Arizona Telecommunications & Information Council (ATIC) Multitenant Building Telecommunications Access Study PREVIOUS CONTENTS APPENDIX 5
returnNEXT Selected Resource Documents:
Pending Legislation in the 106th U.S. CongressAppendix 5: Excerpts from Selected Resource Documents
A Compilation of "Best Practices" to Implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 04/99 (NRRI 99-07)
Submitted by: David Turetsky, Vice President, Law and Regulatory, Teligent, Inc., Phone: (703) 762-5230
Users: Regulators
Application: Market entry
A Compilation of "Best Practices" to Implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 04/99 (NRRI 99-07)
Description:
Tenants in multi-tenant environments (i.e., office and apartment buildings) must be able to take telecommunications service from their carrier of choice. To this end, telecommunications carrier access to tenants in multi-tenant environments must be afforded by building owners and landlords on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis.Originator of Idea:
The idea got started as a state statute (Section 54.259 and 54.260 of the PURA) and was implemented in a very pro-competitive manner by the Public Utilities Commission. Connecticut has adopted a similar statute; Ohio has accomplished a similar result through Commission decision; and NARUC adopted a similar resolution at its summer 1998 meeting. Simply put, building owners and managers may not exclude a telecommunications carrier from installing equipment and offering service within their buildings when a tenant seeks service from that carrier. Building owners/managers may not demand or accept unreasonable payment of any kind from the tenant or the telecommunications carrier. The building owner may impose certain conditions reasonably necessary to protect the safety, security, appearance and condition of the property and the safety and convenience of other persons (as well as the time at which a carrier may access the property). Moreover, if a building owner can demonstrate a space constraint, a limitation may be placed on the number of carriers permitted in the building. Recognizing that the building access market does not operate as a free market, the Legislature and the Texas PUC require that compensation to the landlord be reasonable and nondiscriminatory. That is, the same costs, methodology, and rates must be assessed on all carriers given access to the building. Exclusive access contracts are prohibited. However, existing service and compensation arrangements may remain in place until a second carrier invokes the nondiscrimination requirement, at which point the second carrier either receives the same terms as the incumbent, or the terms of the incumbent's arrangement must be altered to mirror those of the second carrier.Has It Been Implemented?
Yes.Why Is It an Improvement?
This practice prevents building owners and landlords from refusing access altogether. It also facilitates negotiations between telecommunications carriers and building owners/managers by establishing reasonable parameters within which access negotiations must occur.Transferability:
The practice is quite transferable to others. Indeed, Connecticut has a similar statute that has been equally effective. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio accomplished a similar result without legislation and the California Public Utilities Commission has done the same.Next Steps:
Teligent suggests that public utility commissions recommend access statutes to their legislatures and consider the pro-competitive ways in which states such as Texas have implemented those statutes. In the absence of legislation, public utility commissions should explore the means by which Ohio and California have accomplished their objectives through regulatory action alone.-- (http://www.nrri.ohio-state.edu/download/9907.pdf)
Demarcation Point for Multi-Unit Buildings
Description:
The demarcation point for all multi-unit buildings (commercial and residential, regardless of when internal wiring was installed) should be relocated to the minimum point of entry (MPOE), as defined in Section 68.3(b)(2) of the FCC's rules.Originator of Idea:
The FCC developed these rules in a 1990 Order, although FCC rules distinguish between pre-1990 buildings and post-1990 buildings (in any event, the demarcation point is established at the MPOE in all instances at the request of the building owner). California was a pioneer state in adopting the FCC's rules for itself and implementing them in a manner designed to foster competition through transferring ownership and responsibility for certain telephone cable and inside wire to property owners and allowing for accelerated depreciation to accomplish the same.Has It Been Implemented?
Yes.Why Is It an Improvement?
The relocation of the demarcation point to the MPOE permits all telecommunications carriers -- ILECs and CLECs alike -- to connect with the facilities of the building at the same location. As a result, ILEC control over the in-building network cannot be employed to impair competition and extract the related benefits from consumers. Moreover, this equalizes costs for all carriers and avoids giving one carrier (i.e., the ILEC) control over facilities that must be used by other carriers in order to reach end users in a multi-unit building. Moreover, it minimizes the disruption to building owners and tenants caused by the construction of multiple end runs within a building.Transferability:
The technical and practical feasibility of relocating the demarcation point is not in question; this practice is highly transferable to others. States such as California have long designated the MPOE as the inside wire demarcation point. Indeed, the FCC has already established relevant rules. Reference to the FCC Orders will guide state commissions in defining their demarcation.
Multitenant Building Telecommunications Access Study PREVIOUS CONTENTS APPENDIX 5
returnNEXT Selected Resource Documents:
Pending Legislation in the 106th U.S. Congress