**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

)

In the Matter of )

)

*Computer III* Further Remand Proceedings: ) CC Docket No. 95-20

Bell Operating Company )

Provision of Enhanced Services )

)

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- ) CC Docket No. 98-10

Review of *Computer III* and ONA )

Safeguards and Requirements )

**FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: January 29, 1998 Released: January 30, 1998**

Comment Date: March 27, 1998

Reply Date: April 23, 1998

By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a separate
statement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

**I. INTRODUCTION** [3](#__RefHeading___Toc5525094)

**II. BACKGROUND** [9](#__RefHeading___Toc5525095)

**A.Overview of *Computer III/*ONA and Related Court Decisions**
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc5525096)

**B.Overview of the 1996 Act** [14](#__RefHeading___Toc5525097)

**1.Opening the Local Exchange Market** [14](#__RefHeading___Toc5525098)

**2.BOC Provision of Information Services**
[15](#__RefHeading___Toc5525099)

**III. CALIFORNIA III REMAND** [17](#__RefHeading___Toc5525100)

**A.Background** [17](#__RefHeading___Toc5525101)

**B.Subsequent Events May Have Alleviated the Ninth Circuit\'s
*California III* Concerns** [20](#__RefHeading___Toc5525102)

**IV. EFFECT OF THE 1996 ACT** [26](#__RefHeading___Toc5525103)

**A.Basic/Enhanced Distinction** [26](#__RefHeading___Toc5525104)

**B.Cost-Benefit Analysis of Structural Safeguards**
[29](#__RefHeading___Toc5525105)

**1.Background** [29](#__RefHeading___Toc5525106)

**2.Effect of the 1996 Act and Other Factors**
[32](#__RefHeading___Toc5525107)

**a.Section 251 and Local Competition** [33](#__RefHeading___Toc5525108)

**b.Structural Separation and the 1996 Act**
[35](#__RefHeading___Toc5525109)

**C.Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) Plans**
[38](#__RefHeading___Toc5525110)

**1.Proposed Elimination of Current Requirements**
[38](#__RefHeading___Toc5525111)

**2.Treatment of Services Provided Through 272/274 Affiliates**
[41](#__RefHeading___Toc5525112)

**a.Section 272** [41](#__RefHeading___Toc5525113)

**b.Section 274** [43](#__RefHeading___Toc5525114)

**3.Treatment of Telemessaging and Alarm Monitoring Services**
[44](#__RefHeading___Toc5525115)

**4.Related Issues** [45](#__RefHeading___Toc5525116)

**D.ONA and Other Nonstructural Safeguards**
[47](#__RefHeading___Toc5525117)

**1.ONA Unbundling Requirements** [47](#__RefHeading___Toc5525118)

**a.Introduction** [47](#__RefHeading___Toc5525119)

**b.ONA Unbundling Requirements** [47](#__RefHeading___Toc5525120)

**c.Effect of the 1996 Act** [52](#__RefHeading___Toc5525121)

**2.ONA and Nondiscrimination Reporting Requirements**
[56](#__RefHeading___Toc5525122)

**a.** **Introduction** [56](#__RefHeading___Toc5525123)

**b.** **Annual ONA Reports** [58](#__RefHeading___Toc5525124)

**c.** **Semi-Annual ONA Reports** [60](#__RefHeading___Toc5525125)

**d.Nondiscrimination Reports** [62](#__RefHeading___Toc5525126)

**3.Other Nonstructural Safeguards** [66](#__RefHeading___Toc5525127)

**a.Network Information Disclosure Rules**
[66](#__RefHeading___Toc5525128)

**b.Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI)**
[74](#__RefHeading___Toc5525129)

**V. JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES** [77](#__RefHeading___Toc5525130)

**VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS** [79](#__RefHeading___Toc5525131)

**A.Ex Parte Presentations** [79](#__RefHeading___Toc5525132)

**B.** **Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis**
[79](#__RefHeading___Toc5525133)

**C.** **Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification**
[80](#__RefHeading___Toc5525134)

**D.** **Comment Filing Procedures** [81](#__RefHeading___Toc5525135)

**VII. ORDERING CLAUSES** [82](#__RefHeading___Toc5525136)

**I. INTRODUCTION**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525094 .anchor}

In the Commission\'s *Computer III*[^1] and *Open Network Architecture*
(ONA)[^2] proceedings, the Commission sought to establish appropriate
safeguards for the provision by the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) of
\"enhanced\" services.[^3] Examples of enhanced services include, among
other things, voice mail, electronic mail, electronic store-and-forward,
fax store-and-forward, data processing, and gateways to online
databases. Underlying this effort, as well as our reexamination of the
*Computer III* and ONA rules in this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Further Notice), are three complementary goals. First, we
seek to enable consumers and communities across the country to take
advantage of innovative \"enhanced\" or \"information\" services[^4]
offered by both the BOCs and other information service providers (ISPs).
Second, we seek to ensure the continued competitiveness of the already
robust information services market. Finally, we seek to establish
safeguards for BOC provision of enhanced or information services that
make common sense in light of current technological, market, and legal
conditions.

Under *Computer III* and ONA, the BOCs are permitted to provide enhanced
services on an \"integrated\" basis (*i.e.*, through the regulated
telephone company), subject to certain \"nonstructural safeguards,\" as
described more fully below.[^5] These rules replaced those previously
established in *Computer II*, which required AT&T (and subsequently the
BOCs) to offer enhanced services through structurally separate
subsidiaries.[^6] On February 21, 1995, the Commission released a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (*Computer III Further Remand Notice*)[^7]
following a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (*California III)*.[^8] The *Computer III Further Remand Notice*
sought comment on both the remand issue in *California III* relating to
the replacement of structural separation requirements for BOC provision
of enhanced services with nonstructural safeguards,[^9] as well as the
effectiveness of the Commission\'s *Computer III* and ONA nonstructural
rules in general.[^10]

Since the adoption of the *Computer III Further Remand Notice*,
significant changes have occurred in the telecommunications industry
that affect our analysis of the issues raised in this proceeding. Most
importantly, on February 8, 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (1996 Act)[^11] to establish \"a pro-competitive,
de-regulatory national policy framework\" in order to make available to
all Americans \"advanced telecommunications and information technologies
and services by opening all telecommunications markets to
competition.\"[^12] As the Supreme Court recently noted, the 1996 Act
\"was an unusually important legislative enactment\" that changed the
landscape of telecommunications regulation.[^13]

The 1996 Act significantly alters the legal and regulatory framework
governing the local exchange marketplace. Among other things, the 1996
Act opens local exchange markets to competition by imposing new
interconnection, unbundling, and resale obligations on all incumbent
local exchange carriers (LECs), including the BOCs.[^14] In addition,
the 1996 Act allows the BOCs, under certain conditions,[^15] to enter
markets from which they previously were restricted,[^16] including the
interLATA telecommunications and interLATA information services
markets.[^17] In some cases, the 1996 Act requires a BOC to offer
services in these markets through a separate affiliate.[^18] In
addition, the 1996 Act incorporates new terminology and definitions that
differ from those the Commission had been using.[^19]

In light of the 1996 Act and ensuing changes in telecommunications
technologies and markets, we believe it is necessary not only to respond
to the issues remanded by the Ninth Circuit, but also to reexamine the
Commission\'s nonstructural safeguards regime governing the provision of
information services by the BOCs. Congress recognized, in passing the
1996 Act, that competition will not immediately supplant monopolies and
therefore imposed a series of safeguards to prevent the BOCs from using
their existing market power to engage in improper cost allocation and
discrimination in their provision of interLATA information services,
among other things. These statutory safeguards seek to address many of
the same anticompetitive concerns as, but do not explicitly displace,
the safeguards established by the Commission in the *Computer II*,
*Computer III*, and ONA proceedings. We therefore issue this Further
Notice to address issues raised by the interplay between the safeguards
and terminology established in the 1996 Act and the *Computer III*
regime. These 1996 Act-related issues were not raised in the *Computer
III Further Remand Notice*. We therefore ask interested parties to
respond to the issues raised in this Further Notice and, to the extent
that parties want any arguments made in response to the *Computer III
Further Remand Notice* to be made a part of the record for this Further
Notice, we ask them to restate those arguments in their comments.

We note, in addition, that Congress required the Commission to conduct a
biennial review of regulations that apply to operations or activities of
any provider of telecommunications service and to repeal or modify any
regulation it determines to be \"no longer necessary in the public
interest.\"[^20] Accordingly, the Commission has begun a comprehensive
1998 biennial review of telecommunications and other regulations to
promote \"meaningful deregulation and streamlining where competition or
other considerations warrant such action.\"[^21] In this Further Notice,
therefore, we seek comment on whether certain of the Commission\'s
current *Computer III* and ONA rules are \"no longer necessary in the
public interest.\" To the extent parties identify additional *Computer
III* and ONA rules they believe warrant review under the Act, we invite
those comments as well.

Consistent with the 1996 Act, in this Further Notice we seek to strike a
reasonable balance between our goal of reducing and eliminating
regulatory requirements when appropriate as competition supplants the
need for such requirements to protect consumers and competition, and our
recognition that, until full competition is realized, certain safeguards
may still be necessary. We want to encourage the BOCs to provide new
technologies and innovative information services that will benefit the
public, as well as ensure that the BOCs will make their networks
available for the use of competitive providers of such services. We
therefore seek comment in this Further Notice on, among other things,
the following tentative conclusions:

\--notwithstanding the 1996 Act\'s adoption of separate affiliate
requirements for BOC provision of certain information services (most
notably, interLATA information services), the Act\'s overall
pro-competitive, de-regulatory framework, as well as our public interest
analysis, support the continued application of the Commission\'s
nonstructural safeguards regime to BOC provision of intraLATA
information services \[¶¶ -\];

**\--**given the protections established by the 1996 Act and our ONA
rules, we should eliminate the requirement that BOCs file Comparably
Efficient Interconnection (CEI) plans and obtain Common Carrier Bureau
(Bureau) approval for those plans prior to providing new intraLATA
information services \[¶¶ -\];

\--at a minimum, we should eliminate the CEI-plan requirement for BOC
intraLATA information services provided through an Act-mandated
affiliate under section 272 or 274 \[¶¶ -\]; and

\--the Commission\'s network information disclosure rules established
pursuant to section 251(c)(5) should supersede certain, but not all, of
the Commission\'s previous network information disclosure rules
established in *Computer II* and *Computer III* \[¶ \].

We also generally seek comment on, among other things, the following
issues:

\--whether enactment and implementation of the 1996 Act, as well as
other developments, should alleviate the Ninth Circuit\'s concern about
the level of unbundling mandated by ONA \[¶¶ -\];

\--whether the Commission\'s definition of the term \"basic service\"
and the 1996 Act\'s definition of \"telecommunications service\" should
be interpreted to extend to the same functions \[¶¶ -\];

\--whether the Commission\'s current ONA requirements have been
effective in providing ISPs with access to the basic services that ISPs
need to provide their own information service offerings \[¶¶ -\];

\-- whether the Commission, under its general rulemaking authority,
should extend to ISPs some or all section 251-type unbundling rights,
which the Commission previously concluded was not required by section
251 of the Act \[¶¶ -\]; and

\--how the Commission\'s current ONA reporting requirements should be
streamlined and modified \[¶¶ -\].

As set forth in the 1998 appropriations legislation for the Departments
of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Commission is required to undertake
a review of its implementation of the provisions of the 1996 Act
relating to universal service, and to submit its review to Congress no
later than April 10, 1998.[^22] The Commission must review, among other
things, the Commission\'s interpretations of the definitions of
\"information service\" and \"telecommunications service\" in the 1996
Act, and the impact of those interpretations on the current and future
provision of universal service to consumers, including consumers in high
cost and rural areas.[^23] We recognize that there is a some overlap
between the inquiry in this Further Notice about the relationship
between the Commission\'s definition of the term \"basic service\" and
the 1996 Act\'s definition of \"telecommunications service,\" and the
issues to be addressed in the Commission\'s report to Congress.
Furthermore, we recognize that other aspects of this Further Notice also
may be affected by the analysis in the Universal Service Report. We note
that the inquiry in this Further Notice is primarily focused on the
rules and terminology the Commission should be using in the context of
its *Computer II* and *Computer III* requirements. We also note that the
order in this proceeding will be issued after the Universal Service
Report is submitted to Congress, and will thus take into account any
conclusions made in that report.

**II. BACKGROUND**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525095 .anchor}

**A.Overview of *Computer III/*ONA and Related Court
Decisions**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525096 .anchor}

We discussed in detail the factual history of *Computer III/*ONA in the
*Computer III Further Remand Notice*.[^24] One of the Commission\'s main
objectives in the *Computer III* and ONA proceedings has been to permit
the BOCs to compete in unregulated enhanced services markets while
preventing the BOCs from using their local exchange market power to
engage in improper cost allocation and unlawful discrimination against
ESPs. The concern has been that BOCs may have an incentive to use their
existing market power in local exchange services to obtain an
anticompetitive advantage in these other markets by improperly
allocating to their regulated core businesses costs that would be
properly attributable to their competitive ventures, and by
discriminating against rival, unaffiliated ESPs in the provision of
basic network services in favor of their own enhanced services
operations. In *Computer II*, the Commission addressed these concerns by
requiring the then-integrated Bell System to establish fully
structurally separate affiliates in order to provide enhanced
services.[^25] Following the divestiture of AT&T in 1984,[^26] the
Commission extended the structural separation requirements of *Computer
II* to the BOCs.[^27]

In *Computer III*, after reexamining the telecommunications marketplace
and the effects of structural separation during the six years since
*Computer II*, the Commission determined that the benefits of structural
separation were outweighed by the costs, and that nonstructural
safeguards could protect competing ESPs from improper cost allocation
and discrimination by the BOCs while avoiding the inefficiencies
associated with structural separation.[^28] The Commission concluded
that the advent of more flexible, competition-oriented regulation would
permit the BOCs to provide enhanced services integrated with their basic
network facilities.[^29] Towards this end, the Commission adopted a
two-phase system of nonstructural safeguards that permitted the BOCs to
provide enhanced services on an integrated basis. The first phase
required the BOCs to obtain Commission approval of a service-specific
CEI plan in order to offer a new enhanced service.[^30] In these plans,
the BOCs were required to explain how they would offer to ESPs all the
underlying basic services the BOCs used to provide their own enhanced
service offerings, subject to a series of \"equal access\"
parameters.[^31] Thus, the CEI phase of nonstructural safeguards imposed
obligations on the BOCs only to the extent they offered specific
enhanced services. The Commission indicated that such a CEI requirement
could promote the efficiencies of competition in enhanced services
markets by permitting the BOCs to participate in such markets provided
they open their networks to competitors.[^32]

During the second phase of implementing *Computer III*, the Commission
required the BOCs to develop and implement ONA plans. The ONA phase was
intended to broaden a BOC\'s unbundling obligations beyond those
required in the first phase. ONA plans explain how a BOC will unbundle
and make available to unaffiliated ESPs network services in addition to
those the BOC uses to provide its own enhanced services offerings.[^33]
These ONA plans were required to comply with a defined set of criteria
in order for the BOC to obtain structural relief on a going-forward
basis.[^34] This means that a BOC would not need to obtain approval of
CEI plans prior to offering specific enhanced services on an integrated
basis. The Commission also required the BOCs to comply with various
other nonstructural safeguards in the form of rules related to network
disclosure, customer proprietary network information (CPNI), and
quality, installation, and maintenance reporting.[^35] All of these
nonstructural safeguards were designed to promote the efficiency of the
telecommunications network, in part by permitting the technical
integration of basic and enhanced services and in part by preserving
competition in the enhanced services market through the control of
potential anticompetitive behavior by the BOCs.[^36]

In 1990, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated three orders
in the *Computer III* proceeding, finding that the Commission had not
adequately justified the decision to rely on (nonstructural) cost
accounting safeguards as protection against cross-subsidization of
enhanced services by the BOCs.[^37] In response to this remand, the
Commission adopted the *BOC Safeguards Order*, which strengthened the
cost accounting safeguards, and reaffirmed the Commission\'s conclusion
that nonstructural safeguards should govern BOC participation in the
enhanced services industry, rather than structural separation
requirements.[^38]

During the period from 1988 to 1992, the Commission approved the BOCs\'
ONA plans, which described the basic services that the BOCs would
provide to unaffiliated and affiliated ESPs and the terms on which these
services would be provided.[^39] During the two-year period from 1992 to
1993, the Bureau approved the lifting of structural separation for
individual BOCs upon their showing that their initial ONA plans complied
with the requirements of the *BOC Safeguards Order*,[^40] and these
decisions were later affirmed by the Commission.[^41]

After *California I* and the Commission\'s response in the *BOC
Safeguards Order*, the Ninth Circuit in *California II* upheld the
Commission\'s orders approving BOC ONA plans.[^42] In *California II*,
the court concluded that the Commission had scaled back its vision of
ONA since *Computer III* by approving BOC ONA plans before \"fundamental
unbundling\" had been achieved.[^43] The court also concluded that the
issue of whether implementation of ONA plans justified the lifting of
structural separation, as the Commission had determined, was not
properly before it.[^44]

In *California III*, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
partially vacated the Commission\'s *BOC Safeguards Order*.[^45] The
*California III* court found that, in granting full structural relief
based on the BOC ONA plans, the Commission had not adequately explained
its apparent \"retreat\" from requiring \"fundamental unbundling\" of
BOC networks as a component of ONA and a condition for lifting
structural separation.[^46] The court was therefore concerned that ONA
unbundling, as implemented, failed to prevent the BOCs from engaging in
discrimination against competing ESPs in providing access to basic
services.[^47] The court did find, however, that the Commission had
adequately responded to its concerns regarding cost-misallocation by
strengthening its cost accounting rules and introducing a system of
\"price cap\" regulation;[^48] the court indicated its belief that these
strengthened safeguards would significantly reduce the BOCs\' incentive
and ability to misallocate costs.[^49] The court also upheld the scope
of federal preemption adopted in the *BOC Safeguards Order*.[^50]

In response to *California III*, the Bureau issued the *Interim Waiver
Order*, which reinstated the requirement that BOCs must file CEI plans,
and obtain Commission approval of those plans, to continue to provide
specific enhanced services on an integrated basis.[^51] Also in
response, the Commission issued the *Computer III Further Remand
Notice*, which sought comment on the *California III* court\'s remand
question regarding the sufficiency of ONA unbundling as a condition of
lifting structural separation, and on the general issue of whether
relying on nonstructural safeguards serves the public interest.[^52]

**B.Overview of the 1996 Act**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525097 .anchor}

Since the *California III* remand and the Commission\'s release of the
*Computer III Further Remand Notice*, the 1996 Act became law and the
Commission has conducted a number of proceedings to implement its
provisions. These developments give us a fresh perspective from which to
evaluate the Commission\'s current regulatory framework for the
provision of information services. In this section, we describe some of
the major provisions of the 1996 Act, and in later sections we examine
how those provisions may affect our current rules.

**1.Opening the Local Exchange Market**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525098
.anchor}

Various provisions of the 1996 Act are intended to open local exchange
markets to competition. Section 251(c) of the Act requires, among other
things, incumbent LECs, including the BOCs and GTE, to provide to
requesting telecommunications carriers interconnection and access to
unbundled network elements at rates, terms, and conditions that are
just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, and to offer telecommunications
services for resale.[^53] Section 253(a) bars state and local
governments from imposing certain legal requirements that prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any
telecommunications service, and section 253(d) authorizes the Commission
to preempt such legal requirements to the extent necessary to correct
inconsistency with the Act.[^54] As a result, telecommunications
carriers may now enter the local exchange market, and compete with the
incumbent LEC, through access to unbundled network elements, resale, or
through construction of network facilities.

In implementing section 251 of the Act, the Commission prescribed
certain minimum points of interconnection necessary to permit competing
carriers to choose the most efficient points at which to interconnect
with the incumbent LEC\'s network. The Commission also adopted a minimum
list of unbundled network elements (UNEs) that incumbent LECs must make
available to new entrants, upon request.[^55] In Parts III and IV below,
we discuss and seek comment on the potential impact of these unbundling
requirements in more detail, both with respect to the issue in
*California III* regarding the Commission\'s justification of ONA
unbundling as a condition of lifting structural separation, as well as
our overall reexamination of the Commission\'s current nonstructural
safeguards framework.

**2.BOC Provision of Information Services**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525099
.anchor}

The 1996 Act conditions the BOCs\' entry into the market for many
in-region interLATA services, among other things, on their compliance
with the separate affiliate, accounting, and nondiscrimination
requirements set forth in section 272.[^56] In the *Non-Accounting
Safeguards Order*, we noted that these safeguards are designed to
prohibit anticompetitive discrimination and improper cost allocation
while still permitting the BOCs to enter markets for certain interLATA
telecommunications and information services, in the absence of full
competition in the local exchange marketplace.[^57] We also concluded in
the *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order* that the Commission\'s *Computer
II*, *Computer III*, and ONA requirements are consistent with section
272 of the Act, and continue to govern the BOCs\' provision of intraLATA
information services, since section 272 only addresses BOC provision of
interLATA services.[^58]

Sections 260, 274, and 275 of the Act set forth specific requirements
governing the provision of telemessaging, electronic publishing, and
alarm monitoring services, respectively, by the BOCs and, in certain
cases, by incumbent LECs. Section 260 delineates the conditions under
which incumbent LECs, including the BOCs, may offer telemessaging
services. We affirmed our conclusion in the *Non-Accounting Safeguards
Order* that, since telemessaging service is an \"information service,\"
BOCs that offer interLATA telemessaging services are subject to the
separation requirements of section 272.[^59] We further concluded that
the *Computer III*/ONA requirements are consistent with the requirements
of section 260(a)(2), and, therefore, BOCs may offer intraLATA
telemessaging services on an integrated basis subject to both *Computer
III*/ONA and the requirements in section 260.[^60]

Section 274 permits the BOCs to provide electronic publishing services,
whether interLATA or intraLATA,[^61] only through a \"separated
affiliate\" or an \"electronic publishing joint venture\" that meets
certain separation, nondiscrimination, and joint marketing requirements
in that section.[^62] The Commission found that there was no
inconsistency between the nondiscrimination requirements of *Computer
III*/ONA and section 274(d).[^63] We therefore found that the *Computer
III*/ONA requirements continue to govern the BOCs\' provision of
intraLATA electronic publishing.[^64] We also noted that the
nondiscrimination requirements of section 274(d) apply to the BOCs\'
provision of both intraLATA and interLATA electronic publishing.[^65]

Section 275 of the Act prohibits the BOCs from providing alarm
monitoring services until February 8, 2001, although BOCs that were
providing alarm monitoring services as of November 30, 1995 are
grandfathered. Section 275 of the Act does not impose any separation
requirements on the provision of alarm monitoring services.[^66] We
concluded in the *Alarm Monitoring Order* that the *Computer III/*ONA
requirements are consistent with the requirements of section 275(b)(1),
and therefore continue to govern the BOCs\' provision of alarm
monitoring service.[^67] We discuss the potential impact of the Act\'s
new requirements for BOC provision of certain information services on
our cost-benefit analysis of structural versus nonstructural safeguards
in more detail in Part IV.B below.

