Just the facts, please: CLECs, RBOCs define FCC DSL deployment stipulations on their own terms

The FCC's recent notice of proposed rulemaking on unbundling "advanced" or data services was good news for competitive local exchange carriers that are deploying digital subscriber line service. But CLECs and incumbent carriers are still disputing the specifics of what the proposed ruling requires, and they are adopting their own definitions of FCC terminology.

The FCC's notice of proposed rulemaking said that incumbents would be exempt from unbundling or reselling data network elements if they deployed data services through a separate subsidiary. That subsidiary would have to seek collocation and buy unbundled loops from the incumbent like CLECs do. The notice also sought comment on how to strengthen collocation requirements and "tentatively concluded" that incumbents should be required to offer cageless collocation in their central offices. CLECs generally prefer cageless collocation because it minimizes the investment they must make to deploy DSL.

One of the issues that is still unclear is how a CLEC can confirm it is receiving DSL-ready loops from an incumbent. For DSL to run over copper wire, loading coils must be removed. But because DSL is such a new service, there was previously no reason for an incumbent to track which loops had such coils. This is one of the main causes for delays in DSL deployment, said Charles Oliver, a DSL consultant and attorney with Washington-based Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC.

"I've heard from [incumbents] that one-third to one-half of the loop entries in their databases can be incorrect, and they simply don't know if DSL can be used on those loops until they go out and test for it," he said.

To remedy this situation, Covad Communications, a CLEC that is one of the largest deployers of DSL in the country, buys all digital loops-at a cost premium, said Dhruv Khanna, co-founder, vice president and general counsel for Covad.

Another CLEC, Rhythms NetConnections, is rallying the FCC to set up an automatic testing process for exactly this purpose, said Jeff Blumenfeld, Rhythms' general counsel.

"We expect this kind of testing within the next two years, and until then we'll try to do the testing ourselves," he said.

Another issue is collocation of equipment in remote terminals. It seems clear that incumbents must provide room for CLEC equipment where it's technically feasible. But does this include the huts and vaults used for digital loop carriers?

"It's not happening, but it should be," said Blumenfeld. "It is technically feasible. But in all the interconnection agreements we've seen, the [regional Bell operating companies] have refused."

Bell Atlantic does not allow collocation in huts and vaults used for DLCs and does not believe it's technically feasible, a spokeswoman said. An SBC Communications spokesman said it will allow collocation in huts in states that require it, while a BellSouth spokesman said that carrier would consider it, but it would have to be required by the FCC. U S West would consider collocating in huts on a case-by-case basis, but it has not yet been requested, a spokesman said.

An Ameritech spokesman said simply, "Collocation is at the CO, not in huts and vaults."

Right now it's up to each state to decide whether or not to require remote collocation, Oliver said. In a 40-state survey his firm conducted, a "handful" have declined to require it and a few have mandated it, he said. This variation is not surprising, he added, considering that not all states have large rural areas that require DLCs.

The other collocation issue-cageless collocation-is sketchy because it is a recommendation, not a requirement. Bell Atlantic is considering shared collocation and smaller cages, the spokeswoman said. BellSouth and U S West both offer it, but the latter did so only after CLEC pressure, Khanna said.

"Let's just say they didn't give it out of the goodness of their heart," he said. "But cageless collocation...is the most significant thing [the incumbent carriers] have done."

It can cost a CLEC $100,000 per location to cage its equipment in a CO, Oliver said, adding that it's unnecessary.

But Blumenfeld argued that concentrating on cageless collocation as a main issue is a little too simplistic. "The biggest problem is not the cages. The problem is there is not enough space allocated for collocation in general," he said.

Some CLECs have been denied collocation privileges on the grounds that there was no room in the CO.

"We need someone to define what 'out of space' means," Blumenfeld said.

However, some CLECs say they haven't run into any of these problems. Dakota Services Ltd., a CLEC based in Milwaukee, feels that negotiations with RBOCs-Ameritech in particular-can go smoothly.

"We believe it depends on your approach,"said Dakota Services Ltd.'s Chief Operating Officer Ted Lasser. "You've got to be patient. And then it all comes down to what you negotiate in your interconnection agreement."

As accommodating as Ameritech may be, like many RBOCs, it has reservations about the direction the FCC is taking.

"It looks like the FCC is headed down the micro-management path," said the Ameritech spokesman. "They're adding more hurdles to the act-making a regulatory model, not a deregulatory model."

Ameritech is the only RBOC that has deployed DSL through a separate data subsidiary. Several others are adamantly opposed. Bell Atlantic's position is that a subsidiary would slow deployment to the mass market and force the carrier to "start over with all new employees," the spokeswoman said. A U S West statement said that a subsidiary would be an "insurmountable burden" and that it goes in the opposite direction of what consumers want. SBC has filed an appeal to this portion of the FCC ruling.

Of course, regulatory issues are not the only factor causing some carriers to move slowly on DSL deployment. Industry groups are still defining some aspects of DSL service, and several carriers said they expect to move more quickly once standards are developed-an event expected next month.

"Once we have standards, carriers will proceed with greater confidence, and manufacturers will reduce the price of equipment," said Oliver.

Until then, and until the FCC makes additional rulings, one CLEC recommends that carriers just be patient.

"We all have to expect some bumps in the road," said Greg Gapinski, vice president of marketing and business development for Dakota. "If people don't like bumps, I suggest they get off the ride."

TELECOM ACT'S CONSTITUTIONALITY UPHELD The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed an earlier decision that found provisions in the Telecommunications Act unconstitutional. SBC Communications had triggered the earlier decision, arguing against provisions that currently keep regional Bell operating companies out of the long-distance market. SBC has not decided whether it will appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

FCC EXTENDS WIRELESS LNP DEADLINES The FCC has granted the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's petition for a nine-month extension for implementing wireless local number portability. The deadline has been extended from June 30, 1999, to March 31, 2000.

LOCAL DECISIONS AT&T reacted strongly last week to a decision by the Nebraska Public Service Commission that leaves it up to local telephone competitors to prove the existence of competition within the local market. In a statement, the interexchange carrier said that because the decision "turns the Telecommunications Act on its head" and gives U S West an unfair advantage, AT&T may withdraw from U S West long-distance entry hearings.