In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition
               Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
              Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and
                   Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers

                   CC Docket No. 96-98; CC Docket No. 95-185

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              1996 FCC LEXIS 4312

                           RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 96-325

                August 8, 1996 Released; Adopted August 1, 1996

             ACTION:   [*1]   FIRST REPORT AND ORDER [PART 2 OF 5]

JUDGES:
   By the Commission: Chairman Hundt and Commissioners Quello, Ness, and Chong
issuing separate statements.

OPINION:
   418. We conclude that customized routing, which permits requesting carriers
to designate the particular outgoing trunks that will carry certain classes of
traffic originating from the competing provider's customers, is technically
feasible in many LEC switches. Customized routing will enable a competitor to
direct particular classes of calls to particular outgoing trunks, which will
permit a new entrant to self-provide, or select among other providers of,
interoffice facilities, operator services, and directory assistance. n927 Bell
Atlantic notes that customized routing is generally technically feasible for
local calling, although it notes that the technology and capacity constraints
vary from switch to switch. n928 SBC contends that customized routing is
technically feasible for older switches, such as the 1AESS switch. n929 AT&T
acknowledges that, although the ability to establish customized routing in 1AESS
switches may be affected by the "call load" in each office, only 9.8% of the
switches used by the seven RBOCs, GTE and SNET are 1AESS  [*2]   switches. n930
We recognize that the ability of an incumbent LEC to provide customized routing
to a requesting carrier will depend on the capability of the particular switch
in question. Thus, our requirement that incumbent LECs provide customized
routing as part of the "functionality" of the local switching element applies,
by definition, only to those switches that are capable of performing customized
routing. An incumbent LEC must prove to the state commission that customized
routing in a particular switch is not technically feasible.

n927 See, e.g., AT&T June 28 Ex Parte. In addition, we note that the Illinois
Commission recently directed Ameritech and Centel to permit a carrier purchasing
wholesale local exchange service to designate a provider of operator services
and directory assistance other than that of the incumbent LEC. Such access is
accomplished through the routing of such calls from the incumbent LEC's switch
to the competing provider of the operator service or directory assistance. See
Illinois Wholesale Order at 45.


n928 Letter from Patricia Koch, Assistant Vice President, Bell Atlantic, to
William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, June 24, 1996 (Bell Atlantic June 24 Ex
Parte); see also BellSouth comments at 41-42 n.89 (the ability to provide
customized routing depends on the quantity of customized routing requests from
other competitors).  [*3]

n929 SBC comments at 41-42.

n930 Letter from Bruce Cox, Government Affairs Director, AT&T, to William F.
Caton, Secretary, FCC, July 11, 1996 (AT&T July 11 Ex Parte).

   419. Section 251(d)(2)(A) requires the Commission, in determining which
network elements should be made available to competing providers, to consider
"whether access to such network elements as are proprietary in nature is
necessary." n931 To withhold a proposed network element from a competing
provider, an incumbent LEC must demonstrate that the element is proprietary and
that gaining access to that element is not necessary because the competing
provider can use other, nonproprietary elements in the incumbent LEC's network
to provide service. n932 U S West asserts that switch unbundling could raise
concerns involving, among other things, "licensing of intellectual property." It
cites a request by one interconnector to be the exclusive provider of particular
features in U S West's generic switching software. n933 Bell Atlantic states
that it is not at liberty to sub-license the software that operates vertical
switching features. n934 We note, however, that these incumbent LECs do not
object to providing  [*4]   vertical switching functionalities to requesting
carriers under the resale provision of section 251(c)(4). n935 In addition, the
vast majority of parties that discuss unbundled local switching do not raise
proprietary concerns with the unbundling of either basic local switching or
vertical switching features. Even if we accept the claim of U S West and Bell
Atlantic that vertical features are proprietary in nature, these carriers do not
meet the second consideration in our section 251(d)(2)(A) standard, which
requires an incumbent LEC to show that a new entrant could offer the proposed
telecommunications service through the use of other, nonproprietary elements in
the incumbent LEC's network. n936 Accordingly, we find that access to unbundled
local switching is clearly "necessary" under our interpretation of section
251(d)(2)(A). n937

n931 47 U.S.C. @ 251(d)(2)(A).

n932 See supra Section V.E.

n933 U S West comments at 55 n.117.

n934 Bell Atlantic comments, Albers Attachment at 17-18.

n935 U S West reply at 26-27; Bell Atlantic comments at 26.

n936 See supra Section V.E.

n937 Id.


   420. Section 251(d)(2)(B) directs the Commission to consider  [*5]   whether
the failure to provide access to an unbundled element "would impair the ability
of the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it
seeks to offer." n938 We have interpreted the term "impair" to mean either
increased cost or decreased service quality that would result from using network
elements of the incumbent LEC other than the one sought. n939 SBC and MFS
contend that access to unbundled local switching may not be essential for new
entrants because competitors are likely to deploy their own switches. n940 These
parties present no evidence that competitors could provide service using another
element in the LEC's network at the same cost and at the same level of quality.
In addition, most commenters that address this issue generally argue that local
switching is essential for the provision of competing local service, n941 and we
agree. We thus conclude that a requesting carrier's ability to offer local
exchange services would be impaired, if not thwarted, without access to an
unbundled local switching element.

n938 47 U.S.C. @ 251(d)(2)(B).

n939 See supra Section V.E.

n940 SBC reply at 23; MFS comments at 46.

n941 See, e.g., LDDS reply at 18 (unbundled local switching is "critical" to
local competition); TIA comments at 18; AT&T Mar. 21 Letter at 17-18.  [*6]

   421. Section 251(c)(3) requires that incumbent LECs provide access to
unbundled network elements on terms and conditions that are "just, reasonable,
and nondiscriminatory." n942 We agree with CompTel and LDDS that new entrants
will be disadvantaged if customer switchover is not rapid and transparent. We
also note that the Michigan Commission has recognized the significance of
customer switchover intervals and has directed Ameritech and GTE to file
proposals on how they will "ensure the equal availability of expeditious
processing of local, interLATA, and intraLATA carrier changes." n943 Therefore,
we require incumbent LECs to switch over customers for local service in the same
interval as LECs currently switch end users between interexchange carriers. This
requirement applies to switchovers that only require the incumbent LEC to make
changes to software. Switchovers that require the incumbent LEC to make physical
modifications to its network, such as connecting a competitor's loop to its
switch, are not subject to this requirement, and instead are governed by our
terms and conditions for all unbundled elements. n944 Today, incumbent LECs
routinely change customers' presubscribed   [*7]   interexchange carriers
quickly and transparently, thereby contributing to the competitiveness of the
interexchange market. We expect that a similar requirement for local exchange
switchovers that require only a software change will similarly contribute to
local exchange competition.

n942 47 U.S.C. @ 251(c)(3).

n943 In the Matter, On the Commission's Own Motion, To Establish Permanent
Interconnection Arrangements Between Basic Local Exchange Service Providers,
Opinion and Order, Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Case No. U-10860, at 36-37 (June 5,
1996).

n944 See supra Section V.G., discussing provisioning intervals for unbundled
network elements.


   422. We reject the proposal by some incumbent LECs to define unbundled local
switching as the facilities that provide a point of access to the switch, but
that would not actually include switching functionality. Under this definition,
the purchaser of the local switching element would not actually obtain local
switching, only the right to purchase local switching functionality and other
switching features at wholesale rates. We believe that the unbundled local
switching element must include the functionality of connecting lines  [*8]   and
trunks. The definition proposed by these incumbent LECs would contravene the
requirement in section 251(c)(3) that incumbent LECs provide network elements
"in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order
to provide such telecommunications service." n945 If a competing provider
combined its own loops and transport with the local switching element ("point of
access"), it would be unable to provide telecommunications service without
separately purchasing, at wholesale rates, switching functionality from the
incumbent LEC.

n945 47 U.S.C. @ 251(c)(3).

   423. We also disagree with the proposal to define local switching as a point
of access plus basic switching functionality, but that would exclude vertical
switching features. n946 As a legal matter, this definition is inconsistent with
the 1996 Act's definition of "network element," which includes all the
"features, functionalities, and capabilities provided by means of such facility
or equipment." n947 In addition, this definition would not fulfill the
pro-competitive objectives of the 1996 Act as effectively as the per-line
definition we adopt. A competitor that obtains basic and vertical switching
[*9]   features at cost-based rates will have maximum flexibility to distinguish
its offerings from those of the incumbent LEC by developing a variety of service
packages and pricing plans. n948 Moreover, an upfront purchase of all local
switching features may speed entry by simplifying practical issues such as the
pricing of individual switching features.

n946 Sprint comments at 34; USTA reply at 16-17; SBC reply at 20; NYNEX reply at
31; MECA comments at 29.

n947 47 U.S.C. @ 153(29); see supra section V.C., which interprets the Act's
definition of "network element."

n948 See, e.g., LDDS comments at 33; AT&T comments at 21.

   424. We also address the impact on small incumbent LECs. For example, the
Illinois Independent Telephone Association and the Rural Telephone Coalition
favor rules that recognize the differences between larger and smaller LECs. n949
We have considered the economic impact of our rules in this section on small
incumbent LECs. In this section, for example, we expressly provide for the fact
that certain LECs may possess switches that are incapable of performing
customized routing for competitors that purchase unbundled local switching. As
noted by Rural  [*10]   Telephone Coalition and the Illinois Independent
Telephone Coalition, this approach is necessary to accommodate the different
technical capabilities of large and small carriers. We also note that section
251(f) of the 1996 Act provides relief for certain small LECs from our
regulations under section 251.

n949 Illinois Ind. Tel. Ass'n comments at 1; Rural Tel. Coalition reply at 37.

   (2) Tandem Switching Capability


   425. We also affirm our tentative conclusion in the NPRM that it is
technically feasible for incumbent LECs to provide access to their tandem
switches unbundled from interoffice transmission facilities. We note that some
states already have required incumbent LECs to unbundle tandem switching. n950
Parties do not contend, pursuant to section 251(d)(2)(A), that tandem switches
are proprietary in nature. With regard to section 251(d)(2)(B), we find that
competitors' ability to provide telecommunications service would be impaired
without unbundled access to tandem switching. Therefore, we find that the
availability of unbundled tandem switching will ensure that competitors can
deploy their own interoffice facilities and connect them to incumbent LECs'
tandem switches  [*11]   where it is efficient to do so.

n950 See, e.g., Ameritech comments at 43, Cincinnati Bell comments at 18, GTE
comments at 38, AT&T March 21 Letter at 23.

   426. We define the tandem switch element as including the facilities
connecting the trunk distribution frames to the switch, and all the functions of
the switch itself, including those facilities that establish a temporary
transmission path between two other switches. The definition of the tandem
switching element also includes the functions that are centralized in tandems
rather than in separate end office switches, such as call recording, the routing
of calls to operator services, and signaling conversion functions.

   (3) Packet Switching Capability

   427. At this time, we decline to find, as requested by AT&T and MCI, that
incumbent LECs' packet switches should be identified as network elements.
Because so few parties commented on the packet switches in connection with
section 251(c)(3), the record is insufficient for us to decide whether packet
switches should be defined as a separate network element. We will continue to
review and revise our rules, but at present, we do not adopt a national rule for
the unbundling of packet  [*12]   switches.

   3. Interoffice Transmission Facilities

   a. Background

   428. In the NPRM, we proposed to require incumbent LECs to make available
unbundled transport facilities in a manner that corresponds to the rate
structure for interstate transport charges. We specifically proposed to require
unbundled access to links between the end office and the serving wire center
(SWC), the SWC and the IXC point of presence (POP), the end office and the
tandem switch, and the tandem switch and the SWC. We also tentatively concluded
that incumbent LECs should be required to unbundle channel termination
facilities for special access from the interoffice facilities. In addition, we
requested comment on whether and how other interoffice facilities used by
incumbent LECs should be unbundled.

   b. Comments

   429. The vast majority of the parties that discussed local transport
unbundling supported the Commission's proposal to provide access to dedicated
and shared interoffice facilities as unbundled network elements. n951 BellSouth,
for example, asserts that individual transport components should be available as
unbundled elements, and notes that some LECs already have unbundled transport
from its other  [*13]   access services. n952


n951 AT&T comments at 22; USTA comments at 35; Frontier comments at 16; GCI
comments at 12; Sprint comments at 39; GST comments at 24; NYNEX comments at
63; NEXTLINK comments at 23; ACSI comments at 41; MCI comments at 17; ALTS
comments at 30; Citizens Utilities comments at 15; CompTel comments at 45; TIA
comments at 13; Bell Atlantic comments at 22; U S West comments at 48; Teleport
comments at 37; MFS comments at 48; USTA comments at 35; TCC comments at 35; New
York Commission comments at 27; Ameritech comments at 43; BellSouth comments at
42.

n952 BellSouth comments at 42-43.

   430. Several incumbent LECs contend that they already provide unbundled
transport services pursuant to the Commission's Expanded Interconnection rules.
n953 PacTel asserts that its proposal to tariff unbundled transport elements,
including dedicated transport and tandem-switched transport, will fulfill its
duties under sections 251 and 271. n954 Bell Atlantic and TIA, on the other
hand, indicate that existing tariffs for unbundled transport facilities are
insufficient to comply with the 1996 Act. n955 MFS asks the Commission to
clarify that, under the expanded interconnection  [*14]   rules as well as the
1996 Act, incumbent LECs must unbundle all interoffice transport facilities
without requiring the requesting carrier to purchase channel terminations or
other elements. n956

n953 Ameritech comments at 42-43; Cincinnati Bell comments at 18; GTE comments
at 38.

n954 PacTel comments at 57.

n955 Bell Atlantic comments at 27 (Bell Atlantic has already filed, or plans to
file, intrastate tariffs for the network elements it has unbundled under
expanded interconnection.); TIA comments at 13.

n956 MFS comments at 48; accord AT&T comments at 22; MCI comments at 17.

