Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

52122

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 179 / Monday, September 20, 2021 / Proposed Rules
sought comment on whether the policy considerations around sale-andleaseback and other exclusive wiring arrangements differ. Are there reasons to distinguish sale-and-leaseback arrangements from other kinds of exclusive wiring arrangements?
Exclusive Marketing Arrangements.
Third, we seek to refresh the record on exclusive marketing arrangements. In the NPRM, the Commission explained that an exclusive marketing arrangement is an arrangement, either written or in practice, between an MTE owner and service provider that gives the service provider, usually in exchange for some consideration, the exclusive right to certain means of marketing its service to tenants of the MTE.
The Commission asked whether specific circumstances might lead to such arrangements resulting in de facto exclusive access. For example, do these arrangements create confusion on the part of tenants or building owners as to whether only one provider can or does offer service to the building? We also seek to update the record on the Commissions question regarding what might be done to correct possible consumer confusion. Additionally, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:49 Sep 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

Commission asked whether disclosure or disclaimer requirements would alleviate these problems, and when they might be warranted. Commenters have addressed the impact and costs of such requirements. We seek updated information on these issues, as well as on the benefits of exclusive marketing arrangements, particularly with respect to small competitive carriers. Do the benefits of such arrangements outweigh the costs? Do disclosure requirements affect tenant choice in providers, or the ability of competitors to deploy? And do they affect how service providers compete, such as in terms of price or service quality? What impact does this have on tenants? Have there been developments over the last few years that should impact the Commissions analysis on this issue?
Other Issues. In addition to refreshing the record on the issues outlined above, we also seek to refresh the record on other issues outlined in the NPRM and raised in the record. For example, in evaluating these issues, does the calculus differ based on the size of the MTE and, if so, should the Commission approach small MTEs differently than
PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 9990

others for purposes of any rules it adopts? How should it define small MTEs for these purposes?
We also seek comment on whether there are other types of contractual provisions and non-contractual practices that affect competition, limit tenant choice, or lead to increased prices or decreased service quality. Are there benefits and drawbacks to shared access to facilities in MTEs, including telecom closets, conduit, and wiring?
Can the sharing of facilities increase competition and tenant choice in MTEs?
We also seek to refresh the record on mandatory access laws and other efforts to increase competitive access to MTEs and the infrastructure within them.
What are the effects of these laws on competition, choice, and price in MTEs?
Finally, we seek to refresh the record on the Commissions jurisdiction and statutory authority to address the issues and practices raised above.
Federal Communications Commission.
Pamela Arluk, Division Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
FR Doc. 202120147 Filed 91721; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 671201P

E:FRFM20SEP1.SGM

20SEP1