**III. CALIFORNIA III REMAND**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525100 .anchor}

**A.Background**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525101 .anchor}

As noted above, in *California III*,[^68] the Ninth Circuit reviewed the
*BOC Safeguards Order*,[^69] in which the Commission reaffirmed its
earlier determination to remove structural separation requirements
imposed on a BOC\'s provision of enhanced services, based on a BOC\'s
compliance with ONA requirements and other nonstructural safeguards. The
court found that, in the *BOC Safeguards Order*, and in the orders
implementing ONA, the Commission had \"changed its requirements for, or
definition of, ONA so that ONA no longer contemplates fundamental
unbundling.\"[^70] Because, in the Ninth Circuit\'s view, the Commission
had not adequately explained why this perceived shift did not undermine
its decision to rely on the ONA safeguards to grant full structural
relief, the court remanded the proceeding to the Commission.[^71]

In the *Computer III Phase I Order*, the Commission declined to adopt
any specific network architecture proposals or specific unbundling
requirements, but instead set forth general standards for ONA.[^72] BOCs
were required to file initial ONA plans presenting a set of \"unbundled
basic service functions that could be commonly used in the provision of
enhanced services to the extent technologically feasible.\"[^73] The
Commission stated that, by adopting general requirements rather than
mandating a particular architecture for implementing ONA, it wished to
encourage development of efficient interconnection arrangements.[^74]
The Commission also noted that inefficiencies might result from
\"unnecessarily unbundled or splintered services.\"[^75]

The *Computer III Phase I Order* required the BOCs to meet a defined set
of unbundling criteria in order for structural separation to be
lifted.[^76] In the *BOC ONA Order*, the Commission generally approved
the \"common ONA model\" proposed by the BOCs.[^77] The common ONA model
was based on the existing architecture of the BOC local exchange
networks, and consisted of unbundled services categorized as basic
service arrangements (BSAs),[^78] basic service elements (BSEs),[^79]
complementary network services (CNSs),[^80] and ancillary network
services (ANSs).[^81]

In the *BOC ONA* proceeding, certain commenters criticized the common
ONA model.[^82] The commenters argued that the BOCs had avoided the
*Computer III Phase I Order* unbundling requirements by failing to
\"disaggregate communications facilities and services on an
element-by-element basis.\"[^83] They urged the Commission to adopt a
more \"fundamental\" concept of unbundling in the ONA context, by
requiring the BOCs to unbundle facilities such as loops, as well as
switching functions, inter-office transmission, and signalling.[^84]
Specifically, they claimed that BSAs could be further unbundled; *e.g*.,
trunks could be unbundled from the circuit-switched, trunk-side BSA, so
that ESPs could connect their own trunks to BOC switches.[^85]

In the *BOC ONA Order*, the Commission rejected arguments that ONA, as
set forth in the *Computer III Phase I Order*, required unbundling more
\"fundamental\" than that set forth in the \"common ONA model\" proposed
by the BOCs.[^86] The Commission indicated that the *Computer III Phase
I Order* anticipated that the BOCs would unbundle network services, not
facilities, and determined that the ONA services developed by the BOCs
under the common ONA model were consistent with the examples of service
unbundling set forth in the *Computer III Phase I Order*.[^87] The Ninth
Circuit, however, agreed with the view that the Commission\'s approval
of the BOC ONA plans, and subsequent lifting of structural separation,
was a retreat from a \"requirement\" of \"fundamental unbundling.\"[^88]

**B.Subsequent Events May Have Alleviated the Ninth Circuit\'s
*California III* Concerns**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525102 .anchor}

In this section, we seek comment on whether the enactment and
implementation of the 1996 Act, as well as other developments, should
alleviate the Ninth Circuit\'s underlying concern about the level of
unbundling mandated by ONA. Section 251 of the Act requires incumbent
LECs, including the BOCs and GTE, to provide to requesting
telecommunications carriers interconnection and access to unbundled
network elements[^89] at rates, terms, and conditions that are just,
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, and to offer telecommunications
services for resale.[^90] Section 251 also requires incumbent LECs to
provide for physical collocation at the LEC\'s premises of equipment
necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements,
under certain conditions.[^91]

In its regulations implementing these statutory provisions, the
Commission identified a minimum list of network elements that incumbent
LECs are required to unbundle, including local loops, network interface
devices (NIDs), local and tandem switching capabilities, interoffice
transmission facilities (often referred to as trunks), signalling
networks and call-related databases, operations support systems (OSS)
facilities, and operator services and directory assistance.[^92]
Additional unbundling requirements may be specified during voluntary
negotiations between carriers, by state commissions during arbitration
proceedings, or by the Commission as long as such requirements are
consistent with the 1996 Act and the Commission\'s regulations.[^93] We
note that the 1996 Act creates particular incentives for the BOCs to
unbundle and make available the elements of their local exchange
networks. For example, section 271 provides that a BOC may gain entry
into the interLATA market in a particular state by demonstrating, *inter
alia*, that it has entered into access and interconnection agreements
with competing telephone exchange service providers that satisfy the
\"competitive checklist\" set forth in section 271(c)(2)(B).[^94]

In our view, the unbundling requirements imposed by section 251 and our
implementing regulations (hereinafter referred to as \"section 251
unbundling\") are essentially equivalent to the \"fundamental
unbundling\" requirements proposed by certain commenters, and rejected
by the Commission as premature, in the *BOC ONA Order*. These commenters
asked the Commission to require the BOCs to unbundle network elements
such as loops, switching functions, inter-office transmission, and
signalling.[^95] As noted above, section 251(c)(3) and the Commission\'s
implementing regulations require those elements, and others, to be
unbundled by the BOCs, and by other incumbent LECs that are subject to
the requirements of section 251(c). In addition, the type and level of
unbundling under section 251 is different and more extensive than that
required under ONA.[^96] This may be because one of Congress\'s primary
goals in enacting section 251 \-- to bring competition to the largely
monopolistic local exchange market \-- is more far-reaching than the
Commission\'s goal for ONA, which has been to preserve competition and
promote network efficiency in the developing, but highly competitive,
information services market.[^97]

We recognize that, according to the terms of section 251, only
\"requesting telecommunications carriers\" are directly accorded rights
to interconnect and to obtain access to unbundled network elements.[^98]
In that regard, the section 251 unbundling requirements do not provide
access and interconnection rights to the identical class of entities as
does the ONA regime, since these rights do not extend to entities that
provide solely information services (\"pure ISPs\"). We also recognize
that the development of competition in the local exchange market has not
occurred as rapidly as some expected since the enactment of the 1996
Act.[^99]

We believe, however, that section 251 is intended to bring about
competition in the local exchange market that, ultimately, will result
in increased variety in service offerings and lower service prices, to
the benefit of all end-users, including ISPs. Moreover, because local
telecommunications services are important inputs to the information
services ISPs provide, ISPs are uniquely positioned to benefit from an
increasingly competitive local exchange market. There is evidence, for
example, that carriers that have direct rights under section 251 will
compete with the incumbent LECs to provide pure ISPs with the basic
network services that ISPs need to create their own information service
offerings, either by obtaining unbundled network elements for the
provision of telecommunications services[^100] or through the resale of
such services.[^101] As a result, incumbent LECs have an incentive to
provide an increased variety of telecommunications services to pure ISPs
at lower prices in response to the market presence of such competitors.
Pure ISPs also could enter into partnering or teaming arrangements with
carriers that have direct rights under section 251.[^102] In addition,
ISPs can obtain certification as telecommunications service providers in
order to receive direct benefits under section 251.[^103] We also note
that many ISPs that currently provide both telecommunications services
and information services will have the benefit of both section 251
unbundling as well as ONA.[^104]

For all these reasons, the fact that section 251\'s access and
interconnection rights apply by their terms only to a \"requesting
telecommunications carrier\" does not, in our view, change our
conviction that the 1996 Act, as well as other factors, should alleviate
the court\'s underlying concern in *California III* that the level of
unbundling required under ONA does not provide sufficient protection
against access discrimination. We seek comment on this analysis. In
light of several recent court decisions bearing on these issues, we also
ask commenters to address how the opinions of the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals, including the decision regarding the recombination of
unbundled network elements, as well as the decision of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas concerning the
constitutionality of sections 271 through 275 of the Act, affect our
analysis.[^105]

In addition to the changes engendered by the 1996 Act, there have been
other regulatory and market-based developments that, we believe, also
should alleviate the court\'s underlying concern about whether the level
of unbundling mandated by ONA provides sufficient protection against
access discrimination. For example, the Commission\'s *Expanded
Interconnection*[^106] proceeding requires Class A LECs,[^107] including
the BOCs and GTE, to allow all interested parties to provide competitive
interstate special access, transport, and tandem switched transport by
interconnecting their transmission facilities with the LECs\'
networks.[^108] Competing ISPs that utilize transmission facilities thus
may provide certain transport functions as part of their enhanced
services independent of the *Computer III* framework. These additional
interconnection requirements, together with section 251 unbundling and
the Commission\'s current ONA requirements, further help to protect ISPs
against access discrimination by the BOCs. We seek comment on this
analysis.

In addition, the level of competition within the information services
market, which the Commission termed \"truly competitive\" as early as
1980,[^109] has continued to increase markedly as new competitive ISPs
have entered the market. The phenomenal growth of the Internet over the
past several years illustrates how robustly competitive one sector of
the information services market has become.[^110] Recent surveys suggest
that there are some 3,000 Internet access providers in the United
States;[^111] these providers range from small start-up operations, to
large providers such as IBM and AT&T, to consumer online services such
as America Online. We believe that other sectors of the information
services market have also continued to grow, as we observed in the
*Computer III Further Remand Notice*.[^112] The presence of
well-established participants in the information services market, such
as EDS, MCI, AT&T, Viacom, Times-Mirror, General Electric, and IBM, may
make it more difficult for BOCs to engage in access
discrimination.[^113] For example, the *California I* court indicated
that \"the emergence of powerful competitors such as IBM, which have the
resources and expertise to monitor the quality of access to the network,
reduces the BOCs\' ability to discriminate in providing access to their
competitors.\"[^114] We seek comment on whether the sustained growth of
competition within the information services market, including the
continued participation of large information service competitors, serves
to diminish further the threat of access discrimination and,
consequently, the court\'s concern about whether the level of unbundling
mandated by ONA is sufficient.[^115]

**IV. EFFECT OF THE 1996 ACT** []{#__RefHeading___Toc5525103 .anchor}

As detailed in the background section, the Commission issued the
*Computer III Phase I Order* more than ten years ago, shortly after
divestiture, and before the BOCs had obtained authorization from the MFJ
court to begin to provide information services.[^116] Similarly, the
implementation of ONA primarily took place between 1988 and 1992. Our
objective is now, as it was then, to promote efficiency and increased
service offerings while controlling anticompetitive behavior by the
BOCs. We therefore reevaluate below the continuing need for these
safeguards, in light of the 1996 Act and the significant technological
and market changes that have taken place since the *Computer III*
nonstructural safeguards were first proposed. This reevaluation is also
part of the Commission\'s 1998 biennial review of regulations as
required by the 1996 Act.[^117]

**A.Basic/Enhanced Distinction**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525104 .anchor}

In the *Computer II* proceeding, the Commission adopted a regulatory
scheme that distinguished between the common carrier offering of basic
transmission services and the offering of enhanced services.[^118] The
Commission defined a \"basic transmission service\" as the common
carrier offering of \"pure transmission capability\" for the movement of
information \"over a communications path that is virtually transparent
in terms of its interaction with customer-supplied information.\"[^119]
The Commission further stated that a basic transmission service should
be limited to the offering of transmission capacity between two or more
points suitable for a user\'s transmission needs.[^120] The common
carrier offering of basic services is regulated under Title II of the
Communications Act.[^121] In contrast, the Commission defined enhanced
services as:

services, offered over common carrier transmission facilities used in
interstate communications, which employ computer processing applications
that act on the format, content, code, protocol or similar aspects of
the subscriber\'s transmitted information; provide the subscriber
additional, different, or restructured information; or involve
subscriber interaction with stored information.[^122]

Enhanced services are not regulated under Title II of the Communications
Act.[^123]

The 1996 Act does not utilize the Commission\'s basic/enhanced
terminology, but instead refers to \"telecommunications services\" and
\"information services.\" The 1996 Act defines \"telecommunications\"
as:

the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user\'s choosing, without change in the form or
content of the information as sent and received.[^124]

\"Telecommunications service\" is defined as:

the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or
to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the
public, regardless of facilities used.[^125]

The 1996 Act defines \"information service\" as:

the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing,
transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available
information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing,
but does not include any use of any such capability for the management,
control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management
of a telecommunications service.[^126]

We concluded in the *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order* that, although the
text of the Commission\'s definition of \"enhanced services\" differs
from the 1996 Act\'s definition of \"information services,\" the two
terms should be interpreted to extend to the same functions.[^127] We
found no basis to conclude that, by using the term \"information
services,\" Congress intended a significant departure from the
Commission\'s usage of \"enhanced services.\"[^128] We further explained
that interpreting \"information services\" to include all \"enhanced
services\" provides a measure of regulatory stability for
telecommunications carriers and ISPs by preserving the definitional
scheme under which the Commission exempted certain services from
traditional common carriage regulation.[^129]

Consistent with our conclusion in the *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*
that \"enhanced services\" fall within the statutory definition of
\"information services,\" we seek comment in this Further Notice on
whether the Commission\'s definition of \"basic service\" and the 1996
Act\'s definition of \"telecommunications service\" should be
interpreted to extend to the same functions, even though the two
definitions differ.[^130] We ask parties to address whether there is any
basis to conclude that, by using the term \"telecommunications
services,\" Congress intended a significant departure from the
Commission\'s usage of \"basic services.\" As noted in the
*Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, we believe the public interest is
served by maintaining the regulatory stability of the definitional
scheme under which the Commission exempted certain services from
traditional common carriage regulation. To the extent parties believe
that \"telecommunications services\" differ from \"basic services\" in
any regard, they should identify the distinctions that should be drawn
between the two categories, describe any overlap between the two
categories, and delineate the particular services that would come within
one category and not the other.

In light of our conclusion in the *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order* that
the statutory term \"information services\" includes all services the
Commission has previously considered to be \"enhanced,\" and our
decision in this proceeding to seek comment on whether the statutory
term \"telecommunications services\" includes all services the
Commission has previously considered to be \"basic services,\" we seek
comment on whether the Commission hereafter should conform its
terminology to that used in the 1996 Act. We ask commenters to discuss
whether the Commission\'s rules, which previously distinguished between
basic and enhanced services, should now distinguish between
telecommunications and information services. For example, we ask whether
the Commission\'s *Computer II* decision should now be interpreted to
require facilities-based common carriers that provide information
services to unbundle their telecommunications services and offer such
services to other ISPs under the same tariffed terms and conditions
under which they provide such services to their own information services
operations.[^131]

**B.Cost-Benefit Analysis of Structural
Safeguards**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525105 .anchor}

**1.Background**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525106 .anchor}

The Commission\'s goals in addressing BOC provision of information
services have been both to promote innovation in the provision of
information services and to prevent access discrimination and improper
cost allocation. Because the BOCs control the local exchange network and
the provision of basic services, in the absence of regulatory safeguards
they may have the incentive and ability to engage in anticompetitive
behavior against ISPs that must obtain basic network services from the
BOCs in order to provide their information service offerings. For
example, BOCs may discriminate against competing ISPs by denying them
access to services and facilities or by providing ISPs with access to
services and facilities that is inferior to that provided to the BOCs\'
own information services operations. BOCs also may allocate costs
improperly by shifting costs they incur in providing information
services, which are not regulated under Title II of the Act, to their
basic services.

Under rate-of-return regulation, which allows carriers to set rates
based on the cost of providing a service, the BOCs may have had an
incentive to shift costs incurred in providing information services to
their basic service customers. In 1990, the Commission replaced
rate-of-return regulation with price cap regulation of the BOCs and
certain other LECs to discourage improper cost allocation, among other
things.[^132] Recently, the Commission revised its price caps regime to
eliminate the sharing mechanism, which required price cap carriers to
\"share\" with their access customers half or all their earnings above
certain levels in the form of lower rates.[^133] This revision
substantially reduces the BOCs\' incentive to misallocate costs.[^134]

Since the adoption of *Computer I* in 1971, the Commission has employed
various regulatory tools, including structural separation, to prevent
access discrimination and cost misallocation, first by AT&T and then,
after divestiture, by the BOCs, in providing information services. In
*Computer I*, we imposed a \"maximum separation policy\" on the
provision of \"data processing\" services by common carriers other than
AT&T and its Bell System subsidiaries.[^135] We continued to impose
structural separation on the provision of enhanced services by AT&T and
its Bell System subsidiaries in *Computer II*,[^136] until we replaced
structural separation with a system of nonstructural safeguards in 1986,
in *Computer III*.

The Commission has long recognized both the benefits as well as the
costs of structural separation as a regulatory tool.[^137] The
Commission noted in *Computer II* that a structural separation
requirement reduces firms\' ability to engage in anticompetitive
activity without detection because the extent of joint and common costs
between affiliated firms is reduced, transactions must take place across
corporate boundaries, and the rates, terms, and conditions on which
services will be available to all potential purchasers must be made
publicly available.[^138] Structural separation thus is useful as an
enforcement tool and as a deterrent, because firms are less likely to
engage in anticompetitive activity the more easily it can be detected.
As for costs, the Commission recognized that structural separation
increases firms\' transaction and production costs,[^139] but did not
agree with arguments presented at the time that structural separation
reduces innovation.[^140]

The Commission similarly weighed the benefits and costs of structural
separation in *Computer III* when, with the passage of time and the
accumulation of experience, it replaced the *Computer II* structural
separation requirements with a system of nonstructural safeguards. The
Commission concluded in *Computer III* that the benefits of structural
separation are not significantly greater than the benefits of
nonstructural safeguards in preventing anticompetitive practices by the
BOCs, and that structural separation imposes greater costs on the public
and the BOCs than nonstructural safeguards.[^141] The Commission also
found that the benefits of structural separation had decreased since the
adoption of the *BOC Separation Order*, due to technological and market
developments that diminished the BOCs\' ability to misallocate costs and
engage in access discrimination.[^142] Further, the Commission found,
based on its experience, that the introduction of new information
services by the BOCs was slowed or prevented altogether by structural
separation, thus denying the public the benefits of innovation.[^143]
The Commission also found that structural separation imposed direct
costs on the BOCs resulting from duplication of facilities and
personnel, limitations on joint marketing, and deprivation of economies
of scope.[^144] The Ninth Circuit upheld the Commission\'s analysis of
the costs of structural separation in *California I* and *California
III*.[^145]

**2.Effect of the 1996 Act and Other
Factors**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525107 .anchor}

In the *Computer III Further Remand Notice*, the Commission sought
comment on how various factors, including reports of anticompetitive
behavior by the BOCs and the increase in the number of BOC information
service offerings since the elimination of structural separation,
affected the Commission\'s cost-benefit analysis of structural
separation in *Computer III*.[^146] The 1996 Act was enacted after the
Commission issued the *Computer III Further Remand Notice*, and raises
additional issues that may affect this cost-benefit analysis. As
discussed in more detail below, we tentatively conclude that the Act\'s
overall pro-competitive, de-regulatory framework, as well as our public
interest analysis, support the continued application of the
Commission\'s nonstructural safeguards regime to the provision by the
BOCs of intraLATA information services.[^147] We also tentatively
conclude that allowing the BOCs to offer intraLATA information services
subject to nonstructural safeguards serves as an appropriate balance of
the need to provide incentives to the BOCs for the continued development
of innovative new technologies and information services that will
benefit the public with the need to protect competing ISPs against the
potential for anticompetitive behavior by the BOCs. We thus propose to
allow the BOCs to continue to provide intraLATA information services on
an integrated basis, subject to the Commission\'s *Computer III* and ONA
requirements as modified or amended by this proceeding, or on a
structurally separate basis. If a BOC chooses to provide intraLATA
information services on a structurally separate basis, we seek comment
on whether we should permit the BOC to choose between a *Computer II*
and an Act-mandated affiliate under section 272 or section 274, or
whether we should mandate one of these types of affiliates.

**a.Section 251 and Local Competition**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525108
.anchor}

Competition in the local exchange and exchange access markets is the
best safeguard against anticompetitive behavior. BOCs are unable to
engage successfully in discrimination and cost misallocation to the
extent that competing ISPs have alternate sources of access to basic
services. Stated differently, when other telecommunications carriers,
such as interexchange carriers (IXCs) or cable service providers,
compete with the BOCs in providing basic services to ISPs, the BOCs are
less able to engage successfully in discrimination and cost
misallocation because they risk losing business from their ISP customers
for basic services to these competing telecommunications carriers.[^148]

As discussed above, the 1996 Act affirmatively promotes local
competition. Sections 251 and 253, among other sections, are intended to
eliminate entry barriers and foster competition in the local exchange
and exchange access markets.[^149] Indeed, the market for local exchange
and exchange access services has begun to respond to some degree to the
pro-competitive mandates of the 1996 Act. Some ISPs, for example,
currently are obtaining basic services that underlie their information
services from competing providers of telecommunications services that
have entered into interconnection agreements with the BOCs pursuant to
section 251.[^150]

We recognize that the BOCs remain the dominant providers of local
exchange and exchange access services in their in-region states,[^151]
and thus continue to have the ability and incentive to engage in
anticompetitive behavior against competing ISPs. On the other hand, the
movement toward local exchange and exchange access competition should,
over time, decrease and eventually eliminate the need for regulation of
the BOCs to ensure that they do not engage in access discrimination or
cost misallocation of their basic service offerings.[^152] The
Commission has previously concluded that the nonstructural safeguards
established in *Computer III* could combat such anticompetitive behavior
as effectively as structural separation requirements, but in a less
costly way.[^153] We thus tentatively conclude that the de-regulatory,
pro-competitive provisions of the 1996 Act, and the framework the 1996
Act set up for promoting local competition, are consistent with, and
provide additional support for, the continued application of the
Commission\'s current nonstructural safeguards regime for BOC provision
of intraLATA information services. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.

**b.Structural Separation and the 1996
Act**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525109 .anchor}

In the *Computer III Further Remand Notice*, we sought comment on the
issue of whether some form of structural separation should be reimposed
for the provision of information services by the BOCs, and we discussed
briefly the costs and benefits that the Commission previously identified
in granting structural relief to the BOCs. In this section, we seek
comment on the extent to which the Act-mandated separation requirements
may affect this cost-benefit analysis.

As noted above, the 1996 Act permits the BOCs to enter markets from
which they were previously restricted, allowing the BOCs to develop and
market innovative new technologies and information services. In doing
so, Congress in certain cases imposed structural separation requirements
on the BOCs. Section 272, for example, allows the BOCs to provide
certain interLATA information services as well as in-region, interLATA
telecommunications services, and to engage in manufacturing activities,
only through a structurally separate affiliate. Section 274 imposes
structural separation requirements on BOC provision of intraLATA and
interLATA electronic publishing services. Congress did not, however,
mandate separation requirements for BOC provision of other information
services.[^154]

In the *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order* we recognized that section 272
on its face does not require the BOCs to offer intraLATA information
services through a separate affiliate, and deferred to this proceeding
the question of whether the Commission should exercise its general
rulemaking authority to do so.[^155] We find it significant that
Congress limited the separate affiliate requirement in section 272 to
BOC provision of most interLATA information services, interLATA
telecommunications services, and manufacturing, and in section 274 to
BOC provision of electronic publishing services.[^156] We therefore
tentatively conclude that Congress\' decision to impose structural
separation requirements in sections 272 and 274, while relevant to our
cost-benefit analysis, does not in itself warrant a return to structural
separation for BOC provision of intraLATA information services not
subject to those sections. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

Congress\'s decision to mandate structural separation only for certain
information services does not necessarily foreclose the Commission from
mandating or allowing structural separation for other information
services. We recognize that, for example, the statutory separate
affiliate requirements may reduce the cost of returning to a structural
separation regime for BOC provision of intraLATA information services,
given that the BOCs already are required to establish at least one
structurally separate affiliate in order to provide the services covered
by sections 272 and 274.[^157] Some BOCs may find it more efficient to
provide all of their information services through a statutorily-mandated
affiliate. In addition, it may be in the public interest for the
Commission to prescribe a uniform set of regulations for BOC provision
of both intraLATA and interLATA information services, by requiring, for
example, that BOCs provide all information services through an affiliate
that complies with the statute. This approach would eliminate the need
to distinguish between intraLATA and interLATA information services for
purposes of regulation and, consequently, lower compliance and
enforcement costs.

On the other hand, mandatory structural separation would entail
increased transaction and production costs for the BOCs, as discussed
above.[^158] In addition, in the *Computer III Further Remand Notice* we
noted that all of the BOCs currently are offering some information
services on an integrated basis pursuant to CEI plans approved by the
Commission.[^159] Thus, our cost-benefit analysis should take into
account the costs today of returning to structural separation. These
would include the personnel, operational, and other changes the BOCs
would have to undergo in order to reinstate a regime of structural
separation, and the service disruptions, lower service quality, reduced
innovation, and higher user rates that may result.[^160] We must also
consider the effect on the public of the potential delay in the
development of new technologies and information services by the BOCs
that may result. In addition, once the separation requirements under
sections 272 and 274 sunset,[^161] structural separation for intraLATA
information services based on the existence of the statutorily-mandated
affiliates would have to be reexamined.