   431. Parties agree that local transport unbundling is technically feasible.
n957 MCI, for example, asserts that transport facilities are already unbundled
for exchange access and thus there is no question that unbundling is technically
feasible. n958 NCTA, GST, TIA, and MFS contend that unbundling transport
elements should be presumed technically feasible because of the Commission's
Expanded Interconnection proceeding. n959 AT&T and Telecommunications Resellers
Association point out that IXCs currently obtain interconnections between
transport elements and the tandem switches pursuant  [*15]   to standard
specifications. n960

n957 See, e.g., GST comments at 24; AT&T comments at 22; GTE reply at 18-19;
GVNW comments at 28; NYNEX comments at 65; MCI comments at 32; Comcast comments
at 18; CompTel comments at 31; NCTA comments at 42; MFS comments at 48;
Telecommunications Resellers Ass'n comments at 35; Ameritech comments at 43.

n958 MCI comments at 32.

n959 NCTA comments at 42; GST comments at 24; TIA comments at 13; MFS comments
at 47-48.

n960 AT&T comments at 22; Telecommunications Resellers Ass'n comments at 35.



   432. A number of commenters specify particular components of local transport
that should be unbundled: (1) dedicated transport trunks from incumbent LEC end
offices to competitors' switches, to IXC POPs, and to other end offices of the
incumbent LEC; and (2) common transport trunks between incumbent LEC end offices
and tandem switches. n961 In addition, ALTS, MFS, AT&T, and MCI contend that
requesting carriers should have the ability to order such transport trunks with
or without electronics (i.e., as "dark fiber"). n962 GTE disagrees and argues
that the definition of network element only encompasses facilities "used in the
provision  [*16]   of telecommunications service," and that dark fiber does not
meet this definition because LECs do not "use" it in their networks. n963

n961 See, e.g., AT&T comments at 22; NYNEX comments at 62-63; GVNW comments at
20; TCC reply at 18; ACSI comments, Attachment 1 at 5-6.

n962 ALTS comments at 30; MCI comments at 32; AT&T comments at 22; MFS comments
at 48.

n963 GTE reply at 21.

   433. Several parties ask that the Commission specify additional transport
components as unbundled network elements beyond those proposed in the NPRM. AT&T
contends that incumbent LECs should have to unbundle their digital cross-connect
systems (DCSs), which are now used to disaggregate high-speed traffic from IXCs
into individual circuits. n964 MCI and AT&T contend that these facilities will
enable IXCs to use more cost-efficient, high-speed facilities to route traffic
to the incumbent LEC and have the traffic disaggregated into individual circuits
at the DCS. n965 CompTel asserts that, when direct-trunked transport transits a
tandem switch or other intermediate node, incumbent LECs should offer each
individual link as an unbundled element. n966 MCI also asserts that competitors
need "loop  [*17]   transport" to carry traffic from the incumbent's unbundled
loops to the competitor's switch. n967

n964 AT&T comments at 22 n.23; accord SBC comments at 87.

n965 AT&T comments at 22; MCI comments at 17.

n966 CompTel comments at 45.

n967 MCI comments at 22.


   434. A number of parties assert that the availability of unbundled transport
facilities would promote local competition. AT&T contends that it seeks to
combine unbundled common transport with competitive tandem switching and
dedicated transport to provide IXCs with alternative access service from the
competitor's end office to the IXC POP. n968 AT&T, Telecommunications Resellers
Association, and TIA assert that the availability of unbundled dedicated
transport will allow competitors to connect their switches to incumbent LEC
switches efficiently. n969 MCI contends that incumbent LECs have denied MCI
access to trunks between the incumbent LECs' end offices, thereby increasing
MCI's costs of deploying local facilities and restricting MCI's ability to
acquire redundant facilities for its local traffic. n970 NYNEX and LDDS
recommend that the Commission require incumbent LECs to offer unbundled
dedicated transport  [*18]   between their own end office or tandem switches and
the requesting carrier's switch or POP. n971 The Texas Public Utility Commission
has specifically required incumbent LECs to provide competitors with "loop
facilities transport service," which connects an unbundled loop to the
competitor's switch. n972

n968 AT&T Mar. 21 Letter at 22.

n969 Id.; Telecommunications Resellers Ass'n comments at 35; TIA comments at 13.

n970 MCI comments at 46.

n971 NYNEX comments at 63 n.126; LDDS reply at 18.

n972 Texas Commission comments at 18.

   435. Several parties caution that pricing distortions could accompany a
ruling that transport components are network elements under section 251(c)(3).
n973 GTE, for example, argues that the Commission should not permit requesting
carriers to use unbundled transport elements to avoid access charges. n974
Similarly, Ameritech states that the 1996 Act prohibits arbitrary price
distinctions between switched and special transport, and that, if interoffice
facilities are unbundled from tandem switching, no such distinction can be made.
n975 Other parties maintain that the 1996 Act requires cost-based pricing of all
unbundled elements,   [*19]   including transport elements. n976

n973 See e.g., GTE comments at 38; CompTel comments at 45; Ameritech comments at
43.

n974 GTE comments at 38.

n975 Ameritech comments at 43.

n976 ACSI comments at 42; MCI comments at 32.

   436. A few parties oppose a requirement that incumbent LECs unbundle
facilities that correspond to interstate transport and special access rate
elements. n977 Cincinnati Bell argues that these elements are already available
through existing tariffs, and therefore should not be required to be offered as
unbundled elements pursuant to the 1996 Act. n978 MECA argues that local
transport and special access facilities are toll access facilities and therefore
are not necessary to provide competitive basic local exchange service. n979 MECA
also states that any requirement concerning local transport and special access
should not apply to any LEC that was not covered by the MFJ restrictions and, in
order to minimize arbitrage opportunities, any modifications to local transport
and special access must wait until the LECs have restructured their local rates.
n980

n977 See, e.g., MECA comments at 38; Cincinnati Bell comments at 18.

n978 Cincinnati Bell comments at 18.  [*20]

n979 MECA comments at 38.

n980 MECA comments at 38.


   437. TCC urges the Commission to define dedicated transport as an interoffice
transmission path dedicated to a single carrier, including multiplexing and
grooming, redundant facilities, and cross-office wiring to a digital
cross-connect panel. n981 ACSI argues that the Commission should require
incumbent LECs to make both dedicated and switched transport available at the
DS-0, DS-1, DS-3 and Optical Carrier levels, which should be offered as
completely unbundled links between serving wire centers (SWCs) and
interconnector points-of-presence, the central office and the SWC, the end
office and the tandem, and the SWC and the tandem. n982 Teleport advocates that
interoffice trunking facilities be defined in terms of their underlying
transmission characteristics without reference to the use of the facility. n983

n981 TCC comments at 38; see also NYNEX comments at 63 for a similar definition.

n982 ACSI comments at 41.

n983 Teleport comments at 37.

   438. ALTS argues that, since there are currently well-defined standards for
transport, there should be no impediment to requiring equivalent levels of
technical  [*21]   performance among competing carriers, i.e., no meaningful
distinctions among the technical performance of different DS1s. n984 Therefore,
as in the case with local loops, ALTS contends that competitors should receive
the same or better ordering, provisioning, and installation service as the
incumbent provides itself and that penalties should be assessed if deadlines are
not met. n985

n984 ALTS comments at 30.

n985 Id. at 30-31.

   c. Discussion

   439. We conclude that incumbent LECs must provide interoffice transmission
facilities on an unbundled basis to requesting carriers. The record supports our
conclusion that such access is technically feasible and would promote
competition in the local exchange market. We note that the 1996 Act requires
BOCs to unbundle transport facilities prior to entering the in-region, interLATA
market. n986

n986 47 U.S.C. @ 271(c)(2)(B)(v).


   440. We require incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to shared
transmission facilities between end offices and the tandem switch. n987 Further,
incumbent LECs must provide unbundled access to dedicated transmission
facilities between LEC central offices or between such offices and those of
competing  [*22]   carriers. This includes, at a minimum, interoffice facilities
between end offices and serving wire centers (SWCs), SWCs and IXC POPs, tandem
switches and SWCs, end offices or tandems of the incumbent LEC, and the wire
centers of incumbent LECs and requesting carriers. The incumbent LEC must also
provide, to the extent discussed below, all technically feasible transmission
capabilities, such as DS1, DS3, and Optical Carrier levels (e.g. OC-3/12/48/96)
that the competing provider could use to provide telecommunications services. We
conclude that an incumbent LEC may not limit the facilities to which such
interoffice facilities are connected, provided such interconnection is
technically feasible, or the use of such facilities. In general, this means that
incumbent LECs must provide interoffice facilities between wire centers owned
by incumbent LECs or requesting carriers, or between switches owned by incumbent
LECs or requesting carriers. For example, an interoffice facility could be used
by a competitor to connect to the incumbent LEC's switch or to the competitor's
collocated equipment. We agree with the Texas Commission that a competitor
should have the ability to use interoffice   [*23]   transmission facilities to
connect loops directly to its switch. We anticipate that these requirements will
reduce entry barriers into the local exchange market by enabling new entrants to
establish efficient local networks by combining their own interoffice facilities
with those of the incumbent LEC.

n987 Section V.I. addresses unbundled access to the tandem switching element.

   441. The ability of new entrants to purchase the interoffice facilities we
have identified will increase the speed with which competitors enter the market.
By unbundling various dedicated and shared interoffice facilities, a new entrant
can purchase all interoffice facilities on an unbundled basis as part of a
competing local network, or it can combine its own interoffice facilities with
those of the incumbent LEC. The opportunity to purchase unbundled interoffice
facilities will decrease the cost of entry compared to the much higher cost that
would be incurred by an entrant that had to construct all of its own facilities.
An efficient new entrant might not be able to compete if it were required to
build interoffice facilities where it would be more efficient to use the
incumbent LEC's facilities. We  [*24]   recognize that there are alternative
suppliers of interoffice facilities in certain areas. We are convinced, however,
that entry will be facilitated if competitors have greater, not fewer, options
for procuring interoffice facilities as part of their local networks, and that
Congress intended for competitors to have these options available from
competitors. Thus, the rules we establish for the unbundled interoffice
facilities should maximize a competitor's flexibility to use new technologies in
combination with existing LEC facilities.

   442. We find that it is technically feasible for incumbent LECs to unbundle
the foregoing interoffice facilities as individual network elements. The
interconnection and unbundling arrangements among the larger LECs, IXCs, and
CAPs that resulted from our Expanded Interconnection rules confirm the technical
feasibility of unbundling interoffice facilities used by incumbent LECs to
provide special access and switched transport. n988 As AT&T and
Telecommunications Resellers Association point out, IXCs currently interconnect
with incumbent LECs' transport facilities pursuant to standard specifications.
n989 We also note that commenters do not identify technical  [*25]   feasibility
problems with unbundling interoffice facilities.

n988 See, e.g., MCI comments at 32; NCTA comments at 42; GST comments at 24; TIA
comments at 13; MFS comments at 47-48.

n989 AT&T comments at 22; Telecommunications Resellers Ass'n comments at 35.

   443. We also find that it is technically feasible for incumbent LECs to
unbundle certain interoffice facilities not addressed in our Expanded
Interconnection proceeding. First, we conclude that an incumbent LEC must
provide unbundled access to interoffice facilities between its end offices, and
between any of its switching offices and a new entrant's switching office, where
such interoffice facilities exist. This allows a new entrant to purchase
unbundled facilities between two end offices of the incumbent LEC, or between
the new entrant's switching office and the incumbent LEC's switching office.

Although our Expanded Interconnection rules did not specifically require
incumbent LECs to unbundle these facilities, commenters do not identify any
potential technical problem with such unbundling. Moreover, some LECs already
offer unbundled dedicated interoffice facilities, for example, between their end
offices and SWCs  [*26]   for exchange access.

   444. In addition, as a condition of offering unbundled interoffice
facilities, we require incumbent LECs to provide requesting carriers with access
to digital cross-connect system (DCS) functionality. A DCS aggregates and
disaggregates high-speed traffic carried between IXCs' POPs and incumbent LECs'
switching offices, thereby facilitating the use of cost-efficient, high-speed
interoffice facilities. AT&T notes that the BOCs, GTE, and other large LECs
currently make DCS capabilities available for the termination of interexchange
traffic. n990 We find that the use of DCS functionality could facilitate
competitors' deployment of high-speed interoffice facilities between their own
networks and LECs' switching offices. Therefore, we require incumbent LECs to
offer DCS capabilities in the same manner that they offer such capabilities to
IXCs that purchase transport services.

n990 Letter from Bruce Cox, Government Affairs Director, AT&T, to William F.
Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, July 18, 1996.

