2 1. In this item, we further our ongoing efforts under the Telecommunications Act of 1996' to foster competition in local communications markets by implementing measures to ensure that competing telecommunications providers are able to provide services to customers in multiple tenant environments (MTEs). In the Competitive Networks NPRM, we requested comment on the state of access to MTEs and on a variety of potential measures to improve such access. Based on the extensive record compiled in response to that Notice, we adopt several measures to remove obstacles to competitive access in this important portion of the telecommunications market. Specifically, we: (1) prohibit carriers from entering into contracts that restrict or effectively restrict owners and managers of commercial MTEs from permitting access by competing carriers; (2) clarify our rules governing control of in-building wiring and facilitate exercise of building owner options regarding that wiring; (3) conclude that the access mandated by Section 224 of the Communications Act (the “Pole Attachments Act”) includes access to conduits or rights-of-way that are owned or controlled by a utility within MTEs; and (4) conclude that parties with a direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in property, including tenants in MTEs, should have the ability to place antennas one meter or less in diameter used to receive or transmit any fixed wireless service in areas within their exclusive use or control, and prohibit most restrictions on their ability to do 2. We also note that, while these measures will help significantly to advance competition and customer choice, they may well be insufficient in themselves to secure a full measure of choice for businesses and individuals located in MTEs. We recognize that the real estate industry has taken some positive steps to facilitate tenant choice of telecommunications providers by working towards the development of best practices and model agreements. We will closely monitor these industry efforts and, if such efforts ultimately do not resolve our concerns regarding the ability of premises owners to unreasonably deny competing telecommunications service providers access to customers in MTEs, we are prepared to consider taking additional action, including adopting rules to assure that MTE owners offer competing telecommunications service providers access to their premises. In order to be prepared to take further action, if necessary, we request comment in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the current state of the evolving market for the provision of telecommunications services in MTEs. We also note that a strong case can be made that we have authority to impose obligations on carriers to ensure nondiscriminatory access to MTEs. We seek comment on this legal argument, whether it would be prudent to exercise such authority, the potential scope of such requirements, and how such requirements could be implemented, if adopted. In addition, we seek further comment on several other Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. (1996 Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry in WT Docket No. 99-217, and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-98, 14 FCC Rcd 12673, 12687-12712, 11 28-69 (1999) (Competitive Networks NPRM). In the Notice of Inquiry portion of the same item, we requested comment on issues relating to access to public rights-of-way and franchise fees, state and local taxes, and other means of promoting competitive networks. Id. at 12712-19, 11 70-85. These issues will be addressed separately at another time. 4 See Letter from Real Access Alliance to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC, dated September 6, 2000 (September 6 Real Access Alliance Letter). potential Commission actions that may be necessary in the event that competition in the MTE market does not develop sufficiently. 6 3. In the 1996 Act, Congress sought “to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition.”S One of the most important goals of the 1996 Act was to bring competition to the traditionally monopolistic market for local telecommunications services. In order to bring competition to this market, Congress contemplated competitive entry by three means – use of a competitor's own facilities, use of unbundled elements of the incumbent local exchange carrier's (LEC's) network, and resale of the incumbent's service - and it included provisions to prevent incumbent LECs from blocking competitive entry by any of these means.' Congress also extended the scope of the Pole Attachments Act to grant access to telecommunications service providers in addition to cable service providers. 8 10 4. We remain committed to removing obstacles to competitive entry into local telecommunications markets by any of the avenues contemplated in the 1996 Act. Nonetheless, we have recognized that the greatest long-term benefits to consumers will arise out of competition by entities using their own facilities. Because facilities-based competitors are less dependent than other new entrants on the incumbents' networks, they have the greatest ability and incentive to offer innovative technologies and service options to consumers. Moreover, facilities-based competition offers the best promise of ultimately creating a comprehensive system of competitive networks, in which today's S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. at 1 (1996) (1996 Conference Report). 6 See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15505-06, 13(1996) (Local Competition First Report and Order), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass ’n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8* Cir. 1997), affd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded sub nom. AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (lowa Utilities Board). 7 See 47 U.S.C. $$ 251(c)(2) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide interconnection with the facilities and equipment of any requesting telecommunications carrier on just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions), 251(c)(3) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis on just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions), 251(c)(4) (requiring incumbent LECs to offer services for resale at wholesale rates, and generally forbidding incumbent LECs from prohibiting or imposing unreasonable or discriminatory conditions or limitations on resale). 9 See, e.g., Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 3696 (1999) (promulgating rules governing access to unbundled network elements following United States Supreme Court remand) (UNE Remand Order); Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98, 14 FCC Rcd 20912 (1999) (adopting line sharing and other unbundling rules for Digital Subscriber Line service). incumbent LECs no longer will exert bottleneck control over essential inputs, but will compete on a more equal basis with their rivals." 12 5. One particular benefit that we hope will arise from the growth of facilities-based competition is increased availability of advanced services. In the 1996 Act, Congress directed the Commission to encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans. We have recently found that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion, although certain groups of consumers may be particularly vulnerable to untimely access. We believe that competitive providers will continue to play a vital role in the growth and ubiquitous availability of advanced services, both by innovating themselves and by placing competitive pressure on the incumbents to offer more advanced services at attractive prices." At the same time, we expect that the ability to offer advanced capabilities that benefit consumers will be an important factor in many competitors' marketplace success. 