The Order
In its ruling, the FCC held that, unless a state sets its own standards or the parties have otherwise agreed, (i) an ILEC must provide physical collocation, including cageless collocation, no later than 90 days after receiving a collocation application; and (ii) an ILEC must inform the applicant within 10 days after receiving the application whether the application has been accepted or denied. The FCC did not establish any time deadlines for virtual collocation nor did the FCC adopt specific limitations on ILEC’s and CLEC’s ability to reserve potential collocation space for future use.
In the Order, the FCC also held that where physical collocation space at the ILEC’s premises is exhausted, an ILEC must permit collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures even if virtual collocation space is available. The FCC also ruled that if an ILEC wishes to impose upon an applicant safety standards in addition to the NEBS safety standards, the ILEC must demonstrate that its own equipment meets such additional safety standards and that such standards are reasonable.
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Other Collocation Issues
The FCC seeks comments on many other collocation issues, including the following:
- Should the FCC permit collocators to collocate only equipment that is used solely for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements even if such equipment does not provide telecommunication services in the most efficient manner or provides services of a significantly lower quality?
- Should the FCC require ILECs to permit physical collocation of multi-functional equipment that ILECs themselves deploy in central offices or in remote terminals even though not all of the functions of such equipment are directly related to interconnection or access to unbundled network elements?
- Which functions should, and which functions should not, be permitted in collocated equipment, and should the FCC distinguish between telecommunications and non-telecommunications functions in rendering its decision?
- Should providers of dark fiber or interoffice transport services have the right to collocate in ILEC central offices?
- Should the FCC require ILECs to permit two collocators to interconnect their equipment either directly, or indirectly by links through the ILECs’ facilities or equipment, and, if so, should such interconnection be prohibited where the collocators could interconnect outside of the ILECs’ premises? Should the resolution of these issues depend upon whether such outside collocation may have significantly higher costs, reduce the quality of such collocation, or impact upon the collocators’ ability to provide certain telecommunications services or to serve particular areas?
- Should the ILEC, or the CLEC, select the CLEC’s physical collocation space from among the unused space in the ILEC’s premises, and, if it is the ILEC, what criteria should be used in selecting that space?
- Should the FCC prevent ILECs from placing collocators in a room or isolated space separate from the ILEC’s own equipment, and, if so, under what circumstances should the FCC do so?
- Should the FCC require ILECs to permit physical collocation of CLEC equipment within spaces smaller than a rack?
- What are potential solutions for the collocation space shortages within remote terminals? Should the FCC require ILECs to make a certain amount of additional space available for collocation within such terminals?
- How, if at all, will zoning and other property laws affect the ILECs’ ability to install remote structures for use by potential collocators?
- Should the FCC specify an overall maximum collocation provision interval shorter than 90 days for particular types of collocation arrangements?
- Should the FCC require an overall maximum collocation provision interval for virtual collocation?
- What steps, if any, should the FCC take to ensure that an ILEC does not discriminate in favor of itself, or its affiliate, in installation, maintenance, or repair activities where the CLEC uses virtual collocation?
- What changes, if any, should the FCC make to its collocation rules to facilitate line sharing?
- Should the FCC adopt a national space reservation policy that would apply where a state does not set its own standards?
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Deployment of New Network Architectures
The FCC also seeks comment on several issues concerning the deployment of new network architectures, including (i) should the FCC modify or clarify its definition of the loop and transport elements to include access for requesting carriers at the wavelength level; and (ii) in light of the new network architectures that ILECs are using, what are the technically feasible points for accessing the copper distribution portion of the loop and fiber feeder portion of the loop at remote terminals?
* * * * *
Initial comments for both Further Notices of Proposed Rulemaking are due September 18, 2000, with reply comments due on October 10, 2000. Please contact us if you have any comments or questions concerning, or simply wish to know more about, the Further Notices of Proposed Rulemaking or the Order.