   445. We disagree with PacTel's assertion that it is not technically feasible
for incumbent LECs to provide DCS functionality to competitors that purchase
unbundled   [*27]   interoffice facilities. n991 First, contrary to PacTel's
assertion, we do not require incumbent LECs to develop new arrangements for the
offering of DCS capabilities to competitors. We only require that DCS
capabilities be made available to competitors to the extent incumbent LECs offer
such capabilities to IXCs. Second, PacTel suggests the provision of DCS
capabilities requires physical partitioning of the DCS equipment in order to
prevent carriers from gaining control of each other's traffic. n992 We do not
require such partitioning for the provision of DCS capabilities. As noted above,
we only require incumbent LECs to permit competitors to use DCS funtionality in
the same manner that incumbent LECs now permit IXCs to use such functionality.

n991 Letter from Alan Ciamporcero, Vice President, PacTel, to William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary, FCC, July 17, 1996 (PacTel July 17 Ex Parte).

n992 Id.

   446. Section 251(d)(2)(A) requires the Commission to consider whether "access
to such network elements as are proprietary in nature is necessary." n993
Commenters do not identify any proprietary concerns relating to the provision of
interoffice facilities that LECs are required  [*28]   to unbundle. We also note
that many of these facilities are also currently offered on an unbundled basis
to competing carriers. Therefore, the record provides no basis for withholding
these facilities from competitors based on proprietary considerations.

n993 47 U.S.C. @ 251(d)(2)(A).


   447. Section 251(d)(2)(B) requires the Commission to consider whether the
failure to provide access to an unbundled element "would impair the ability of
the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it
seeks to offer." n994 We have interpreted the term "impair" to mean either
increased cost or decreased service quality that would result from using
network elements other than the one sought. n995 Certain commenters contend that
unbundled access to these facilities would improve their ability to provide
competitive local exchange and exchange access service. n996 MCI, for example,
argues that its inability to obtain unbundled access to trunks between an
incumbent LEC's end offices raises its cost of providing local service. n997
Accordingly, we conclude that the section 251(d)(2)(B) requires incumbent LECs
to provide access to shared interoffice facilities and dedicated  [*29]
interoffice facilities between the above-identified points in incumbent LECs'
networks, including facilities between incumbent LECs' end offices, new
entrant's switching offices and LEC switching offices, and DCSs. We believe that
access to these interoffice facilities will improve competitors' ability to
design efficient network architecture, and in particular, to combine their own
switching functionality with the incumbent LEC's unbundled loops. n998

n994 47 U.S.C. @ 251(d)(2)(B).

n995 See supra Section V.E.

n996 See, e.g., AT&T Mar. 21 Letter; LDDS Comments at 47.

n997 MCI comments at 46.

n998 See, e.g, MCI comments at 22.

   448. We reject Cincinnati Bell's argument that existing tariffs for transport
and special access services filed pursuant to our Expanded Interconnection rules
fulfill our obligation to implement the requirements of section 251(c). n999
First, the Expanded Interconnection rules require the unbundling of interstate
transport services only by Class A carriers n1000 whereas section 251(c)
requires network unbundling by all incumbent LECs, except for carriers that are
exempt under section 251(f) from our interconnection rules. n1001  [*30]
Consequently, some non-Class A carriers that were not subject to our Expanded
Interconnection requirements will be required to comply with the requirements of
this Order. Second, we find that the Class A carriers' existing tariffs for
unbundled transport elements do not satisfy the unbundling requirement of
section 251(c), as suggested by Cincinnati Bell, because such tariffs are only
for interstate access services, not for unbundled interoffice facilities. As
such, existing federal tariffs for transport and special access exclude
intrastate transport, and therefore are not equivalent to unbundled interoffice
facilities, which we have determined to be nonjurisdicational in nature.

n999 Cincinnati Bell comments at 18.

n1000 Class A carriers are those exchange carriers having more than $ 100
million in total company regulated revenues. See 1990 Cost Support Order, 5 FCC
Rcd 1364, (Com. Car. Bur. 1990); Commission Requirements for Cost Support
Material to be Filed with 1989 Annual Access Tariffs, 4 FCC Rcd 1662, 1663 (Com.
Car. Bur. 1988).

n1001 See infra Section XII, addressing the exemption for rural LECs.


   449. We also disagree with MECA, GTE, and Ameritech that  [*31]   we should
consider "pricing distortions" in adopting rules for unbundled interoffice
facilities. n1002 Section, below, addresses the pricing of unbundled network
elements identified pursuant to section 251(c)(3) as it relates to our current
access charge rules. Nor are we are persuaded by MECA's argument that incumbent
LECs not subject to the MFJ should not be required to unbundle transport
facilities because, according to MECA, such facilities are unnecessary for local
competition. n1003 As discussed above, the ability of a new entrant to obtain
unbundled access to incumbent LECs' interoffice facilities, including those
facilities that carry interLATA traffic, is essential to that competitor's
ability to provide competing telephone service.

n1002 MECA comments at 38, GTE comments at 38; Ameritech comments at 43.

n1003 MECA comments at 38.

   450. We do not impose specific terms and conditions for the provision of
unbundled interoffice facilities. We believe that the rules we establish in this
Order for all unbundled network elements adequately address ALTS's concern
regarding the provisioning, billing, and maintenance of unbundled transport
facilities. n1004 We also decline  [*32]   at this time to address the
unbundling of incumbent LECs' "dark fiber." Parties that address this issue do
not provide us with information on whether dark fiber qualifies as a network
element under sections 251(c)(3) and 251(d)(2). Therefore, we lack a sufficient
record on which to decide this issue. We will continue to review and revise our
rules in this area as necessary.

n1004 Section V.G addresses terms and conditions governing incumbent LECs'
provision of access to unbundled network elements.

   451. Rural Telephone Coalition contends that incumbent LECs should not be
required to construct new facilities to accommodate new entrants. n1005 We have
considered the economic impact of our rules in this section on small incumbent
LECs. In this section, for example, we expressly limit the provision of
unbundled interoffice facilities to existing incumbent LEC facilities. We also
note that section 251(f) of the 1996 Act provides relief for certain small LECs
from our regulations under section 251.

n1005 Rural Tel. Coalition reply at 36.

   4. Databases and Signaling Systems

   a. Background

   (1) NPRM

   452. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs should be
required  [*33]   to unbundle access to their signaling systems and databases as
network elements. n1006 We asked commenters to identify points at which carriers
interconnect with SS7 networks n1007 today, as well as the technical feasibility
of establishing other points of access and interconnection. n1008 We also asked
commenters to identify those signaling and database functions currently provided
by incumbent LECs on an unbundled basis, and other functions not currently
offered by incumbent LECs, that the parties believe should be offered on an
unbundled basis. n1009

n1006 NPRM at para. 107.

n1007 A signaling network that is physically separate from the voice networks.

n1008 NPRM at para. 108.

n1009 NPRM at para. 108.

   453. In the NPRM, we noted the possibility that competitors that provide
local exchange service using resold incumbent LEC services or unbundled elements
might want to connect an alternative call processing database to the incumbent
LEC's SS7 network in order to offer services and features not available through
the incumbent LEC's own SS7 network databases. n1010

n1010 NPRM at para. 112.

   454. We also sought comment on unbundling access to the Advanced  [*34]
Intelligent Network (AIN), and referenced our separate Intelligent Networks
proceeding which deals with related issues. n1011 We sought comment on whether
to unbundle access to AIN facilities and functionalities.

n1011 NPRM at para. 113; see In the Matter of Intelligent Networks, CC Docket
No. 91-346, Notice of Inquiry, 6 FCC Rcd 7256 (1991), Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 6813 (1993) (Intelligent Networks). We incorporated the
record of the Intelligent Network proceeding into this docket by reference. NPRM
at para. 113 n.151.

   (2) SS7 Signaling Network Technology

   455. Signaling systems facilitate the routing of telephone calls between
switches. Most LECs employ signaling networks that are physically separate from
their voice networks, and these "out-of-band" signaling networks simultaneously
carry signaling messages for multiple calls. In general, most LECs' signaling
networks adhere to a Bellcore standard Signaling System 7 (SS7) protocol. n1012

n1012 The SS7 protocol is widely used and has been adopted by Bellcore, the
American National Standards Institute, and the International Telecommunication
Union--Telecommunication Standardization Sector. See Bellcore, BOC Notes on the
LEC Networks (1994).  [*35]

   456. SS7 networks use signaling links to transmit routing messages between
switches, and between switches and call-related databases. A typical SS7 network
includes a signaling link, which transmits signaling information in packets,
from a local switch to a signaling transfer point (STP), which is a
high-capacity packet switch. n1013 The STP switches packets onto other links
according to the address information contained in the packet. n1014 These
additional links extend to other switches, databases, and STPs in the LEC's
network. n1015 A switch routing a call to another switch will initiate a series
of signaling messages via signaling links through an STP to establish a call
path on the voice network between the switches.

n1013 STPs are usually deployed in pairs for redundancy purposes. Id.

n1014 Any element capable of handling SS7 signaling messages is also generally
referred to as a Signaling Point. Each Signaling Point has a unique network
address and every SS7 signaling message has a routing label containing addresses
for the origination and destination of the message plus a signaling link
selection code. Id.

n1015 For example, an STP to STP connection is generally used for inter-network
interconnection. An STP to switch connection is a common part of the SS7 network
and is used to connect end offices to the SS7 network. A connection between a
call-related database and a switch is usually done via a connection at an STP
(i.e., database to STP to switch). Id.  [*36]

   457. As mentioned above, the SS7 network also employs signaling links (via
STPs) between switches and call-related databases, such as the Line Information
Database (LIDB), Toll Free Calling (i.e., 800, 888 number) database, and AIN
databases. These links enable a switch to send queries via the SS7 network to
call-related databases, which return customer information or instructions for
call routing to the switch. n1016

n1016 Switch software commonly referred to as a "trigger" interrupts call
progress, in order for the switch to query call-related databases. Id.

   458. From the perspective of a switch in a LEC network, the databases
discussed above merely supply information or instructions. Updating or
populating the information in such databases, however, takes place through a
separate process involving different equipment. Carriers input information
directly into a service management system (SMS), which in turn downloads such
information into the individual databases.

   459. The Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) is a network architecture that
uses distributed intelligence in centralized databases to control call
processing and manage network information, rather than performing  [*37]   those
functions at every switch. An AIN-capable switch n1017 halts call progress when
a resident software "trigger" is activated, and uses the SS7 network to access
intelligent databases, known as Service Control Points (SCPs), that contain
service software and subscriber information, for instruction on how to route,
monitor, or terminate the call. n1018 AIN is being used in the deployment of
number portability, wireless roaming, and such advanced services as same number
service (i.e., 500 number service) and voice recognition dialing. AIN services
are designed and tested in an off-line computer known as a Service Creation
Environment (SCE). Once a service is successfully tested, the software is
transferred to an SMS that administers and supports SCP databases in the
network. The SMS then regularly downloads software and information to an SCP
where interaction with the voice network takes place via the signaling links and
STPs discussed above.

n1017 A switch with AIN capabilities is referred to as a service switching point
(SSP). Id.

n1018 Switch queries and database responses use a part of the SS7 protocol
called the Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP). Id.  [*38]

   b. Comments


   460. Almost all parties, including incumbent LECs, support the Commission's
tentative conclusion to require incumbent LECs to unbundle access to their
signaling systems. n1019 Parties generally agree that access to SS7 network
signaling is essential to the provision of competitive local exchange service
and that providing such access is technically feasible. n1020 Indeed, most BOCs
state that they already provide access to their signaling systems. n1021
BellSouth states that it currently provides such access at its STPs via
signaling links to all carriers, including IXCs, independent telephone
companies, wireless carriers, and other local exchange carriers. n1022
Commenters also report that independent SS7 network aggregators currently
provide access to signaling systems to many independent local exchange and
interexchange carriers, and to some competitive local carriers. n1023 In
addition, several state commissions note that they already have, or are
considering, a requirement that incumbent LECs unbundle access to their
signaling systems, including associated databases. n1024

n1019 See, e.g., Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee comments at 24; ACSI
comments at 42; ALTS comments at 31; AT&T comments at 23; Comcast comments at
20; Ericsson comments at 5; GCI comments at 12; GST comments at 24; Intermedia
comments at 13; MFS comments at 48-49; MCI comments at 32; Sprint comments at
39; Teleport comments at 37; Time Warner comments at 44-45; Ameritech comments
at 46-47; BellSouth comments at 43; NYNEX comments at 71; PacTel comments at
57-60; Alabama Commission comments at 18; District of Columbia Commission
comments at 23; Florida Commission comments at 17; Mass. Commission comments at
7; New York Commission comments at 27; Wyoming Commission comments at 23. These
parties also generally support access to databases associated with signaling.
Some parties, however, urge the Commission to weigh the potential harm from
access to database and signaling systems, which might give someone the
opportunity to cause inadvertent or malicious damage to large parts of the
public switched network. Secretary of Defense comments at 6-7; Sprint comments
at 39-40; Lincoln Tel. reply at 15; GVNW comments at 20, 29 (screening necessary
to prevent network failures from proliferating between interconnected networks).
[*39]

n1020 See, e.g., Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee comments at 24; ACSI
comments at 42; ALTS comments at 31; AT&T comments at 23; Citizens Utilities
comments at 15; CompTel comments at 43; Continental comments at 19; Ericsson
comments at 5; Frontier comments at 16; GCI comments at 12; LCI comments at 18;
MCI comments at 32; NEXTLINK comments at 23; Sprint comments at 39-40; TIA
comments at 14; Ameritech comments at 47; Bell Atlantic comments at 27-28; GTE
comments at 38-41; U S West comments at 57-58; California Commission comments at
26; Colorado Commission comments at 24; Louisiana Commission comments at 5;
Wyoming Commission comments at 23-24; USTN reply at 4.

n1021 Ameritech comments at 46-47; Bell Atlantic comments at 27-30; BellSouth
comments at 43; GTE comments at 40-41; NYNEX comments at 71; PacTel comments at
58-59; SBC comments at 46-48; Sprint comments at 39-41; USTA comments at 36.

n1022 BellSouth comments at 43.

n1023 AT&T comments at 23; BellSouth comments at 44-45; NYNEX comments at 71;
GVNW comments at 29 (most small incumbent LECs obtain SS7 functionalities from
US Intelco or a neighboring large incumbent LEC); GTE comments at 40-41 n.61
(competitors include Independent Telecommunications Network, Southern New
England Telephone, and GTE Intelligent Network Services); NYNEX comments at 71;
PacTel comments at 58; Bell Atlantic comments at Attachment 3, 16 (independent
SS7 providers offer an out-of-band signaling channel which allows the service
providers to interconnect with other SS7 networks); USTN reply at 1. Commenters
note that these aggregators also provide access to databases associated with
signaling.  [*40]


n1024 See, e.g., California Commission comments at 26 (under consideration by
the California Commission); Colorado Commission comments at 24; Louisiana
Commission comments at Attachment A; Michigan Commission comments at 12; Texas
Commission comments at 19; Wyoming Commission comments at 23-24 (Wyoming
Commission has draft rules only); In the Matter of the Commission Investigation
Relative to the Establishment of Local Exchange Competition and Other
Competitive Issues, Case No. 95-845-TP-COI at 49 (Ohio Commission June 12, 1996)
(access to SS7 functionalities, and necessary customer databases such as 911,
LIDB, Toll Free Calling, and Directory Assistance).

