be  converted to  EEL pricing,  effective 
February 17, 2000, which is the effective date of our UNE  Remand 
Order.62   Verizon has taken the  position that it will make  the 
re-pricing effective on the first day of the month following  the 
date of  each  valid  conversion request  by  Verizon.   In  this 
regard, Verizon  rejected the  March  23, 2000  and May  9,  2000 
requests as invalid, because of lack of collocation, specificity, 
and improper co-mingling. It accepted Net2000's request as  valid 
and agreed  to  re-pricing  eligible requested  circuits,  as  of 
November 1, 2000 for the  circuits requested on October 17,  2000 
and the additional  circuits supplementing the  October 17,  2000 
request.  It has also agreed  to re-price the circuits  requested 
on December 15, 2000, effective January 1, 2001.63  

     32.  There is no basis for  Net2000's claim that all of  its 
special access circuits  should be re-priced  from the  effective 
date of  the UNE  Remand Order.   The UNE  Remand Order  did  not 
automatically convert  all eligible  special access  circuits  to 
EELs on  the effective  date of  that order.   We held  that,  in 
accordance  with  section  251(c)(3)  of  the  Act  and   section 
51.315(b) of the  Rules, the  ILECs had  a duty  to provide  such 
conversion  to  a   ``requesting  telecommunications   carrier.''  
Accordingly,  ILECs   were  under   no  obligation   to   provide 
conversions unless  and until  such conversions  were  requested.  
Verizon's proposal to make the conversions effective on the first 
day of the month  after they are requested  is reasonable and  in 
accord with the requirements of the Act and our orders.

          I.B.5.    Summary - Verizon  Did Not Unlawfully  Refuse 
               to  Comply  With  Net2000's  Requests  to  Convert 
               Special Access Circuits to EELs

     33.  Net2000 has  not  shown  that Verizon  has  refused  to 
convert any circuits requested  by it that  met the criteria  for 
conversion  prescribed  by  the  Commission.   We  conclude  that 
Verizon  should  not  have  rejected  Net2000's  March  23,  2000 
conversion request on the grounds that only circuits  terminating 
in collocated  arrangements  were eligible  for  conversion.   We 
conclude, however,  that  the  requested circuits  were,  in  any 
event, ineligible  for  conversion because  those  circuits  were 
subject to  the  significant  amount of  local  exchange  service 
requirement articulated  in  our Supplemental  Order64  and  more 
precisely addressed  under Option  3  of our  Supplemental  Order 
Clarification.65  Thus  Net2000's  March  23,  2000  request  for 
conversion of circuits under the identical scenario described  in 
Option  3  but  in   conflict  with  that  Option's   co-mingling 
restriction was inappropriate.66  Net2000's  May 9, 2000  request 
was defective because there was no identification of the circuits 
requested for  conversion.   Furthermore, Net2000's  request  for 
conversion of  all  of  its  special  access  circuits  was  also 
inappropriate for the reasons stated above concerning their March 
23, 2000 request.  In the case of Net2000's subsequent conversion 
requests on October 17, 2000  and December 15, 2000, Verizon  was 
justified in denying conversion for the requested circuits which, 
on their face, violated the Commission's co-mingling  prohibition 
under Option 3 or did not meet the definition of an EEL. 

     34.  We note, however,  that the re-pricing  of none of  the 
circuits requested  by  Net2000  had been  implemented  when  the 
record closed  in this  proceeding.  Verizon  in its  letters  of 
December 1, 2000 and March 15, 2001, reporting on its  processing 
of Net2000's requests, stated that it would proceed to  implement 
the re-pricing  of  eligible  circuits  only  after  Net2000  had 
notified it to proceed  and Net2000 had  executed a amendment  to 
its  interconnection  agreement  with  Verizon  containing  terms 
governing the provision of EELs.67

     35.  We conclude  that  it  was reasonable  for  Verizon  to 
request that Net2000 confirm that it wished to go ahead with  the 
conversions before implementation.   Verizon had calculated  that 
the conversions requested by  Net2000 would result in  relatively 
large termination  liability  and  minimum period  charges  as  a 
result of conversion of special access circuits being provided in 
accordance with Verizon's term  tariff offering.  Net2000  should 
be given the opportunity to cancel or modify its request to avoid 
or minimize such charges.68  

