FCC Seeks Comment on Granite Request for Section 271 Bell UNE Combos

15 and replies/oppositions are due June 30, said a bureau public notice in docket 15-114. In a May 4 petition for a declaratory ruling, Granite, a CLEC with business customers, asked the FCC to remove uncertainty about BOC duties "(1) not to separate unbundled network elements ('UNEs') provisioned pursuant to Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv)-(vi) of the [Communications] Act; (2) to combine such UNEs; and (3) to commingle such UNEs with other wholesale services." Granite said a court-driven FCC rollback in ILEC unbundling duties under Section 251, the absence of FCC rules on BOC Section 271 UNE duties, and a recent USTelecom filing -- asserting the BOCs don't have to combine Section 271 UNEs -- "have created uncertainty as to the BOCs' obligations regarding the separation, combination, and commingling of Section 271 UNEs." Citing a Section 202(a) prohibition against unreasonable discrimination and a Section 201(b) prohibition against unjust and unreasonable practices, Granite asked the FCC (1) to prevent BOCs from separating already-combined UNEs unless requested by a CLEC or unless the BOCs have a reasonable basis for doing so; (2) to require BOCs to combine Section 271 UNEs at the request of CLECs unless the BOCs have a reasonable basis for refusing to do so; and (3) to require BOCs to commingle, or allow CLECs to commingle, Section 271 UNEs with wholesale services obtained from ILECs unless the BOCs have a reasonable basis for refusing to do so. Granite said the BOC Section 271 obligations to provide competitors with unbundled access to local loops, transport, and switching are ongoing and independent of ILEC Section 251 unbundling duties. "[I]n the absence of Section 251 unbundling obligations for local switching and shared transport, the Section 271 competitive checklist provides the only regulatory compulsion for BOCs to provide these network elements on an unbundled basis today," Granite said.