   461. Some incumbent LECs argue that, because there are competitive providers
for SS7 network services, there is no need for the Commission to require
incumbent LECs to unbundle these network elements for competing carriers. n1025
Most potential competitors counter that access to incumbent LEC SS7 networks
will be necessary for some carriers, either because alternative providers of
signaling systems and databases will not be available to them or because it will
not be technically feasible to use any signaling network other  [*41]   than the
incumbent LEC's SS7 network. n1026 AT&T argues that, even where there are
alternative SS7 networks, unbundling of the incumbent's SS7 network will
increase competition and help control costs for new entrants. n1027

n1025 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic comments at 27-28; BellSouth comments at 44-45;
GTE comments at 40-41 (access is not necessary under section 251(d)(2)(A) to the
extent it is proprietary and denial of such access would not impair the
provision of competitive services under section 251(d)(2)(B) to the extent it is
not proprietary); PacTel comments at 40, 57-60; NYNEX comments at 71 (there are
already alternative suppliers of these functions, and as demand grows, more will
enter the market).

n1026 See AT&T comments at 23; Letter from Frank Simone, Regulatory Division
Manager, Federal Government Affairs, AT&T to William Caton, Acting Secretary,
FCC, June 13, 1996 (AT&T June 13 Ex Parte).

n1027 AT&T comments at 23; accord Telecommunications Resellers Ass'n comments at
36.

   462. Some incumbent LECs contend that the 1996 Act only requires them to
unbundle access to their signaling systems and databases to the extent necessary
to support call routing  [*42]   and completion for competitors. n1028 Other
parties, including IXCs, disagree and contend that access to incumbent LECs'
signaling systems under the 1996 Act should include access to all associated
databases and use of deployed AIN technology, and that such access is necessary
in order for them to compete successfully in the local exchange market. n1029

n1028 ALLTEL comments at 10; Ameritech comments at 46-47; Bell Atlantic comments
at 22.

n1029 See, e.g., AT&T comments at 23; MCI reply at 30-31.


   463. Many parties argue that open access and interconnection to incumbent
LECs' SS7 networks and signaling protocols are critical to maintaining the
seamless routing and completion of traffic between competing carriers. n1030
Frontier asserts that the use of proprietary or closed protocols by incumbent
LECs effectively can prevent interconnected networks from communicating with
each other. n1031 Several state commissions have proposed or required that
incumbent LECs provide unaltered transmission of signaling information between
interconnecting carriers and their customers. n1032 In support of such access,
several commenters cite recent interconnection agreements that provide  [*43]
for the exchange of SS7 signaling messages. n1033

n1030 ACSI comments at 45 (open access is important to support CLASS features
and access to databases); Frontier comments at 16; GST comments at 24; MCI
comments at 33; New York Commission comments at 27 (signaling systems may
represent a bottleneck to efficient exchange of traffic for all LECs); Texas
Commission comments at 20; Wyoming Commission comments at 24; USTN reply
comments at 2.

n1031 Frontier comments at 16 n.31 (such anti-competitive behavior would be
contrary to the pro-competitive goals of the 1996 Act); accord Wyoming
Commission comments at 24 (incumbent LECs may not claim a proprietary right to
signaling protocols).

n1032 Wyoming Commission comments at 23-24 (Wyoming Commission draft rules
require unaltered transmission of signaling information); Texas Commission
comments at 19 (Texas law requires interconnecting carriers to provide
nondiscriminatory access to ensure the interoperability of networks and service
to end users).

n1033 Georgia Commission comments at Attachment E 6-7 (BellSouth and MCIMetro
interconnection agreement provides for the exchange of SS7 signaling messages
including the Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP) part of the SS7
protocol that supports inter alia CLASS features).  [*44]

   464. Virtually all parties agree that physical access, or interconnection, to
the incumbent LEC's SS7 network should occur at the STP, because it provides
essential network management and security functions that are not performed by
other SS7 network elements. n1034 Commenters assert that such access at the STP
would provide other carriers with access to all of the functions of an incumbent
LEC's SS7 network. n1035 A few parties urge the Commission to require incumbent
LECs to unbundle direct access to SCP databases. n1036 Most commenters,
including all of the incumbent LECs, assert that such access is not technically
feasible because SCP databases do not perform the mediation functions present at
the STP. n1037 Some incumbent LECs argue that direct access to any SS7 network
elements, other than the STP, would require development of additional industry
standards before such access could be considered technically feasible. n1038

n1034 See, e.g., Ameritech comments at 48-50; Bell Atlantic comments at 27; MCI
comments at 34-35; NYNEX comments at 71; Sprint comments at 40. Part of the STP
security function is to screen incoming signaling traffic for unusable messages
and to prevent them from reaching the SCP or switch where they could potentially
cause reliability and performance problems. GVNW comments at 29; SBC comments at
46; USTA comments at 36. The STP also prevents unauthorized access to
proprietary information. GTE comments at 39-40.  [*45]

n1035 Bell Atlantic comments at 27; GTE comments at 39; USTA comments at 36. See
AT&T comments at 24 n.25.

n1036 Frontier comments at 16; LCI comments at 18.


n1037 See, e.g., ACSI at 45; Bell Atlantic comments at 27-28; Colorado
Commission comments at 24 (Colorado Commission requires unbundled access to the
SCP via the STP); Comcast comments at 18; GTE comments at 40 (until appropriate
mediation techniques and associated software and hardware are developed, access
to SCP databases should remain through the STP); PacTel comments at 59; NYNEX
comments at 71; SBC comments at 47; Ameritech reply at 20-21 (industry has yet
to develop standards for SCP access); AT&T reply at 19-20 n.32; PacTel reply at
21-22.

n1038 GTE comments at 40; SBC comments at 47; Sprint comments at 40.

   465. Several parties advocate access to unbundled signaling links and STPs.
n1039 BellSouth, however, argues that incumbent LECs should only have to provide
access to their SS7 network at an STP for competitors. n1040 Parties describe
several methods for competing carriers to access unbundled elements of the
incumbent LEC's SS7 network. A new entrant could provide or purchase signaling
[*46]   links to connect its switch to the incumbent LEC's STP, or it could
provide its own signaling link and STP and then connect its STP to the incumbent
LEC's STP. n1041 SBC adds that a competing carrier could also contract with a
third party that has already established signaling link connectivity to the
incumbent LEC's STPs. n1042 SBC also notes that it requires certification of new
companies before implementing SS7 interconnection in order to protect the
integrity of its network. n1043

n1039 ALTS comments at Attachment A, 23; AT&T comments at 23; Cable & Wireless
comments at 19, 24-25; Citizens Utilities comments at 15; GCI comments at 12;
Frontier comments at 16; Telecommunications Resellers Ass'n comments at 35;
NYNEX comments at 71 (provides unbundled access to network signaling resources
for call set up and for database queries through unbundled signaling links and
ports at its STPs); PacTel reply at 21-22; TIA comments at 14; California
Commission comments at 26 (California Commission is considering inter alia,
unbundling STPs and signaling links); Colorado Commission comments at 26;
Wyoming Commission comments at 23-24 (Wyoming Commission draft rules require
unbundling of signaling links, STPs, and SCPs); Iowa Commission comments at
Appendix B, 4 (arguing that signaling links and STPs must be unbundled by
incumbent LECs).  [*47]

n1040 BellSouth reply at 23.

n1041 SBC comments at 47; Sprint comments at 40 (currently provides access to
its SS7 network through "A" signaling links which run from the end office to the
STP and through "B" signaling links which connect the STPs of two separate SS7
networks); U S West comments at 48 (competitors should be able to provide their
own transport to an STP or purchase transport from the incumbent LEC); PacTel
comments at 58 (Pacific Bell proposed, before the California Commission, to
unbundle its signaling links that provide interconnection between other
carriers' switches or STPs to Pacific Bell's STPs).

n1042 SBC comments at 47.

n1043 SBC comments at 47.


   466. Commenters disagree over what databases qualify as network elements
under the 1996 Act. Some parties, including IXCs and other potential local
competitors, argue that access to all incumbent LEC databasess should be
unbundled as network elements. n1044 This would include both incumbent LEC
call processing and non-call processing databases. n1045 Most incumbent LECs
counter that administrative or "back office" databases do not fall within the
definition of network element in the 1996   [*48]   Act. n1046 Incumbent LECs
supporting this limited definition also argue that only those databases used for
the routing and completion of calls are required to be unbundled by the 1996
Act. n1047

n1044 ACSI comments at 42-44; AT&T comments at 23-26; ALTS comments at 31; MCI
comments at 32-33.

n1045 ACSI comments at 42-44; ALTS comments at 31; MCI comments at 32-33 (both
call processing and non-call processing databases necessary to route, complete
and bill simple and complex calls should be unbundled as network elements).

n1046 Ameritech comments at 48-51; Bell Atlantic reply at 12-23; GTE reply at
21; Lincoln Tel. reply at 12; NYNEX reply at 34.

n1047 Bell Atlantic reply at 12-23; GTE reply at 21; Lincoln Tel. reply at 12;
NYNEX reply at 34.

   467. A number of parties urge the Commission to require incumbent LECs to
provide competing carriers with the same access to their databases that they
provide to themselves. n1048 Some potential local competitors argue that access
to a number of existing incumbent LEC databases is important if they are to
compete effectively with the incumbent LEC. n1049 Many parties, including most
incumbent LECs, identify access to  [*49]   the Line Information Database (LIDB)
n1050 and the Toll Free Calling (i.e., 800, 888 numbers) database n1051 as
important to the provision of local service. n1052 Some potential local
competitors contend that databases are a significant expense and that they will
be prohibitively costly to duplicate immediately or in the near future. n1053
The Louisiana Commission notes that it currently requires incumbent LECs to
provide competitive providers with access to LIDB, Toll Free Calling, and AIN
databases through signaling interconnection such that the functionality,
quality, terms and conditions are equal to those the incumbent LEC provides to
itself. n1054 Several incumbent LECs respond that they already provide such
access to the LIDB and Toll Free Calling databases via their SS7 network. n1055
GVNW argues that all access to call-related databases must be mediated to
prevent unauthorized messages from entering an incumbent's database. n1056

n1048 ALTS comments at 31; ACSI comments at 42-43; MCI comments at 32-33; NCTA
comments at 42 (competitors' customer information should be included in
incumbent LEC databases on the same price, terms, and conditions as the
incumbent LEC provides for itself); Teleport comments at 37; Wyoming Commission
comments at 23 (nondiscriminatory access for call routing and completion); GCI
comments at 13; LCI comments at 18; Vartec comments at 5.  [*50]

n1049 ACSI comments at 42-43; MCI comments at 32-37. Letter from Leonard
Sawicki, MCI Telecommunications to Robert Tanner, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC,
July 3, 1996 (MCI July 3 Ex Parte). MCI identifies LIDB, Toll Free Calling,
Local Number Portability and Directory Assistance databases as call processing
databases necessary for new entrants to offer competitive local telephone
service. Id.


n1050 Parties described the LIDB as a database containing information as to
whether a subscriber number is a valid working line, telephone line type, call
screening information and validation information for calling cards. See MCI July
3 Ex Parte. See In the Matter of Local Exchange Carrier Line Information
Database, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7130 (1993).

n1051 Toll free calling (i.e., 800, 888 numbers) is a nationwide service
generally used to bill the called party. It utilizes a single national SMS and
ten regional toll free calling SCP databases. Toll Free Calling SCPs are
currently owned by Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, GTE, NYNEX, PacTel, SBC,
SNET, Sprint (local), and U S West. The national SMS is owned by Bellcore and
operated by a third party administrator. See In the Matter of Toll Free Service
Access Codes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 13692 (1995).  [*51]

n1052 ACTA comments at 14; ALTS comments at 31; Ameritech comments at 47 (call
routing and completion functions sometimes require supplemental calling
functions or information such as 800 number routing data or credit
verification); GTE comments at 24; U S West comments at 48; Bell Atlantic reply
at 12-23; GTE reply at 18; NYNEX reply at 34.

n1053 AT&T comments at 23-24; NCTA comments at 42; Telecommunications Resellers
Ass'n comments at 36.

n1054 Louisiana Commission comments at 5; see Michigan Commission comments at 12
(requires non-discriminatory access to databases necessary for the provision of
local exchange service including LIDB and Toll Free Calling databases).

n1055 Ameritech comments at 47; BellSouth comments at 43; GTE comments at 40;
NYNEX comments at 71; Sprint comments at 40.

n1056 GVNW comments at 29; see also MECA comments at 38-39 (competitors should
not have direct "on-line" access to incumbent databases).