     36.  With respect  to  the  need for  the  execution  of  an 
amendment to the interconnection  agreement between the  parties, 
Verizon contends that without such an amendment it would have  no 
vehicle to provide  or bill for  the non-tariffed  loop/transport 
combinations.69  Net2000  contends, on  the other  hand, that  an 
amendment  is  unnecessary  because  ``the  existing   agreements 
already provide for access to UNE combinations, of which the  EEL 
is an  example.''70   Net2000,  moreover,  has  objected  to  the 
amendments proposed  by Verizon  because  it believes  that  this 
language will lessen its flexibility in acquiring facilities from 
Verizon.71  The record in this  proceeding does not permit us  to 
determine  whether  an  amendment   to  the  parities'   existing 
interconnection agreement is necessary for the implementation  of 
Net2000's conversion requests or whether the amendments  proposed 
by Verizon are appropriate for this purpose.  Although  Verizon's 
proposed  amendments  are   attached  to  its   Answer  in   this 
proceeding, the existing interconnection agreement is not part of 
the record.  Verizon's attorney had advised the Commission  staff 
in the initial status  conference, herein, that  we would not  be 
required  to   rule  on   this   issue  in   this   proceeding.72  
Unfortunately, the parties, apparently, have not yet agreed  upon 
whether  and  how  their  interconnection  agreement  should   be 
revised.  In this regard, each  party blames the other for  their 
failure to reach an agreement.73

     37.  Verizon  is   required  by   our  UNE   Remand   Order, 
Supplemental  Order  and  Supplemental  Order  Clarification   to 
promptly implement  the  conversion of  eligible  special  access 
circuits  to  EELs  upon   request.74   Although  an   applicable 
governing interconnection agreement  is required  for Verizon  to 
bill for any converted EELs, Verizon is not permitted to  require 
CLECs  to  execute   unneeded  amendments   or  amendments   with 
unfavorable terms  as  a condition  to  the conversion  of  their 
special access circuits to EELs.75

     38.  We note that  the dispute  between the  parties on  the 
need for  the execution  of amendments  to their  interconnection 
agreement has  not, so  far, delayed  the implementation  of  the 
conversion the circuits  requested by Net2000.   In this  regard, 
Verizon has  reasonably  sought Net2000  confirmation  before  it 
proceeds with the  conversions, in  any event.   Net2000 has  not 
yet, as far as  we are aware,  confirmed its conversion  request.  
Accordingly, even assuming that Verizon has proposed an  unneeded 
requirement that Net2000 execute an amendment to their  agreement 
as a  means to  restrict  or delay  the conversion  of  Net2000's 
special access  circuits  to EELs,  such  violation has  not  yet 
occurred and we need not rule on this issue now.  

     I.C.      Verizon Did Not Violate Section 203(a) and  203(c) 
          of  the  Act  By  Failing  to  Convert  Special  Access 
          Circuits to EELs, Retroactively  to the Effective  Date 
          of Our UNE Remand Order or by Failing to Provide in its 
          Special Access Tariffs  That Tariffed  and UNE  Traffic 
          May Not Be Transported Over a Shared DS3 Circuits  

     39.  In the Third Count  of its Complaint, Net2000  contends 
that Verizon violated  Section 203(a)  of the Act  by failing  to 
convert special  access circuits  to EELs,  retroactively to  the 
effective date of  the Commission's Third  Report and Order,  and 
``unlawfully imposing a prohibition on the transport of  tariffed 
and UNE traffic over a shared  DS3 circuit that is not set  forth 
in Verizon's tariffs.''76 

     40.  Net2000's section  203  claims  in  its  complaint  are 
difficult  to  follow.   Net2000  fails  to  explain  why  it  is 
necessary for Verizon to  incorporate the rights and  obligations 
for conversion of special access circuits in its tariffs.  In any 
event, as we have  concluded above, Verizon  is not obligated  by 
the  applicable  Commission  orders  to  convert  special  access 
circuits to EELs retroactively to the effective date of the Third 
Report and Order or to permit  the transport of tariffed and  UNE 
traffic over a shared DS3 circuits.    We therefore conclude that 
Net2000 has failed prove any  section 203 violations on the  part 
of Verizon.

                        IV.  CONCLUSIONS

     41.  In light of all the forgoing, we conclude that  Verizon 
did not  conduct pre-conversion  audits of  Net2000's  conversion 
requests in violation of the Supplemental Order and  Supplemental 
Order Clarification in  violation of section  201(b) of the  Act.  
We conclude further  that Verizon  did not  unlawfully refuse  to 
convert eligible special access circuits to EELs in violation  of 
section 251(c) of the Act  and the Commission's rules and  orders 
implementing that  section  and  that  Verizon  did  not  violate 
sections 203(a) and (c) of the Act by failing to allow conversion 
of  special  access  circuits  to  EELs  or  by  prohibiting  the 
transport of tariffed and UNE traffic over shared DS3 circuits.

