4.2.7 Decommissioning Copper Loop Plant
Pacific disagrees with resolution of several issues in the FAR, but recommends approval of Appendices DSL in the interim, with one exception. The exception is the prohibition of an ILEC decommissioning copper line local loop plant until the issue of transport over fiber plant is resolved. Pacific argues that this prohibition is inconsistent with the FCC's line sharing rules, and should be deleted. We disagree.
The FAR correctly says that the FCC declined to limit decommissioning of old facilities. The FAR also correctly notes that the FCC says states are free to impose additional, pro-competitive requirements consistent with the national framework of promoting the availability of competitive xDSL services. (FAR, page 96.) The limitation adopted in the interim is an additional, pro-competitive requirement consistent with the goal of promoting the availability of xDSL services.
Pacific says that only occasionally is it forced to decommission copper lines when their useful life expires. Pacific says maintaining a copper loop when otherwise economically infeasible improperly impedes Pacific's ability to manage its plant, and could deter Pacific from constructing new facilities. To the contrary, Pacific makes no showing regarding the amount of plant at issue, or the cost. Pacific fails to show that an interim limitation of its "occasional" decommissioning would be unreasonably burdensome.
The restriction is for a limited time only. It expires the earlier of either: (a) when line sharing or transport over fiber is resolved, or (b) when the interim appendices and amendments end (unless specifically continued during the final portion of the line sharing phase of this proceeding). Our goal is to promote vigorous and healthy competition on a level playing field, where the competition is reasonable, fair, equitable, and balanced. The interim limitation on decommissioning copper loop plant furthers this goal. To the extent the limitation is moderately burdensome on ILECs, ILECs will have an increased incentive to quickly resolve competitive issues regarding line sharing or transport over fiber. This incentive furthers the national and state goals of promoting the availability of competitive xDSL services.
No showing demonstrates that the burden, if any, is unreasonable. GTE does not object to the limitation on decommissioning.15 We decline to adopt Pacific's recommendation.
15 GTE says: "Although the FAR by its terms apparently exceeded the requirements of the Line Sharing Order in its ruling on decommissioning, GTE believes that the language adopted does not violate applicable FCC regulations, including those pertaining to the role of the Commission." (Statement dated June 7, 2000, page 9.)