   468. Many potential local competitors argue that access to the incumbent
LEC's LIDB should be unbundled. n1057 Most parties agree that query access to
the LIDB is technically feasible. n1058 Most potential local competitors
[*52]   contend that they also need access to the incumbent LECs' administrative
database (SMS) that is used to input customer data into the LIDB. n1059 AT&T
argues that such access is technically feasible, and can be provided to
competitors in the same manner that the incumbent LEC now does for itself. n1060
Other parties propose that the Commission require the incumbent LEC to input a
competing carriers' customer information into its LIDB for the competitor. n1061

n1057 ACTA comments at 14; ACSI comments at 42 (access to the LIDB is important
to identify presubscribed interexchange carriers); GST comments at 25; ALTS
comments at 31.

n1058 AT&T comments at 24; ALTS comments at 31; Ameritech comments at 46-51;
Bell Atlantic comments at 27-28; GTE comments at 38-41; Louisiana Commission
comments at 5; NCTA comments at 42; NYNEX reply at 34; Teleport comments at
37-38; U S West comments 48.


n1059 AT&T comments at 25-26; American Network Exchange comments at 5
(requesting access to LIDB, but without the current restrictions imposed by In
the Matter of Policies and Rules Concerning Local Exchange Carrier Validation
and Billing Information for Joint Use Calling Cards, CC Docket No. 91-115); ACSI
comments at 42; Citizens Utilities comments at 15; NCTA comments at 42;
Teleport comments at 37.  [*53]

n1060 AT&T comments at 26. The conditions, (e.g., type of media, electronic
information transfer method) applicable to competitor interconnection with such
databases should be identical to those the incumbent LEC uses for itself. Id.

n1061 Georgia Commission comments at 21 (under BellSouth-MCIMetro
interconnection agreement, BellSouth will enter MCIMetro line information into
its LIDB so as to enable MCIMetro customers to participate in alternative
billing systems, such as collect calling and third number billing).

   469. Several parties argue that the Commission should unbundle the Toll Free
Calling database for access by competitors. n1062 Most incumbent LECs commented
that they already provide query access to their Toll Free Calling databases.
n1063 In addition, access to the single national SMS is available under tariff
administered by Bellcore. n1064

n1062 ALTS comments at 31; American Network Exchange comments at 5; ACSI
comments at 43; Louisiana Commission comments at 5.

n1063 GTE comments at 40; Sprint comments at 40; NYNEX reply at 34. Reservation
and activation of 800 and 888 numbers is available today as an unbundled tariff
offering from many common carriers and independent suppliers through the RESP
ORG process. See In the Matter of Toll Free Service Access Codes, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 13692 (1995).  [*54]

n1064 Access to individual 800 and 888 numbers is achieved through the RESP ORG
process administered by Bellcore. Customers contact a RESP ORG (which can be an
IXC, LEC, wireless carrier, or a large organization like Westinghouse) which
enters subscriber information into the 800 SMS, assigning a number to the
subscriber. The SMS than loads the routing information into the SCPs, at which
time the number is working and can be utilized by the subscriber. See In the
Matter of Toll Free Service Access Codes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC
Rcd 13692 (1995).

   470. Parties also argue that they need equal access to 911 and E911 services,
including the underlying Automatic Location Indicator (ALI) database. n1065
Several state commissions have also asserted that such access is necessary for
new entrants as well as incumbent LECs. n1066 NCTA asserts that competitors must
have access to incumbent LEC systems for 911 and E911 services because currently
only incumbent LECs maintain them. n1067

n1065 ACSI comments at 43; ALTS comments at 32; Citizens Utilities comments at
15; Comcast comments at 20; Continental comments at 19; GST comments at 25; MCI
comments at 18, 33-34; NCTA comments at 42; Teleport comments at 37.  [*55]

n1066 Georgia Commission comments at 19; Wyoming Commission comments at 23.

n1067 NCTA comments at 42.


   471. Some competitive providers urge the Commission to require incumbent LECs
to unbundle access to their AIN. n1068 Several parties argue that AIN should be
unbundled to allow competitors to access the incumbent LEC's AIN physically at
all points that the incumbent does for itself. n1069 Cable & Wireless argues
that larger carriers may be able to design and build their own AIN technology,
but smaller carriers may not be able to afford to deploy all of the necessary
equipment. n1070 MCI argues that access to the incumbent LEC's AIN capabilities
would allow them to bring new services to the marketplace and enhance their
ability to compete with the incumbent. n1071 Several commenters ask the
Commission to adopt the approach of the Louisiana Commission which ordered
unbundled access to incumbent LEC databases for all services that the incumbent
LEC provides itself, including 800 number, LIDB, and AIN services. n1072 Sprint
argues that access to AIN should be unbundled to the extent AIN is used by the
incumbent LEC to provide call routing functions. n1073 Many incumbent  [*56]
LECs respond that AIN is still an evolving technology, and therefore it is not
technically feasible for the Commission to require unbundled access. n1074 Some
incumbent LECs also argue that AIN is not a signaling system or database, and
therefore is not a network element under the Act. n1075

n1068 Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee comments at 24-25; ACTA comments
at 18; ACSI at 42; Cable & Wireless comments at 23-25; CompTel comments at 43;
GCI comments at 13; MCI comments at 33-34; Cable & Wireless reply at 23-24; USTN
reply at 3-4. Letter from Genevieve Morelli, Vice President & general Counsel,
CompTel to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, June 14, 1996 (CompTel June 12
Ex Parte); Letter from Linda Oliver, Counsel for WorldCom to William Caton,
Acting Secretary, FCC, June 14, 1996 (WorldCom June 14 Ex Parte).

n1069 CompTel comments at 43 (competitive providers should be able to
interconnect with AIN elements at all points that ILECs interconnect currently);
MCI comments at 35.

n1070 Cable & Wireless comments at 23 (access to the incumbent LEC's existing
AIN platform including the SMS database, signaling links and SCPs will allow new
entrants to bring new services to the market efficiently and quickly).  [*57]

n1071 MCI comments at 35.

n1072 ACSI comments at 43; CompTel comments at 43-44; MCI comments at 35
(competitive providers should stand in the same relationship to AIN components
as the ILEC does when it offers AIN services to its customers).

n1073 Sprint reply at 20 n.27.

n1074 BellSouth comments at 44; SBC comments at 44; PacTel reply at 22
(Intelligent Networks docket contains evidence that AIN unbundling is not
technically feasible).

n1075 Bell Atlantic comments at 29; Ameritech reply at 21 (arguing that because
there are no services provided via AIN that are not also provided via the
switch, that AIN unbundling is not necessary for competitive providers).


   472. A number of parties assert that currently the only technically feasible
point of access to the incumbent LEC's AIN is at the incumbent LECs' SCE and
SMS. n1076 Several competitive providers contend that access at the SCE and SMS
would provide a competing carrier with the same ability to offer AIN-based
services as the incumbent LEC without having to recreate initially all of the
AIN elements. n1077 Ericsson notes that mere unbundling of databases and
signaling elements is not likely to  [*58]   allow competitors to create and
offer competing AIN services unless they have access to both a service creation
environment and service management system. n1078 Bell Atlantic asserts that
AIN is not a network element within the scope of the 1996 Act, but allows that,
if it were, unbundled access to the SMS should meet the requirements of section
251. n1079 BellSouth, however, contends that the Commission should not attempt
to declare undefined "software building blocks" to be network elements. n1080
GVNW further argues that such access will require "partitioning" of incumbent
LECs' databases to protect each carriers' information. n1081

n1076 Ameritech comments at 49 (Ameritech claims that it has offered to provide
database access via its SMS and SCE in the Intelligent Networks proceeding, but
also argues that such access is still under development and not yet technically
feasible); GTE comments at 42 (record in CC Docket No. 91-346 contains
persuasive evidence that, other than access to the SMS, access to AIN network
elements is neither technically nor operationally feasible at this time); Sprint
comments at 41; Ameritech reply at 15 (agreeing with Sprint's position on SMS
access); Bell Atlantic comments at 29-30 (as demonstrated in the Intelligent
Networks docket, the only point at which it is technically feasible to provide
AIN access is at the Service Management System level); LCI comments at 18-19.
[*59]

n1077 Ameritech comments at 49 (working on such access for third parties,
although Ameritech believes it is not yet technically feasible); Bell Atlantic
comments at 29 (access for third parties at the SMS would satisfy the
requirements of section 251); Cable & Wireless comments at 24; Ericsson comments
at 5-7; Sprint comments at 40 (access at the SMS is the only technically
feasible point of interconnection for AIN that maintains network reliability);
GVNW comments at 31 (competitor could create its own services in an incumbent
LEC's SMS using the incumbent's SCE, which would protect the integrity of the
incumbent LEC's AIN platform); LCI comments at 18 (SMS and SCE access are
essential for competitors to provide advanced services).

n1078 Ericsson comments at 6.

n1079 Bell Atlantic comments at 29.

n1080 BellSouth comments at 46.

n1081 GVNW comments at 31.

   473. In our Intelligent Networks docket, several parties, including most
incumbent LECs, expressed support for the Commission's proposal to require
unbundled access to the SMS by third parties. n1082 Several parties argue that
such access is technically feasible. n1083 Most incumbent LECs agree  [*60]
that, of the potential points of access to AIN proposed in our Intelligent
Networks NPRM, access to the SMS poses the least risk of harm to the public
switched network. n1084 Many of these commenters argue that access to the SMS
would provide competitors with an opportunity to create innovative call
processing services. n1085 U S West, however, contends that, since third parties
using SMS access would be dependent on incumbent LEC software at the SCE,
competitors would not be satisfied with such access because it would not allow
them to develop their own proprietary services. n1086 Other parties argue that
SMS access will not provide significant benefits to third parties because of the
limitations inherent in the service creation parameters established by the LECs.
n1087


n1082 See, e.g., BellSouth update comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 6; Bell
Atlantic comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 6; GTE comments in CC Docket No.
91-346 at 21; Central comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 12; SNET comments in
CC Docket No. 91-346 at 5; NYNEX comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 3 n.3,
10-11; Siemens comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2; TIA comments in CC Docket
No. 91-346 at 2; MCI comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 10; Ericsson reply in
CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2-3.  [*61]

n1083 MCI comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 6; Siemens comments in CC Docket
No. 91-346 at 2; TIA comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2.

n1084 Bell Atlantic comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 6-7; BellSouth comments
in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 12, 13; GTE comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 19,
21; NYNEX comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 3; PacTel comments in CC Docket
No. 91-346 at 20-21; SBC comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 5, 8; U S West
comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 52; United and Central comments in CC Docket
No. 91-346 at 1.

n1085 GSA comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 3; SNET comments in CC Docket No.
91-346 at 2; Siemens comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2; TIA comments in CC
Docket No. 91-346 at 2; MCI in CC Docket No. 91-346 comments at 10; Ericsson
reply in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2-3.

n1086 U S West comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 53; Ad Hoc Telecommunications
Users Committee comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 11 (incumbent LECs' ability
to mimic third party services created in the incumbent LEC's SCE will diminish
the incentive of third parties to create new services that would compete with
LEC AIN offerings).

n1087 AT&T comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 5-11 (competitors would be
restricted to the particular LEC's AIN architecture and software platform,
preventing the creation and deployment of unique AIN services); ALLNET comments
in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee comments
in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 8-9.  [*62]

   474. Several parties argue that incumbent LEC SCP databases and AIN triggers
in the incumbent LEC switch should be unbundled for a requesting carrier. n1088
Most incumbent LECs argue that sufficient mediation needs to be developed and
implemented before any third party interconnection to AIN will be technically
feasible. n1089 Some parties, however, counter that there is sufficient
screening in the STP and that incumbent LECs should be required to accept AIN
signaling messages from competitors' AIN SCP databases without additional
mediation. n1090 AT&T argues that the refusal to carry AIN messages prevents
competitive carriers from offering the same advanced AIN and CLASS services as
the incumbent. n1091 AT&T further contends that mediation will not be necessary,
because just as carriers are certified before interconneting with other
carriers' SS7 networks, carriers can be certified for AIN. n1092 Some
competitors argue that a short transitional period of mediated access could be
established to allow time for the adoption of standards to ensure network
integrity, but only if incumbent LECs were required to use the same mediated
access. n1093

n1088 Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee comments at 17; GCI at 12;
Louisiana Commission at 5; LCI comments at 18.  [*63]


n1089 BellSouth comments at 47. Mediation refers to additional screening
software or devices to prevent incorrect or unacceptable AIN messages from
reaching the switch or SCP database. Id.

n1090 ACTA comments at 21 (mediation devices will increase post dial delay and
significantly increase competitors costs); CompTel comments at 45 (since section
251 unbundling is limited to telecommunications carriers, who already adhere to
network security and integrity requirements as well as rigorous testing
procedures, there is no need for mediation for access to AIN elements).