                      V.   ORDERING CLAUSE

     42.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections  4(i), 
4(j), 201, 208,  and 251 of  the Communications Act  of 1934,  as 
amended, 47 U.S.C.   151,  154(i), 201, 208,  251 and  Sections 
0.111 and 0.311 of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111  and 
0.311  that  the  formal  complaint  of  Net2000   Communications 
Services, Inc. against Verizon - Washington, D.C., Inc.,  Verizon 
- Maryland, Inc. and Verizon - Virginia, Inc. IS DENIED.

     43.  IT  IS  FURTHER   ORDERED  that   this  proceeding   IS 
TERMINATED.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Magalie Roman Salas
                              Secretary
_________________________

1    47 U.S.C.  208.
2    Net2000 Communications v. Verizon - Washington, D.C., Formal 
Complaint, File No.  EB-00-018, at   4-5 (filed  Nov. 6,  2000) 
(``Complaint''); Net2000 Communications v. Verizon -  Washington, 
D.C., Joint Statement of the Parties, File No. EB-00-MD-018, at  
1 (filed Dec. 7, 2000) (``Joint Statement'').
3Net2000 Communications  v. Verizon -  Washington, D.C.,  Answer, 
File No. EB-00-018, at  6 (filed Nov. 22, 2000) (``Answer''). 
4    Complaint at  6.
5    47 U.S.C.  251(h).  See Joint Statement at 2.
6    See  generally,  47  C.F.R.    51.305  -  .321.    Section 
251(c)(3). of the Act provides that ILECs have: 
     The duty to  provide, to  any requesting  telecommunications 
     carrier 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  nondiscriminatory 
     in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement 
     and the requirements  of this section  and section 252.   An 
     incumbent  local   exchange  carrier   shall  provide   such 
     unbundled  network  elements   in  a   manner  that   allows 
     requesting carriers  to combine  such elements  in order  to 
     provide such telecommunication service.
7    See Implementation of  Local Competition  Provisions of  the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order and Fourth 
Further Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking,  15 FCC  Rcd 3696,  3906-
3910,  474-482 (1999)(``UNE Remand''). 
8    47 U.S.C.  252(d)(1)(cost  determined without reference  to 
rate of return or other rate-based proceeding).
9 Letter  from  Roderick  A.  Mette,  Attorney,  Market  Disputes 
Resolution Division, Enforcement  Bureau to  the parties  counsel 
(dated  Dec.  15,  2000)  (memorializing  the  oral  rulings  and 
agreements made in the initial status conference held on December 
11, 2000 in File No. EB-00-MD-018).     
10 11 FCC Rcd 15, 499 (1996).
11 47 C.F.R.  51.319(a).
12 47 C.F.R.  51.319(d).
13 47 C.F.R.  51.315(b).
14 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), rev'd in part and aff'd in part, 
AT&T Corp.  v. Iowa  Utilities  Board, 525  U.S. 366  (1999),  on 
remand, 219 F.3d  744 (8th  Cir. 2000), cert.  granted sub  nom., 
Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 121 S.Ct. 877 (2001).
15 AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. at 393-95.
16 47 U.S.C.  251(d).
17 AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. at 386-92.
18 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3696, 3909,  480.
19 Implementation  of the  Local  Competition Provisions  of  the 
Telecommunications Act of  1996, Supplemental Order,  15 FCC  Rcd 
1760 (1999) (``Supplemental Order'').
20 Id. at 1761,  4.
21 In the Supplemental Order, we  also expanded the scope of  the 
Fourth Further  Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking  to seek  comments 
``on whether there is any basis in the statute or our rules which 
incumbent LECs could decline to provide combinations of loops and 
transport network elements at unbundled network element prices.''  
Id. at 1762,  6.
22 Id. at 1760,  2.
23 Id. at 1763,  6 n.9.
24 Id.
25 Implementation  of the  Local  Competition Provisions  of  the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Supplemental Order Clarification, 
15 FCC Rcd 9587 (2000) (``Supplemental Order Clarification'').
26 Id. at 9591,   6. The need  to modify the Supplemental  Order 
also became evident upon consideration of the significant  issues 
that were  raised  in comments  in  the expanded  Fourth  Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the additional time that  would 
be needed to resolve these issues.  Id. at 9592-9598,  8-20.
27 Id. at 9598,  21.
