Arizona Telecommunications & Information Council (ATIC) Multitenant Building Telecommunications Access Study PREVIOUS CONTENTS APPENDIX 4
returnNEXT Submitted Position Statements:
Real Access AllianceAppendix 4: Submitted Position Statements
United States Telecom Association (USTA)
Summary Comments before the FCC 08/27/99 on Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act
The United States Telephone Association (USTA) believes that the FCC should not and cannot mandate access to buildings and rooftops: (1) under Section 224: or (2) as an Unbundled Network Element (UNE). USTA also addresses nondiscriminatory access to facilities controlled by the premises owner and other building access issues.
The FCC is in error in characterizing incumbent local exchange carriers as having bottleneck control over interconnection." In this proceeding, the FCC seeks to address where it is appropriate, and whether it has the requisite jurisdiction to ensure that competitive telecommunications service providers will have reasonable and nondiscriminatory access to rights-of-way, buildings, rooftops, and facilities in multiple tenant environments (MTEs). Commission action to exert jurisdiction over building owners would be inappropriate and unlawful. Further, USTA believes the FCC previously reached the appropriate result when it declared that:
Access to inside wiring through the incumbent LEC's Network Interface Device (NID) does not entitle a competitor to deliver its loop facilities into a building without the permission of the building owner. Similarly, access to an incumbent LEC's NID does not entitle the competitor to the riser and lateral cables between the NID and individual units within the building, which may be owner or controller, for example, by the premises owner.Section 224 does not give the FCC any authority, explicit or implicit, to exert jurisdiction over building owners. This is in contrast to section 255 of the 1996 Act, which gave the FCC specific and narrow authority to regulate manufacturers of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment to enable access by the disabled to the public switched telephone network. USTA believes, the FCC's ancillary or other plenary jurisdiction cannot and should not be asserted in the area of private property rights; and that the FCC lacks subject matter jurisdiction over premise/building owners. Consistently, USTA does not believe the FCC can exercise Title I jurisdiction over a building owner.
FCC Chairman Kennard apparently doesn't believe that section 224 confers sufficient authority on the FCC to treat private access to MTEs through riser cable and inside wire as public right-of-way. Chairman Kennard, publicly acknowledged that the agency does not have the requisite jurisdiction to address competitive telecommunications carrier access to MTEs (See "A New FCC for the 21st Century, August 12, 1999). Commissioners Ness, Furchtgott-Roth, and Powell also express concern about exerting jurisdiction over premises owners in this matter.
The American system of private property rights is the hallmark of a democratic and market-driven society. USTA believes the FCC should defer to the U.S. Congress or the states in matters governing private property rights. The FCC should not modify its current approaches to the demarcation point and sub-loop unbundling at the remote terminal or at other points within the incumbent LEC's network. As to whether the FCC rules governing access to cable inside wiring for a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPDs) should be extended so as to afford similar access to providers of telecommunications services and vice versa, the FCC should comprehensively examine convergence issues in another proceeding which is designed to solely focus upon convergence matters. If the FCC determines jurisdiction is appropriate and requires access to conduit or riser cable "owned" or "controlled" by an ILEC, USTA believes the FCC must consistently apply the same requirements it imposes on ILECs to CLECs, including government owned competitive telecommunication systems.
Multitenant Building Telecommunications Access Study PREVIOUS CONTENTS APPENDIX 4
returnNEXT Submitted Position Statements:
Real Access Alliance