n1091 AT&T reply at 20 (arguing that such a refusal violates the requirement of
section 251(c)(2) for interconnection on "just, reasonable and
nondiscriminatory" terms).

n1092 See Letter in CC Docket No. 91-346 from Bruce Cox, Government Affairs
Director, AT&T, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, Aug. 21, 1995 (AT&T
Intelligent Networks Proposal) Attachment at 2; but see PacTel reply at 22
(certification would not prevent competitors from sending erroneous messages to
an incumbent LEC's AIN SCP which could lead to unauthorized changes in a
customer's service or PIC).

n1093 Cable & Wireless comments at 25; MCI comments at 36; ACSI comments at 44.
[*64]

   475. A few parties, including AT&T and MCI, propose unbundling of AIN in
order to allow competing carriers to interconnect their own SCP database to the
incumbent LECs' AIN so that competing carriers could provide call processing
instructions to the incumbent LEC's switch for calls to or from its own
customers. n1094 AT&T argues that this would allow it to offer different
services to the customer than does the incumbent LEC, which would increase
competition in the local exchange market. n1095 Ericsson admits that this is "an
attractive concept which might increase competition" but argues that there are
numerous technical issues that must be resolved, including billing and service
interaction issues. n1096 Incumbent LECs, manufacturers and other parties argue
that it is not technically feasible for a competing provider to connect its own
alternative call processing database to the incumbent LEC signaling network.
n1097 Many parties, including virtually all incumbent LECs, argue against
allowing a competing carrier or reseller to connect its own alternative call
processing database directly to the incumbent LEC's SS7 network because of the
network reliability and security issues it  [*65]   creates. n1098 These parties
warn that requiring such unbundled access to AIN could make an incumbent LEC's
switch vulnerable to inappropriate routing and billing instructions from the
competitor's SCP. n1099 BellSouth argues that the Intelligent Networks docket
supports a finding that this type of AIN unbundling is not technically feasible.
n1100 Sprint contends that it could not forecast capacity needs for a competing
carrier's alternative database in order to identify its own network capacity
requirements. n1101 GVNW adds that any national rule requiring such a form of
interconnection would require many small incumbent LECs to make uneconomic
upgrades of their switches in order to accommodate it. n1102

n1094 ACTA comments at 21; AT&T comments at 23-25; Cable & Wireless comments at
24; MCI comments at 18, 33 (arguing that such interconnection is supported by
the findings of the Information Industry Liaison Committee (IILC) Issue #026
Task Force on Long Term Unbundling); CompTel comments at 44; AT&T reply at
19-20.


n1095 AT&T comments at 23-25. AT&T admits that this arrangement would require
carriers to agree upon an expanded signaling message set for AIN call
processing, but it argues that such messages are already defined by Bellcore and
it is the refusal of incumbent LECs' to accept them that prevents its
deployment. Id.  [*66]

n1096 Ericsson comments at 6.

n1097 Sprint comments at 41 (there are significant network reliability issues
involved with introducing a third party database to an SS7 network); BellSouth
comments at 46 (before interconnection of a third-party database to an incumbent
LEC's signaling system, more development is still needed for routing, protocol
screening, call gapping, resource contention, overload control, feature
interaction management and billing concerns for such an arrangement); Ericsson
comments at 6 (interconnection of a third-party database to an incumbent LEC's
signaling system might promote competition but there are complex technical
issues to address before such a scheme could become technically feasible);
Teleport comments at 37-38.

n1098 BellSouth comments at 45-46 (introduction of a third-party database to an
incumbent LEC's signaling system creates the potential for fraud, sabotage, and
slamming of the incumbent LEC's customers); SBC comments at 45 (record in CC
Docket No. 91-346 is replete with evidence demonstrating the current technical
infeasibility of interconnection of third-party databases to an incumbent LEC'
signaling system); Sprint comments at 41 (cannot test for system validation and
feature interaction); Teleport comments at 37-38; GVNW comments at 30-31 (such
interconnection must be mediated to protect both networks from potential harm
from incorrect SS7 messages).  [*67]

n1099 BellSouth comments at 46; Ericsson comments at 6; TCG comments at 37-38;
GTE reply at 21-22 (third-party access to AIN triggers not technically feasible
without mediation because of network reliability and service integrity issues);
Teleport comments at 37-38; but see Cable & Wireless comments at 24 (incumbent
LEC arguments concerning network integrity are analogous to AT&T arguments in
Carterfone that non-Bell System equipment could cause malfunctions in the
network).

n1100 BellSouth comments at 45-46 (areas still needing resolution include
routing, protocol screening, call gapping, resource contention, overload
control, feature interaction management, and billing). See also Letter in CC
Docket No. 91-346 from Karen Weis, Division Manager, AT&T, and Ben G. Almond,
Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, BellSouth, to William F. Caton, Acting
Secretary, FCC, Dec. 14, 1995 (AT&T-BellSouth Intelligent Networks Joint
Report). The AT&T-Bell South Intelligent Networks Joint Report detailed the
results of their laboratory-to-laboratory test concerning the interconnection of
an AT&T SCP to BellSouth's SSP. Id.

n1101 Sprint comments at 41.

n1102 GVNW comments at 30-31.  [*68]


   476. Many parties contend that further testing of AIN is needed before
further access and interconnection between carriers can be considered
technically feasible. n1103 Most of the BOCs support a two year testing plan for
the industry to further investigate issues relating to AIN before moving
forward to third party interconnection. n1104 Several parties, however, urge the
Commission to reject the LECs' proposed Intelligent Networks testing plan, argue
that it is not necessary to ensure network integrity and that it is inconsistent
with the 1996 Act. n1105 Parties opposed to the LECs' testing plan assert that
it is vague and revisits work that has already been done in existing industry
fora. n1106 Supporters of the LECs' testing plan, however, counter that they are
willing to consider working within existing industry fora. n1107 As described in
the Intelligent Networks docket, the LEC testing plan will take place over a two
year period with final recommendations to be decided by the participants
themselves. Some competitors, while allowing for the need for further testing,
advocate imposing a mandatory time limit on the resolution of the outstanding
mediation issues for unbundled  [*69]   access to AIN. n1108

n1103 Bell Atlantic comments at 29 n.10; BellSouth comments at 47; Ericsson
comments at 6-7; GTE comments at 42; GVNW comments at 32; Lincoln Tel. comments
at 10; SBC comments at 46; U S West comments at 58.

n1104 Bell Atlantic comments at 29 n.10; BellSouth comments at 47; GTE comments
at 42; Lincoln Tel. comments at 10; SBC comments at 44 (Commission should issue
order in CC Docket No. 91-346 that endorses the Tier 1 LECs' joint proposal for
an industry IN project); U S West comments at 58 (industry testing plan will
lead to development of non-proprietary AIN interfaces). See Letter in CC Docket
No. 91-346 from Sandra Wagner, Director, Federal Regulatory, SBC Communications,
Inc., to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, June 23, 1995 (LEC Intelligent
Networks Proposal). Active participants in the LEC Proposal are Bell Atlantic,
GTE, PacTel, SBC and U S West. Other incumbent LECs supporting the LEC Proposal,
but not currently "active" include BellSouth, Lincoln Tel., SNET, and Sprint.

n1105 Cable & Wireless comments at 26; MCI comments at 36-37. See also AT&T
update comments in Docket 91-346 at 5-6.

n1106 MCI comments at 36-37; but see GTE reply at 22 (testing is necessary and
is not intended for delay).  [*70]

n1107 Letter in CC Docket No. 91-346 from Sandra Wagner, Director, Federal
Regulatory, SBC Communications, to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, May 22,
1996 (SBC May 22 Intelligent Networks Ex Parte). SBC contends that the Joint LEC
project proposed creating a new forum directly in response to MCI's prior
assertions that ATIS sponsored forums were ineffective in addressing
interconnection issues. Id. at 4-5.

n1108 Cable & Wireless comments at 25; MCI comments at 36 (advocating that the
Commission refer outstanding issues from the IILC Issue #026 consensus document
to an established forum and that it should monitor progress to ensure
implementation of access to the remaining interface points is accomplished
within six months of the end of an initial negotiation or arbitration process).


   477. Some commenters believe that a Commission order to unbundle AIN
functionalities would satisfy the objectives of the Intelligent Networks
proceeding. n1109 AT&T asserts that, if unbundled signaling explicitly includes
the exchange of AIN signaling messages between incumbent LEC switches and
competitor's SCPs, then the Commission does not need to pursue CC Docket No.
91-346 further  [*71]   because its objectives will be met in this proceeding.
n1110 SBC, however, urges the Commission not to merge the Intelligent Networks
proceeding into this docket. n1111
n1109 AT&T comments at 25 n.29; Cable & Wireless comments at 26.

n1110 SCB comments at 25 n.29.

n1111 SBC comments at 46 (arguing that record in CC Docket No. 91-346 is already
complete).

   c. Discussion

   478. In the interconnection section above, we conclude that the exchange of
signaling information between LECs necessary to exchange traffic and access call
related databases was included within the interconnection obligation of section
251(c)(2). n1112 Thus, notwithstanding any obligations under section 251(c)(3),
incumbent LECs are required to accept and provide signaling in accordance with
the exchange of traffic between interconnecting networks. We conclude that this
exchange of signaling information may occur through an STP-to-STP
interconnection.

n1112 See supra, Section IV. We emphasize, in Section V.J.4.c.(4), such exchange
of signaling information does not include the exchange of AIN signaling
information between networks for the purpose of providing AIN messages to the
incumbent LEC's switch from a competitor's SCP database.  [*72]

   (1) Signaling Links and STP

   479. We conclude that incumbent LECs, upon request, must provide
nondiscriminatory access to their signaling links and STPs on an unbundled
basis. We believe it is technically feasible for incumbent LECs to provide such
access, and that such access is critical to entry in the local exchange market.
Further, the 1996 Act requires BOCs to provide "nondiscriminatory access to
databases and associated signaling necessary for call routing and completion" as
a precondition for entry into in-region interLATA services. n1113 Thus, it
appears that Congress contemplated the unbundling of signaling systems as
network elements.

n1113 47 U.S.C. @ 271(c)(2)(B)(x). See also statement of Sen. Pressler, noting
that "access to signaling and databases [is] important if you are going to
compete and get into the market." 141 Cong. Rec. S8163 (June 12, 1995).

   480. We conclude that access to unbundled signaling links and STPs is
technically feasible. n1114 The majority of commenters, including incumbent
LECs, agree that it is technically feasible to provide unbundled access to
signaling links and STPs. n1115 Parties note that incumbent LECs and signaling
aggregators  [*73]   already provide such access. n1116 In addition, several
state commissions already require incumbent LECs to provide unbundled elements
of SS7 networks. n1117 Because of the screening role played by the STP and
associated network reliability concerns that were raised in the record, however,
we do not require that incumbent LECs permit requesting carriers to link their
own STPs directly to the incumbent's switch or call-related databases. n1118 We
take a deliberately conservative approach here because of significant evidence
in the record and we note that mere conclusory objections to technical
feasibility would not alone be sufficient evidence.


n1114 As discussed infra, we conclude that it is not technically feasible to
unbundle the SCP from its associated STP, therefore, we do not require incumbent
LECs to unbundle those signaling links connecting SCPs to STPs. We emphasize
that we take this conservative course here because of the real evidence in the
record and note that mere conclusory objections to technical feasibility will
not be considered sufficient evidence of such.

n1115 See, e.g., AT&T comments at 23; TIA comments at 14; U S West comments at
48; PacTel reply at 21-22.  [*74]

n1116 See, e.g., BellSouth comments at 43; GVNW comments at 29; NYNEX comments
at 71; USTN reply at 1.

n1117 See, e.g., Colorado Commission comments at 24; Michigan Commission
comments at 12; Texas Commission comments at 19.

n1118 See, e.g., Ameritech comments at 50; Bell Atlantic comments at 27; MCI
comments at 34-35; Sprint comments at 40. We note, however, that we do not
preempt those state commissions that have required incumbent LECs to do so. See
Illinois Wholesale Order.

   481. Under section 251(d)(2)(A), the Commission must consider whether access
to proprietary network elements is necessary. n1119 Commenters did not identify
proprietary concerns with signaling protocols for the SS7 network. n1120
Moreover, in general, SS7 signaling networks adhere to Bellcore standards,
rather then LEC-specific protocols and provide seamless interconnectivity
between networks. n1121 Thus, we conclude that the unbundling of signaling links
and STPs does not present proprietary concerns with respect to the incumbent
LEC.

n1119 47 U.S.C. @ 251(d)(2)(A).

n1120 AT&T argues that there are no proprietary information issues because
signaling information is generated in the incumbent LEC's switch and is
provisioned entirely by the incumbent LEC. AT&T comments at 26.  [*75]

n1121 A few commenters urge that we prohibit incumbent LECs from taking a
proprietary interest in signaling protocols. These parties argue that such a
proprietary interest conflicts with the continuing necessity for open access to
signaling protocols to maintain the seamless nationwide "network of networks."
See Frontier comments at 16 n.31; Wyoming Commission comments at 24.