We also recognize the benefits of a flexible, regulatory framework that
would allow the BOCs, consistent with the public interest, to structure
their operations as they see fit in order to maximize efficiencies and
thus provide greater benefits to consumers. We note that, under our
current rules, a BOC may provide an intraLATA information service either
on an integrated basis pursuant to an approved CEI plan or on a
structurally separated basis pursuant to the Commission\'s *Computer II*
rules.[^162] SBC has argued that the BOCs continue to need this type of
flexibility to provide intraLATA information services either on an
integrated basis, subject to appropriate safeguards, or through a
separate affiliate, because the most appropriate form of regulation
varies service-by-service, depending on the relative significance of
cost considerations and other factors.[^163] Although the Commission may
need to devote more resources to administer and enforce multiple
regulatory regimes, this approach would allow the BOCs to structure
their intraLATA information service offerings more in accordance with
their business needs. In addition, such an approach may minimize the
risk of service disruptions, since the BOCs would not have to change the
manner in which they are providing their current intraLATA information
service offerings.[^164]

In addition to the factors cited by the Commission in the *Computer III
Phase I Order*,[^165] more recent events may affect the analysis of the
relative costs and benefits of structural and nonstructural safeguards.
In particular, we earlier discussed how our *Price Caps Fourth Report
and Order* eliminates the sharing mechanism from the price caps regime,
thereby reducing the BOCs\' incentive to misallocate costs.[^166] We
also described previously how the local competition provisions of the
1996 Act provide for alternate sources of access to basic services,
thereby diminishing the BOCs\' ability to engage in anticompetitive
behavior against competing ISPs.[^167]

In light of this analysis, we continue to believe it is preferable, as a
matter of public interest, to continue with the Commission\'s
nonstructural safeguards regime rather than to reimpose structural
separation, notwithstanding the affiliate requirements of sections 272
and 274 of the Act. We thus tentatively conclude that the BOCs should
continue to be able to choose whether to provide intraLATA information
services either on an integrated basis, subject to the Commission\'s
*Computer III* and ONA requirements as modified or amended by this
proceeding, or pursuant to a separate affiliate. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. In addition, if a BOC chooses to provide intraLATA
information services through a separate affiliate, we seek comment on
whether we should permit the BOC to choose between a *Computer II* and
an Act-mandated affiliate, or whether we should mandate one of these
types of affiliates. Finally, we seek comment on how the recent *SBC v.
FCC* decision in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas affects this analysis.[^168]

**C.Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI)
Plans**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525110 .anchor}

**1.Proposed Elimination of Current
Requirements**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525111 .anchor}

In the *Interim Waiver Order* adopted in response to the *California
III* decision, the Bureau allowed the BOCs to continue to provide
existing enhanced services on an integrated basis, provided that they
filed CEI plans for those services.[^169] In addition, the Bureau
required the BOCs to file CEI plans for new enhanced services they
propose to offer, and to obtain the Bureau\'s approval for these plans
before beginning to provide service.[^170] We concluded that the partial
vacation of the *BOC Safeguards Order* in *California III* reinstated
the service-specific CEI plan regime, augmented by implementation of
ONA, until the Commission concluded its remand proceedings.[^171] BOCs
were also required to comply with the requirements established in their
approved ONA plans, because we had previously determined that ONA
requirements are independent of the removal of structural separation
requirements.[^172]

In this Further Notice, we tentatively conclude that we should eliminate
the requirement that BOCs file CEI plans and obtain Bureau approval for
those plans prior to providing new information services. We note that
CEI plans were always intended to be an interim measure, designed to
bridge the gap between the Commission\'s decision to lift structural
separation in the *Computer III Phase I Order* and the implementation of
ONA. While CEI plans have been effective as interim safeguards,[^173] we
tentatively conclude that they are not necessary to protect against
access discrimination once the BOCs are providing information services
pursuant to approved ONA plans, which they have been for several
years.[^174] ONA provides ISPs an even greater level of protection
against access discrimination than CEI. Under ONA, not only must the
BOCs offer network services to competing ISPs in compliance with the
nine CEI \"equal access\" parameters, but the BOCs must also unbundle
and tariff key network service elements beyond those they use to provide
their own enhanced services offerings.[^175] BOCs are also subject to
ONA amendment requirements that constitute an additional safeguard
against access discrimination following the lifting of structural
separation.[^176]

Further, under the 1996 Act, the BOCs are now subject to additional
statutory requirements that will help prevent access discrimination,
including the section 251 unbundling requirements and the network
information disclosure requirements of section 251(c)(5).[^177] These
statutory requirements all serve as further protections against access
discrimination, both by requiring the BOCs to open the local exchange
market to competition, and by ensuring that the BOCs publicly disclose
on a timely basis information about changes in their basic network
services.

Given the protections afforded by ONA and the 1996 Act, we believe that
the substantial administrative costs associated with BOC preparation,
and agency review, of CEI plans outweigh their utility as an additional
safeguard against access discrimination. Moreover, the time and effort
involved in the preparation and review of the CEI plans may delay the
introduction of new information services by the BOCs, without
commensurate regulatory benefits. Such a result is contrary to one of
the Commission\'s original purposes in adopting a nonstructural
safeguards regime, which was to promote and speed introduction of new
information services, benefiting the public by giving them access to
innovative new technologies.[^178]

For the reasons outlined above, we tentatively conclude that we should
eliminate the requirement that BOCs file CEI plans and obtain Bureau
approval for those plans prior to providing new information services. We
believe the significant burden imposed by these requirements on the BOCs
and the Commission outweighs their possible incremental benefit as
additional safeguards against access discrimination.[^179] In this
light, we tentatively conclude that lifting the CEI plan requirement
will further our statutory obligation to review and eliminate
regulations that are \"no longer necessary in the public
interest.\"[^180] We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and our
supporting analysis. Parties who disagree with this tentative conclusion
should address whether there are more streamlined procedures that could
be adopted as an alternative to the current CEI filing requirements.

We recognize that, as part of our effort to reexamine our nonstructural
safeguards regime, we seek comment in this Further Notice on whether we
should modify or amend certain ONA requirements.[^181] Because we base
our tentative conclusion that we should eliminate the CEI-plan filing
requirement in part on the adequacy of ONA, we ask that parties comment
on how any of the modifications the Commission proposes in Part IV.D.,
or proposed by commenters in response to our questions, may affect this
tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on whether the requirements
that the 1996 Act imposes on the BOCs, such as those relating to section
251 unbundling and network information disclosure, are sufficient in
themselves to provide a basis for eliminating CEI plans.

**2.Treatment of Services Provided Through 272/274
Affiliates**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525112 .anchor}

**a.Section 272**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525113 .anchor}

In the *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, we noted that section 272 of
the Act imposes specific separate affiliate and nondiscrimination
requirements on BOC provision of \"interLATA information services,\" but
does not address BOC provision of intraLATA information services.[^182]
We concluded that, pending the conclusion of the *Computer III Further
Remand* proceeding, BOCs may continue to provide intraLATA information
services on an integrated basis, in compliance with the Commission\'s
nonstructural safeguards established in *Computer III* and ONA.[^183]

The *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order* also raised the related issue of
whether a BOC that provides all information services (both intraLATA and
interLATA) through a section 272 separate affiliate satisfies the
Commission\'s *Computer II* separate subsidiary requirements, and
therefore does not have to file a CEI plan for those services.[^184] We
noted that the record in the *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order* was
insufficient to make this determination, and that we would examine this
issue in the *Computer III Further Remand* proceeding.

If we do not adopt our tentative conclusion in this proceeding to
eliminate the CEI plan filing requirement for the BOCs,[^185] we
tentatively conclude that the BOCs should not have to file CEI plans for
information services that are offered through section 272 separate
affiliates, notwithstanding that section 272\'s requirements are not
identical to the Commission\'s *Computer II* requirements (all other
applicable *Computer III* and ONA safeguards, however, as amended or
modified by this proceeding, would continue to apply). We note that, to
the extent certain or all BOCs no longer have to provide interLATA
services through a section 272 affiliate as a result of the *SBC v. FCC*
decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, then this tentative conclusion would not apply.[^186]

We reach our tentative conclusion for several reasons. First, we believe
that the concerns underlying the Commission\'s *Computer II*
requirements regarding access discrimination and cost misallocation are
sufficiently addressed by the accounting and non-accounting requirements
set forth in section 272 and the Commission\'s orders implementing this
section.[^187] Second, after a BOC receives authority under section 271
to provide interLATA services through a section 272 affiliate, the BOC
in many cases may want to provide a seamless information service to
customers that would combine both the inter- and intraLATA components of
such service. For the Commission to require that the BOC also receive
approval under a CEI plan for the intraLATA component of such service
is, in our view, unnecessary, and likely to delay the provision of
integrated services that would be beneficial to consumers. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion and supporting analysis.

We also noted in the *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order* that other issues
raised regarding the interplay between the 1996 Act and the
Commission\'s *Computer III/ONA* regime would be addressed in the
*Computer III Further Remand* proceeding.[^188] These included whether:
(1) the Commission should harmonize its regulatory treatment of
intraLATA information services provided by the BOCs with the section 272
requirements imposed by Congress on interLATA information services; (2)
the 1996 Act\'s CPNI, network disclosure, nondiscrimination, and
accounting provisions supersede various of the Commission\'s *Computer
III* nonstructural safeguards; and (3) section 251\'s interconnection
and unbundling requirements render the Commission\'s *Computer III* and
*ONA* requirements unnecessary. These issues are either being addressed
in this Further Notice or have been covered in other proceedings.[^189]

**b.Section 274**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525114 .anchor}

In the *Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order*, we concluded
that the Commission\'s *Computer II*, *Computer III*, and ONA
requirements continue to govern the BOCs\' provision of intraLATA
electronic publishing services.[^190] We found, however, that the record
was insufficient to determine whether BOC provision of electronic
publishing through a section 274 affiliate satisfied all the relevant
requirements of *Computer II*, such that the BOC would not have to file
a CEI plan for that service.[^191] We noted that we would consider that
issue, as well as other issues raised regarding the revision or
elimination of the *Computer III/ONA* requirements, in the *Computer III
Further Remand* proceeding.

If we do not adopt our tentative conclusion in this proceeding to
eliminate the CEI plan filing requirement for the BOCs, we tentatively
conclude, as we do above for information services that are provided
through a section 272 affiliate, that BOCs should not have to file CEI
plans for electronic publishing services or other information services
provided through their section 274 affiliate (as noted above, however,
all other applicable *Computer III* and ONA safeguards, as amended or
modified by this proceeding, would continue to apply). As noted above,
to the extent certain or all BOCs no longer are subject to section 274
for their provision of electronic publishing as a result of the *SBC v.
FCC* decision by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, then this tentative conclusion would not apply.[^192]

Again, we reach our tentative conclusion for several reasons. First, we
believe the section 274 separation and nondiscrimination requirements,
and the Commission\'s rules implementing those requirements, are
sufficient to address concerns regarding access discrimination and
misallocation of costs in general. Second, given that Congress set forth
detailed rules in section 274 for the specific provision of electronic
publishing services, we do not believe the Commission should continue to
require the BOCs to file, and the Commission to approve, CEI plans
before the BOCs may provide such services. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion and supporting analysis.

**3.Treatment of Telemessaging and Alarm Monitoring
Services**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525115 .anchor}

In the *Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order* and the *Alarm
Monitoring Order*, respectively, we concluded that the Commission\'s
*Computer II*, *Computer III*, and ONA requirements continue to govern
the BOCs\' provision of intraLATA telemessaging services[^193] and alarm
monitoring services.[^194] Because neither section 260 nor section 275
imposes separation requirements for the provision of intraLATA
telemessaging services or alarm monitoring services, respectively, BOCs
may provide those services, subject both to other restrictions in those
sections, as applicable,[^195] as well as the Commission\'s current
nonstructural safeguards regime, as modified by the proposals that we
may adopt in this proceeding.

**4.Related Issues**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525116 .anchor}

If we adopt our tentative conclusion to eliminate the CEI plan filing
requirement for the BOCs, we seek comment on whether we should dismiss
all CEI matters pending at that time (including pending CEI plans,
pending CEI plan amendments, and requests for CEI waivers), on the
condition that the BOCs must comply with any new or modified rules that
may be established as a result of this Further Notice.[^196] We also
seek comment on whether we should require a BOC with CEI approval to
continue to offer service under the CEI requirements. To the extent that
parties involved in pending CEI matters raise issues other than those
directly related to the CEI requirements (*e.g.,* whether the service
for which the BOC is seeking CEI-plan approval is a true information
service, as opposed to a telecommunications service that should be
offered under tariff), we seek comment on how and in what forum those
issues should be addressed.

We note that section 276 directs the Commission to prescribe a set of
nonstructural safeguards for BOC provision of payphone service, which
must include, at a minimum, the \"nonstructural safeguards equal to
those adopted in\" the *Computer III* proceeding.[^197] In implementing
section 276, the Commission required the BOCs, among other things, to
file CEI plans describing how they would comply with various
nonstructural safeguards.[^198] The Bureau approved the BOCs\' CEI plans
to provide payphone service on April 15, 1997.[^199]

We seek comment on whether the changes that may be made to the
Commission\'s *Computer III* and ONA rules as a result of this Further
Notice should also apply to the nonstructural safeguards regime
established in the *Payphone Order* proceeding for BOC provision of
payphone service. For example, to the extent that we adopt our tentative
conclusion to eliminate the CEI plan filing requirement, should we also
relieve the BOCs from the requirement of filing amendments to their CEI
plans for payphone service? How does this comport with the statutory
requirement in section 276? We seek comment on these issues.

**D.ONA and Other Nonstructural
Safeguards**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525117 .anchor}

**1.ONA Unbundling Requirements**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525118 .anchor}

**a.Introduction**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525119 .anchor}

The Commission\'s ONA unbundling requirements serve both to safeguard
against access discrimination and to promote competition and market
efficiency in the information services industry. As described above, the
Commission conditioned the permanent elimination of the *Computer II*
structural separation requirements imposed on the BOCs upon the
evolutionary implementation of ONA and other nonstructural safeguards.
The ONA requirements, however, have a significance independent of
whether they provide the basis for lifting structural separation. In
1990, during the course of the remand proceedings in response to
*California I*, the Commission required the BOCs to implement ONA
regardless of whether ONA provided the basis for elimination of
structural separation. As discussed below, the Commission stated that
\"\[a\] major goal of ONA is to increase opportunities for ESPs to use
the BOCs\' regulated networks in highly efficient ways, enabling ESPs to
expand their markets for their present services and develop new
offerings as well, all to the benefit of consumers.\"[^200] It was for
this reason that the Commission applied the ONA requirements to GTE in
1994.[^201]

ONA is the overall design of a carrier\'s basic network services to
permit all users of the basic network, including the information
services operations of the carrier and its competitors, to interconnect
to specific basic network functions and interfaces on an unbundled and
\"equal access\" basis.[^202] The BOCs and GTE through ONA must unbundle
key components of their basic services and make them available under
tariff, regardless of whether their information services operations
utilize the unbundled components. Such unbundling ensures that
competitors of the carrier\'s information services operations can
develop information services that utilize the carrier\'s network on an
economical and efficient basis.

**b.ONA Unbundling Requirements**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525120 .anchor}

In the *Computer III Phase I Order* we declined to adopt any specific
network architecture proposals for ONA and instead specified certain
standards that carriers\' ONA plans must meet.[^203] The unbundling
standard for the BOCs required that: (1) the BOCs\' enhanced services
operations obtain unbundled network services pursuant to tariffed terms,
conditions, and rates available to all ISPs; (2) BOCs provide an initial
set of basic service functions that could be commonly used in the
provision of information services to the extent technologically
feasible; (3) ISPs participate in developing the initial set of network
services; (4) BOCs select the set of network services based on the
expected market demand for such elements, their utility as perceived by
information service competitors, and the technical and costing
feasibility of such unbundling; and (5) BOCs comply with CEI
requirements in providing basic network services to affiliated and
unaffiliated ISPs.[^204] In the *BOC ONA Order* that reviewed the
initial BOC ONA plans for compliance with the Commission\'s
requirements, the Commission generally approved the use of the \"common
ONA model\" that described unbundled services BOCs would provide to
competing ISPs.[^205] Under the common ONA model, ISPs obtain access to
various unbundled ONA services, termed Basic Service Elements (BSEs),
through access links described as Basic Service Arrangements
(BSAs).[^206] BSEs are used by ISPs to configure their information
services. Other ONA elements include Complementary Network Services
(CNSs), which are optional unbundled basic service features (such as
stutter dial tone) that an end user may obtain from carriers in order to
obtain access to or receive information services, and Ancillary Network
Services (ANSs), which are non-Title II services, such as billing and
collection, that may be useful to ISPs.[^207]

The BOCs and GTE are also subject to the ONA amendment requirement.
Under this requirement, if a subject carrier itself seeks to offer an
information service that uses a new BSE or otherwise uses different
configurations of underlying basic services than those included in its
approved ONA plan, the carrier must amend its ONA plan at least ninety
days before it proposes to offer that information service.[^208] The
Commission must approve the amendment before the subject carrier can use
the new basic service for its own information services.[^209]

In addition to the ONA services that BOCs and GTE currently provide,
there are mechanisms to help ISPs obtain the new ONA services they
require to provide information services. As described below, when an ISP
identifies a new network functionality that it wants to use to provide
an information service, it can request the service directly from the BOC
or GTE through a 120-day process specified in our rules, or it can
request that the Network Interconnection Interoperability Forum
(NIIF)[^210] sponsored by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions (ATIS)[^211] consider the technical feasibility of the
service.

Under the Commission\'s 120-day request process, an ISP that requests a
new ONA basic service from the BOC or GTE must receive a response within
120 days regarding whether the BOC or GTE will provide the
service.[^212] The BOC or GTE must give specific reasons if it will not
offer the service. The BOC or GTE\'s evaluation of the ISP request is to
be based on the ONA selection criteria set forth in the original *Phase
I Order*: (1) market area demand; (2) utility to ISPs as perceived by
the ISPs themselves; (3) feasibility of offering the service based on
its cost; and (4) technical feasibility of offering the service.[^213]
If an ISP objects to the BOC or GTE\'s response, it may seek redress
from the Commission by filing a petition for declaratory ruling.[^214]

Additionally, ISPs can ask the NIIF for technical assistance in
developing and requesting new network services.[^215] Upon request, the
NIIF will establish a task force composed of representatives from
different industry sectors to evaluate the technical feasibility of the
service, and through a consensus process, make recommendations on how
the service can be implemented. ISPs can then take the information to a
specific BOC or GTE and request the service under the 120-day process
using the NIIF result to show that the request is technically feasible.

As part of the Commission\'s 1998 biennial review of regulations, we
seek comment on whether ONA has been and continues to be an effective
means of providing ISPs with access to the BOC/GTE unbundled network
services they need to structure efficiently and innovatively their
information service offerings. To the extent that commenters assert that
ONA is effective or ineffective, we request that they cite to specific
instances to support their claims.

In addition, we seek comment on whether the \"common ONA model\" through
which ISPs gain access to BSEs, BSAs, CNSs, and ANSs is adequate to
provide ISPs with the network functionalities they need. If not, what
specific changes to the ONA unbundling framework should be made? Some
parties have argued that the common ONA model forces ISPs to purchase
unnecessary services or functionalities that are embedded within the
BSEs, BSAs, CNSs, and ANSs. We seek comment on this argument. In
addressing these issues, commenters should take note of our separate
inquiry below regarding the impact of section 251 and its separate
unbundling regime.[^216]

We further seek comment on whether ISPs make use of the ONA framework to
acquire unbundled network services or whether they use other means to
obtain such services in order to provide their information service
offerings. Commenters that have used means other than ONA to acquire or
provide unbundled network services should identify those means, state
why ONA was not used, and discuss why the alternative approach was more
effective and efficient.

In addition, we seek comment on whether the ONA 120-day request process
established to help ISPs obtain new ONA services has been effective. We
seek comment, from ISPs in particular, regarding whether they have made
use of the 120-day request process, and the results from using that
process. If ISPs have not used the 120-day request process, we request
that they explain why they have not done so. We further request that
parties comment, with specificity, on what, if anything, we should do to
streamline the 120-day request process to make it more useful. In the
alternative, we seek comment on whether the 120-day request process
should be eliminated, in light of the fact that the issues that must be
resolved between the carrier and the requesting ISP are technical and
operational in nature, and may be most appropriately addressed in an
industry forum, such as the NIIF. We also seek comment on whether the
ONA amendment process has been effective.

We further seek comment regarding the role of the NIIF in helping ISPs
obtain basic services from the BOCs and GTE. We seek comment, from ISPs
in particular, regarding whether they have requested assistance from the
NIIF in determining the technical feasibility of offering particular
network functionalities as new basic services, and if so, the results
obtained. If ISPs have not done so, we request that they tell us why
not. We further seek comment on whether we should continue to request
that the NIIF perform the function of facilitating ISP ONA requests or
whether some other forum or industry group would be more
appropriate.[^217]

Finally, we seek comment on whether and how the development of new
information services, including, for example, Internet services, should
affect our analysis of the effectiveness of the Commission\'s current
ONA rules for ISPs. As we noted in the *Information Service and Internet
Access NOI*, many of the Commission\'s existing rules have been designed
for traditional circuit-switched voice networks rather than the emerging
packet-switched data networks.[^218] While the *Information Service and
Internet Access NOI* sought comment, in general, on identifying ways in
which the Commission could facilitate the development of high-bandwidth
data networks while preserving efficient incentives for investment and
innovation in the underlying voice network,[^219] we seek comment in
this Further Notice specifically on whether and how the Commission
should modify the *Computer III* and ONA rules in light of these
technological developments.

Specifically, we seek comment on how the Commission\'s *Computer III* or
ONA rules may impact the BOCs\' incentive to invest in and deploy data
network switching technology. For example, the Commission\'s existing
ONA rules require the BOCs to unbundle and separately tariff all basic
services. We have interpreted this rule to require a BOC to unbundle and
separately tariff a basic service used in the provision of an
information service provided by the BOC affiliate, even where the basic
service is solely located in, and owned by, the BOC affiliate, not the
BOC. This situation may arise, for example, when a frame relay
switch[^220] is located in, and owned by, the BOC affiliate rather than
the BOC. We seek comment on the appropriate treatment of these types of
services.

**c.Effect of the 1996 Act**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525121 .anchor}

**(1)Section 251 Unbundling**

Section 251 of the Act requires incumbent LECs, including the BOCs and
GTE, to provide to requesting telecommunications carriers
interconnection and access to unbundled network elements at rates,
terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory,
and to offer telecommunications services for resale.[^221] The Act
defines \"telecommunications carrier\" as \"any provider of
telecommunications services, except that such term does not include
aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in
section 226).\"[^222] As we concluded in the *Local Competition Order*,
the term \"telecommunications carrier\" does not include ISPs that do
not also provide domestic or international telecommunications.[^223]
Thus, as discussed above, companies that provide both information and
telecommunications services are able to request interconnection, access
to unbundled network elements, and resale under section 251, but
companies that only provide information services (\"pure ISPs\") are not
accorded such rights under section 251.[^224]

Despite this limitation, there are several ways that pure ISPs may be
able to obtain benefits from section 251, as discussed in Part III.B
above.[^225] We recognize, however, that section 251 provides a level of
unbundling that pure ISPs do not receive under the Commission\'s current
ONA framework.[^226] Unbundling under section 251 includes the physical
facilities of the network, together with the features, functions, and
capabilities associated with those facilities.[^227] Section 251 also
requires incumbent LECs to provide for the collocation at the LEC\'s
premises of equipment necessary for interconnection or access to
unbundled network elements, under certain conditions. Unbundling under
ONA, in contrast, emphasizes the unbundling of basic services, not the
substitution of underlying facilities in a carrier\'s network.[^228] ONA
unbundling also does not mandate interconnection on carriers\' premises
of facilities owned by others.[^229] These differences may be due to the
different policy goals that the two regimes were designed to
serve.[^230]

As seen above, section 251 unbundling raises a number of issues relating
to the Commission\'s ONA framework. In the *Non-Accounting Safeguards
Order*, for example, some parties stated that section 251\'s
interconnection and unbundling requirements render the Commission\'s
*Computer III* and ONA requirements unnecessary.[^231] A related issue
is whether the Commission, pursuant to our general rulemaking authority,
should extend section 251-type unbundling to \"pure ISPs.\"

In this Further Notice, we seek comment on whether section 251, as
currently applied, obviates the need for ONA. We ask commenters to
analyze this issue with respect to both pure ISPs as well as ISPs that
are also telecommunications carriers. For example, is ONA unbundling
still necessary for ISPs that are also telecommunications carriers for
whom section 251 unbundling is available? As for pure ISPs, does the
fact that they can obtain the benefits of section 251 by becoming
telecommunications carriers, or by partnering with or obtaining basic
services from competitive telecommunications providers, render ONA
unnecessary? Commenters should address whether ONA should still be
available for pure ISPs or other ISPs in areas where there may not be
sufficient competition in the local exchange market.

We also seek comment on whether it is in the public interest for the
Commission to extend section 251-type unbundling to pure ISPs.[^232] Put
differently, we seek comment regarding whether, pursuant to our general
rulemaking authority contained in section 201-205 of the Act, and as
exercised in the *Computer III, ONA*, and *Expanded
Interconnection* proceedings, we can and should extend some or all
rights accorded by section 251 to requesting telecommunications carriers
to pure ISPs. Commenters who contend that it is in the public interest
to extend section 251-type unbundling should address why it is necessary
to do so, given the alternative options pure ISPs have to obtain the
benefits of section 251 unbundling, as well as the unbundling rights
ISPs currently enjoy under the Commission\'s existing ONA regime.
Commenters should also address whether the extension of section 251-type
unbundling to pure ISPs would be inconsistent with section 251, which by
its terms applies only to telecommunications carriers. Similarly,
commenters should address whether section 251-type unbundling is
appropriate for pure ISPs, given the different purposes section 251 and
ONA serve, and the different approaches to unbundling they encompass.
Furthermore, commenters that argue that we should extend the section 251
unbundling framework to pure ISPs should explain what such a framework
would include. For example, commenters should address, among other
things, whether extending section 251-type unbundling rights to pure
ISPs necessarily requires the extension to pure ISPs of any obligations
under section 251 or other Title II provisions. Commenters should also
address whether extending section 251-type unbundling to pure ISPs
obviates the need for ONA.[^233]

**(2)InterLATA Information Services**

As discussed above, we tentatively conclude in this Further Notice that
the Commission\'s nonstructural safeguard regime should continue to
apply to BOC provision of intraLATA information services.[^234] Prior to
the enactment of the 1996 Act, however, we did not distinguish between
intraLATA and interLATA information services, and we did not explicitly
apply our *Computer III* and ONA rules to BOC provision of interLATA
information services since the BOCs were prevented under the MFJ from
providing interLATA services.[^235] Section 272 of the 1996 Act,
however, does distinguish between intraLATA and interLATA information
services by imposing separation and nondiscrimination requirements on
BOC provision of interLATA information services.[^236] We seek comment,
therefore, on whether the Commission\'s ONA requirements, as modified or
amended by this proceeding, should be interpreted as encompassing BOC
provision of interLATA information services. We also seek comment on
whether it would be inconsistent with section 272 for the Commission to
apply ONA requirements to BOC provision of interLATA information
services.