13 14 15 6. In this item, we take targeted actions to promote the continued deployment of competitive and advanced telecommunications services and reduce the substantial barriers that remain to deployment of these services in MTEs, and we request comment on potential additional actions. The actions we take here are as follows: 16 First, we forbid telecommunications carriers from entering into contracts to serve commercial properties that restrict or effectively restrict the property owner's ability to permit entry by other carriers." Second, in order to reduce competitive carriers' dependence on the incumbent LECs to gain access to on-premises wiring, while at the same time recognizing the varied needs of carriers and building owners, we establish procedures to facilitate moving the demarcation point to the minimum point of 13 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Second Report, FCC 00-290 (rel. Aug. 21, 2000) (Section 706 Second Report). 14 For example, although competitive LECs currently serve under 7% of asymmetric digital subscriber line (DSL) subscribers, they reportedly have DSL-capable equipment in one-third more central offices than do incumbents, and they appear to be adding DSL customers at a faster rate. Id. at para. 102. See also id. at paras. 192-193 (discussing competitive LEC investment in DSL infrastructure). Moreover, analysts have projected that terrestrial wireless providers will serve between 12 and 15 percent of the residential and between 14 and 50 percent of the business high-speed market within the next few years, and that satellite providers could serve between 5 and 10 percent of the high-speed market. Id. at paras. 197, 202. 15 See Competitive Networks NPRM, 14 FCC Red at 12675-76, 12687, 93, 26. entry (MPOE) at the building owner's request, and we require incumbent LECs to timely disclose the location of existing demarcation points where they are not located at the MPOE. 18 Third, we determine that under Section 224 of the Communications Act, utilities, including LECs, must afford telecommunications carriers and cable service providers reasonable and nondiscriminatory access to conduits and rights-of-way located in customer buildings and campuses, to the extent such conduits and rights-of-way are owned or controlled by the utility. 19 Fourth, we extend to antennas that receive and transmit telecommunications and other fixed wireless signals our existing prohibition of restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of certain video antennas on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user, where the user has a direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the property. 20 7. The specific actions that we take in today's Report and Order will reduce the likelihood that incumbent LECs can obstruct their competitors' access to MTEs, as well as address particular potentially anticompetitive actions by premises owners and other third parties. We remain concerned, though, that, based on the record, unreasonable discrimination among competing telecommunications service providers by some premises owners remains an obstacle to competition and consumer choice. 21 8. We recognize the recent efforts of the real estate industry to develop model contracts and best practices aimed at improving MTE owners' processing of tenant requests for service from alternative telecommunications carriers or carrier requests for access to MTEs to serve tenants. In particular, a coalition of 11 trade associations representing over 1 million property owners and operators has committed to a best practices implementation plan including: (1) adopting a firm policy not to enter into any exclusive contracts for building access in the future; (2) responding within 30 days to written tenant requests for a particular telecommunications provider, and accommodating such requests in good faith, where appropriate space is available and the provider intends to execute an access agreement that is substantially in the form of a model contract to be developed by the industry; (3) informing tenants of existing alternatives in buildings that are already served by multiple competitive providers, and encouraging a dialogue with tenants regarding the advantages of additional providers; (4) incorporating these processing guidelines in new leases and notices to existing leaseholders; (5) committing to a clearer and more predictable process for responding to requests from carriers to access the MTE to serve customers, including provision of clear guidance regarding the MTE owner's policies within 30 days, where the carrier agrees that its access to the MTE is conditioned on deploying equipment and/or providing service to tenants by a date certain; (6) establishing an independent clearinghouse to which interested parties could submit allegations of behavior that is inconsistent with either the model contracts or “best practices” developed as part of this initiative; and (7) supporting a periodic, quantitative study of the market for building access, to be conducted under the auspices of the Commission. At least 12 22 18 See Section IV.C, infra. In addition, we take this opportunity to resolve certain pending petitions for reconsideration of our telecommunications inside wiring rules. Id. 22 ld. building owners who collectively own or operate over 250 million square feet of office space have committed to these best practices. 23 24 9. We are encouraged by those efforts and will closely monitor their progress. At the same time, we are aware of concerns that these voluntary commitments may fall short of protecting tenants' ability to choose among competing carriers. Therefore, if such efforts ultimately do not resolve our concerns regarding the ability of premises owners to discriminate unreasonably among competing telecommunications service providers, we are prepared to consider taking additional action. Accordingly, in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment in several areas: First, we seek to refresh the record on the status of the market for the provision of telecommunications services in MTEs in order to evaluate the necessity of a nondiscriminatory access requirement. Second, we seek additional comment on the legal argument that we have authority to impose requirements on carriers in order to ensure nondiscriminatory MTE access, and on whether we should exercise such authority. Third, we seek comment on the circumstances under which the benefits would exceed the costs of such requirements, and on how any nondiscriminatory access requirement could be implemented. 25 Fourth, we ask whether today's prohibition on exclusive access contracts in commercial MTEs should be extended to residential settings, either in addition to or in lieu of a nondiscriminatory access requirement applicable to these premises, and whether we should prohibit carriers from enforcing exclusive access provisions in existing contracts in either commercial or residential MTEs. 26 Fifth, we seek comment on whether we should proscribe carriers from entering into contracts that grant them preferences other than exclusive access, such as exclusive marketing or landlord bonuses to tenants that use their services, in some or all situations.? 27 Sixth, we seek additional comment on the definition of “rights-of-way” in MTEs to which a utility must allow access under Section 224. 28 Finally, we seek additional comment on whether we should extend our cable inside wiring rules to facilitate the use of home run wiring by telecommunications service providers where an incumbent cable provider no longer has a legal right to maintain its home run wiring in the building. 29 23 Id. at 1. 24 See Letter from Thomas Cohen, Smart Buildings Policy Project, to FCC Commissioners, dated September 7, 2000. |