   482. Under section 251(d)(2)(B), the Commission must consider whether "the
failure to provide access to such network elements would impair the ability of
the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it
seeks to offer." n1122 Access to signaling systems continues to be a critical
element to providing competing local exchange and exchange access service. The
vast majority of calls made over incumbent LEC networks are set-up and
controlled by separate signaling networks. Incumbent LECs argue that access to
signaling systems and associated databases is already available from other
providers and therefore, they should not have to unbundle them for access by
competitors. n1123 As discussed above, section 251(d)(2)(B) only relieves an
incumbent LEC of its unbundling obligation if  [*76]   other unbundled elements
in its network could provide the same service without diminution of quality.
Because alternative signaling methods, such as in-band signaling, would provide
a lower quality of service, n1124 we conclude that a competitor's ability to
provide service would be significantly impaired if it did not have access to
incumbent LECs' unbundled signaling links and STPs.

n1122 47 U.S.C. @ 251(d)(2)(B).

n1123 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic comments at 27-28; BellSouth comments at 44; GTE
comments at 40-41; NYNEX comments at 71.

n1124 SS7 network signaling is critical in the provision of modern
telecommunications services, allowing signaling messages to travel separately
from the voice path for individual calls, increasing efficiency and making
possible a host of new signaling-based services. AT&T comments at 23. Popular
features like Calling Number Identification (Caller ID) and Calling Name
Identification, as well as enhanced call set-up functions and such Custom
Calling features as Repeat Call and Return Call, would be unavailable without
SS7 capabilities. Bell Atlantic comments at Attachment 3, 17.

   483. The purchase of unbundled elements of the SS7   [*77]   network gives
the competitive provider the right to use those elements for signaling between
its switches (including unbundled switching elements), between its switches and
the incumbent LEC's switches, and between its switches and those third party
networks with which the incumbent LEC's SS7 network is interconnected. When a
competitive provider purchases unbundled switching from the incumbent LEC, the
incumbent LEC must provide nondiscriminatory access to its SS7 network from that
switch in the same manner in which it obtains such access itself. Carriers that
provide their own switching facilities should be able to access the incumbent
LEC's SS7 network for each of their switches via a signaling link between their
switch and an incumbent LEC's STP. n1125 Competitive carriers should be able to
make this connection in the same manner as an incumbent LEC connects one of its
own switches to the STP. This could be accomplished by the incumbent providing
an unbundled signaling link from its STP to the competitor's switch or by a
competitor bringing a signaling link from its switch to the incumbent LEC's STP.

n1125 Competitors should be able to interconnect their own switches to the
incumbent LEC's signaling system in any technically feasible manner. Competitors
may bring a signaling "A" link from their switch to the incumbent LEC's STP.
CAPs use this type of connection today to connect their tandem switches to
incumbent LECs' STPs. AT&T comments at 24 n.26. Competitors might also link
their switch to their own STP, and then connect to an incumbent LEC's STP via a
signaling "D" or "B" link.  [*78]

   (2) Call-Related Databases


   484. We conclude that incumbent LECs, upon request, must provide
nondiscriminatory access on an unbundled basis to their call-related databases
n1126 for the purpose of switch query and database response through the SS7
network. n1127 Thus, for example, we find that it is technically feasible for
incumbent LECs to provide access to the Line Information Database (LIDB), the
Toll Free Calling Database and Number Portability downstream databases. n1128
The vast majority of parties, including incumbent LECs, agree that it is
technically feasible to provide access to the LIDB and the Toll Free Calling
databases at an STP linked to the database. n1129 Several state commissions also
report that they have ordered incumbent LECs' to provide such access to the LIDB
and the Toll Free Calling databases. n1130 We require incumbent LECs to provide
this access to their call-related databases by means of physical access at the
STP linked to the unbundled database. We find that such access is critical to
entry in the local exchange market.

n1126 Call-related databases are those SS7 databases used for billing and
collection or used in the transmission, routing, or other provision of a
telecommunications service.  [*79]

n1127 Query and response access to a call-related database is intended to
require the incumbent LEC only to provide access to its call-related databases
as is necessary to permit a competing provider's switch (including the use of
unbundled switching) to access the call-related database functions supported by
that database. The incumbent LEC may mediate or restrict access to that
necessary for the competing provider to provide such services as are supported
by the database.

n1128 AT&T indicates that for LIDB and 800/888 database queries standard TCAP
messages have been established, and reliability, security, provisioning, and
billing issues have been addressed. Letter from Karen Weis, Division Manager,
AT&T to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, July 16, 1996 (AT&T July 16 Ex
Parte). Bell Atlantic states that it currently provides interconnection for LIDB
and 800 databases. Bell Atlantic comments at 2. Number portability "downstream
databases" are defined in Part 51 of our rules as adopted by this Order. See In
the Matter of Telephone Number Portability, First Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 95-116, FCC 96-286 (rel. July 2,
1996).  [*80]

n1129 See, e.g., Ameritech comments at 47; AT&T comments at 24; ALTS comments at
31; GTE comments at 40; MCI comments at 34-35; NYNEX comments at 71; U S West
comments at 48.

n1130 Louisiana Commission comments at 5; Michigan Commission comments at 12;
PacTel comments at Appendix A, 7 (California Commission has required such
access).

   485. We conclude that it is not technically feasible to unbundle the SCP from
its associated STP. We note that the overwhelming majority of commenters contend
that it is not technically feasible to access call-related databases in a manner
other than by connection at the STP directly linked to the call-related
database. n1131 Parties argue that the STP is designed to provide mediation and
screening functions for the SS7 network that are not performed at the switch or
database. n1132 We, therefore, emphasize that access to call-related databases
must be provided through interconnection at the STP and that we do not require
direct access to call-related databases.

n1131 See, e.g., Sprint comments at 40; AT&T reply at 19-20 n.32.

n1132 See, e.g., GTE comments at 40; USTA comments at 36.


   486. Several commenters also identified  [*81]   access to call-related
databases used in the incumbent's AIN to be critical to fair competition in the
local market, n1133 and some state commissions have ordered incumbent LECs to
provide access to AIN databases. n1134 We conclude that such access is
technically feasible via an STP for those call-related databases used in the
incumbent LEC's AIN. n1135 First, of course, when a new entrant purchases an
incumbent's local switching element it is technically feasible for the new
entrant to use the incumbent's SCP element in the same manner, and via the same
signaling links, as the incumbent itself. Thus, we find no technical impediments
in the record with regard to such access when a requesting carrier is also
purchasing a local switching element associated with the AIN call-related
database.

n1133 Cable & Wireless comments at 24; Citzens Utilities coments at 15; MCI
comments at 32-33; TIA comments at 14; CompTel comments at 43; AT&T comments at
23-26.

n1134 Louisiana Commission comments at 5; Wyoming Commission comments at 23-24;
see also Illinois Wholesale Order.

n1135 AT&T comments at 23-26; CompTel comments at 43; MCI comments at 36; Letter
from Wendy Blueming, Regulatory Affairs and Public Policy, SNET to William
Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, July 23, 1996 (SNET July 23 Ex Parte); AT&T July
16 Ex Parte.  [*82]

   487. Further, we conclude that when a new entrant deploys its own switch, and
links it to the incumbent LEC's signaling system, it is technically feasible for
the incumbent to provide access to the incumbent's SCP to provide AIN-supported
services to customers served by the new entrant's switch. Some SS7 network
services resellers currently provide such access. n1136 Other potential local
competitors present additional evidence supporting the technical feasibility of
such access. n1137 Unlike the situation where a competitor's SCP would control
the incumbent's switch (which is discussed below in section V.I.4.c.(4)), in
this scenario, the incumbent's SCP will respond to and control the competitor's
switch, and potential competitors that have commented in the record do not
express network reliability concerns with regard to such control. n1138 Further,
like the software resident in a switch, the incumbent LEC's applications
resident in an SCP are merely part of the overall software and hardware making
up the SCP facility. Thus, carriers purchasing access under either scenario
above may use the incumbent's service applications in addition to their own.
n1139

n1136 SNET July 23 Ex Parte; Letter from Stephen Kraskin, Illuminet (USTN) to
Office of the Secretary, FCC July 23, 1996 (USTN July 23 Ex Parte).  [*83]

n1137 See AT&T July 16 Ex Parte; see also AT&T comments at 23-26; CompTel
comments at 43; MCI comments at 36.

n1138 See AT&T July 16 Ex Parte. AT&T asserts that no additional or unique
reliability problems would be created that have not already been addressed and
resolved by those incumbent LECs who have proposed SMS access for third parties
in the Intelligent Networks proceeding. Id.

n1139 See infra, Section V.I.4.c.(3) on unbundled access to the incumbent LEC's
SCE and SMS.


   488. Although we conclude that access to incumbent AIN SCPs is technically
feasible, we agree with BellSouth that such access may present the need for
mediation mechanisms to, among other things, protect data in incumbent AIN SCPs
and ensure against excessive traffic volumes. n1140 In addition, there may be
mediation issues a competing carrier will need to address before requesting such
access. n1141 Accordingly, if parties are unable to agree to appropriate
mediation mechanisms through negotiations, we conclude that during arbitration
of such issues the states (or the Commission acting pursuant to section
252(e)(5)) must consider whether such mediation mechanisms will be available and
will  [*84]   adequately protect against intentional or unintentional misuse of
the incumbent's AIN facilities. We encourage incumbent LECs and competitive
carriers to participate in industry fora and industry testing to resolve
outstanding mediation concerns. n1142 Incumbent LECs may establish reasonable
certification and testing programs for carriers proposing to access AIN call
related databases in a manner similar to those used for SS7 certification. n1143

n1140 Letter from W.W. Jordan, Executive Director - Federal Regulatory,
BellSouth to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, July 16, 1996 (BellSouth July
16 Ex Parte) ("With a BellSouth SCP to a ALEC SSP [switch] interconnection
arrangement, network reliability and security concerns, from BellSouth's
perspective, would largely be limited to issues associated with traffic
management."); Letter from James Smith, Director--Federal Relations, Ameritech
to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, July 17, 1996 (Ameritech July 17 Ex
Parte) ("The volume of queries sent from the CLEC SSP [switch] could overload
the LEC SCP, interfering with the operation of the service provided to that
CLEC, or with other services which may operate on the LEC's SCP."); Letter from
Joseph Mulieri, Director--FCC Relations, Bell Atlantic to Robert S. Tanner,
Attorney Advisor, FCC, July 18, 1996 (Bell Atlantic July 18 Ex Parte). BellSouth
also raises the need for mediation to prevent unauthorized modification of
information within an incumbent LEC's AIN SCP database. BellSouth July 16 Ex
Parte. Incumbent LECs' comments in this proceeding and in the IN docket
generally focus on the need for mediation to prevent a competitor's database
from sending inappropriate AIN signaling information to the incumbent LEC's
switch (see infra Section V.I.4.c.(4)). See PacTel comments at 61-62; BellSouth
comments at 45-46; Bell Atlantic comments at Appendix 3, 18-19; U S West
comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 73-74, 84; NYNEX comments in CC Docket No.
91-346 at 14-15; SBC comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 8-9.  [*85]

n1141 Mediation may be necessary for requesting carriers to ensure that
inadvertent feature interactions, network management control and customer
privacy concerns do not arise from such access. See, e.g., Ameritech July 17 Ex
Parte.

n1142 See, e.g., Christine Maglott, Information Industry Liaison Committee
Wrestles with Mediation Issues, ATIS News, 3, Vol. 11, No.3, May-June, 1996.

n1143 SBC notes that carriers proposing to gain access to its SS7 network and
gather information from its SCP must be certified and enter into contractual
agreements for information access and proper billing. SBC comments at 47-48.


   489. We recognize that providing unbundled access to AIN call-related
databases at cost, and in particular providing access to the incumbent LEC's
software applications that reside in the AIN databases, may reduce the
incumbent's incentive to develop new and advanced services using AIN. In the
near term, however, requiring entrants to bear the cost of deploying a fully
redundant network architecture, including AIN databases and their application
software, would constitute a significant barrier to market entry for competitive
carriers. As local service markets  [*86]   develop, however, competition may
reduce the incumbent LEC's control over bottleneck facilities and increase the
importance of innovation. In those circumstances it is important that incumbent
LECs have the incentive to develop unique and innovative services supported by
AIN. Therefore at a later date, we will revisit the proper balance between
providing unbundled access and maintaining the incentives of incumbent LECs to
innovate.

   490. Parties generally do not identify proprietary concerns when access to
call-related databases is provided via STPs. In general, signaling protocols
used to access call-related databases adhere to open Bellcore standards. Parties
also do not raise proprietary concerns with specific call-related databases
themselves. Today, many separate carriers access incumbent LEC Toll Free Calling
and LIDB databases for the proper routing and billing of calls. n1144 Thus, we
conclude that, in general, unbundled access to call-related databases does not
present proprietary concerns with respect to section 251(d)(2)(A). Incumbent
LECs may, however, present such proprietary concerns in the arbitration process
with regard to specific databases, and states (or the Commission  [*87]   acting
pursuant to section 252(e)(5)) may take action to limit unnecessary access to
proprietary information.

n1144 See AT&T July 16 Ex Parte.

   491. We also conclude that denying access to call-related databases would
impair the ability of a competing provider to offer services such as Alternative
Billing Services and AIN-based services. AIN-based services represent the
cutting edge of telephone exchange services, and competitors would be at a
significant disadvantage if they were forced to develop their own AIN capability
immediately. In addition, the record indicates that deployment of call-related
databases in the near term would represent a substantial cost to new entrants.
As mentioned above, incumbent LECs argue that access to certain call-related
databases is already competitively available and therefore they should not have
to unbundle access to them. n1145 As discussed above, however, section
251(d)(2)(B) would only relieve an incumbent LEC of its unbundling obligation if
other unbundled elements in its network could provide the same service without
diminution of quality. Because of the absence of such elements, we conclude that
a competitor's ability to provide service  [*88]   would be significantly
impaired if it did not have unbundled access to incumbent LECs' call-related
databases, including the LIDB, Toll Free Calling, and AIN databases for the
purpose of switch query and database response through the SS7 network.

n1145 We note that competitive provision of AIN SCP database services is not
evidenced in the record.