In addressing this issue, we ask that commenters take note of the
following policy considerations. As noted above, the Commission required
the BOCs to implement ONA regardless of whether ONA provided the basis
for elimination of structural separation.[^237] We stated that ONA
serves the public interest, not only by serving as a critical
nonstructural safeguard against anticompetitive behavior by the BOCs,
but also by promoting the efficient use of the network by ISPs, to the
benefit of consumers.[^238] On the other hand, section 272 already sets
forth the statutory requirements for BOC provision of interLATA
information services and, therefore, including such services within the
Commission\'s ONA framework may be unnecessary to protect the public
interest. Moreover, as discussed above, section 251 unbundling may
obviate ONA in some or all respects, including its application to BOC
provision of interLATA information services. We also seek comment, to
the extent commenters believe that ONA should encompass BOC provision of
interLATA information services, on how the Commission\'s current ONA
requirements, including ONA reporting requirements,[^239] may need to be
changed or supplemented, if at all, to take account of such services.

**2.ONA and Nondiscrimination Reporting
Requirements**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525122 .anchor}

**a. Introduction**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525123 .anchor}

In this section of the Notice, we examine the various reporting
requirements imposed on the BOCs and GTE by the *Computer III* and *ONA*
regimes. These reporting requirements were originally intended as a
safeguard, in that the BOCs and GTE must disclose information that would
allow detection of patterns of access discrimination. In addition,
certain reporting requirements were intended to promote competition, by
providing interested parties (including ISPs and equipment
manufacturers) with information about service introduction and
deployment by the subject carriers, which may assist such parties in
structuring their own operations.

We recognize, however, that a number of years have passed since certain
of these reporting requirements were imposed, and that some of the
information we require to be disclosed may no longer be useful,
relevant, or related to either the safeguard or competition promotion
functions identified above. Thus, as part of the Commission\'s 1998
biennial review of regulations, we intend in this proceeding to
reexamine each of the reporting obligations imposed on the BOCs and GTE
by the *Computer III* and *ONA* regimes, to determine whether any of
these requirements should be eliminated or modified, consistent with the
1996 Act.[^240] We also seek comment on what, if any, different or
additional reporting requirements should be imposed to safeguard against
anticompetitive behavior by the BOCs and GTE and to promote competition
in the provision of information services. In particular, we also seek
comment on methods to facilitate access to and use of this information
by unaffiliated entities, including small entities.

We set forth below the ONA reporting reporting requirements and make
specific inquiries regarding each requirement. The following are general
inquiries that apply to all ONA reporting requirements. We ask parties
to respond to both the specific and general inquiries in their comments
on each ONA reporting requirement.

a\. Is the information reported necessary to or helpful in monitoring
the compliance of the subject carriers with their unbundling and
nondiscrimination obligations? If not, why not? Would other types of
information be more useful for compliance monitoring or enforcement
purposes?

b\. Is this requirement duplicative? In other words, does the Commission
currently require other reports that disclose the same or substantially
similar information, or serve the same purposes? If so, how should the
Commission streamline these requirements?

c\. Do industry groups, such as ATIS and/or NIIF, collect and compile
information that is duplicative of that required by the Commission? If
so, is that information readily available to interested parties?

d\. Should we continue to require the subject carriers to file this
report with the Commission both on paper and on disk, or should we adopt
streamlined filing proposals similar to those set forth in the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the *Non-Accounting Safeguards*
proceeding?[^241] Specifically, should we require either:

i\) a certification process whereby the subject carrier must maintain
the required information in a standardized format, and file with the
Commission an annual affidavit stating: (1) the information is so
maintained; (2) the information will be updated in compliance with our
rules; (3) the information will be maintained accurately; and (4) how
the public will be able to access the information; or

ii\) electronic posting whereby the subject carriers must make the
required information available on the Internet (for example, by posting
it on their website) or through another similar electronic mechanism?

e\. If we continue to maintain a paper filing requirement, is the
information presented in a clear, comprehensible format? If not, what
modifications to the format would improve clarity and accessibility?

f\. If we continue to maintain a paper filing requirement, should we
alter the frequency with which we require this report to be filed? If
so, what alteration should be made, and what is the basis for that
alteration? In the alternative, if we impose a certification process or
electronic posting requirement, how often should subject carriers be
required to update the information they must maintain? How must the
subject carriers maintain historical data, and for what length of time?

In conjunction with our inquiries elsewhere in this item, we seek to
examine, and, if possible, clarify the relationship between the ONA
reporting requirements and the other obligations imposed on the subject
carriers by ONA. For example we seek comment above on whether we should
modify or eliminate the ONA unbundling requirements.[^242] To the extent
that parties argue that we should do so, we request that they comment
upon the effect that such action would have on the reporting obligations
of the subject carriers. It seems that if the subject carriers were no
longer required to unbundle and tariff ONA services, much of the
information we currently require to be disclosed in the annual and
semi-annual ONA reports would cease to exist. Does this mean that all
such reporting requirements should be eliminated? Are there other
meaningful reporting requirements that should be imposed instead?

**b. Annual ONA Reports**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525124 .anchor}

The BOCs and GTE are required to file annual ONA reports that include
information on: 1) annual projected deployment schedules for ONA
service, by type of service (BSA, BSE, CNS), in terms of percentage of
access lines served system-wide and by market area;[^243] 2) disposition
of new ONA service requests from ISPs; 3) disposition of ONA service
requests that have previously been designated for further evaluation; 4)
disposition of ONA service requests that were previously deemed
technically infeasible; 5) information on Signaling System 7 (SS7),
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), and Intelligent Network (IN)
projected development in terms of percentage of access lines served
system-wide and on a market area basis;[^244] 6) new ONA services
available through SS7, ISDN, and IN; 7) progress in the IILC (now NIIF)
on continuing activities implementing service-specific and long-term
uniformity issues; 8) progress in providing billing information
including Billing Name and Address (BNA), line-side Calling Number
Identification (CNI), or possible CNI alternatives, and call detail
services to ISPs;[^245] 9) progress in developing and implementing
Operation Support Systems (OSS) services and ESP access to those
services; 10) progress on the uniform provision of OSS services; and 11)
a list of BSEs used in the provision of BOC/GTE\'s own enhanced
services.[^246] In addition, the BOCs are required to report annually on
the unbundling of new technologies arising from their own initiative, in
response to requests by ISPs, or resulting from requirements imposed by
the Commission.[^247]

We believe that certain aspects of the annual reporting requirements may
be outdated and should be streamlined. We seek comment, for example, on
whether we should continue to require the subject carriers to continue
to report on projected deployment of ONA services (item 1 above),
particularly as this information does not appear to change appreciably
from year to year. Should we instead require the subject carriers to
make a one-time filing of a 5-year deployment schedule at the time a new
ONA service is introduced? In addition, should we require the subject
carriers to continue to report on the disposition of ONA service
requests from ISPs (items 2,3, and 4 above), despite evidence that the
frequency of such requests has declined appreciably since the initial
implementation of ONA?

We seek comment on whether we should continue to require the subject
carriers to report on deployment of SS7 (items 5 and 6), which has
become available in most service areas. We further seek comment on
whether we should continue to require the subject carriers to report on
the availability and deployment of ISDN, IN, and AIN services (items 5
and 6). In addition, we seek comment regarding whether the requirement
that the BOCs report on \"new ONA services available through SS7, ISDN,
and IN, and plans to provide these services\" (item 6)[^248] overlaps so
significantly with the requirement that they report on the unbundling of
new technologies[^249] that one of these requirements should be
eliminated.

In addition, we seek comment on whether, and to what extent, we should
alter the requirement that carriers report on progress in industry
forums regarding uniformity issues. Currently, subject carriers are
required to report on progress in the IILC on continuing activities
implementing service-specific and long-term uniformity issues (item 7).
As a preliminary matter, we note that the functions that used to be
performed by the IILC were transferred, as of January 1, 1997, to the
NIIF.[^250] We tentatively conclude that, at a minimum, the ONA
reporting requirement should be updated to reflect this change. We
believe that the BOCs have agreed to provide to the NIIF periodic
updates regarding issues that have been resolved. We seek comment on the
nature of such updates to the NIIF, including specifically what
information the BOCs provide. We further seek comment regarding whether
the information from such updates is comprehensive enough, and
sufficiently accessible to interested parties, to allow us to eliminate
the ONA reporting requirement covering progress of matters in the NIIF.
In the alternative, we seek comment regarding whether there are other
sources of information produced by or for ATIS or the NIIF that may
reasonably substitute for this ONA reporting requirement.

We seek comment on whether we should continue to require the subject
carriers to report on progress in providing billing information and call
detail services to ISPs (item 8). We seek comment on whether we should
continue to require the subject carriers to report on progress in
developing, implementing, and providing access to Operation Support
Systems (OSS) services (items 9 and 10). We believe it is important for
such information to continue to be publicly available. We recognize,
however, that such information may be more appropriately provided
pursuant to other statutory provisions. For example, we issued a Public
Notice on June 10, 1997, asking for comment on LCI\'s petition for
expedited rulemaking to establish reporting requirements, performance,
and technical standards for OSS in the context of section 251 of the
Act.[^251] We seek comment on the appropriate forum for collecting
information about OSS and whether continued reporting under *Computer
III* is necessary in light of other pending Commission proceedings. We
further seek comment on what, if any, changes we should make to the ONA
OSS reporting requirements, to better reflect the obligations with
respect to OSS imposed on carriers in the *Local Competition
Order*.[^252]

**c. Semi-Annual ONA Reports**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525125 .anchor}

In addition to the annual ONA reports discussed above, the BOCs and GTE
are required to file semi-annual ONA reports.[^253] These semi-annual
reports include: (1) a consolidated nationwide matrix of ONA services
and state and federal ONA tariffs;[^254] (2) computer disks and
printouts of data regarding state and federal tariffs; (3) a printed
copy and a diskette copy of the *ONA Services User Guide*;[^255] (4)
updated information on 118 categories of network capabilities requested
by ISPs and how such requests were addressed, with details and
matrices;[^256] and 5) updated information on BOC responses to the
requests and matrices.

Considerable portions of the semi-annual reports filed by the BOCs
appear to be redundant, as each of the BOCs files identical information.
This generic information includes the ONA service matrix and the
Services Description section of the *ONA Services User Guide*, as well
as information on the 118 network capabilities originally requested by
ISPs, and how the BOCs collectively have responded to these requests.
Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore) originated and, until its
spin-off earlier this year, prepared these portions of the BOCs\'
semi-annual reports; currently, an organization called the National
Telecommunications Alliance (NTA) has assumed this responsibility. We
see no benefit to continuing to require each of the BOCs separately to
file the generic portions of the semi-annual report, particularly as
there appear to be few changes in this information from year to year.
Thus, we tentatively conclude that the BOCs should be permitted to make
one consolidated filing (or posting) for all generic information they
currently submit in their semi-annual reports. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. We further seek comment on whether we should allow
GTE to join in this consolidated filing or posting (to the extent that
this arrangement would be mutually agreeable to the parties) with
respect to the information it files that overlaps with that filed by the
BOCs.

In addition, we seek comment on the frequency with which we require the
subject carriers to file the information contained in the semi-annual
ONA reports. In particular, we inquire as to whether we should reduce
the filing frequency, and restructure the semi-annual reports to become
part of the annual ONA reports filed by the subject carriers. A
reduction in filing frequency would decrease the burden imposed on the
subject carriers, without, we believe, significantly affecting the
quality or utility of the information supplied, much of which is either
generic or rather static in nature, or is available through other means
(for example, in the state and federal tariffs filed by the subject
carriers).

We also seek comment regarding whether certain information required in
the semi-annual reports overlaps with the information required in the
annual reports. For example, in the annual ONA reports, the Commission
requires the BOCs and GTE to supply information on the disposition of
several categories of ONA requests,[^257] whereas in the semi-annual
reports, the Commission requires the BOCs and GTE to supply information
regarding how they have responded to ISP requests for the existing 118
categories of network capabilities.[^258] These separate requirements
seem to elicit similar, if not identical, information. To the extent
there is overlap, we seek comment regarding whether these requirements
may be simplified and consolidated, or, in the alternative, whether
either or both sets should be eliminated entirely. We also seek comment
on other, similar, overlaps among the ONA reporting requirements, and
what we should do to eliminate the burdens or inefficiencies associated
with them.

**d.Nondiscrimination Reports**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525126 .anchor}

The BOCs and GTE are also required to establish procedures to ensure
that they do not discriminate in their provision of ONA services,
including the installation, maintenance, and quality of such services,
to unaffiliated ISPs and their customers.[^259] For example, they must
establish and publish standard intervals for routine installation orders
based on type and quantity of services ordered, and follow these
intervals in assigning due dates for installation, which are applicable
to orders placed by competing service providers as well as orders placed
by their own information services operations.[^260] In addition, they
must standardize their maintenance procedures where possible, by
assigning repair dates based on nondiscriminatory criteria (e.g.,
available work force and severity of problem), and handling trouble
reports on a first-come, first-served basis.[^261]

In order to demonstrate compliance with the nondiscrimination
requirements outlined above, the BOCs and GTE must file quarterly
nondiscrimination reports comparing the timeliness of their installation
and maintenance of ONA services for their own information services
operations versus the information services operations of their
competitors.[^262] If a BOC or GTE demonstrates in its ONA plan that it
lacks the ability to discriminate with respect to installation and
maintenance services, and files an annual affidavit to that effect, it
may modify its quarterly report to compare installation and maintenance
services provided to its own information services operations with
services provided to a sampling of all customers.[^263] In their
quarterly reports, the BOCs and GTE must include information on total
orders, due dates missed, and average intervals for a set of service
categories specified by the Commission,[^264] following a format
specified by the Commission.[^265]

We tentatively conclude that the nondiscrimination obligations for
provisioning and performing maintenance activities established by
*Computer III* continue to apply to the BOCs and GTE. We seek comment,
however, on whether the current quarterly installation and maintenance
reports are an appropriate and effective mechanism for monitoring the
BOCs\' and GTE\'s compliance with these nondiscrimination obligations.
Are there ways in which the quarterly reports, and the accompanying
annual affidavits, may be simplified, clarified, or otherwise made more
useful to the Commission and the interested public? Along these lines,
we note that the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in conjunction with its *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*,
seeking comment on what types of reporting requirements are necessary to
implement the specific nondiscrimination requirement set forth in
section 272(e)(1) of the Communications Act.[^266] While we acknowledge
that the nondiscrimination obligations imposed on the BOCs by section
272(e)(1) differ from those imposed by *Computer III*, we seek comment
regarding whether the information required to demonstrate compliance
with both sets of nondiscrimination requirements is sufficiently similar
that we should harmonize the ONA nondiscrimination reporting
requirements with the reporting requirements adopted in response to the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the *Non-Accounting Safeguards*
proceeding. We also seek comment on whether we should harmonize the ONA
nondiscrimination reporting requirements with reporting requirements
being considered in other proceedings, such as in the *LCI OSS
Petition*.[^267]

We note that, like the BOCs, AT&T was originally required to file
quarterly nondiscrimination reports on the provision of installation and
maintenance services to unaffiliated providers of enhanced
services.[^268] The Commission modified and reduced these reporting
requirements in 1991 and in 1993.[^269] In 1996, the Bureau eliminated
the requirement that AT&T file quarterly installation and maintenance
nondiscrimination reports, as well as the requirement that AT&T file an
annual affidavit[^270] that its quarterly reports are true and that it
has not discriminated in providing installation and maintenance
services.[^271]

The Bureau declined to eliminate the requirement that AT&T file a second
affidavit,[^272] which affirms that AT&T has followed the installation
procedures in its ONA plan[^273] and has not discriminated in the
quality of network services provided to competing enhanced service
providers, deferring that determination to the instant proceeding.[^274]
We tentatively conclude that we should no longer require AT&T to file
this second affidavit because the level of competition in the
interexchange services market is an effective check on AT&T\'s ability
to discriminate in the quality of network services provided to competing
ISPs.[^275] This tentative conclusion is consistent with our previous
finding that the competitive nature of the interexchange market provides
an important assurance that access to those services will be open to
ISPs, and that much of the information of greatest use to ISPs is
controlled by LECs such as the BOCs, and not by interexchange
carriers.[^276] We also find that this tentative conclusion comports
with our statutory obligation to eliminate regulations that are no
longer necessary due to \"meaningful economic competition\" between
providers of such service.[^277] We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.

**3.Other Nonstructural Safeguards**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525127
.anchor}

**a.Network Information Disclosure Rules**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525128
.anchor}

The Commission\'s network information disclosure rules seek to prevent
anticompetitive behavior by ensuring that ISPs and other interested
parties can obtain timely access to information affecting the
interconnection of information services to the BOCs\', AT&T\'s, and
other carriers\' networks. Prior to the 1996 Act, the rules set forth in
the Commission\'s *Computer II* and *Computer III* proceedings governed
the disclosure of network information.[^278] Section 251(c)(5) of the
Act requires incumbent LECs to \"provide reasonable public notice of
changes in the information necessary for the transmission and routing of
services using that local exchange carrier\'s facilities or networks, as
well as of any other changes that would affect the interoperability of
those facilities or networks.\"[^279] The Commission recently adopted
network information disclosure requirements to implement section
251(c)(5) in the *Local Competition Second Report and Order*.[^280]
Although we discussed our preexisting network information disclosure
requirements in conjunction with the requirements of section 251(c)(5)
in the *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, we did not address
in that proceeding whether our *Computer II* and *Computer III* network
information disclosure requirements should continue to apply
independently of our section 251(c)(5) network information disclosure
requirements.[^281] We address that issue in this proceeding as part of
our 1998 biennial review of regulations, in an effort to eliminate
unnecessary and possibly conflicting requirements.

The rules established pursuant to section 251(c)(5) in some respects
appear to duplicate and even exceed the rules established under
*Computer II* and *Computer III*, while in other respects they do not.
For example, section 251(c)(5) of the Act, and the Commission\'s rules
implementing that section, only apply to incumbent LECs,[^282] while
some of the *Computer II* network information disclosure requirements
apply more broadly to \"all carriers owning basic transmission
facilities.\"[^283] We seek comment, therefore, on the extent to which
the Commission should retain its network information disclosure rules
established in the Commission\'s *Computer II* and *Computer III*
proceedings in light of the disclosure requirements stemming from
section 251(c)(5) of the 1996 Act. As a starting point, we set forth in
the following paragraphs a general description of the current network
disclosure requirements under *Computer II*, *Computer III*, and section
251(c)(5), and then we ask parties to comment on whether, and why,
specific requirements should be retained or eliminated. The following
descriptions are not intended to be an exhaustive list of every feature
of the Commission\'s current network disclosure requirements. These
descriptions are intended, rather, to serve as a basis for comparison by
parties commenting in this proceeding.

[*Computer II* Network Disclosure Obligations]{.underline}.

a\. *Application of the Network Disclosure Obligations*. The *Computer
II* network information disclosure rules consist of two requirements:
(1) a disclosure obligation which depends on the existence of a
*Computer II* separate subsidiary;[^284] and (2) a disclosure obligation
that applies independent of whether the carrier has a *Computer II*
separate subsidiary. The Commission initially imposed both requirements
on AT&T in the *Computer II Final Decision*.[^285] The Commission
extended disclosure requirement (2) in the *Computer II Reconsideration
Order* to \"all carriers owning basic transmission facilities\"
(hereinafter the \"all-carrier\" rule).[^286] After divestiture, the
Commission extended disclosure requirement (1) to the BOCs insofar as
they are providing information services in accordance with the
structural separation requirements of *Computer II*.[^287]

b\. *Events Triggering the Public Notice Requirement*. The *Computer II*
\"all-carrier\" rule is triggered by implementation of \"change\[s\] . .
. to the telecommunications network that would affect either
intercarrier interconnection or the manner in which interconnected CPE
must operate . . . .\"[^288] The *Computer II* separate affiliate
disclosure obligation is triggered by any of three events: (1) the BOC
communicates the relevant network information directly to its *Computer
II* separate affiliate; (2) such information is used by the BOC or a
third party to develop services or products which reasonably can be
expected to be marketed by the *Computer II* separate affiliate; or (3)
the BOC engages in joint research and development with its *Computer II*
separate affiliate, leading to the design or manufacture of any product
that either affects the network interface or relies on a not-yet
implemented interface.[^289]

c\. *Timing of Public Notice*. Under *Computer II*, the disclosure
obligation of the \"all-carrier\" rule must be met \"in a timely manner
and on a reasonable basis.\"[^290] The *Computer II* separate affiliate
network disclosure obligation requires that disclosure be made to
information service competitors of the *Computer II* affiliate \"at the
same time\" disclosure is made directly to the *Computer II* separate
affiliate as described in item (1) above.[^291] If the disclosure
requirement is triggered by the events described in items (2) and (3)
above, then disclosure must be made at the \"make/buy\" point, i.e.,
when the BOC or an affiliated company decides, in reliance on previously
undisclosed information, to produce itself or to procure from a
non-affiliated company any product, whether it be hardware or software,
the design of which either affects the network interface or relies on
the network interface.[^292]

d\. *Types of Information To Be Disclosed*. The *Computer II*
\"all-carrier\" rule encompasses \"all information relating to network
design . . . , insofar as such information affects . . . intercarrier
interconnection . . . .\"[^293] For the separate affiliate network
disclosure requirement, the information required to be disclosed
consists of, \"at a minimum, . . . any network information which is
necessary to enable all \[information\] service . . . vendors to gain
access to and utilize and to interact effectively with \[the BOCs\'\]
network services or capabilities, to the same extent that \[the BOCs\'
*Computer II* separate affiliate\] is able to use and interact with
those network services or capabilities.\"[^294] This requirement
includes information concerning \"network design, technical standards,
interfaces, or generally, the manner in which interconnected . . .
enhanced services will interoperate with \[any of the BOCs\'\]
network.\"[^295] In addition to technical information, the information
required includes marketing information, such as \"commitments of the
carrier with respect to the timing of introduction, pricing, and
geographic availability of new network services or capabilities.\"[^296]

e\. *How Public Notice Should Be Provided*. Under *Computer II*,
carriers subject to the \"all-carrier\" rule must disclose in their
tariffs or tariff support material either the relevant network
information or a statement indicating where such information can be
obtained, that will allow competitors to use network facilities in the
same manner as the subject carrier.[^297] The separate affiliate network
disclosure obligation requires that the BOCs \"file with the Commission,
within seven calendar days of the date the disclosure obligation arises,
a notice apprising the public that the disclosure has taken place and
indicating in summary form the nature of the information which has been
disclosed \[to its *Computer II* separate affiliate\], the identity of
any source documents and where interested parties can obtain additional
details.\"[^298] Moreover, when a BOC \"files a tariff for a new or
changed network service where there has been a prior disclosure to or
for the benefit of \[the *Computer II* separate affiliate\], the tariff
support materials must list any disclosure notices previously filed with
the Commission that are relevant to the tariffed offering.\"[^299]

[*Computer III* Network Disclosure Obligations]{.underline}.

a\. *Application of the Network Disclosure Obligations*. The *Computer
III* network information disclosure rules initially were imposed on AT&T
and the BOCs in the *Phase I Order* and *Phase II Order*.[^300] The
Commission later extended the *Computer III* network information
disclosure rules and other nondiscrimination safeguards to GTE in the
*GTE ONA Order*.[^301]

b\. *Events Triggering the Public Notice Requirement*. The *Computer
III* public notice requirement is triggered at the \"make/buy\" point;
that is, when AT&T, any of the BOCs, or GTE \"makes a decision to
manufacture itself or to procure from an unaffiliated entity, any
product the design of which affects or relies on the network
interface.\"[^302]

c\. *Timing of Public Notice*. AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE must disclose the
relevant information concerning planned network changes at two points in
time. First, they must disclose the relevant technical information at
the \"make/buy\" point. They are permitted, however, to condition this
\"make/buy\" disclosure on the recipient\'s signing of a nondisclosure
agreement, upon which the relevant technical information must be
disclosed within 30 days. Second, they must make public disclosure of
the relevant technical information a minimum of twelve months before
implementation of the change; however, if the planned change can be
implemented between six and twelve months following the \"make/buy\"
point, then public notice is permitted at the \"make/buy\" point, but at
a minimum of six months before implementation.[^303]

d\. *Types of Information To Be Disclosed*. Under *Computer III*, the
range of information encompassed by the network information disclosure
requirements is adopted from, and identical to, the *Computer II*
requirements.[^304] Specifically, at the \"make/buy\" point, AT&T, the
BOCs, and GTE must disclose that a network change or network service is
under development.[^305] The notice itself need not contain the full
range of relevant network information, but it must describe the proposed
network service with sufficient detail to convey what the new service is
and what its capabilities are.[^306] The notice must also indicate that
technical information required for the development of compatible
information services will be provided to any entity involved in the
provision of information services and may indicate that such information
will be made available only to such entities willing to enter into a
nondisclosure agreement.[^307] Once an entity has entered into a
nondisclosure agreement, AT&T, the BOCs, or GTE must provide the full
range of relevant information.[^308]

e\. *How Public Notice Should Be Provided*. Under the *Computer III*
rules, public notice is made through direct mailings, trade
associations, or other reasonable means.[^309]