28 Id. at 9599-9600,  22.
29 Id. at 9602-03,  29. 
30 Id. at 9602-04,  29-32.
31   Twenty-five circuits were  specified in the  March 23,  2000 
conversion  request;  however,  one  of  the  requested  circuits 
belonged to another carrier.  Complaint,  13, Ex. 6.
32   Complaint, Ex. 1.
33 Answer  at   14,  Attachment  A,   4-6  (Verizon's  account 
manager, responsible for Net2000's  account, in meetings held  on 
March 29,  2000  and  April  10, 2000  orally  responded  to  the 
conversion request.  In  these meetings, and  in a prior  meeting 
held on March 14, 2000, she informed Net2000 that Verizon did not 
believe that that Net2000's conversion request was in  conformity 
with the  Commission's requirements.   She  stated that  the  FCC 
required  the  conversion   of  only   circuits  terminating   in 
collocated  arrangements  and   that  the   FCC  prohibited   the 
commingling of  tariffed service  with unbundled  elements.   She 
also advised  Net2000 that,  before it  would process  conversion 
orders, Net2000  was  required to  execute  an amendment  to  its 
existing interconnection agreement with Verizon.).
34 Complaint at  15.
35 Id., Ex. 2.
36 Answer,   16,  Attachment  A,   6  (There was  no  immediate 
written response by Verizon to this request. Verizon and  Net2000 
personnel, however,  did  participate  in  several  meetings  and 
conference calls subsequently, in  which Net2000 was informed  of 
the  reasons  why  Verizon  believed  that  Net2000's  conversion 
requests were defective.)
37 Complaint,  18, Ex. 7.
38 Id., Ex. 6.
39 Id., Ex. 8.
40 Net2000 Communications v. Verizon - Washington, D.C.,  Initial 
Brief of Net2000, File  No. EB-00-018, Ex.  1, Letter from  Susan 
Fox of Verizon to Anthony Hansel of Net2000 (dated Dec. 1, 2000). 
(The conversion of two DS3s was denied because they were switched 
access rather  than special  access circuits.   Conversion of  17 
DS1s was denied because the requested circuits were connected  to 
tariffed switched access circuits, and the conversions of 53  DS1 
circuits and 1 DS3 circuit were denied because these circuits did 
not meet the definition of EEL.  That is, the identified circuits 
consisted of  two channel  terminations connecting  two end  user 
premises to the  same Verizon  wire center.  Finally,  33 of  the 
requested DS1 circuits either could  not be located on  Verizon's 
billing record or the circuits had previously been disconnected.)
 Verizon reported that the  conversion of the circuits it  deemed 
eligible would result in a reduction of Net2000's monthly charges 
from $323,301.02  to  $250,592.25  for  the  converted  circuits.  
Because some of the eligible circuits had been purchased pursuant 
to the term  plan provisions in  Verizon's tariffs, however,  the 
conversions would result  in one-time  termination liability  and 
minimum period charges of $974,376.42.) 
41 Initial Brief of Net2000, Ex. 2, Letter from Anthony Hansel of 
Net2000 to Deborah Kugelman of Verizon (dated Dec. 15, 2000).
42 Net2000 Communications  v. Verizon -  Washington, D.C.,  Reply 
Brief of the Verizon Telephone Companies, File No. EB-00-018, Ex. 
A., Letter from  Susan Fox of  Verizon to Anthony  Hansel of  Net 
2000 (dated Mar. 15, 2001).  Verizon reported that, based on  its 
review, 48 of the requested DS3 circuits and 579 of the requested 
DS1 circuits were  eligible for conversion,  while it refused  or 
was unable to convert 412 of the requested DS1 circuits and 6  of 
the requested DS3 circuits.  Verizon's major reason for denial of 
conversion, in the case of 309 DS1 circuits, was that  conversion 
was not permitted by the Commission's ``co-mingling'' prohibition 
under Option 3(i.e., the requested DS1 circuits were  multiplexed 
onto tariffed DS3  circuits that  Net2000 did not  request to  be 
converted).  Verizon stated that it was prepared to convert 10 of 
the 18 DS3  circuits requested and  222 of the  309 DS1  circuits 
requested  in  the  supplement  to  Net2000's  October  17,  2000 
request.  Four DS3s duplicated circuits that had previously  been 
requested for conversion and 4 of the requested DS3s could not be 
located in  Verizon's  billing  records.  87  of  the  DS1s  were 
rejected because Verizon  believed that they  violated our  ``co-
mingling'' prohibition under Option  3 because they were  derived 
from DS3s that still would be provided under tariff.
   With  respect  to  the additional  circuits  requested  to  be 
