Quiero saber acerca de...

8874

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
new alternative options test, a carriers technology transition discontinuance application is eligible for streamlined processing when: 1
The discontinuing carrier offers a standalone, facilities-based interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol VoIP
service throughout the affected service area, and 2 at least one stand-alone facilities-based voice service is available from an unaffiliated provider throughout the affected service area. A
carrier seeking streamlined treatment for a technology transition discontinuance application can choose to satisfy either the adequate replacement test or the alternative options test. All carriers, regardless of status as dominant or nondominant, are eligible for the streamlined options for the discontinuance of legacy TDM-based voice service. We note that seeking streamlined treatment for a technology transition discontinuance application is optional. If a discontinuing carrier cannot, or elects not to attempt to, satisfy the requirements associated with seeking one of the streamlined treatment alternatives, the carrier may always proceed with its discontinuance application on a non-streamlined basis, under the traditional five-factor test. In addition, neither the 2016 nor the 2018
technology transition discontinuance rules limited their applicability to incumbent local exchange carriers LECs. An incumbent LEC is any local exchange carrier in a specific area that:
A On February 8, 1996, provided telephone exchange service in such area; and Bi on February 8, 1996, was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association pursuant to 69.601b of the Commissions regulations 47 CFR 69.601b; or ii is a person or entity that, on or after February 8, 1996, became a successor or assign of a member described in clause i. By contrast, a competitive LEC is a carrier that intends to compete directly with the incumbent LEC for its customers and its control of the local market.
III. Order on Reconsideration 7. In this Order on Reconsideration, the Wireline Competition Bureau Bureau denies Public Knowledges Petition for Reconsideration Petition of the Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order. We also dismiss as moot Public Knowledges companion Motion to Hold in Abeyance Motion the same Order pending an appeal that has now been denied.
8. On June 7, 2018, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order, in which, among other things, it established a new, alternative path for
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:50 Feb 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

carriers to obtain streamlined treatment of applications to discontinue legacy TDM-based voice services as part of a technology transition. Public Knowledge subsequently sought reconsideration of that Order and to have the Commission hold it in abeyance pending the outcome of an appeal of the Wireless Infrastructure First Report and Order First Report and Order 82 FR 61453, Dec. 28, 2017 in the same Commission proceeding. The Wireline Competition Bureau sought comment on Public Knowledges Petition on September 19, 2018 83 FR
47325. While the Public Notification seeking comment on the Petition did not also seek comment on the Motion, certain filers responded to the Motion.
No commenters other than Public Knowledge filed in support of the Petition. Three commenters filed oppositions to the Petition, generally arguing that it offers no basis for the Commission to reverse any of its decisions. We agree and deny the Petition. Moreover, we deny the Motion as moot for the additional independent reason that the pending appeal upon which it was based has been denied.
A. The Petition Rehashes Issues Already Addressed 9. In support of its Petition, Public Knowledge raises several arguments that the Commission previously addressed in the Second Report and Order.
Specifically, the Petition argues that: 1
the Commissions changes to its rules . . . pose a threat to the ability of Federal agencies to complete their missions; 2 the alternative options test adopted in the Second Report and Order is deficient in various ways; and 3 the Commission improperly relied on market-based incentives as sufficient to ensure that customers will retain access to adequate service.
USTelecom noted that many of the complaints in the Petition have already been considered by the Commission.
The Wireline Competition Bureau denies the Petition because all of Public Knowledges arguments were fully considered, and rejected, by the Commission in the underlying proceeding.
10. First, Public Knowledge argues in its Petition that a filing by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration NTIA, submitted after the Second Report and Order was adopted, raises concerns that Federal agencies are likely to be negatively impacted by the fact that the Orders discontinuance process does not require carriers to prove that replacement services will provide service substantially similar those being
PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

discontinued. The Wireline Competition Bureau disagrees with Public Knowledges characterization of the NTIA letter, and with the assertion that government agencies will be negatively affected by the changes adopted in the Second Report and Order.
11. As an initial matter, the Commission fully considered, and rejected, arguments that government agencies would be negatively impacted by the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order. In that Order, the Commission found unpersuasive concerns that large enterprise or government customers will be adversely affected by further streamlined processing of legacy voice discontinuance applications that do not meet the adequate replacement test.
The Commission found in the Second Report and Order that carriers are accustomed to working with . . .
government users . . . to avoid service disruptions and noted the Commissions expectation that under the new streamlined discontinuance processing rules carriers will continue to collaborate with their enterprise or government customers . . . to ensure that they are given sufficient time to accommodate the transition to nextgeneration services such that key functionalities are not lost during this period of change. The Commission went on to note that as with all discontinuance applications, Federal agency customers are able to file comments in opposition to a discontinuance application and seek to have the Commission remove the application from streamlined processing. The NTIA letter referenced by the Petition raises no new concerns about these findings.
12. Moreover, several commenters point out that the Petition misconstrues NTIAs filing, which, contrary to Public Knowledges assertions, . . .
generally supports the Commissions approach in the Second Report and Order. For example, NTIA supports the Commissions decision to extend . . . streamlined processing rules . . .
for legacy voice and data services operating at speeds less than 1.544
Mbps to carrier applications to discontinue data services at speeds below 25/3 Mbps. NTIA observes that if carriers conduct impairs . . .
critical national security and public safety functions, the Commission retains flexibility to address agencies circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
More generally, NTIA recognizes the Second Report and Orders discussion of Federal agencies as a commitment to sanction conduct impinging on critical
E:FRFM10FER1.SGM

10FER1