[Section 251(c)(5) Network Disclosure Obligations]{.underline}.

a\. *Application of the Network Disclosure Obligations*. These rules
apply to all incumbent LECs, as the term is defined in section 251(h) of
the Act.[^310]

b\. *Events Triggering the Public Notice Requirement*. The incumbent LEC
makes a decision to implement a network change that either: (1) affects
\"competing service providers\' performance or ability to provide
service; or (2) otherwise affects the ability of the incumbent LEC\'s
and a competing service provider\'s facilities or network to connect, to
exchange information, or to use the information exchanged.\"[^311]
Examples of network changes that would trigger the section 251(c)(5)
public disclosure obligations include, but are not limited to, changes
that affect (1) transmission, (2) signalling standards, (3) call
routing, (4) network configuration, (5) logical elements, (6) electronic
interfaces, (7) data elements, and (8) transactions that support
ordering, provisioning, maintenance, and billing.[^312]

c\. *Timing of Public Notice*. Incumbent LECs must disclose planned
network changes at the \"make/buy\" point,[^313] but at least twelve
months before implementation of the change.[^314] If the planned change
can be implemented within twelve months of the \"make/buy\" point, then
public notice must be given at the \"make/buy\" point, but at least six
months before implementation.[^315] If the planned changes can be
implemented within six months of the make/buy point, then the public
notice may be provided less than six months before implementation, if
additional requirements set forth in section 51.333 of the Commission\'s
rules are met.[^316]

d\. *Types of Information To Be Disclosed*. Under the Commission\'s
regulations, incumbent LECs are required to disclose, at a minimum,
\"complete information about network design, technical standards and
planned changes to the network.\"[^317] Public notice of planned network
changes, at a minimum, shall consist of: (1) the carrier\'s name and
address; (2) the name and telephone number of a contact person who can
supply additional information regarding the planned changes; (3) the
implementation date of the planned changes; (4) the location(s) at which
the changes will occur; (5) a description of the type of changes planned
(including, but not limited to, references to technical specifications,
protocols, and standards regarding transmission, signalling, routing,
and facility assignment as well as references to technical standards
that would be applicable to any new technologies or equipment, or that
may otherwise affect interconnection); and (6) a description of the
reasonably foreseeable impact of the planned changes.[^318]

e\. *How Public Notice Should Be Provided*. Network disclosure may be
made either: (1) by filing public notice with the Commission in
accordance with section 51.329 of the Commission\'s rules; or (2)
providing public notice through industry fora, industry publications, or
on the incumbent LEC\'s own publicly accessible Internet sites, as well
as a certification filed with the Commission in accordance with section
51.329 of the Commission\'s rules.[^319]

We tentatively conclude that the Commission\'s rules established
pursuant to section 251(c)(5) for incumbent LECs should supersede the
Commission\'s previous network information disclosure rules established
in *Computer III*. We also tentatively conclude that the Commission\'s
network disclosure rules established in *Computer II* should continue to
apply \-- specifically, the *Computer II* separate affiliate disclosure
rule should continue to apply to any BOC that operates a *Computer II*
subsidiary, and the all-carrier rule should continue to apply to all
carriers owning basic transmission facilities. We reach our tentative
conclusion regarding the *Computer III* network disclosure rules since,
in our view, the 1996 Act disclosure rules for incumbent LECs are as
comprehensive, if not more so, than the Commission\'s *Computer III*
disclosure rules. Parties who disagree with this view should explain why
all or some aspects of the Commission\'s *Computer III* disclosure rules
are still needed for incumbent LECs in light of the rules established
pursuant to section 251(c)(5) of the Act.

We recognize, however, that some BOCs may still be providing certain
intraLATA information services through a *Computer II* subsidiary,
rather than on an integrated basis under the Commission\'s *Computer
III* rules. We tentatively conclude, therefore, that the *Computer II*
separate subsidiary disclosure rule should continue to apply in such
cases because, for instance, it encompasses marketing information which
is not included within the scope of information to be disclosed under
section 251(c)(5) and it requires disclosure under a more stringent
timetable than that required under section 251(c)(5).[^320] We also
tentatively conclude that the all-carrier rule should continue to apply
to all carriers owning basic transmission facilities, since it is
broader in certain respects than section 251(c)(5). First, it applies to
all carriers, whereas section 251(c)(5) just applies to incumbent LECs.
In addition, the all-carrier rule requires, among other things, the
disclosure of network changes that affect end users\' CPE, whereas our
rules interpreting section 251(c)(5) only require the disclosure of
information that affects \"competing service providers.\" We seek
comment on these tentative conclusions and analyses.

**b.Customer Proprietary Network Information
(CPNI)**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525129 .anchor}

The Commission first established its CPNI rules in the *Computer II
Final Decision* in 1980 to encourage AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE to develop
and market efficient, integrated combinations of information and basic
services without the marketing restrictions imposed by structural
separation, while protecting the competitive interests of information
service competitors.[^321] While the CPNI rules are an integral part of
the Commission\'s current nonstructural regulatory framework for the
provision of information services by AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE, we defer
consideration of all CPNI issues relating to our *Computer II* and
*Computer III* rules to our *CPNI* rulemaking proceeding.

Section 702 of the 1996 Act, which added a new section 222 to the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, sets forth requirements for use
of CPNI by telecommunications carriers, including the BOCs. Although the
requirements of section 222 were effective upon enactment of the 1996
Act, we issued a *CPNI Notice* on May 17, 1996, which sought comment on,
among other things, what regulations we should adopt to implement
section 222.[^322] We stated in the *CPNI Notice* that the CPNI
requirements the Commission previously established in the *Computer II*
and *Computer III* proceedings remain in effect pending the outcome of
the rulemaking, to the extent they do not conflict with section 222. The
*CPNI* proceeding will address whether these pre-existing requirements
should be retained, eliminated, extended, or modified in light of the
Act.

Under the *Computer II* structural separation requirements, AT&T, the
BOCs, and GTE were prohibited from jointly marketing their basic
services with the enhanced services provided through their separate
affiliate. Under the *Computer III* nonstructural safeguards regime,
AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE were permitted to engage in joint marketing of
basic and enhanced services subject to restrictions on their use of
CPNI.[^323] In the *BOC Safeguards Order*, the Commission strengthened
the CPNI rules by requiring that, for customers with more than twenty
lines, BOC personnel involved in marketing enhanced services obtain
written authorization from the customer before gaining access to its
CPNI.[^324]

On March 6, 1992, the Association of Telemessaging Services
International, Inc. (ATSI) filed a petition for reconsideration[^325] of
the *BOC Safeguards Order* in CC Docket No. 90-623, the *Computer III
Remand* proceeding. ATSI asked the Commission to modify the *BOC
Safeguards Order* by: (1) prohibiting joint marketing of basic and
information services; (2) extending the prior authorization requirement
for CPNI to all users, regardless of size; and (3) ensuring that users
who restrict access to their CPNI continue to receive nondiscriminatory
treatment and an adequate level of service.[^326] On May 17, 1996, the
Commission issued an order dismissing issues (2) and (3) as moot because
of the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and our
commencement of a new proceeding to address the obligations of
telecommunications carriers with respect to CPNI in light of the new
statute.[^327] The order also noted that issue (1) remained to be
addressed by the Commission.[^328] ATSI filed a motion to withdraw its
petition for reconsideration in CC Docket No. 90-623[^329] and to
incorporate its petition into the Commission\'s *Computer III Further
Remand* proceeding in CC Docket No. 95-20, as well as other proceedings,
on December 10, 1996.[^330] On May 14, 1997, the Common Carrier Bureau
partially granted the *ATSI Motion* by agreeing to address in this
proceeding whether joint marketing of basic services and information
services by the BOCs should be prohibited.[^331]

We therefore seek comment on the issue raised in the *ATSI Petition*:
whether, to the extent the Commission continues to allow the BOCs to
provide information services subject to a nonstructural safeguards
regime, the BOCs should be prohibited from jointly marketing basic
services and information services when these services are provided on an
intraLATA basis. To the extent parties support the view that the term
\"telecommunications service\" in the Act encompasses the same set of
services as the term \"basic service\" did under the Commission\'s
previous rules,[^332] parties should discuss the issue raised in the
ATSI petition in terms of whether joint marketing should be allowed
between telecommunications services and information services. As noted
in the *ATSI Order*, we do not address this question with respect to
interLATA information services, since under section 272 of the Act BOCs
must provide interLATA information services pursuant to a section 272
affiliate and subject to the joint marketing provisions in that section.
Also, under section 274, BOCs providing electronic publishing, whether
on an interLATA or intraLATA basis, must do so pursuant to a section 274
affiliate and subject to the joint marketing rules in that section.

In its petition, ATSI argues that joint marketing of basic services and
information services harms consumers and diminishes overall competition
in the information services market. ATSI alleges that the BOCs have
abused the Commission\'s joint marketing rules by: (1) routing calls to
subscribers of competing voice messaging providers to the BOC\'s own
voice messaging service instead; (2) soliciting customers of competing
voice messaging providers who contact the BOCs to request other BOC
services; (3) providing customers with misleading and disparaging
information about the voice messaging services offered by competing
providers; and (4) engaging in other unfair practices.[^333] ATSI
therefore requests that the Commission prohibit the BOCs from using the
same personnel and facilities to market basic services and information
services. We seek comment on these issues. We also seek comment on the
costs and operational efficiencies or inefficiencies of allowing the
BOCs to provide intraLATA information services on an integrated basis,
but requiring different personnel and facilities to market basic
services and information services.

**V. JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525130 .anchor}

Our authority, pursuant to section 2(a) of the Communications Act, to
establish, enforce, modify, or eliminate a regime of safeguards for the
provision of information services by the BOCs and GTE is well
settled.[^334] In addition, the scope of our authority to preempt
inconsistent regulation on the part of the states has been established
by the Commission in the previous *Computer III* orders and has been
affirmed on appeal.

In the *Computer III Phase I Order*, the Commission preempted: (1) all
state structural separation requirements applicable to the provision of
enhanced services by AT&T and the BOCs; and (2) all state nonstructural
safeguards applicable to AT&T and the BOCs that were inconsistent with
federal safeguards.[^335] The *California I* court vacated these
preemption actions, on the ground that the Commission had not adequately
justified imposing them.[^336] In response to the *California I* remand,
the Commission narrowed the scope of federal preemption to cover only:
(1) state requirements for structural separation of facilities and
personnel used to provide the intrastate portion of jurisdictionally
mixed enhanced services;[^337] (2) state CPNI rules requiring prior
authorization that is not required by federal regulation; and (3) state
network disclosure rules that require initial disclosure at a time
different than the federal rules.[^338] The Commission reasoned that
such state requirements would thwart or impede the nonstructural
safeguards pursuant to which the BOCs may provide interstate enhanced
services, and the federal goals such safeguards were intended to
achieve.[^339] The *California III* court upheld the Commission\'s
narrowly tailored preemption, stating that the Commission had met its
burden of demonstrating that it was preempting only state regulations
that would negate valid federal regulatory goals.[^340]

Thus, we believe that the proposals we make in the current Further
Notice, and the options upon which we seek comment, fall within the
scope of our authority previously established in the context of this
proceeding, as outlined above. To the extent that our proposals go
beyond our recognized preemption authority, we ask that commenters
identify those proposals and comment on our authority to adopt them.

**VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525131 .anchor}

**A.Ex Parte Presentations**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525132 .anchor}

This matter shall be treated as a \"permit‑but‑disclose\" proceeding in
accordance with the Commission\'s revised *ex parte* rules, which became
effective June 2, 1997. *See* *Amendment of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 et seq.
Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission Proceedings*, GC Docket
No. 95-21, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7348, 7356‑57, ¶ 27 (citing 47
C.F.R. § 1.1204(b)(1)) (1997). Persons making oral *ex parte*
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations
must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two
sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally
required. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Other rules
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section
1.1206(b) as well.

**B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525133 .anchor}

This Further Notice contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information
collections contained in this Further Notice, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Further
Notice; OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of publication of
this Further Notice in the Federal Register. Comments should address:
(a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

**C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525134 .anchor}

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)[^341] requires that an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that \"the rule will
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.\"[^342] The RFA generally defines \"small
entity\" as having the same meaning as the terms \"small business,\"
\"small organization,\" and \"small governmental jurisdiction.\"[^343]
In addition, the term \"small business\" has the same meaning as the
term \"small business concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^344] A
small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).[^345]

This Further Notice pertains to the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs),
each of which is an affiliate of a Regional Holding Company (RHC), as
well as to GTE and AT&T. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a
definition of \"small entity\" specifically applicable to the BOCs, GTE,
or AT&T. The closest definition under SBA rules is that for
establishments providing \"Telephone Communications, Except
Radiotelephone,\" which is Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
4813. Under this definition, a small entity is one employing no more
than 1,500 persons.[^346] We note that each BOC is dominant in its field
of operation and all of the BOCs as well as GTE and AT&T have more than
1,500 employees. We therefore certify that this Further Notice will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission\'s Office of Public Affairs, Reference
Operations Division, will send a copy of this Further Notice, including
this certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.[^347] A copy will also be published in the
Federal Register.

**D. Comment Filing Procedures**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525135 .anchor}

Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before March 27, 1998, and reply
comments on or before April 23, 1998. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and six copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner
to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original
and eleven copies. Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street,
N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C., 20554, with a copy to Janice Myles of
the Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 544, Washington,
D.C., 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in
this docket with the Commission\'s copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
20036. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,
1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C., 20554.

Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of
the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply
comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other applicable
sections of the Commission\'s rules.[^348] We also direct all interested
parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the
filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties
are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length
of their submission.

Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on
diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a
substitute for the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties
submitting diskettes should submit them to Janice Myles of the Common
Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 544, Washington, D.C., 20554.
Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM
compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The
diskette should be submitted in \"read only\" mode. The diskette should
be clearly labeled with the party\'s name, proceeding, type of pleading
(comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should
be accompanied by a cover letter.

You may also file informal comments or an exact copy of your formal
comments electronically via the Internet at
\<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/\> or via e-mail
\<computer3@comments.fcc.gov\>. Only one copy of electronically-filed
comments must be submitted. You must put the docket number of this
proceeding in the subject line if you are using e-mail (CC Docket No.
95-20), or in the body of the text if by Internet. You must note whether
an electronic submission is an exact copy of formal comments on the
subject line. You also must include your full name and Postal Service
mailing address in your submission.

**VII. ORDERING CLAUSES**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc5525136 .anchor}

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4, 10, 11,
201-205, 251, 271, 272, and 274-276, of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154, 160, 161, 201-205, 251, 271,
272, and 274-276, a FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IS ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Office of Public Affairs,
Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this FURTHER NOTICE
OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, *see*
5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**Separate Statement of Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth**

***Computer III* Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company
Provision of Enhanced Services**

**and**

**1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- Review of *Computer III* and ONA
Safeguards and Requirements**

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I support adoption of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. I
question, however, whether the FCC is prepared to meet its statutory
obligation to review all of its regulations in 1998.

Contrary to the captioning of this Further NPRM (and at least one other
item that the staff has presented to the Commission for decision), we
may be neglecting the express directives of a terse but important
provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In this provision,
codified as Section 11 of the Communications Act, Congress directed the
FCC to conduct, beginning in 1998, a biennial review of \"***all***
regulations issued under \[the Act\] in effect at the time of the review
that apply to the operations or activities of any provider of
telecommunications service\" and determine whether any of these
regulations are \"no longer necessary in the public interest as the
result of meaningful economic competition between providers of such
service.\" 47 U.S.C. Section 161 (emphasis added). Section 11 also
requires that the FCC \"repeal or modify any regulation it determines to
be no longer necessary in the public interest."

Clearly, Section 11 has two components: a policy against unnecessary
regulations and a procedure to find and remove all such regulations
every two years. In this Further NPRM, the Commission fully addresses
only the policy component of Section 11.

Although the Commission thus appears to have fulfilled its duty to
implement the policy of Section 11 in the context of this particular
proceeding, I am concerned that \-- because of this item\'s caption and
the many references to Section 11 throughout the text \-- we may be
leaving the misimpression that we also are addressing the procedural
requirements of Section 11. To my knowledge, the FCC has no plans to
review affirmatively ***all*** regulations that apply to the operations
or activities of any provider of telecommunications service and to make
specific findings as to their continued necessity in light of current
market conditions. Indeed, the comprehensive and systematic review of
all FCC regulations required under Section 11 certainly would take many
months to complete, yet we have not published a specific schedule to
ensure completion of this task in 1998.

Nor has the Commission issued general principles to guide our "public
interest" analysis and decision making process across the wide range of
FCC regulations. I believe that, in addition to the direction given us
within the law, the public interest determinations we eventually make
pursuant to Section 11 should be made based on a straightforward
analysis: regulations are in the public interest only if their benefits
significantly outweigh their costs. We have not yet adopted any such
guidance.

It is unfortunate that this public discussion of our responsibilities
under Section 11 has first surfaced in the context of a seemingly
unrelated action in the decade-old *Computer III* proceedings. In my
view, however, we should not let this or any other such limited
Commission analysis and decision making (or even the sum of such limited
actions) be mistaken for complete compliance with Section 11 as
envisioned by Congress.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

[^1]: *Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission\'s Rules and
    Regulations* (*Computer III*), Report and Order, CC Docket No.
    85-229, Phase I, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986) (*Phase I Order*), *recon*.,
    2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987) (*Phase I Recon. Order*), *further recon.*, 3
    FCC Rcd 1135 (1988) (*Phase I Further Recon. Order*), *second
    further recon*., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989) (*Phase I Second Further
    Recon*.), *Phase I Order and Phase I Recon. Order, vacated*,
    *California v. FCC*, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990) (*California I*);
    Phase II, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 (1987) (*Phase II Order*), *recon*., 3 FCC
    Rcd 1150 (1988) (*Phase II Recon. Order*), *further recon*., 4 FCC
    Rcd 5927 (1989) (*Phase II Further Recon. Order*), *Phase II Order
    vacated*, *California I*, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); *Computer
    III Remand Proceedings*, 5 FCC Rcd 7719 (1990) (*ONA Remand Order*),
    *recon*., 7 FCC Rcd 909 (1992), *pets. for review denied*,
    *California v. FCC*, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993) (*California II*);
    *Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Safeguards
    and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company Safeguards*, 6 FCC Rcd 7571 (1991)
    (*BOC Safeguards Order*), *recon. dismissed in part*, Order, CC
    Docket Nos. 90-623 and 92-256, 11 FCC Rcd 12513 (1996); *BOC
    Safeguards Order vacated in part and remanded*, *California v. FCC*,
    39 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 1994) (*California III*), *cert. denied*, 115
    S.Ct. 1427 (1995) (referred to collectively as the *Computer III*
    proceeding).

[^2]: *Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans*, 4 FCC Rcd
    1 (1988) (*BOC ONA Order*), *recon*., 5 FCC Rcd 3084 (1990) (*BOC
    ONA Reconsideration Order*); 5 FCC Rcd 3103 (1990) (*BOC ONA
    Amendment Order*), *erratum*, 5 FCC Rcd 4045 (1990), *pets. for
    review denied*, *California v. FCC*, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993),
    *recon*., 8 FCC Rcd 97 (1993) (*BOC ONA Amendment Reconsideration
    Order*); 6 FCC Rcd 7646 (1991) (*BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*);
    8 FCC Rcd 2606 (1993) (*BOC ONA Second Further Amendment Order*),
    *pet. for review denied*, *California v. FCC*, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir.
    1993).

[^3]: Basic services, such as \"plain old telephone service\" (POTS),
    are regulated as tariffed services under Title II of the
    Communications Act. Enhanced services use the existing telephone
    network to deliver services that provide more than a basic
    transmission offering. *Bell Operating Companies\' Joint Petition
    for Waiver of Computer II Rules*, Memorandum Opinion & Order, 10 FCC
    Rcd 1724 n.3 (1995) (*Interim Waiver Order*); 47 C.F.R. § 64.702(a).
    The terms \"enhanced service\" and \"basic service\" are defined and
    discussed more fully *infra* at ¶ .

[^4]: The terms \"enhanced services\" and \"information services\" are
    used interchangeably in this Further Notice. *See infra* note
    **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^5]:  *See infra* Part II.A. The Commission initially applied the
    *Computer III* and ONA rules to both AT&T and the BOCs. *Computer
    III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986). In subsequent orders, the
    Commission first modified, and then relieved, AT&T of most *Computer
    III* and ONA requirements. *See, e.g., Computer III Phase I
    Reconsideration Order*, 2 FCC 3035 (1987); *Competition in the
    Interstate Interexchange Marketplace,* Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd
    5880 (1991); *Competition in the Interstate Interexchange
    Marketplace,* Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 10
    FCC Rcd 4562 (1995). AT&T was never subject to the annual and
    biannual ONA reporting requirements the Commission imposed on the
    BOCs in the *BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd 7646
    (1991). AT&T remains subject, however, to a modified ONA plan that
    the Commission approved in 1988 and for which AT&T must submit an
    annual affidavit. *AT&T ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd 2449 (1988); *see*
    discussion *infra* at ¶ . AT&T also is subject to the Commission\'s
    customer proprietary network information (CPNI) and network
    information disclosure rules. *See discussion infra* ¶¶ -. In 1994,
    the Commission extended to GTE the Commission\'s requirements
    regarding ONA unbundling, ONA reporting, CPNI, and network
    information disclosure, among other things. *Application of Open
    Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE
    Corporation*, CC Docket No. 92-256, 9 FCC Rcd 4922 (1994) (*GTE ONA
    Order*). The Commission has not applied the *Computer III/ONA*
    requirements to any other local exchange carriers (LECs). Our
    discussion of the *Computer III* and ONA requirements in this
    Further Notice are intended to cover their application with respect
    to AT&T and GTE to the extent applicable.

[^6]: *Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission\'s Rules and
    Regulations* (*Computer II*), 77 FCC 2d 384 (1980) (*Final
    Decision*), *recon*., 84 FCC 2d 50 (1980) (*Reconsideration Order*),
    *further recon*., 88 FCC 2d 512 (1981) (*Further Reconsideration
    Order*), *affirmed sub nom*. *Computer and Communications Industry
    Ass\'n v. FCC*, 693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1982), *cert. denied,* 461
    U.S. 938 (1983).

[^7]: *Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company
    Provision of Enhanced Services*, CC Docket No. 95-20, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 8360 (1995) (*Computer III Further
    Remand Notice*).

[^8]: *California v. FCC*, 39 F. 3d 919 (9th Cir. 1994) (*California
    III*).

[^9]: *See infra* Part III.A.

[^10]: *Computer III Further Remand Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 8362, ¶ 2.

[^11]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat.
    56, codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. Hereinafter, all citations
    to the 1996 Act will be to the 1996 Act as it is codified in the
    United States Code. The 1996 Act amended the Communications Act of
    1934. We will refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    as the \"Communications Act\" or the \"Act.\"

[^12]: Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, 104th
    Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1996) (Joint Explanatory Statement).

[^13]: *Reno v. ACLU*, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997).

[^14]: *S**ee* 47 U.S.C. § 251; *see also Implementation of the Local
    Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC
    Docket No. 96‑98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15808,
    ¶ 611 (1996) (*Local Competition Order*), *aff\'d in part and
    vacated in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass\'n v.
    FCC*, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997); *vacated in part on reh\'g,
    Iowa Utilities Bd. v. FCC*, 120 F.3d 753, *further vacated in part
    sub nom. California Public Utilities Comm\'n v. FCC*, 124 F.3d 934,
    *writ of mandamus issued sub nom. Iowa Utilities Bd. v. FCC*, No.
    96-3321 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 1998), *petition for cert. granted*, Nos.
    97‑826, 97‑829, 97‑830, 97‑831, 97‑1075, 97‑1087, 97‑1099, and
    97‑1141 (U.S. Jan. 26, 1998) (collectively, *Iowa Utils. Bd.*),
    Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), Second Order on
    Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996), Third Order on
    Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC
    97-295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997), *further recons. pending*.

[^15]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 271, 272.

