Page 1
2005 D.C. PUC LEXIS 257, *
9 of 100 DOCUMENTS

PETITION OF VERIZON WASHINGTON DC, INC. FOR ARBITRATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(B) OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996

TAC 19; Order No. 13836

District of Columbia Public Service Commission

2005 D.C. PUC LEXIS 257

December 15, 2005

OPINION: [*1]
ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION
1. By this Order, the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia ("Commission") adopts in part and de-
clines to adopt in part the Arbitrator's Recommended Decision ("Recommended Decision") in this proceeding. n1 The
parties shall file interconnection agreement amendments that conform to this Order with the Commission within 30 days
of the date of this Order.



n1 TAC 19 -- Petition of Verizon Washington DC, Inc. for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Tele-
communications Act of 1996, Recommended Decision, filed September 7, 2005.



II. BACKGROUND
2. On August 21, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") issued the text of its Triennial Review
Order ("TRO"), which redefined the standards used to classify portions of the incumbent local exchange carrier's
("ILEC") network as unbundled network elements ("UNEs"). n2 As part of that Order, the FCC required telecommuni-
cations service providers to update their interconnection agreements to comply [*2] with the new UNE list. If telecom-
munications service providers were unable to agree on new interconnection agreements, they were required to use the
arbitration procedures set forth in section 252(b) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act"). n3



n2 In the Matter of Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers,
CC Docket No. 01-338, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capabil-
ity, CC Docket No. 98-147, 18 FCC 16978, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Pro-
posed Rulemaking ("TRO") (2003).
n3 TRO at 18 FCC Rcd 17409, P 704.

3. In response to the TRO, Verizon DC filed its Petition for Arbitration ("Petition") with the Commission pursuant
to section 252(b) of the Act. Based on Verizon's submission, the Commission opened the [*3] instant proceeding. Veri-
zon DC filed an Amended Petition on March 19, 2004 ("March 2004 Amended Petition"). n4 Several parties filed re-
sponses to the Petition and the March 2004 Amended Petition. n5

Page 2
2005 D.C. PUC LEXIS 257, *

n4 TAC 19, Update to Petition for Arbitration of Verizon Washington DC, Inc. ('Verizon DC Amended Peti-
tion"), filed March 19, 2004.
n5 TAC 19, Response of Sprint Communications Company, L.P. ("Sprint") to the Petition for Arbitration and
Motion to Dismiss ("Sprint Response"), filed March 12, 2004; Letter to Sanford M. Speight, Acting Commission
Secretary, from Craig D. Dingwall, Director, State Regulatory, Sprint Communications Company, L.P., ("Sprint
Amended Response"), filed March 16, 2004; Response of AT&T Communications of Washington D.C., LLC
and Teleport Communications-Washington DC, Inc. to the Petition for Arbitration of Verizon Washington DC,
Inc. ("AT&T Response"), filed March 16, 2004; Response of Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC To Veri-
zon Washington DC, Inc.'s Petition for Arbitration ("Cavalier Response"), filed March 16, 2004; Response of
MCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC, MCI Worldcom Communications, Inc., Intermedia Communi-
cations, Inc., and Worldcom-ICC, Inc. (collectively, "MCI") to Verizon Washington DC, Inc.'s Petition for Arbi-
tration ("MCI Response"), filed March 16, 2004; OpenBand of DC, LLC's Revised Response to Petition for Ar-
bitration of Verizon Washington DC, Inc. ("OpenBand Response"), filed March 16, 2004; Letter to Sanford M.
Speight, Acting Commission Secretary, from Roderic L. Woodson and David A. O'Connor, Counsel for SBC
Telecom, Inc., ("SBC Response"), filed March 16, 2004; Answer of A.R.C. Networks Inc. d/b/a Infohighway
Communications Corporation, Broadview Networks Inc., Business Telecom Inc., Comcast Business Solutions
Inc., DIECA Communications Inc. d/b/a Covad Communications Company, Global Crossing Local Services In-
corporated, IDT America Corp., KMC Telecom V Inc., NOW Communications Inc., Spectrotel Inc., Talk.com
Holding Inc., Winstar Communications LLC, XO Communications, Inc., XO D.C. Inc., Xspedius Management
Co. of DC L.L.C., and Xspedius Management Co. of D.C., L.L.C. "Competitive Carrier Coalition") ("Kelley
Competitive Carrier Coalition Response"), filed March 16, 2004; Competitive Carrier Coalition's Motion to
Dismiss and Response to Petition for Arbitration of Verizon Washington DC, Inc. ("Swidler Competitive Carrier
Coalition Motion and Response"), filed March 16, 2004; Letter to Sanford M. Speight, Acting Commission Sec-
retary, from Charon H. Phillips, Regulatory Counsel, Verizon Wireless ('Verizon Wireless Response"), filed
March 16, 2004.