   492. We also conclude that access to call-related databases as discussed
above, and access to the service management system discussed below, must be
provided to, and obtained by, requesting carriers in a manner that complies with
section 222 of the Act. Section 222, which was effective upon adoption, sets out
requirements for privacy of customer information. Section 222(a) provides that
all telecommunications carriers have a duty to protect the confidentiality of
proprietary information of other carriers, including resellers, equipment
manufacturers, and customers. Section 222(b) requires that telecommunications
carriers that use proprietary information obtained from another
telecommunications carrier in providing any telecommunications service "shall
use that information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information
for  [*89]   its own marketing purposes." n1146 Sections 222(c) and (d) provide
protection for, and limitations on the use of, and access to, customer
proprietary network information (CPNI). n1147 We note that we have initiated a
proceeding to clarify the obligations of carriers with regard to section
222(c) and (d). n1148

n1146 47 U.S.C. @ 222(b).

n1147 Section 222(f)(1) defines CPNI as "information that relates to the
quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of use of a
telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications
carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by
virtue of the carrier-customer relationship." 47 U.S.C. @ 222(f)(1)(A).

n1148 See Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and
other Customer Information, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-115,
FCC 96-221 (rel. May 17, 1996).

   (3) Service Management Systems

   493. Finally, we conclude that incumbent LECs should provide access, on an
unbundled basis, to the service management systems (SMS), which allow
competitors to create, modify,   [*90]   or update information in call-related
databases. We believe it is technically feasible for incumbent LECs to provide
access to the SMS in the same manner and method that they provide for their own
access. We find that such access is necessary for competitors to effectively use
call-related databases, which we have already found to be critical to entry in
the local exchange market.

   494. Commenters argue that they need equal access to incumbent LECs' SMSs to
write or populate their own information in call-related databases. n1149 As
discussed above, information bound for many call-related databases is entered
first at an off-line SMS, which then downloads the information to the
call-related database for real time use on the network. We find that competing
provider access to the SMS is technically feasible if it is provided in the same
or equivalent manner that the incumbent LEC currently uses to provide such
access to itself. n1150 For example, if the incumbent LEC inputs information
into the SMS using magnetic tapes, the competitive carrier must be able to
create and submit magnetic tapes for the incumbent to input into the SMS in the
same way the incumbent inputs its own magnetic  [*91]   tapes. If the incumbent
accesses the SMS through an electronic interface, the competitive carrier should
be able to access the SMS through an equivalent electronic interface. n1151 We
further conclude that, whatever method is used, the incumbent LEC must provide
the competing carrier with the information necessary to correctly enter or
format for entry the information relevant for input into the particular
incumbent LEC SMS.

n1149 AT&T comments at 26; MCI comments at 34-35.

n1150 Many carriers currently submit such information to incumbent LECs or third
party SMSs. USTN reply at 1-4; Bell Atlantic comments at Attachment 3, 16; GTE
comments at 40-41 n.61.

n1151 For example, access to the AIN SMS is accomplished through the SCE, which
is a computer environment for the design and test of AIN based services.


   495. Specifically with respect to AIN, we find that the record in the
Intelligent Networks proceeding supports access to the SMS. n1152 A competing
carrier seeking access to the SMS that is part of the incumbent LEC's AIN would
do so through the incumbent LEC's service creation environment (SCE), an
interface used to design, create, and test AIN supported services.   [*92]
Software successfully tested in the SCE is transferred to the SMS, where it is
then downloaded into an SCP database for active deployment on the network. We
are persuaded that the risk of harm to the public switched network from such
access to the SMS is minimized by the technical safeguards inherent in the SCE
and SMS. As described in comments filed in the Intelligent Networks docket,
competitors accessing the SCE and SMS would not communicate directly with the
LEC's database or switch. n1153 We therefore conclude that such access is
technically feasible, and that incumbent LECs should provide requesting carriers
with the same access to design, create, test, and deploy AIN-based services at
the SMS that the incumbent LEC provides for itself. n1154 While many incumbent
LECs express concerns with the technical feasibility of access to AIN, we
conclude that those concerns deal primarily with the interconnection of third
party AIN SCP databases to the incumbent LEC's AIN and not access to the SCE and
SMS. n1155

n1152 See Intelligent Networks, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 6813
(1993). In the Intelligent Networks proceeding, most incumbent LECs supported
SMS access. See GTE comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 21; United and Central
comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 12; SNET comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at
5; NYNEX comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 3 n.3, 10-11; BellSouth update
comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 6; Bell Atlantic comments in CC Docket No.
91-346 at 6. Other parties, including potential competitors and manufacturers,
also supported SMS access. See Siemens comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2;
TIA comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2; MCI comments in CC Docket No. 91-346
at 10; Ericsson reply in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2-3. Many commenters asserted
that SMS access through the SCE would provide a valuable opportunity for third
parties to create services. See GSA comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 3; SNET
comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2; Siemens comments in CC Docket No.91-346
at 2; Ericsson reply in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 2-3; TIA comments in CC Docket
No. 91-346 at 2; MCI comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 10.  [*93]

n1153 In their comments, BellSouth and Bell Atlantic describe the way they
provide or plan to provide access to the SMS for third parties. Bell Atlantic
proposes to first develop and deploy AIN services based on customer request and
then subsequently to allow third parties themselves to create AIN services at a
terminal either in a Bell Atlantic office or a third party office. Bell Atlantic
comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 6. BellSouth proposes to permit third
parties to use the service logic resident on BellSouth's service creation
environment to create AIN services. BellSouth update reply in CC Docket No.
91-346 at 10.

n1154 Incumbent LECs that have deployed AIN must provide such access to
competing carriers that will allow them to develop call processing applications
pursuant to the same parameters the incumbent LEC uses itself, such as the
time-of-day and origination of call parameters. BellSouth's recently proposed
service to provide access to its SCE and SMS appears to be an example of the
type of access to the SMS that incumbent LECs must provide to competitors upon
request. Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc.'s Petition for Expedited Waiver of Part 69 Rules,
Public Notice, DA 96-27 (Jan. 17, 1996) (BellSouth Part 69 Waiver Petition).
[*94]


n1155 Of the three potential points of access to AIN proposed in the Intelligent
Networks NPRM, LEC commenters generally agree that SMS access poses the least
risk of harm to the public switched telephone network. See Bell Atlantic
comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 6-7; BellSouth comments in CC Docket No.
91-346 at 12, 13; GTE comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 19, 21; NYNEX comments
in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 3; PacTel comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 20-21;
SBC comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 5, 8; U S West comments in CC Docket No.
91-346 at 52; United and Central comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 1.
Competitors also support such access. See MCI Comments at 6; Siemens Comments at
2; TIA Comments at 2.

   496. We recognize that, although technically feasible, providing
nondiscriminatory access to the SMS and SCE for the creation and deployment of
AIN services may require some modifications, including appropriate mediation, to
accommodate such access by requesting carriers. We note that BellSouth is
currently prepared to tariff and offer such access to third parties, and other
incumbent LECs, including Bell Atlantic and Ameritech, indicate that they have
made significant  [*95]   progress towards implementing such access. n1156
Therefore, if parties are unable to agree to appropriate mediation mechanisms
through negotiations, we conclude that during arbitration of such issues the
states (or the Commission acting pursuant to section 252(e)(5)) must consider
whether such mediation mechanisms will be available and will adequately protect
against intentional or unintentional misuses of the incumbent's AIN facilities.
We again encourage incumbent LECs and competitive carriers to participate in
industry fora and industry testing to resolve outstanding mediation concerns.

n1156 BellSouth Part 69 Waiver Petition. BellSouth proposes to tariff services
that permit third parties to create and administer AIN services through access
to the SCE and SMS. BellSouth's SCE/SMS service will support third-party service
development with the following AIN triggers: off-hook immediate, off-hook delay,
public office dialing plan, customized dialing plan, feature code and
terminating attempt triggers. Id. See Bell Atlantic comments in CC Docket No.
91-346 at 6, 8; Ameritech July 17 Ex Parte.

   497. Parties did identify some proprietary concerns regarding access to the
SCE and  [*96]   SMS used in the incumbent LEC's AIN. Some incumbent LECs
contend that the interface used at the SCE is proprietary in nature. n1157 GVNW
argues that specific AIN-based services designed by carriers should be
proprietary in nature. n1158 Competitors correctly argue that AIN can be used,
not only for telecommunication services traditionally supported by the switch,
but as a means to deploy advanced services not otherwise possible. n1159 We find
that competing providers without access to AIN would be at a significant
disadvantage to incumbent LECs, because they could not necessarily offer the
same services to the customer. This access will help competing providers without
imposing costs on incumbent LECs because the entrants will pay the cost. n1160
We therefore conclude, under section 251(d)(2)(A), that access to AIN, including
those elements that may be proprietary, is necessary for successful entry into
the local service market.

n1157 U S West comments at 58 n.124 (for example, BellSouth uses DESIGNedge for
such access which utilizes a proprietary database technology tailored to its
network); Bell Atlantic comments at 28-29.


n1158 GVNW comments at 30 (incumbent LECs should be able to copyright AIN based
services that they create or incumbents will have much less incentive to
develop such services).  [*97]

n1159 AT&T comments at 23-25; Cable & Wireless comments at 24; MCI comments at
18, 33.

n1160 See supra, Section VII.

   498. Most parties generally did not identify proprietary concerns with access
to those SMSs used other than for AIN. Some parties, however, argue that there
are proprietary interfaces used to enter information into various databases.
n1161 Competing carriers counter that competitive providers would not need to
have direct access to the proprietary methods of data entry used by incumbent
LECs, and as a result we conclude that the unbundled access to SMSs used for
other than AIN does not present proprietary concerns with respect to section
251(d)(2)(A). n1162

n1161 AT&T June 13 Ex Parte.

n1162 AT&T comments at 26.

   499. We also conclude that unbundled access to all SMSs is necessary for a
competing provider to effectively use unbundled call-related databases. We find
that the inability of competing carriers to use the SMS in the same manner that
an incumbent LEC uses to input data itself would impair the ability of a
competing carrier to effectively offer services to its customers using unbundled
call-related databases. Commenters in the record  [*98]   point out that access
to call-related databases alone would not allow the competing carrier to provide
such services to its customers without access to an SMS. n1163 We also conclude
that AIN-based services are important to a new entrant's ability to compete
effectively for customers with the incumbent LEC, and in developing new business
by introducing new AIN based services. Thus we conclude that a competitor's
ability to provide service would be significantly impaired if it did not have
unbundled access to an incumbent LEC's SMS, including access to the SMS(s) used
to input data to the LIDB, Toll Free Calling, Number Portability and AIN
call-related databases.

n1163 Ericsson comments at 6.

   500. We reject the contention by several incumbent LECs that signaling and
database access was meant by the 1996 Act to apply only to such access as is
necessary for call routing and completion. Although the competitive checklist
for BOC entry into in-region interLATA services under section 271 requires
"nondiscriminatory access to databases and associated signaling necessary for
call routing and completion" n1164 the definition of a network element is more
comprehensive in scope. A network  [*99]   element as defined by the 1996 Act
includes "databases" and in particular "databases sufficient for billing and
collection or used in the transmission, routing, or other provision of a
telecommunications service." n1165 We find that the inclusion of "other
provision of a telecommunications service" meant Congress intended the
unbundling of databases to be read broadly and could include databases beyond
those directly used in the transmission or routing of a telecommunications
service.

n1164 47 U.S.C. @ 271(c)(2)(B)(x).


n1165 47 U.S.C. @ 153(29).

   (4) Third Party Call-Related Databases

   501. We find that there is not enough evidence in the record to make a
determination as to the technical feasibility of interconnection of third party
call-related databases to the incumbent LEC's signaling system. Some parties
argue that such interconnection, including the interconnection of third party
AIN SCP databases, would allow them to provide more efficient or advanced call
processing and services to customers, thereby increasing their ability to
compete with the incumbent LEC. n1166 AT&T and MCI specifically argue that it
would be technically feasible for them to interconnect   [*100]   their AIN SCP
database to an incumbent LEC's AIN for the purpose of providing call processing
instructions to the incumbent LEC's switch. n1167 Incumbent LECs contend that
such interconnection would leave their switch vulnerable to a multitude of
potential harms because sufficient mediation for such interconnection does not
currently exist at the STP or SCP and has not yet been developed. n1168 AT&T
counters that there is no need for additional mediation and that sufficient
certification and testing of AIN based services before deployment in such a
fashion is technically feasible. n1169

n1166 AT&T comments at 23-25; Cable & Wireless comments at 24; MCI comments at
18, 33.

n1167 AT&T comments at 23-25; MCI comments at 18, 33.

n1168 See U S West comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 73-74, 84; NYNEX comments
in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 14-15; SBC comments in CC Docket No. 91-346 at 8-9.

n1169 See AT&T Intelligent Networks Proposal Attachment at 2.

   502. At this time, in view of this record and the record compiled in the
Intelligent Networks docket, we cannot make a determination of the technical
feasibility of such interconnection. We do, however, believe that  [*101]
state commissions could find such an arrangement to be technically feasible and
we do not intend to preempt such an order through these rules. The Illinois
Comm