[^16]: Prior to the 1996 Act, the BOCs and their affiliates effectively
    were precluded under the Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ) from
    providing information services across local access and transport
    area (LATA) boundaries, as those terms were defined in the MFJ. *See
    United States v. Western Elec. Co.*, 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982)
    (subsequent history omitted). While the MFJ, as originally entered,
    prohibited the BOCs from providing information services, that
    restriction was subsequently narrowed, and then eliminated entirely
    in 1991. *United States v. Western Elec. Co*., 714 F. Supp. 1
    (D.D.C. 1988); *United States v. Western Elec. Co.*, 767 F. Supp.
    308 (D.D.C. 1991) (subsequent history omitted). The MFJ still
    prohibited the BOCs from providing services across LATA boundaries;
    thus the BOCs could provide information services only between points
    located in the same LATA. Pursuant to section 601 of the 1996 Act,
    *see* 47 U.S.C. § 152 nt, the Act supplants the restrictions and
    obligations imposed by the MFJ.

[^17]: The terms \"local access and transport area\" or \"LATA,\"
    \"information service,\" and \"telecommunications service\" are
    defined in the Act. *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 153(25), (20), (46). In the
    *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, we concluded that all the
    services the Commission has previously considered to be \"enhanced
    services\" are \"information services\" as defined in the Act. *See
    Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and
    272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,* CC Docket No.
    96-149, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905, 21955, ¶ 102 (1996) (*Non-Accounting
    Safeguards Order)* (subsequent citations omitted). We seek comment
    in this proceeding on whether those services previously considered
    to be \"basic services\" fall within the definition of
    \"telecommunications services\" as defined in the Act. *See* *infra*
    ¶ *.* We also seek comment on whether the Commission should conform
    its terminology to that used in the Act. *See infra* ¶ . Thus, all
    providers that previously were considered to be enhanced service
    providers (ESPs) would now be deemed information service providers
    (ISPs). For historical consistency, however, we use the terms
    \"enhanced service\" and \"basic service\" in this Further Notice as
    necessary when discussing certain notices, orders, and decisions
    that used those terms prior to the 1996 Act.

[^18]: *S**ee infra* ¶¶ -. We note that on December 31, 1997, the United
    States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that
    sections 271-275 of the Act are a bill of attainder and thus are
    unconstitutional as to SBC Corporation and U S WEST. *SBC
    Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm\'n*, No.
    7:97-CV-163-X, 1997 WL 800662 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 1997) (*SBC v.
    FCC*) (ruling subsequently extended to Bell Atlantic), *request for
    stay pending*. In general, the analysis in this Further Notice
    assumes the continued applicability of these provisions to the Bell
    companies. At appropriate places in this Further Notice, however, we
    ask commenters to assess the impact of *SBC v. FCC* on our analysis.

[^19]: *See* discussion of \"telecommunications service\" and
    \"information service\" *infra* at Part IV.A.

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 161(a)(2).

[^21]: *See* *1998 Biennial Review of FCC Regulations Begun Early*, FCC
    News Release (rel. Nov. 18, 1997).

[^22]: *See* Pub. L. 105-119, § 623, 111 Stat. 2440 (1997) (Universal
    Service Report); *see also* *Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment for
    Report to Congress on Universal Service Under the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996*, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 96-45 (Report to
    Congress), DA 98-2 (rel. Jan. 5, 1998).

[^23]: *Id.*

[^24]: *Computer III Further Remand Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 8362-8369, ¶¶
    3-10.

[^25]: *Computer II Final Decision,* 77 FCC 2d 384, 475-486, ¶¶ 233-60.

[^26]: *United States v. AT&T*, 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982),
    *affirmed sub nom. Maryland v. United States*, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983).

[^27]: *Policy and Rules Concerning the Furnishing of Customer Premises
    Equipment, Enhanced Services and Cellular Communications Equipment
    by the Bell Operating Companies*, CC Docket No 83-115, Report and
    Order, 95 FCC 2d 1117, 1120, ¶ 3 (1984) (*BOC Separation Order*),
    *affirmed sub nom. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC*, 740 F.2d 465
    (7th Cir. 1984), *affirmed on recon*., FCC 84-252, 49 Fed. Reg.
    26056 (1984) (*BOC Separation Reconsideration Order*), *affirmed sub
    nom. North American Telecommunications Ass\'n v. FCC*, 772 F.2d 1282
    (7th Cir. 1985). *See infra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**
    for a discussion of the *Computer II* structural separation
    requirements.

[^28]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 964-965, ¶¶ 3-6.

[^29]: *Computer III Phase I Order,* 104 FCC 2d at 963.

[^30]: The Commission initially imposed these CEI requirements on AT&T
    as well. In subsequent orders, the Commission first modified, and
    then relieved, AT&T of these requirements. The Commission has never
    imposed CEI requirements on GTE or any other independent LEC. *See
    supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^31]: *See Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1035-1042, ¶¶
    147-166. As described in note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**
    *infra*, the nine CEI parameters are: 1) interface functionality; 2)
    unbundling of basic services; 3) resale; 4) technical
    characteristics; 5) installation, maintenance, and repair; 6) end
    user access; 7) CEI availability as of the date the BOC offers its
    own enhanced service to the public; 8) minimization of transport
    costs; and 9) availability to all interested ISPs.

[^32]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 963, ¶ 2.

[^33]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1063-1068, ¶¶
    210-225.

[^34]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1064, 1067-68, ¶¶
    213, 220-21. The unbundling standard for the BOCs required that: (1)
    the BOCs\' enhanced services operation obtain unbundled network
    services pursuant to tariffed terms, conditions, and rates available
    to all ESPs; (2) BOCs provide an initial set of basic service
    functions that could be commonly used in the provision of enhanced
    services to the extent technologically feasible; (3) ESPs
    participate in developing the initial set of network services; (4)
    BOCs select the set of network services based on the expected market
    demand for such services, their utility as perceived by enhanced
    service competitors, and the technical and costing feasibility of
    such unbundling; and (5) BOCs comply with CEI requirements in
    providing basic network services to affiliated and unaffiliated
    ESPs. *Id.*, 104 FCC 2d at 1064‑66, ¶¶ 214-218.

[^35]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1080-1086, 1089-1091,
    ¶¶ 246-255, 260-265; *Computer III Phase II Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at
    3084-3086, ¶¶ 88-98.

[^36]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1063, ¶ 210.

[^37]: *California I*, 905 F.2d at 1232-1239 (*vacating* the *Computer
    III Phase I Order*, *Phase I Recon. Order*, and *Phase II Order*).

[^38]: *See BOC Safeguards Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7578-7588, 7617-25, ¶¶
    14-41, 98-109.

[^39]: *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.** for a full
    citation of the ONA proceedings.

[^40]: *See Computer III Further Remand Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 8366
    n.22, for a string citation of the referenced orders.

[^41]: *Petition for Removal of the Structural Separation Requirements
    and Waiver of Certain State Tariffing Requirements*, 9 FCC Rcd 3053
    (1994) (*Structural Relief Order*), *joint motion for remand granted
    in light of California I*, *MCI v. FCC*, No. 94-1597 (D.C. Cir. May
    10, 1995).

[^42]: *California v. FCC*, 4 F.3d 1505.

[^43]: *Id.* at 1511-13.

[^44]: The Court pointed out that the petition for review before it
    covered four Commission ONA orders, but not the specific Commission
    order lifting structural separation. *Id.* at 1513.

[^45]: *California III*, 39 F.3d at 930.

[^46]: *Id*. at 929-930.

[^47]: *Id*.

[^48]: Price cap regulation focuses primarily on the prices that an
    incumbent LEC may charge and the revenues it may generate from
    interstate access services. Price cap regulation encourages
    incumbent LECs to improve their efficiency by harnessing
    profit-making incentives to reduce costs, invest efficiently in new
    plant and facilities, and develop and deploy innovative service
    offerings, while setting price ceilings at reasonable levels. Thus,
    price caps act as a transitional regulatory scheme until the advent
    of actual competition makes price cap regulation unnecessary.
    *Access Charge Reform*, CC Docket No. 96-262, *Price Cap Performance
    Review for Local Exchange Carriers*, CC Docket No. 94-1, *Transport
    Rate Structure and Pricing*, CC Docket No. 91-213, *End User Common
    Line Charges*, CC Docket No. 95-72, First Report and Order, 12 FCC
    Rcd 15982, 15993-94, ¶ 26 (1997) (*Access Reform Report and Order*).

[^49]: *California III*, 39 F.3d at 926.

[^50]: *California III,* 39 F.3d at 931-933. *See infra* ¶ for a
    discussion of the scope of federal preemption adopted in the *BOC
    Safeguards Order*.

[^51]: *Interim Waiver Order,* 10 FCC Rcd 1724. *See infra* ¶ for a more
    complete discussion of the *Interim Waiver Order*.

[^52]: *Computer III Further Remand Notice,* 10 FCC Rcd at 8362, ¶ 2.

[^53]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(c).

[^54]: 47 U.S.C. § 253(a), (d).

[^55]: We note that states have the authority to adopt additional
    interconnection points or unbundled network elements in accordance
    with section 251 of the Act. *Local Competition Order,* 11 FCC Rcd
    at 15567, ¶ 136.

[^56]: An \"in-region interLATA service\" is interLATA service that
    originates in any of a BOC\'s in-region states, which are the states
    in which the BOC or any of its affiliates was authorized to provide
    wireline telephone exchange service pursuant to the reorganization
    plan approved under the AT&T Consent Decree, as in effect on
    February 7, 1996. 47 U.S.C. §§ 153(21), 271(i)(1); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 53.3.

[^57]: *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21911, ¶ 9.

[^58]: *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21969, ¶ 132.

[^59]: *Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
    Telemessaging, Electronic Publishing, and Alarm Monitoring
    Services*, CC Docket No. 96-152, First Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 5361, 5455, ¶ 210 (1997)
    (*Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order*), citing
    *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21975-76, ¶ 145.

[^60]: *Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at
    5455, ¶ 221.

[^61]: We concluded that section 274 applies to a BOC\'s provision of
    both intraLATA and interLATA electronic publishing services, since,
    in contrast to section 272, Congress did not distinguish between
    such services in section 274. *Telemessaging and Electronic
    Publishing Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5383, ¶ 50.

[^62]: *See* 47 U.S.C § 274. Electronic publishing services are excluded
    from section 272\'s separation and other requirements for BOC
    provision of interLATA information services. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    272(a)(2)(C).

[^63]: *Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at
    5446, ¶ 199.

[^64]: *Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at
    5446, ¶ 200.

[^65]: *Id.*

[^66]: Alarm monitoring services are excluded from section 272\'s
    separation and other requirements for BOC provision of interLATA
    information services. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 272(a)(2)(C).

[^67]: *Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
    Telemessaging, Electronic Publishing, and Alarm Monitoring
    Services*, CC Docket No. 96-152, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd
    3824, 3848-49, ¶ 55 (1997), *recons. pending* (*Alarm Monitoring
    Order*); *see also* *Enforcement of Section 275(a)(2) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996, Against Ameritech Corporation*, CCBPol 96‑17, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3855 (1997), *vacated and remanded sub
    nom. Alarm Industry Communications Committee v. Federal
    Communications Commission and United States of America*, No.
    97‑1218, 1997 WL 791658 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 1997).

[^68]: *California v. FCC*, 39 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 1994).

[^69]: *BOC Safeguards Order,* 6 FCC Rcd 7571 (1991).

[^70]: *California III*, 39 F.3d at 923, 930. While the court did not
    provide a specific definition of the phrase \"fundamental
    unbundling,\" the *California III* decision relied upon and
    reaffirmed the court\'s *California II* determination that:

    \[I\]n *Computer III*, the FCC adopted general standards for ONA
    which the BOCs needed to satisfy as a precondition for lifting
    structural separation and which, when met, would eliminate the need
    for CEI plans. . . . The plans actually submitted pursuant to
    *Computer III*, however, did not meet those standards. The FCC
    recognized in the orders that the technology it thought in *Computer
    III* would soon permit open access and serve as a prerequisite to
    structural separation \[sic\] was not available; yet it approved the
    plans. This was a change in policy.

    *California II*, 4 F.3d at 1512.

[^71]: *California III*, 39 F.3d at 930.

[^72]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1064, ¶ 213.

[^73]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1065, ¶ 216.

[^74]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1064, ¶ 213.

[^75]: *Id.* at 1065, ¶ 217.

[^76]: *Computer III Phase I Order* at 1064, 1067-68, ¶¶ 213, 220-21. As
    noted above, the unbundling standard for the BOCs required that: (1)
    the BOCs\' enhanced services operation obtain unbundled network
    services pursuant to tariffed terms, conditions, and rates available
    to all ESPs; (2) BOCs provide an initial set of basic service
    functions that could be commonly used in the provision of enhanced
    services to the extent technologically feasible; (3) ESPs
    participate in developing the initial set of network services; (4)
    BOCs select the set of network services based on the expected market
    demand for such elements, their utility as perceived by enhanced
    service competitors, and the technical and costing feasibility of
    such unbundling; and (5) BOCs comply with CEI requirements in
    providing basic network services to affiliated and unaffiliated
    ESPs.

[^77]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 13, 41-42, ¶¶ 8, 69. The \"common
    ONA model\" is further discussed *infra* at Part IV.D.1.

[^78]: BSAs are the fundamental tariffed switching and transport
    services that allow an ESP to communicate with its customers through
    the BOC network. Under the common ONA model, an ESP and its
    customers must obtain some form of BSA in order to obtain access to
    the network functionalities that an ESP needs to offer its specific
    services. Examples of BSAs include line-side and trunk-side
    circuit-switched service, line-side and trunk-side packet switched
    service, and various grades of local private line service. *BOC ONA
    Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 36, ¶ 56. BSAs must be included in a BOC\'s
    interstate access tariff, as well as tariffed at the state level.
    *Id*. at 116, 143-4, ¶¶ 226, 276.

[^79]: BSEs are optional unbundled features (such as calling number
    identification) that an ESP may require or find useful in
    configuring an enhanced service. *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 36, ¶
    57. BSEs must be tariffed at the federal and state levels. *Id.* at
    145, ¶ 279.

[^80]: CNSs are optional unbundled features (such as stutter dial tone)
    that end-users may obtain from carriers in order to obtain access to
    or receive an enhanced service. *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 36, ¶
    57. CNSs must be tariffed at the state level, but need not be
    tariffed at the federal level. *Id.* at 47, ¶ 83.

[^81]: ANSs are non-regulated services, such as billing and collection,
    that may prove useful to ESPs. *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 36,
    57-58, ¶¶ 57, 106.

[^82]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 37-41, ¶¶ 59-68. In general, these
    arguments were set forth in a report by Hatfield Associates, Inc.,
    sponsored by Telenet, CompuServe, Dun & Bradstreet, CBEMA, and
    IDCMA. *See id.* n.112.

[^83]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 37, ¶ 59.

[^84]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 37, ¶ 60. The commenters
    characterized the unbundling achieved under the common ONA model as
    \"a set of merely software-defined switching features.\" *Id.* at
    37, 39, ¶ 60, 63.

[^85]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 37, ¶ 59. Other commenters, such as
    the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Association of Data
    Communications Users (ADCU) also characterized BSAs as highly
    packaged, end-to-end services in which switching, signalling, and
    transmission functions are not disaggregated. *Id.* at 38‑39, ¶ 62.
    MCI asserted that access, switching, and transport functions are all
    physically segregable, and should not be bundled in the form of
    BSAs. *Id.* at 39, ¶ 63.

[^86]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 13, 41, ¶¶ 8, 69. Instead, the
    Commission found that the common ONA model, which achieves BSE
    unbundling through the mechanism of software changes in end-office
    switches, \"recognize\[d\] the realities\" of then-current network
    architecture, and thus was \"more likely to bring new features to
    ESPs at a faster rate, with less investment, than would a radical
    reconfiguration to a more modularized architecture.\" *BOC ONA
    Order* 4 FCC Rcd at 42, ¶ 70. The Commission, specifically rejecting
    any argument that BSAs should be further unbundled, found that
    requiring such further unbundling could cause technical and
    operational difficulties. *Id*. at 42, ¶ 71.

[^87]: *B**OC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 41, ¶ 69, citing *Computer III
    Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1019-20, 1040, ¶¶ 113, 158, n.215.
    While rejecting the arguments of the parties that advocated further,
    or more \"fundamental,\" unbundling, the Commission recognized that
    such unbundling, in the long run, might have pro‑competitive effects
    as technology and regulatory policies evolve, and requested that the
    Information Industry Liaison Committee (IILC) investigate the
    technical and operational problems associated with such unbundling,
    in order to lay the groundwork for future policymaking. *BOC ONA
    Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 43, ¶ 72. The IILC was established in 1987 by
    the Exchange Carriers Standards Association (ECSA) to serve as an
    inter-industry forum for discussion and voluntary resolution of
    industry-wide concerns about the provision of ONA services and
    related matters. *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 31, ¶ 49. In 1994,
    the ECSA changed its name to the Alliance for Telecommunications
    Industry Solutions (ATIS). Effective January 1, 1997, the IILC was
    sunset as an ATIS‑sponsored committee. Under a reorganizational plan
    approved by the ATIS board, all open issues and work programs
    underway at that time were transferred from the IILC to the Network
    Interconnection/ Interoperability Forum (NIIF). *See also infra*
    ¶¶ - for further discussion of NIIF functions.

[^88]: *See California III*, 39 F.3d at 923, 930.

[^89]: The statute defines \"network element\" as:

    a facility or equipment used in the provision of a
    telecommunications service. Such term also includes features,
    functions, and capabilities that are provided by means of such
    facility or equipment, including subscriber numbers, databases,
    signaling systems, and information sufficient for billing and
    collection or used in the transmission, routing, or other provision
    of a telecommunications service.

    47 U.S.C. § 153(29).

[^90]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(c)(2)-(4). The Commission implemented the
    local competition provisions of sections 251 and 252 in the *Local
    Competition Order, supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.
    Certain portions of the Commission\'s rules, most notably the
    pricing rules and certain unbundling rules, were vacated by the
    United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the *Iowa
    Utilities Board* decision. *See Iowa Utilities Board*, 120 F.3d at
    792‑800, 807-818.

[^91]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6). The Eighth Circuit upheld the
    Commission\'s rules implementing the collocation requirement. *See
    Iowa Utilities Board*, 120 F.3d at 817.

[^92]: *Local Competition Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15683-15775, ¶¶ 366-541;
    *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 51.319. The Eighth Circuit upheld the
    Commission\'s determination that OSS, operator services and
    directory services, and vertical switching features (such as caller
    ID, call forwarding, and call waiting) qualify as network elements
    that are subject to the unbundling requirements of the Act. *Iowa
    Utilities Board*, 120 F.3d at 807-810.

[^93]: *Local Competition Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15625-26, 15631-32, ¶¶
    244, 246, 259. The FCC and the state commissions also have authority
    to require \"more granular\" unbundling of the specific network
    elements identified by the *Local Competition Order*. *Id.*, 11 FCC
    Rcd at 15631-32, ¶ 259.

[^94]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 271(c). The \"competitive checklist\" itself
    contains specific unbundling requirements, including
    nondiscriminatory access to network elements (47 U.S.C. §
    271(c)(2)(B)(ii)), unbundled local loop transmission (47 U.S.C. §
    271(c)(2)(B)(iv)), unbundled local transport (47 U.S.C. §
    271(c)(2)(B)(v)), unbundled local switching (47 U.S.C. §
    271(c)(2)(B)(vi)), as well as nondiscriminatory access to databases
    and associated signaling necessary for call routing and completion
    (47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(x)). *But see* discussion of *SBC v.*
    *FCC, supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^95]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 37, ¶ 60.

[^96]: *See infra* ¶ .

[^97]: *See, e.g.*, *Computer II Final Decision,* 77 FCC 2d at 433, ¶
    128; *Computer III Phase I Order,* 104 FCC 2d at 1010, ¶ 95.

[^98]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2), (c)(3). The Commission determined
    that entities that provide both telecommunications services and
    information services are classified as telecommunications carriers
    for the purposes of section 251, and are subject to the general
    interconnection obligations of section 251(a), to the extent that
    they are acting as telecommunications carriers. *Local Competition
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15990, ¶ 995. The Commission further concluded
    that telecommunications carriers that have obtained interconnection
    or access to unbundled network elements under section 251 in order
    to provide telecommunications services, may offer information
    services through the same arrangement, so long as they are offering
    telecommunications services through the same arrangement as well.
    *Id*. *See infra* ¶¶ - for a more complete discussion of section 251
    unbundling vis-a-vis ONA. *See also* ¶ for a discussion of the
    Universal Service Report.

[^99]: *Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Recommendations on Commission
    Actions Critical to the Promotion of Efficient Local Exchange
    Competition*, Public Notice, CCBPol 97-9, DA 97-1519 (rel. Jul. 18,
    1997).

[^100]: The *Local Competition* *Order* states that incumbent LECs could
    not restrict the services that competitors could provide using
    unbundled network elements. *Local Competition Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    15634, 15646, ¶¶ 264, 292.

[^101]: *S**ee, e.g., Third CLEC To Fan Flames of ISDN Competition*,
    ISDN News, Jan. 28, 1997 (discussing Intermedia Communications\'
    plans to resell parts of the Bell networks to Internet service
    providers).

[^102]: *See, e.g., Internet Service Provider Outlines Regional ADSL
    Rollout,* Communications Today, June 17, 1997 (discussing plans of
    ioNet, an ISP, to partner with competitive local service providers
    to offer asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) services).

[^103]: *See, e.g., Networking Business Concentric Plans IPO*,
    Communications Week, July 21, 1997 (discussing plans of Concentric
    Network Corp. to register as a competitive local exchange carrier in
    several states, which is described in the article as \"a growing
    trend with ISPs\").

[^104]: *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^105]: *See supra* notes **Error! Bookmark not defined.**, **Error!
    Bookmark not defined.**.

[^106]: *Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
    Facilities*, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7
    FCC Rcd 7369 (1992) (*Special Access Interconnection Order*),
    *recon*., 8 FCC Rcd 127 (1992), *further recon*., 8 FCC Rcd 7341
    (1993), *vacated in part and remanded sub nom. Bell Atlantic
    Telephone Cos. v. FCC*, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (subsequent
    citations omitted).

[^107]: Class A LECs are companies having annual revenues from regulated
    telecommunications operations that equal or exceed the indexed
    revenue threshold (which is currently approximately \$107 million).
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 32.11(a)(1).

[^108]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1401, 64.1402. The *Local Competition
    Order* concluded that section 251 of the Act does not supersede the
    Commission\'s *Expanded Interconnection* rules, because the two sets
    of requirements are not coextensive. *See Local Competition Order*,
    11 FCC Rcd at 15808, ¶ 611.

[^109]: *See Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 433, ¶ 128. *See
    also Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1010, ¶ 95
    (concluding that the enhanced services market is \"extremely
    competitive\").

[^110]: As of January 1997, there were over 16 million host computers on
    the Internet, more than ten times as many as there were in January
    1992. *See* Kevin Werbach, FCC Office of Plans and Policy, Working
    Paper 29, *Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications
    Policy*, 21-22 (March 1997) (*Digital Tornado*), citing *Network
    Wizards Internet Domain Survey* (Jan. 1997). One recent study
    estimated the number of U.S. subscribers to Internet services at 47
    million. *See id.*, citing *Internet IT Informer* (Feb. 19, 1997).

[^111]: *See Digital Tornado* at 22, citing *Boardwatch Directory of
    Internet Service Providers* (Fall 1996).

[^112]: *Computer III Further Remand Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 8382, ¶ 32.

[^113]: *See Computer III Further Remand Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 8382, ¶
    33 & n.81.

[^114]: *California I*, 905 F.2d at 1233.

[^115]: *See also infra* ¶¶ - where we seek comment on whether and how
    the development of new information services, including Internet
    services, which rely on emerging packet-switched networks, should
    affect the Commission\'s *Computer III* and ONA rules.

[^116]: *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^117]: *See supra* ¶ ; 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^118]: *Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 387, ¶ 5.

[^119]: *See Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 419-20, ¶¶ 93,
    96.

[^120]: *Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 419-20, ¶ 95.

[^121]: *Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC Rcd at 428, ¶ 114.

[^122]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.702(a).

[^123]: *Id.* *See also Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at
    428-30, ¶¶ 114-18. In *Computer II*, the Commission determined that,
    while we have jurisdiction over enhanced services under the general
    provisions of Title I, it would not serve the public interest to
    subject ESPs to traditional common carriage regulation under Title
    II because, among other things, the enhanced services market was
    \"truly competitive.\" *Id.*, 77 FCC 2d at 430, 432-33 ¶¶ 119, 124,
    128. Examples of services the Commission has treated as enhanced
    include voice mail, E-Mail, fax store-and-forward, interactive voice
    response, protocol processing, gateway, and audiotext information
    services. *See Bell Operating Companies Joint Petition for Waiver of
    Computer II Rules*, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13,758, 13,770-13,774, App. A
    (Com. Car. Bur. 1995) (*BOC CEI Plan Approval Order*).

[^124]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(43).

[^125]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(46). According to the Joint Explanatory
    Statement, the definitions of \"telecommunications\" and
    \"telecommunications service\" were derived from the Senate Bill
    with amendments. Joint Explanatory Statement at 116. The Joint
    Explanatory Statement indicates that the definition of
    \"telecommunications service\" was intended to include commercial
    mobile service (CMS), competitive access service, and alternative
    local telecommunications services to the extent they are offered to
    the public or such classes of users as to be effectively available
    to the public. Joint Explanatory Statement at 114.