[*4]
4. On March 2, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") vacated several
portions of the TRO in the United States Telecommunications Association v. FCC ("USTA II"). n6 On August 20, 2004,
the FCC released its Interim Unbundling Order that, inter alia, froze the rates, terms, and conditions under which in-
cumbent local exchange carriers ("ILECs") offer access to certain unbundled network elements. n7 This order also set a
six-month schedule for the FCC's consideration and establishment of permanent unbundling rules. n8



n6 U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. F.C.C., 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir., 2004).
n7 Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Unbundled Access to Network Elements; Review of the Section
251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No.
01-338, 19 FCC Rcd 16783 (2004) ("Interim Unbundling Order").
n8 Interim Unbundling Order.

5. Verizon [*5] DC submitted two revised amendments to its Petition on August 20, 2004 ("August 2004 Amended
Petition"). n9 On September 17, 2004, Verizon DC submitted revisions to the August 2004 Amended Petition to reflect
the FCC's Interim Unbundling Order ("September 2004 Amended Petition"). n10 ACN, AT&T, the KCCC, MCI, and
US LEC responded to the August 2004 Amended Petition on September 10, 2004, n11 and to the September 2004
Amended Petition on October 12, 2004. n12



n9 TAC 19, Amendments and Issues List of Verizon Washington DC, Inc. ('Verizon DC August 2004 Amend-
ment"), filed August 20, 2004. Page 3
2005 D.C. PUC LEXIS 257, *
n10 TAC 19, Verizon Washington DC, Inc.'s Revised Amendment 1 and Request to Hold Amendment 2 in
Abeyance ("Verizon DC September 2004 Amendment"), filed September 17, 2004.
n11 TAC 19, ACN Communications Services, Inc.'s Response to Verizon's Proposed Amendments ("ACN Re-
sponse to August 2004 Amended Petition"), filed September 10, 2004; Response and Arbitration Issues List of
AT&T Communications of Washington D.C., LLC, Teleport Communications-Washington, D.C., Inc., and
ACC National Telecom Corp. ("AT&T Response to August 2004 Amended Petition"), filed September 10,
2004; Letter to Sanford M. Speight, Acting Commission Secretary, from Genevieve Morelli and Andrea Pruitt
Edmonds, Counsel to the Competitive Carrier Coalition ("KCCC Response to August 2004 Amended Petition"),
filed September 10, 2004; Response of MCI to Verizon's Amendments and Issues List ("MCI Response to Au-
gust 2004 Amended Petition"), filed September 10, 2004; Response of US LEC of Virginia L.L.C. to Amend-
ments of Verizon Washington DC, Inc. and Issues List of US LEC of Virginia L.L.C. ("US LEC Response to
August 2004 Amended Petition"), filed September 10, 2004.
[*6]


n12 TAC 19, Letter to Sanford M. Speight, Acting Commission Secretary, from Russell M. Blau, Robin F.
Cohn, and Paul B. Hudson, Counsel for ACN Communications Services, Inc. ("ACN Response to September
2004 Amended Petition"), filed October 12, 2004; Comments of AT&T Communications of Washington D.C.,
LLC, Teleport Communications-Washington, D.C., Inc., and ACC National Telecom Corp. ("AT&T Response
to September 2004 Amended Petition"), filed October 12, 2004; Competitive Carrier Coalition's Response to
Verizon's Updated Arbitration Filing ("KCCC Response to September 2004 Amended Petition"), filed October
12, 2004; Comments of MCI in Response to Verizon's Revised Amendment land Request to Hold Amendment 2
in Abeyance ("MCI Response to September 2004 Amended Petition"), filed October 12, 2004; Comments of US
LEC of Virginia L.L.C. in Response to Verizon Washington DC, Inc.'s Revised Amendment 1 and Request to
Hold Amendment 2 in Abeyance ("US LEC Response to September 2004 Amended Petition"), filed October 12,
2004.

6. On February 4, 2005, the FCC released the text of its Order on Remand [*7] from the USTA II decision ("Trien-
nial Review Remand Order" or "TRRO") which, inter alia, clarified and modified the impairment standard adopted in
the TRO. n13 The Triennial Review Remand Order also refined the rules and established transition or phase-out periods
for certain types of dedicated interoffice transport, high-capacity loops, and mass market switching. n14 The FCC en-
couraged state commissions to monitor parties' compliance with the implementation of the conclusions ado