converted on December 15,  2000, Verizon agreed  that 180 of  the 
264 DS1 circuits and 16 of the 17 DS3 circuits were eligible  for 
conversion. Seventy-two of the DS1 circuits were rejected because 
Verizon  believed   that   they  violated   our   ``co-mingling'' 
prohibition under  Option 3.   The  remaining DS1  circuits  were 
rejected  because  the  circuits   identified  either  had   been 
disconnected, were not found in Verizon's billing records or were 
being billed to  a customer other  than Net2000.  Verizon  denied 
conversion of  one DS3  circuit because  it consisted  of only  a 
channel termination without transport and therefore did not  meet 
the definition of EEL.
43   Complaint at  26-28.
44 Initial Brief of Net2000 at 6.
45 Verizon Reply Brief at 4.
46  See infra  33.
47 Id.
48 Id at 9603,  30.
49 Reply Brief of Verizon at 4;  Answer at Part III, 13-14.
50 UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3912,  486.
51  Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 3919,  488.
52 Supplemental Order, supra., 15 FCC Rcd at 1761,  4.
53 Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 1762,  5. 
54 Initial Brief of Net2000 at 9-12.
55  See  Verizon,   Tariff  F.C.C.  No.   1,  Page  316.29.1,    
7.2.14(C)(1)(e).
56 Initial Brief of Net2000 at 14.
57   Supplemental Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9599,  22.
58 Supplemental Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9599,  22.
59 Initial Brief of Net2000 at 12.
60 Supplemental Order Clarification, 15  FCC Rcd at 9599-9600,   
22.
61 Id. at 9606,  28.
62 Complaint at Legal Analysis  20.
63 Reply Brief of Verizon at 6.
64 Supplemental Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1762,  5.
65 Supplemental Order Clarification, 15  FCC Rcd at 9599-9600,   
22.
66 Although we do not  grant Net2000's complaint under Option  3, 
parties are still able to file  a waiver request as specified  in 
the Supplemental Order Clarification.  Id. at 9600,  28.
67 Initial Brief of Net2000 at  Ex. 1; Reply Brief of Verizon  at 
Attachment A.
68 Net2000 Communications  v. Verizon -  Washington, D.C.,  Reply 
Brief of Verizon,  File No.  EB-00-018, Attachment  A (March  30, 
2001)(Letter from  Susan  Fox of  Verizon  to Anthony  Hansel  of 
Net2000, dated  March  15,  2001  (Verizon  calculated  that  the 
conversion of eligible circuits  in the Supplemental October  17, 
2000 request would result in a reduction of monthly charges  from 
$103,733  to  $75,595,   but  also  would   result  in   one-time 
termination liability  and minimum  period charges  of  $407,198.  
Conversion of the additional  circuits deemed eligible that  were 
requested on December  15, 2000  would result in  a reduction  of 
monthly charges from $90,070 to $67,731, but would result in one-
time  termination  liability  and   minimum  period  charges   of 
$377,138.  Verizon  stated that  the effective  date of  the  re-
pricing for the  circuits in  the supplement to  the October  17, 
2000 request would be November 1, 2000 and the effective date  of 
the conversions requested on December  15, 2000 would be  January 
1, 2001.); Net2000 Communications v. Verizon - Washington,  D.C., 
Initial Brief of Net2000, File No. EB-00-018, Ex. 1 (Letter  from 
Susan Fox of Verizon to Anthony Hansel of Net2000 (dated Dec.  1, 
2000). (Verizon reported that the  conversion of the circuits  it 
deemed eligible would result in a reduction of Net2000's  monthly 
charges  from  $323,301.02  to  $250,592.25  for  the   converted 
circuits.   Because  some  of  the  eligible  circuits  had  been 
purchased pursuant  to  the  term plan  provisions  in  Verizon's 
tariffs,  however,  the  conversions  would  result  in  one-time 
termination liability and minimum period charges of $974,376.42.)
69 Reply Brief of Verizon at 7.
70 Reply Brief of Net2000 at 5.
71 December 15, 2000 Staff Letter, supra. at 2.
72 Id.
73 Reply Brief of Verizon at 7 and Reply Brief of Net 2000 at 5.
74 See, e.g.,  UNE Remand Order,  15 FCC Rcd  3696, 3909,   480; 
Supplemental Order Clarification, 15 FCC Rcd 9587, 9604,  33.
75 Given  that  the parties'  interconnection  agreement  already 
contains language for the provision of UNE combinations and  that 
EELs are such combinations, we  suspect that no ammendment  would 
be necessary  for the  conversion  of qualifying  special  access 
circuits to EELs.
76 Complaint at  31-33, Legal Analysis,  20-23.