[^126]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(20). This definition is based on the definition
    of \"information service\" used in the MFJ. *See* Joint Explanatory
    Statement at 115-16.

[^127]: *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21955-56, ¶
    102.

[^128]: *Id.*

[^129]: *Id.*

[^130]: *See also* the discussion of the Universal Service Report in ¶ .

[^131]: *See Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 475. We note that
    we have issued a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on the treatment
    of Internet access and other information services that use the
    public switched network. *Usage of the Public Switched Network by
    Information Service and Internet Access Providers*, CC Docket No.
    96-263, Notice of Inquiry, 11 FCC Rcd 21354 (1996) (*Information
    Service and Internet Access NOI*). We intend in that proceeding to
    review the status of ISPs in a more comprehensive manner.

[^132]: The Commission required the BOCs and GTE to be subject to price
    cap regulation and permitted other LECs to elect price cap
    regulation. *Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant
    Carriers*, CC Docket No. 87-313, Second Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd
    6786, 6818-19, ¶¶ 257-265 (1990). Currently, fourteen incumbent LECs
    are subject to price cap regulation.

[^133]: *See Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers*,
    CC Docket No. 94-1, and *Access Charge Reform*, CC Docket No.
    96-262, Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 94-1 and Second
    Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-262, 12 FCC Rcd 16642,
    16699-703, ¶¶ 147-155 (1997) (*Price Caps Fourth Report and Order*).

[^134]: The price caps regime, however, still retains a rate-of-return
    aspect in the low-end adjustment mechanism. The low-end adjustment
    mechanism permits a LEC with a rate-of-return of less than 10.25
    percent to increase its price cap index to a level that would enable
    it to earn 10.25 percent. Furthermore, periodic performance reviews
    to update the X-factor could replicate the effects of rate-of-return
    regulation, if based on particular carriers\' interstate earnings
    rather than industry-wide productivity growth. We stated in the
    *Price Caps Fourth Report and Order*, however, that in our next
    performance review we plan to focus on ensuring that we do not
    replicate rate-of-return effects. *Price Caps Fourth Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 16714, ¶ 180.

[^135]: Under \"maximum separation,\" we required that the separate
    entity maintain its own books of account, have separate officers and
    separate operating personnel, and utilize computer equipment and
    facilities separate from those of the carrier in providing
    unregulated services. Moreover, a carrier subject to the separation
    requirement was prohibited from engaging in the sale or promotion of
    the separate entity\'s services and from making available any
    computer capacity or computer system component, used in the
    provision of its communications service, to others for the provision
    of unregulated services. *Regulatory and Policy Problems Presented
    by the Interdependence of Computer and Communication Services and
    Facilities* (*Computer I*), 28 FCC 2d 291, 302-304, ¶¶ 38-34 (1970)
    (*Tentative Decision*); 28 FCC 2d 267 (1971) (*Final Decision*),
    *aff\'d in part sub. nom. GTE* *Service Corp. v. FCC*, 474 F.2d 724
    (2d Cir. 1973), *decision on remand*, 40 FCC 2d 293 (1973). We did
    not establish requirements for AT&T and its subsidiaries based on
    our assumption that they were precluded from offering any type of
    data processing services by the terms of an antitrust consent decree
    then in effect. *See United States v. Western Electric Co.*, 13 Rad.
    Reg. (P&F) 2143, 1956 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,134 (D.N.J. 1956).

[^136]: Under the rules adopted in the *Computer II Final Decision*, the
    AT&T separate subsidiary was prohibited from providing basic
    services or owning any network or local distribution transmission
    facilities, while its basic services affiliates were prohibited from
    offering enhanced services or customer premises equipment (CPE).
    Those rules also strictly limited the interactions of the separate
    subsidiary with its basic service affiliates. We required the
    separate subsidiary to obtain all transmission facilities necessary
    for providing enhanced services under tariff. We required it to
    elect separate officers; maintain separate books of account; employ
    separate operating, installation, and maintenance personnel; and
    perform its own marketing and advertising. We further required it to
    deal with any affiliated manufacturing entity only on an arms-length
    basis and to utilize separate computer facilities in providing
    enhanced services. Moreover, the separate subsidiary was required
    either to develop its own software or to contract with
    non-affiliates for such software, except that it was permitted to
    obtain generic software embedded within equipment that its affiliate
    sold off-the-shelf to any interested purchaser. We also decided to
    require AT&T\'s basic service affiliates to disclose network design
    and other network information that affected the interconnection or
    interoperation of customer premises equipment (CPE) or enhanced
    services. *Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 475-86, ¶¶
    233-60; *see also Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d 958 at
    969-971, ¶¶ 14-15. These requirements were extended to the BOCs in
    1984. *See Policy and Rules Concerning the Furnishing of Customer
    Premises Equipment, Enhanced Services and Cellular Communications
    Equipment by the Bell Operating Companies*, CC Docket 83-115, Report
    and Order, 95 FCC 2d 1117, 1120, ¶ 3 (1984) (*BOC Separation
    Order*). While GTE also was initially subject to the *Computer II*
    structural separation requirements, the Commission subsequently
    relieved GTE of those rules. *Computer II Reconsideration Order*, 84
    FCC 2d at 72-73, ¶ 66.

[^137]: *See Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 461-63, ¶¶
    201-07.

[^138]: *Id.* at 462, ¶ 205.

[^139]: *Id.* at 461, ¶¶ 202-03.

[^140]: *Id.* at 464-66, ¶¶ 211-14.

[^141]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1010-12, ¶¶ 96, 98.

[^142]: Specifically, the Commission found that the BOCs\' ability to
    engage in access discrimination was hindered by implementation of
    the CEI and ONA requirements, development of the T1 standards
    committee, and growth of bypass and other alternatives to local
    service. *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1011, ¶ 97. The
    Commission also found that the BOCs\' ability to misallocate costs
    was diminished by the availability of bypass and other new
    technologies, and political and regulatory pressures to minimize
    rural, residential, and small business local exchange rates. *Id.*
    at 1010-11, ¶¶ 95-96. As noted in ¶ *supra*, because the
    Commission\'s recent *Price Caps Fourth Report and Order* eliminates
    the sharing mechanism, the BOCs\' incentive to misallocate costs is
    further reduced. *See Price Caps Fourth Report and Order* at ¶¶
    147-155.

[^143]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1007, ¶ 89.

[^144]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1008-09, ¶ 91.

[^145]: The *California I* court stated that the record \"suffice\[d\]
    to support\" our finding that \"separation has discouraged
    innovation in developing and marketing new enhanced services
    technologies, has prevented the BOCs from providing customers with
    efficient packages of basic and enhanced services, and has generally
    created inefficiencies by forcing the BOCs to maintain duplicate
    organizations and facilities.\" *California I*, 905 F.2d at 1231.
    The *California III* court stated that \"\[p\]etitioners have not
    raised any new claims with regard to the \[Commission\'s\] analysis
    of the costs of structural separation which would require us to
    reconsider our conclusion in *California I*.\" *California III*, 39
    F.3d at 925.

[^146]: *Computer III Further Remand Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 8384-87, ¶¶
    36-40.

[^147]: In our previous *Computer III* orders, we have not made a
    regulatory distinction between interLATA and intraLATA information
    services, since the BOCs were prevented under the MFJ from providing
    any interLATA services. *See* *supra* note **Error! Bookmark not
    defined.**. Under the 1996 Act, BOC provision of interLATA
    information services (except for electronic publishing and alarm
    monitoring services) is subject to the separation and
    nondiscrimination requirements in section 272. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    272(a)(2)(C). We thus confine our tentative conclusion to the
    application of the Commission\'s nonstructural safeguards regime to
    BOC provision of intraLATA information services. We discuss
    separately the legal and regulatory issues regarding BOC provision
    of electronic publishing and alarm monitoring services *infra* at ¶¶
    -.

[^148]: We note that, even when the BOCs face competition from alternate
    providers of basic services, they may still be able to charge
    unreasonable rates for terminating access. The rules we adopted in
    our recently released *Access Reform Report and Order* address this
    issue. *See Access Reform Report and Order*, *supra* note **Error!
    Bookmark not defined.**, 12 FCC Rcd at 16135-42, ¶¶ 349-366.

[^149]: *See* discussion *supra* ¶¶ -.

[^150]: *See, e.g., Third CLEC To Fan Flames of ISDN Competition*, ISDN
    News, *supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^151]: The BOCs currently account for approximately 99.1 percent of the
    local service revenues in those markets. Industry Analysis Division,
    *Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Worksheet Data* (Com. Car.
    Bur. Dec. 1996); *see also Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd at 21912, ¶ 10.

[^152]: *See* discussion *supra* ¶¶ -.

[^153]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC Rcd at 1011, ¶ 97. As
    noted above, we examine in this Further Notice the continued
    effectiveness of these nonstructural safeguards.

[^154]: *See*, *e.g.*, 47 U.S.C. §§ 260, 275 (governing the provision of
    telemessaging and alarm monitoring services, respectively). While
    some parties asked the Commission to impose separation requirements
    on the provision of intraLATA telemessaging services pursuant to our
    general regulatory authority, we declined to do so. *See
    Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5457,
    ¶ 227. We also note that section 276 requires the Commission to
    prescribe a set of nonstructural safeguards for BOC provision of
    payphone service at least \"equal to those adopted in the
    \[*Computer III*\] proceeding.\" 47 U.S.C. § 276(b)(1)(C). *See
    infra* ¶¶ - for a discussion of the nonstructural safeguards
    applicable to BOC provision of payphone service.

[^155]: *See Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21971, ¶
    135.

[^156]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 272.

[^157]: We permitted the BOCs in the *Telemessaging and Electronic
    Publishing Order* to provide section 272 services and electronic
    publishing services through the same affiliate, so long as that
    affiliate meets the requirements of both sections 272 and 274 for
    each service. *Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 5407, ¶ 110.

[^158]: *See supra* at ¶¶ - and note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^159]: *Computer III Further Remand Notice*, 10 FCC Rcd at 8386-87, ¶
    40.

[^160]: As discussed in the *Computer III Further Remand Notice*, the
    BOCs have indicated that they would have to \"relocate hundreds of
    pieces of \[information\] services equipment, transfer or hire
    hundreds of dedicated \[information\] services personnel and replace
    integrated sales personnel with a dedicated direct sales force.\"
    *Computer III Further Remand Notice,* 10 FCC Rcd at 8386, 87, ¶ 40
    (citing Joint Contingency Petition for Interim Waiver of the
    *Computer II* Rules at Exhibit B (Nov. 14, 1994) (*Interim Waiver
    Petition*)). In 1991, US West and Pacific Bell estimated that the
    one-time costs of converting from integrated to structurally
    separated provision of voice mail service alone would be as high as
    \$10-\$15 million. *Id.* (citing *BOC Safeguards Order*, 6 FCC Rcd
    at 7621, ¶ 104). The BOCs also estimated that converting to
    structural separation would result in price increases for
    information services between 30 and 80 percent. *Id.*

[^161]: The structural separation requirements for interLATA information
    services under section 272 and those for electronic publishing under
    section 274 expire on February 8, 2000, although section 272
    authorizes the Commission to extend the four-year period for
    interLATA information services by rule or order. 47 U.S.C.
    §§ 272(f)(2), 274(g)(2).

[^162]: While BOCs can also provide intraLATA information services
    through a section 272 or 274 affiliate, we have deferred to this
    proceeding the issue of whether doing so would relieve the BOCs of
    the obligation to file a CEI plan. *See* ¶¶ - *infra*.

[^163]: *See* Letter from Todd F. Silbergeld, SBC Communications Inc.,
    to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, April 25, 1997; Letter
    from Robert J. Gryzmala, Southwestern Bell Telephone, to William F.
    Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, June 21, 1996.

[^164]: As noted above, the BOCs previously have indicated that
    reimposition of structural separation likely would require them to
    relocate hundreds of pieces of equipment to provide information
    services, transfer or hire hundreds of dedicated information
    services personnel, and replace integrated sales personnel with a
    dedicated direct sales force. *Computer III Further Remand Notice*,
    10 FCC Rcd at 8386-87, ¶ 40 (*citing Interim Waiver Petition* at
    Exhibit B).

[^165]: *See supra* ¶ .

[^166]: *See supra* ¶ .

[^167]: *See supra* ¶¶ -.

[^168]: *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^169]: *Interim Waiver Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 1724 (1995). A CEI plan
    details how a BOC proposes to comply with the nine CEI \"equal
    access\" parameters with respect to the provision of a specific
    enhanced service. These parameters include: 1) interface
    functionality; 2) unbundling of basic services; 3) resale; 4)
    technical characteristics; 5) installation, maintenance, and repair;
    6) end user access; 7) CEI availability as of the date the BOC
    offers its own enhanced service to the public; 8) minimization of
    transport costs; and 9) availability to all interested ISPs. *See
    Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1039-1042, ¶¶ 154-166.

[^170]: *Interim Waiver Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 1730, ¶ 30.c.

[^171]: *Interim Waiver Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 1728, ¶ 20. Since issuing
    the *Interim Waiver Order*, the Bureau has approved CEI plans and
    amendments for a number of preexisting BOC enhanced services
    offerings. *See Bell Operating Companies Joint Petition for Waiver
    of Computer II Rules*, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13,758 (Com. Car. Bur.
    1995). The Bureau has also approved CEI plans for a number of new
    BOC enhanced service offerings. *See*, *e.g.*, *Ameritech\'s Offer
    of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Providers of Message
    Delivery Service*, 11 FCC Rcd 5590 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996); *NYNEX
    Telephone Companies Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to
    Providers of Enhanced Services*, 11 FCC Rcd 2419 (Com. Car. Bur.
    1996); *Southwestern Bell Telephone Companies Offer of Comparably
    Efficient Interconnection to Providers of Enhanced Services*,
    11 FCC Rcd 7041 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996); *Bell Atlantic Telephone
    Companies Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Providers
    of Internet Access Services*, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6919 (Com. Car. Bur.
    1996), *recon. pending*; *Southwestern Bell Telephone Companies
    Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plans for Security Services*,
    11 FCC Rcd 10938 (Com. Car. Bur. 1997).

[^172]: *Interim Waiver Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 1728, ¶ 22, citing
    *Computer III Remand Proceedings*, 5 FCC Rcd 7719 (1990) (*ONA
    Remand Order*).

[^173]: The *California III* court acknowledged that, as an interim
    measure until ONA was implemented, CEI plans \"ensured that enhanced
    service competitors were provided with interconnections to the
    BOCs\' own networks that were substantially equivalent to the
    interconnections that the BOCs provided for their own enhanced
    services.\" *California III*, 39 F.3d at 927.

[^174]: *See Computer III Further Remand Proceedings*, 10 FCC Rcd at
    8374, ¶ 19. The BOCs currently make available to competing ISPs over
    150 ONA network services.

[^175]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1019-20, ¶ 113; *see
    also* *Computer III Further Remand Proceedings*, 10 FCC Rcd at 8373,
    ¶ 18.

[^176]: If a BOC seeks to offer an enhanced service that uses a new
    basic underlying service or otherwise uses different arrangements
    for basic underlying services than those included in its approved
    ONA plan, the BOC must amend its ONA plan at least 90 days before it
    proposes to offer the enhanced service, and must obtain Commission
    approval of the amendment before it can use the new basic service
    for its own enhanced services. *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC
    2d at 1068, ¶¶ 221-222; *BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd
    at 7654, ¶ 13. We further discuss the ONA amendment process, and
    seek comment on whether this process has been effective, in Part
    IV.D.1.

[^177]: *See infra* ¶ for a discussion of the section 251(c)(5) network
    information disclosure requirements.

[^178]: *See generally Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at
    1007-1011, ¶¶ 88-97.

[^179]: *See, e.g., Ameritech\'s Comparably Efficient Interconnection
    Plan for Electronic Vaulting Service*, CCBPol 97-03, Order, DA
    97-2715 (rel. Dec. 31, 1997) (evaluating in detail and approving CEI
    plan to which no party had filed objections).

[^180]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 161 (requiring the Commission periodically to
    review and eliminate unnecessary regulations).

[^181]: *See infra* Part IV.D.

[^182]: *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21969-70, ¶
    132.

[^183]: *Id*. at 21969-71, ¶¶ 132, 134.

[^184]: *Id.* at 21972, ¶ 137.

[^185]: *See supra* Part IV.C.1.

[^186]: *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^187]: *See, e.g., Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    21976-96, ¶¶ 146-91 (structural separation requirements),
    21997-22017, ¶¶ 194-236 (nondiscrimination safeguards), 22036-47, ¶¶
    272-92 (joint marketing restrictions)*; Implementation of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996: Accounting Safeguards Under the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC Docket No. 96-150, Report and
    Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 at 17617-18, ¶¶ 167-70 (accounting
    requirements) (1996) (*Accounting Safeguards Order).*

[^188]: *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21970-71, ¶¶
    133, 135.

[^189]: *See supra* ¶¶ - for a discussion of whether the Commission
    should harmonize its regulatory treatment of intraLATA information
    services with section 272. *See infra* ¶¶ - for a discussion of the
    1996 Act\'s network disclosure and CPNI requirements. We previously
    concluded that the 1996 Act\'s nondiscrimination requirements are
    consistent with *Computer III* and apply in addition to the
    Commission\'s *Computer III* requirements. S*ee, e.g., Telemessaging
    and Electronic Publishing Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5446, 5455, ¶¶
    199-200, 221; *Alarm Monitoring* *Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 3848-49, ¶
    55. We also have already concluded that our existing accounting
    safeguards, with some modifications, effectively prevent BOCs from
    cross-subsidizing their unregulated information services with the
    BOCs\' regulated local exchange service under the 1996 Act. *See
    generally Accounting* *Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 17539. *See
    infra ¶*¶ - for a discussion of section 251 unbundling vis-a-vis
    ONA.

[^190]: *Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    5446, ¶ 200. We also found that section 274, which establishes
    specific structural separation and nondiscrimination requirements
    for BOC provision of electronic publishing, applies to the provision
    of both intraLATA and interLATA electronic publishing. *Id*. at
    5383, ¶ 50. BOCs that want to provide interLATA electronic
    publishing, however, must first obtain section 271 authorization to
    do so. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 271; *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11
    FCC Rcd at 21908-09, ¶ 3.

[^191]: *Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    5446, ¶ 200.

[^192]: *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^193]: *Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    5455, ¶ 221. We also noted that BOC provision of interLATA
    telemessaging service is subject to the requirements of section 272
    in addition to the requirements of section 260. *Id.* at 5450, ¶
    210.

[^194]: *See Alarm Monitoring Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 3848-49, ¶ 55. We
    also found that section 275 applies to the provision by the BOCs of
    both intraLATA and interLATA alarm monitoring services. *Id*. at
    3831-32, ¶ 16. Section 275(a)(1), however, generally prevents the
    BOCs from engaging in the provision of alarm monitoring service
    until February 8, 2001. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 275. Because Ameritech is
    the only BOC that was authorized to provide alarm monitoring
    services as of November 30, 1995, we found that Ameritech is the
    only BOC that qualifies for \"grandfathered\" treatment under
    section 275(a)(2). *See id.* § 275(a)(2); *Alarm Monitoring Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 3839, ¶ 33. Ameritech provides intraLATA alarm
    monitoring pursuant to an approved CEI plan, *see Bell Operating
    Companies Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules*, 10 FCC
    Rcd 13758, 13769-70, ¶¶ 72-75 (Com. Car. Bur. 1995) (approving
    Ameritech\'s CEI plan for \"SecurityLink\" service), and interLATA
    alarm monitoring service pursuant to an MFJ waiver. *See United
    States v. Western Electric Co.,* No. 82-0192, slip op. (D.D.C. Sept.
    8, 1995).

[^195]: *See* discussion of *SBC v. FCC*, *supra* note **Error! Bookmark
    not defined.**.

[^196]: Pending CEI-related matters include, for example: *Bell Atlantic
    Telephone Companies Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to
    Providers of Internet Access Services,* Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6919 (Com.
    Car. Bur. 1996), *recon. pending*; *Pleading Cycle Established for
    Comments on the Amendment to Bell Atlantic\'s Plan to Offer
    Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Providers of Enhanced
    Internet Access Services in the NYNEX Region States,* Public Notice,
    CCBPol 96‑09, DA 97‑1039 (rel. May 16, 1997)*; Pleading Cycle
    Established for Comments on SWBT\'s Plan to Provide Comparably
    Efficient Interconnection Internet Support Services,* Public Notice,
    CCBPol 97‑05, DA 97‑1132 (rel. May 29, 1997)*; Bell Operating
    Companies\' Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules,* Order,
    10 FCC Rcd 13758 n.6 (Ameritech\'s Plan to Provide Comparably
    Efficient Interconnection to Providers of Fast Packet Data Services
    and Internet Access Services Pending)*.*

[^197]: 47 U.S.C. § 276.

[^198]: *Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
    Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC
    Docket No. 96-128, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20541 at 20640-41,
    ¶ 199 (*Payphone Order*) (subsequent citations omitted). BOC
    provision of payphone service is also subject, among other things,
    to certain accounting safeguards. *See Accounting Safeguards Order*,
    11 FCC Rcd at 17582, 17652-17655, ¶¶ 100, 251-258.

[^199]: *See Ameritech\'s Plan to Provide Comparably Efficient
    Interconnection to Providers of Pay Telephone Services;
    Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
    Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC
    Docket No. 96‑128, Order, DA 97‑790 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB);
    *Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies\' Comparably Efficient
    Interconnection Plan for the Provision of the Basic Payphone
    Services; Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
    Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC
    Docket No. 96‑128, Order, DA 97‑791 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB)*;
    BellSouth Corporation\'s Offer of Comparably Efficient
    Interconnection to Payphone Service Providers; Implementation of the
    Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC Docket No. 96‑128, Order, DA
    97‑792 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB); *The NYNEX Telephone Companies\'
    Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Payphone Service
    Providers; Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
    Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC
    Docket No. 96‑128, Order, DA 97‑793 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB);
    *Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell Comparably Efficient Interconnection
    Plan for the Provision of Basic Telephone Service; Implementation of
    the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC Docket No. 96‑128, Order, DA
    97‑794 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB); *Southwestern Bell Telephone
    Company\'s Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for the
    Provision of Basic Payphone Services; Implementation of the Pay
    Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC Docket No. 96‑128, Order, DA
    97‑795 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB); *U S WEST\'s Comparably
    Efficient Interconnection Plan for Payphone Services; Implementation
    of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC Docket No. 96‑128, Order, DA
    97‑796 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB) (collectively, *BOC CEI Payphone
    Orders*).

[^200]: *O**NA Remand Order*, 5 FCC Rcd at 7720, ¶¶ 7, 11.

[^201]: *S**ee GTE ONA Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 4924, 4932-36, ¶¶ 3, 16-24.

[^202]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1019, ¶ 113.

[^203]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1064, ¶ 213.

[^204]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1064-66, ¶¶ 214-218.
    These requirements were originally applied only to the BOCs and were
    later extended to GTE. *See* *GTE ONA Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 4937, ¶
    26.

[^205]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 13, ¶ 5.

[^206]: *See supra* notes **Error! Bookmark not defined.** and **Error!
    Bookmark not defined.**.

[^207]: *See supra* notes **Error! Bookmark not defined.** and **Error!
    Bookmark not defined.**. *See also BOC ONA Amendment Order*, 5 FCC
    Rcd at 3104, ¶ 4.

[^208]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1068, ¶ 221; *BOC
    ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7654, ¶ 13.

[^209]: *Id.*

[^210]: We originally directed ISPs to seek such assistance from the
    IILC. As of January 1, 1997, the NIIF assumed the functions of the
    IILC. *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^211]: ATIS is a private sector industry forum that promotes the
    resolution of national and international issues involving
    telecommunications standards and the development of operational
    guidelines.

[^212]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 205-08, ¶¶ 390-397; *BOC ONA
    Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7654-56.

[^213]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1065, ¶ 217.

[^214]: *BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7677-78,
    Appendix B.

[^215]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 33-34, ¶¶ 52-54.

[^216]: *See infra* ¶¶ -.

[^217]: We note that questions relating to the effectiveness of the new
    NIIF to address ONA issues on behalf of ISPs have been raised by the
    Association of Telemessaging Services International, Inc. (ATSI).
    *See* Letter from Herta Tucker, Executive Vice President, ATSI, to
    Reed Hundt, Chairman, FCC (March 31, 1997).

[^218]: *Information Service and Internet Access NOI*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    21491, ¶ 311.

[^219]: *Id.*

[^220]: Frame relay is a high-speed packet-switching technology used to
    transport digital data between, among other things, geographically
    dispersed local area networks. The Commission has determined that
    frame relay service is a basic service. Under our rules, therefore,
    all common carriers owning transmission facilities used to provide
    basic frame relay service, or an enhanced service in conjunction
    with an underlying basic frame relay service, must file tariffs for
    the basic frame relay service. *See Independent Data Communications
    Manufacturers Association, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling that
    AT&T\'s Interspan Frame Relay Service Is a Basic Service*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13717, 13718, ¶¶ 1, 6
    (1995).

[^221]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(c).

[^222]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(44); *see also id.* § 153(46) for the definition
    of \"telecommunications service.\"

[^223]: *Local Competition Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15990, ¶ 995.
    Conversely, a company that provides both telecommunications and
    information services must be classified as a telecommunications
    carrier to the extent that it is acting as a telecommunications
    carrier (*i.e.,* to the extent that it is providing
    telecommunications services). *Id*. at 15888, 15990, ¶¶ 992, 995.
    *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 153(44).

[^224]: *Local Competition Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15988-15990, ¶¶ 992-95;
    *see supra* ¶ .

[^225]: *See* discussion *supra* ¶ .

[^226]: *See supra* ¶¶ -.

[^227]: *Local Competition Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15631, ¶ 258.

[^228]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 41, ¶ 69.

[^229]: *Id.*

[^230]: *See supra* ¶ .

[^231]: *See, e.g., Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    21968, 21970, ¶¶ 129, 133 (noting NYNEX and Bell Atlantic comments).

[^232]: We note that related issues have been raised in the *Information
    Services and Internet Access NOI*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21490-93, ¶¶
    311-18, and may be addressed in that proceeding as well. *See also*
    ¶ for a discussion of the Universal Service Report.

[^233]: We do not address the issue of pricing of elements or services
    in this Further Notice. Those issues may be addressed in the
    proceeding on information services and Internet usage. *See
    Information Service and Internet Access NOI*, 11 FCC Rcd 21354. In
    addition, in the *Access Reform Report and Order*, we concluded that
    \"ISPs should not be subject to interstate access charges.\" *Access
    Reform Report and Order*, *supra* note **Error! Bookmark not
    defined.**. We are not reexamining that decision here.

[^234]: *See supra* ¶¶ , ; *see also Non-Accounting Safeguards Order* 11
    FCC Rcd at 21969-70, ¶ 132*; Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5446, 5455, ¶¶ 200, 221.

[^235]: *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^236]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 272.

[^237]: *See ONA Remand Order*, 5 FCC Rcd at 7720, ¶¶ 7, 11.

[^238]: *Id*. It is for this reason that we applied the ONA requirements
    to GTE as well. *See GTE ONA Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 4924, 4932-33, ¶¶
    3, 16-18.

[^239]: *See* discussion *infra* ¶¶ -.

[^240]: *See supra* ¶ ; 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^241]: *See, e.g., Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    22079-86, ¶¶ 362-382.

[^242]: *See supra* Part IV.D.1.

[^243]: This information must cover the upcoming three years, and must
    refer to generic *ONA Services User Guide* names for the services
    covered, as well as the carrier\'s own trade name for the service.
    *BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7653, ¶ 9, n.22.

[^244]: SS7 data must be reported by TR 317 and TR 394; ISDN data by
    Basic Rate Interface (BRI) and Primary Rate Interface (PRI); and IN
    data by release number or other designation type. *BOC ONA Further
    Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7660, ¶ 29, n.44.

[^245]: Call detail services allow a telephone system to collect,
    record, and organize information about telephone calls so the system
    can be used for a variety of business purposes.

[^246]: *BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7677-78 App. B;
    *GTE ONA Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 4940-41, ¶¶ 33-35.

[^247]: *BOC ONA Second Further Amendment Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 2608, ¶
    10.

[^248]: *BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7677-78, App. B.

[^249]: *BOC ONA Second Further Amendment Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 2608, ¶
    10.

[^250]: *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^251]: *Comments Requested on Petition for Expedited Rulemaking to
    Establish Reporting Requirements and Performance and Technical
    Standards for Operation Support Systems*, Public Notice, RM 9101, DA
    97-1211 (rel. June 10, 1997) (*LCI OSS Petition*).

[^252]: *See Local Competition Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15763-15768, ¶¶
    516-528.

[^253]: *BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7678, App. B;
    *GTE ONA Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 4940-41, ¶¶ 33-35.

[^254]: Currently, the BOCs prepare a consolidated, nationwide matrix of
    their ONA services and the federal and state tariffing status of
    each. GTE prepares and files a matrix, following the format
    established by Bellcore, showing its own ONA services and their
    federal and state tariffing status.

[^255]: The *ONA Services User Guides* filed by the BOCs contain three
    parts: 1) a generic Services Description section (this information
    is identical for all the BOCs; it is supplied both on paper and on
    diskette); 2) a BOC-specific Tariff Reference section listing the
    BOC\'s ONA tariffs on a state-by-state basis (supplied on paper and
    on diskette); and 3) Wire Center Deployment information (supplied on
    diskette only). GTE also files all three types of information,
    including: 1) a Services Description section that follows the format
    established by the BOCs (on paper and on diskette); 2) GTE\'s own
    Tariff Reference section (on paper and on diskette); and 3) Wire
    Center Deployment information (supplied on diskette only).

[^256]: *See BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 25-27, ¶¶ 31-36.

[^257]: *BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7677-78, App. B.

[^258]: *BOC ONA Further Amendment Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7678, App. B;
    *GTE ONA Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 4940-41, ¶¶ 33-35. The semiannual
    reports include a filing of a matrix of BOC and GTE ONA services and
    state and federal tariffs; data regarding state and federal tariffs;
    the *ONA Services Users Guide*; and other updated information in the
    areas of ISP requests, BOC and GTE responses, and services offered.
    *Id.*

[^259]: *Computer III Phase II Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 3084, ¶¶ 88-89.

[^260]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 242, ¶ 467. The installation
    process is tracked by mechanized systems, which must assign
    available facilities and equipment in a nondiscriminatory manner,
    without regard to the identity of the customer ordering the service.
    *Id.* at 243, 244, ¶¶ 468, 472.

[^261]: *BOC ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 243, ¶ 470.

[^262]: *Computer III Phase II Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 3086, ¶ 98. BOCs
    were also required to file other, similar quarterly installation and
    maintenance reports regarding their provision of services to
    affiliated and unaffiliated CPE vendors. *See Furnishing of Customer
    Premises Equipment by the Bell Operating Telephone Companies and the
    Independent Telephone Companies*, CC Docket No. 86-79, Report and
    Order, 2 FCC Rcd 143, 155, ¶ 84 (1987) (*BOC CPE Relief Order*),
    *modified on recon.* 3 FCC Rcd 22 (1987) (*BOC CPE Relief
    Reconsideration Order*). These filing requirements were recently
    eliminated by the Bureau. *See Revision of Filing Requirements*, CC
    Docket No. 96-23, 11 FCC Rcd 16326 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996) (*Revision
    of Filing Requirements Order*).

[^263]: *Computer III Phase II Reconsideration Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at
    1161, ¶ 84. In addition, the *Computer III Phase II Order*
    originally imposed a requirement to report on the quality and
    reliability of ONA services BOCs provided to their own enhanced
    services operations versus their enhanced services competitors.
    *Computer III Phase II Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 3086, ¶ 98. This
    requirement was replaced with an annual affidavit, signed by the
    officer principally responsible for installation procedures,
    attesting that the BOC had followed installation procedures
    described in the BOC\'s ONA plan, and that the BOC had not, in fact,
    discriminated in the quality of services it had provided. *Computer
    III Phase II Reconsideration*, 3 FCC Rcd at 1160, ¶ 76.

[^264]: *BOC ONA Reconsideration Order*, 5 FCC Rcd at 3093-94, ¶¶ 77-80,
    and App. B. The specified service categories include: (1) Circuit
    Switched Line: Business Line, PBX, Centrex, WATS, Mobile, Feature
    Group A, Foreign Exchange; (2) Circuit Switched Trunk: Feature Group
    B, Feature Group D, DID (Line and Trunk); (3) Packet Switched
    Services (X.25 and X.75): Packet DDD Access Line, Packet Synchronous
    Access Line, Packet Asynchronous Access Line; (4) Dedicated
    Metallic: Protection Alarm, Protection Relaying, Control Circuit;
    (5) Dedicated Telegraph Grade: Telegraph Grade 75 Baud, Telegraph
    150 Baud; (6) Dedicated Voice Grade: Voice Non‑Switched Line, Voice
    Switched Line, Voice Switched Trunk, Voice and Tone‑Radio Land Line,
    Data Low Speed, Basic Data and Voice, Voice and Data‑PSN Access Tie
    Trunk, Voice and Data‑SSN Access, Voice and Data‑SSN‑Intermachine
    Trunk, Data Extension‑Voice Grade Data, Protection Relay Voice
    Grade, Telephoto and Facsimile; (7) Dedicated Program Audio: Program
    Audio 200‑3500 HZ, Program Audio 100‑5000 HZ, Program Audio 50‑8000
    HZ, Program Audio 50‑15000 HZ; (8) Dedicated Video: TV Channel‑One
    Way 15kHz Audio, TV Channel‑One Way 5 kHz Audio; (9) Dedicated
    Digital: Digital Voice Circuit, Digital Data‑2.4kb/s, Digital
    Data-4.8kb/s, Digital Data‑9.6kb/s, Digital Data‑56kb/s; (10)
    Dedicated High Capacity Digital: 1.544 MBPS BSA; (11) Dedicated High
    Capacity Digital (Greater than 1.544 MBPS): Dedicated Digital‑3.152
    MBPS, Dedicated Digital‑6.312 MBPS, Dedicated Digital‑44.736 MBPS,
    Dedicated Digital‑45 MBPS or Higher; (12) Dedicated Alert Transport;
    (13) Dedicated Derived Channel; (14) Dedicated Network Access Link
    (DNAL).

[^265]: *Id.* at 3093-94, ¶¶ 77-80, and App. B. For installation
    reports, the Commission requires the BOCs and GTE to report
    separately for their own affiliated enhanced services operations and
    for all other customers, whether ISPs or other carriers, and to
    include information, for each specified service category, on: (1)
    total orders; (2) due dates missed; (3) percentage of due dates
    missed; and (4) average interval. The BOCs and GTE are also required
    to report maintenance activities separately for their own affiliated
    enhanced services operations and for all other customers. For
    maintenance activities with due dates, carriers are required to
    report: (1) total orders; (2) due dates missed; (3) percentage of
    due dates missed; and (4) average interval. For maintenance
    activities without due dates, carriers are required to report only
    total orders and average interval.

[^266]: *Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 22079-86, ¶¶
    362-382. Section 272(e)(1) states that BOCs \"shall fulfill any
    requests from an unaffiliated entity for telephone exchange service
    and exchange access within a period no longer than the period in
    which it provides such telephone exchange service and exchange
    access to itself or to its affiliates.\" 47 U.S.C. § 272(e)(1).

[^267]: *See supra* ¶ and note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**.

[^268]: *See Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1055-56, ¶ 192;
    *Computer III Phase II Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 3086, ¶¶ 98-101;
    *Computer III Phase II Reconsideration Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at 1159, ¶¶
    66. Like the BOCs, AT&T was also required to file similar quarterly
    installation and maintenance reports regarding provision of services
    to affiliated and unaffiliated CPE vendors. *See Furnishing of
    Customer Premises Equipment and Enhanced Services by American
    Telephone and Telegraph Co.*, 102 FCC 2d 655, 690-91, ¶¶ 59-60
    (1985) (*AT&T Structural Relief Order*), *modified in part on
    reconsideration*, 104 FCC 2d 739 (1986) (*AT&T Structural Relief
    Reconsideration Order*).

[^269]: *See Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace*,
    CC Docket No. 90-132, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5880, 5909 (1991)
    (*First Interexchange Competition Order*) (eliminating
    nondiscrimination reporting for AT&T network services subject to
    maximum streamlined regulation, including Basket 3 services and
    services not subject to price cap regulation); *Competition in the
    Interstate Interexchange Marketplace*, CC Docket No. 90‑132, Second
    Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 3668 (1993) (*800 Streamlining Order*)
    (designating AT&T\'s 800 services as subject to streamlined
    treatment). Following these modifications, only AT&T\'s analog
    private line services remained subject to nondiscrimination
    reporting requirements.

[^270]: *See Computer III Phase II Reconsideration Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at
    1161, ¶ 80, n.148.

[^271]: *See Revision of Filing Requirements Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    16332, ¶ 12.

[^272]: *See Computer III Phase II Reconsideration Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at
    1159, ¶ 66.

[^273]: As noted above, AT&T was required to file a modified ONA plan
    that the Commission approved in 1988, but has not been subject to
    other ONA reporting requirements. *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark
    not defined.**.

[^274]: *See Revision of Filing Requirements Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    16332, ¶ 12.

[^275]: The Commission has determined that the interexchange
    telecommunications market is substantially competitive. *See, e.g.,
    Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange
    Marketplace*, CC Docket No. 96-61, Second Report & Order, 11 FCC Rcd
    20730, 20741-43, ¶¶ 21-22 (1996) (*Tariff Forbearance Order*), *stay
    granted, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC*, No. 96-1459 (D.C.
    Cir. filed Feb. 13, 1997); *Motion of AT&T to be Reclassified as a
    Non-Dominant Carrier*, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3271, 3278-3279, 3288, ¶¶
    9, 26 (1995) (*AT&T Nondominance Order*), *recon. pending*;
    *Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace*, CC Docket
    No. 90-132, Report & Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5880, 5887, ¶ 36 (1991)
    (*First Interexchange Competition Order*). We also note, from a
    regulatory parity perspective, that no other interexchange carriers
    are required to file service quality affidavits similar to that
    required of AT&T.

[^276]: *AT&T ONA Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 2450, ¶ 4.

[^277]: 47 U.S.C. § 161(a)(2).

[^278]: The *Computer II* network information disclosure rules are set
    forth in section 64.702(d)(2) of the Commission\'s rules and in the
    *Computer II* proceeding. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.702(d)(2); *see*,
    *e.g.*, *Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d 384 at 480, ¶ 246;
    *Computer II Reconsideration Order*, 84 FCC 2d 50 at 82-83, ¶ 95;
    and *Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association
    Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Section 64.702(d)(2) of
    the Commission\'s Rules and the Policies of the Second Computer
    Inquiry*, ENF-82-5, Report and Order, FCC 83-182, 93 FCC 2d 1226
    (1983) (*Computer II Disclosure Order*). The *Computer III* network
    information disclosure rules are set forth in the *Computer III
    Phase I Order* and *Computer III Phase II Order* and other *Computer
    III* orders. *See*, *e.g.*, *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d
    958 at 1080-1086, ¶¶ 246-255; *Computer III Phase II Order*, 2 FCC
    Rcd 3072 at 3086-3093, ¶¶ 102-140. GTE was made subject to the
    *Computer III* network information disclosure rules in the ONA
    proceeding. *See Application of Open Network Architecture and
    Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation*, CC Docket No.
    92-256, Report and Order, FCC 94-58, 9 FCC Rcd 4922, 4947-4948, ¶¶
    50-53 (1994) (*GTE ONA Order*).

[^279]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(5). An incumbent LEC is defined in section
    251(h).

[^280]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.325-51.335; *Implementation of the Local
    Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC
    Docket No. 96-98, *Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers
    and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers*, CC Docket No.
    95-185, *Area Code Relief Plan for Dallas and Houston, Ordered by
    the Public Utility Commission of Texas*, NSD File No. 96-8,
    *Administration of the North American Numbering Plan*, CC Docket No.
    92-237, *Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan Area Code
    by Ameritech-Illinois*, IAD File No. 94-102, Second Report and Order
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19392 (1996) (*Local
    Competition Second Report and Order*), *recon. pending*.

[^281]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11
    FCC Rcd at 19472, 19476, 19486, 19490, 19491, ¶¶ 173 n.383, 183
    n.403, 205, 214, 216 n.486.

[^282]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(h) for a definition of \"incumbent LEC.\"

[^283]: *Computer II Reconsideration Order*, 84 FCC 2d at 82, ¶ 95.

[^284]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.702(d)(2).

[^285]: We initially imposed the *Computer II* structural separation and
    other requirements, including the network information disclosure
    rules, on AT&T and GTE in the *Computer II Final Decision*. We later
    lifted those requirements from GTE in the *Computer II
    Reconsideration Order*. *Computer II Reconsideration Order*, 84 FCC
    2d at 72-73, ¶ 66.

[^286]: *Computer II Reconsideration Order*, 84 FCC 2d at 82-83, ¶ 95.

[^287]: *See* *Policy and Rules Concerning the Furnishing of Customer
    Premises Equipment, Enhanced Services and Cellular Communications
    Equipment by the Bell Operating Companies*, CC Docket 83-115, Report
    and Order, 95 FCC 2d 1117 (1984) (*BOC Separation Order*), *aff\'d
    sub nom. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC*, 740 F.2d 465 (7th Cir.
    1984), *aff\'d on reconsideration,* FCC 84-252, 49 Fed. Reg. 26056
    (1984) (*BOC Separation Reconsideration*), *aff\'d sub nom. North
    American Telecommunications Association v. FCC*, 772 F.2d 1282
    (7th Cir. 1985).

[^288]: *Computer II Reconsideration Order*, 84 FCC 2d at 81-822, ¶ 92.

[^289]: *See Computer II Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1245, ¶ 60;
    *see also Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 971, ¶ 15.

[^290]: *Computer II Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1228, ¶ 6; *see
    also Computer II Reconsideration Order*, 84 FCC 2d at 82-83, ¶¶ 93,
    95.

[^291]: *Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 480, ¶ 246; *Computer
    II Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1245, ¶ 60.

[^292]: *See Computer II Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1245, ¶ 60.

[^293]: *Computer II Reconsideration Order*, 84 FCC 2d at 82-83, ¶ 95;
    *see Computer II Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1228, 1238, ¶¶ 6,
    38.

[^294]: *Computer II Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1237, ¶ 34.

[^295]: *Id.* at 1238, ¶ 36. The information required includes, but is
    not limited to, \"(a) circuit quality (transmission speeds, error
    rates, bandwidths, equalization characteristics, attenuation,
    transmission delays, quantization effects, non-linearities etc.);
    (b) performance specifications for switched systems (connection
    times, queuing delays, blocking probabilities, etc.); and (c)
    network protocols (message formats, requirements for synchronizing
    bits, error detection and correction procedures, signalling
    procedures, etc.).\" *Id.*

[^296]: *Id.* at 1238, ¶ 37.

[^297]: *See Computer II Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1246, ¶ 63.

[^298]: *Id.* at ¶ 64.

[^299]: *Id.*

[^300]: *See Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986);
    *Computer III Phase II Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 (1987).

[^301]: *See GTE ONA Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 4922 (1994).

[^302]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1084, ¶ 252; *see
    Computer III Phase II Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 3087, ¶¶ 108, 109.

[^303]: *See Computer III Phase II Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 3091-3093, ¶¶
    134-140; *Computer III Phase II Reconsideration Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at
    1164-1165, ¶ 116.

[^304]: *See Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1085, ¶ 253
    n.298.

[^305]: *See Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1084, ¶ 253.

[^306]: *Id.*

[^307]: *Id.*

[^308]: *See supra* note **Error! Bookmark not defined.**. The full
    range of network information that must be disclosed is defined in
    the *Computer II Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1236-1238, ¶¶
    31-38, and is summarized in ¶ *supra*.

[^309]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC Rcd at 1084, 1086, ¶¶ 253,
    255.

[^310]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(h).

[^311]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19476, ¶ 182; *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 51.325.

[^312]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19476, ¶ 182.

[^313]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.331; *Local Competition Second Report and Order*,
    11 FCC Rcd at 19491, ¶ 216. The meaning of the \"make/buy\" point
    relevant to section 251(c)(5) is adopted from the *Computer II* and
    *Computer III* proceedings. *See Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19491, ¶ 216 n.486.

[^314]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.331(a); *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19490, ¶ 214. The timing requirements for
    public notice under section 251(c)(5) are adopted, with
    modifications, from the timing requirements for public notice under
    *Computer III*. *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd at 19490, ¶ 214.

[^315]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.331(a)(1); *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19490, ¶ 214.

[^316]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.331(a)(2); *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19490-91, ¶ 215.

[^317]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19479, ¶ 188.

[^318]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.327; *Local Competition Second Report and Order*,
    11 FCC Rcd at 19479, ¶ 188.

[^319]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.329; *Local Competition Second Report and Order*,
    11 FCC Rcd at 19483, ¶ 198.

[^320]: This marketing information includes, for instance, \"information
    which relates to commitments of the \[BOC\] with respect to the
    timing of introduction, pricing, and geographic availability of new
    network services or capabilities.\" *See supra* ¶ ; *Computer II
    Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1238, ¶ 37. Disclosure under the
    *Computer II* separate affiliate network disclosure requirement must
    be made to information service competitors at the same time such
    information is directly disclosed to the BOC\'s separate affiliate
    or, in the case of BOC disclosures to third parties for the benefit
    of the BOC\'s separate affiliate, disclosure must take place at a
    \"make/buy point\" that is more strict than the \"make/buy\" point
    which governs disclosure under section 251(c)(5). *See supra* ¶¶ , ;
    *Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 480, ¶ 246; *Computer II
    Disclosure Order*, 93 FCC 2d at 1245, ¶ 60.

[^321]: *See Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 481, ¶ 249.

[^322]: *Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
    Telecommunications Carriers\' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
    Information and Other Customer Information*, CC Docket No. 96-115,
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 12513 at 12515, ¶ 3 (1996)
    (*CPNI Notice)*.

[^323]: Specifically, in the *Computer III Phase I Order* we applied to
    the BOCs on an interim basis, pending adoption of final CPNI rules
    for the BOCs, the same CPNI restrictions that we imposed on AT&T in
    the *Computer II AT&T Structural Relief Order*. *Computer III Phase
    I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1089-91, ¶ 261-265. We adopted final CPNI
    rules for BOC provision of information services in the *Computer III
    Phase II Order*, and reaffirmed these rules in the *Computer III
    Phase II Reconsideration Order*. *Computer III Phase II Order*, 2
    FCC Rcd at 3093-98, ¶¶ 141-76; *Computer III Phase II
    Reconsideration Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at 1161-64, ¶¶ 85-114.

[^324]: *Computer III BOC Safeguards Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7609, ¶ 84.

[^325]: Petition for Reconsideration of the Association of Telemessaging
    Services International, Inc., CC Docket No. 90-623, filed Mar. 6,
    1992 (*ATSI Petition*).

[^326]: *ATSI Petition* at 1.

[^327]: *See Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company
    Safeguards and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company Safeguards*, CC Docket
    No. 90-623, *and Rules Governing Telephone Companies\' Use of
    Customer Proprietary Network Information*, CC Docket Nos. 90‑623,
    92-256; Order, 11 FCC Rcd 16617 (1996).

[^328]: *Id.* at 16619-20, ¶ 7.

[^329]: Motion to Withdraw Petition for Reconsideration in *Computer III
    Remand* Proceedings and To Incorporate the Same in *Computer III
    Further Remand* Proceedings and Other Proceedings, CC Docket
    Nos. 90‑623, 95-20, 96-149, and 96-152, filed Dec. 10, 1996 (*ATSI
    Motion*).

[^330]: ATSI also requested that its petition be incorporated into CC
    Docket Nos. 96-149 and 96-152, the *Non-Accounting Safeguards*
    proceeding and the *Telemessaging, Electronic Publishing, and Alarm
    Monitoring* proceeding, respectively. We denied ATSI\'s motion to
    the extent it requested the Commission to incorporate the joint
    marketing question into the *Non-Accounting Safeguards* proceeding
    and the *Telemessaging, Electronic Publishing, and Alarm Monitoring
    Services* proceeding. *See Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell
    Operating Company Safeguards and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company
    Safeguards*, CC Docket No. 90-623, and *Computer III Further Remand
    Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services*,
    CC Docket No. 95‑20, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 5899 (1997) (*ATSI Order*).

[^331]: *See ATSI Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5902.

[^332]: *See* discussion *supra* at ¶ .

[^333]: *ATSI Petition* at 3-6.

[^334]: *See Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1124, ¶ 342
    (citing *Computer II Final Decision*, 77 FCC 2d at 432, 486-487, ¶¶
    124, 261-264). *See also California II*, 4 F.3d at 1514-1516
    (holding that it is within the FCC\'s jurisdictional authority to
    require the federal tariffing of ONA services that are technically
    compatible with interstate service).

[^335]: *Computer III Phase I Order*, 104 FCC 2d at 1127-28, ¶ 348.

[^336]: *California I*, 905 F.2d at 1239-1245.

[^337]: *BOC Safeguards Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7631, ¶ 121. The Commission
    noted that many cases have recognized the impracticality of separate
    provision of interstate and intrastate basic communications and
    cited, among other cases, *Louisiana Public Service* *Comm\'n v.
    FCC*, 476 U.S. 355, 375 n.4 (1986).

[^338]: *BOC Safeguards Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 7631, ¶ 121.

[^339]: *Id*.

[^340]: *California III*, 39 F.3d at 933.

[^341]: The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*., has been amended by
    the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
    104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^342]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^343]: *Id*. § 601(6).

[^344]: *Id*. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small
    business applies \"unless an agency, after consultation with the
    Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after
    opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions
    of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency
    and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.\"

[^345]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^346]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^347]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^348]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.49. However, we require here that a summary
    be included with all comments and reply comments, regardless of
    length. This summary may be paginated separately from the rest of
    the pleading (*e.g.*, as \"i, ii\").