DA 01-620

March 7, 2001

**FURTHER COMMENT REQUESTED TO UPDATE AND REFRESH RECORD**

**ON COMPUTER III REQUIREMENTS**

**CC DOCKET NOS. 95-20; 98-10**

COMMENTS DUE: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register

REPLY COMMENTS DUE: 45 days after publication in the Federal Register

On January 30, 1998, the Commission released a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in the above dockets in which it sought
comment on the interplay between the safeguards and terminology
established in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) and the
*Computer III* regime.[^1] In its *Computer III* and *Open Network
Architecture* (ONA) proceedings, the Commission established
nonstructural safeguards for the provision of enhanced services by the
Bell Operating Companies (BOCs).[^2] The FNPRM sought information
necessary to respond to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit regarding the effectiveness of nonstructural
safeguards.[^3] It also asked for comment on a number of other issues,
including, the continued application of the *Computer III* safeguards to
BOC provision of enhanced services, whether implementation of the 1996
Act should alleviate the Ninth Circuit's concern about the level of
unbundling mandated by ONA,[^4] whether ONA has been effective in
providing competitive information service providers (ISPs) with access
to basic telecommunications services and whether the ONA requirements
should be modified, whether the Commission, under its general rulemaking
authority should extend to ISPs some or all unbundling rights available
under section 251 of the 1996 Act, and whether the Commission should
interpret its definition of the term "basic service" and the 1996 Act's
definition of "telecommunication service" to extend to the same
function.[^5] This Public Notice invites parties to update and refresh
the record on these issues.

In addition to commenting generally on the outstanding issues, parties
should discuss specifically any developments in the ISP market since
1998 that the Commission should consider in re-examining the
effectiveness of the *Computer III* and ONA requirements.[^6] For
example, in response to the Commission's inquiry regarding how the
deployment of new information services, such as Internet services,
should affect our analysis of the ONA rules,[^7] we seek comment on
whether ISPs can obtain, under the ONA framework, the telecommunications
service inputs that they require from the BOCs, including Digital
Subscriber Line (DSL) service. If ISPs use means other than ONA to
acquire DSL service, commenters should identify such alternatives and
discuss whether they offer a more effective and efficient approach for
obtaining the required service. In addition, we ask parties to comment
on whether there are adequate CEI plans in place for DSL service, and on
whether they use those plans. With regard to the various annual and
nondiscrimination reporting requirements mandated under *Computer III*,
we also ask parties to comment on whether the requirements should be
modified in any way to account for the current services that ISPs
require from the BOCs.[^8] We also ask ISPs to describe the extent to
which they may have used ONA to provide any information service over the
course of the past three years, and correspondingly, ask the BOCs to
comment generally on the numbers and types of requests for ONA services
that they have received during this time.

The Commission stated in the FNPRM that it wanted to encourage the BOCs
to provide new technologies and innovative information services that
would benefit the public, as well as ensure that they make their
networks available to competitive providers of such services.[^9] In
light of the number of ISPs that have entered the marketplace, many of
which are small competitors, and the Commission's goal of streamlining
regulations whenever possible,[^10] we ask parties to comment on whether
there is a way to make any safeguards that we adopt in this proceeding
more self-enforcing, or otherwise structure them so that they can be
implemented and used by all parties in a timely, efficient manner.

The FNPRM sought comment on the extent to which the Commission's
unbundling requirements promulgated pursuant to section 251 of the 1996
Act should alleviate the Ninth Circuit's concerns about the level of
unbundling required under ONA.[^11] We note that the Commission's
unbundling requirements changed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
1999 ruling regarding the standard under which incumbent local exchange
carriers should be required to unbundle their networks,[^12] and we ask
parties to comment on how the new rules and any resulting changes in the
marketplace may affect our analysis in the FNPRM.

The FNPRM also sought comment on issues related to the ability of BOCs
to provide both interLATA and intraLATA information services through a
separate affiliate created pursuant to section 272 or 274 of the 1996
Act.[^13] It further stated that once the separation requirements under
section 272 and 274 sunset, structural separation for intraLATA
information services based on the existence of the statutorily-mandated
affiliate would have to be reexamined.[^14] The relevant separation
requirements in Section 272 and 274 did sunset on February 8, 2000,[^15]
and we therefore seek comment on this development.

Parties submitting comments in response to this Public Notice must file
initial comments 30 days after publication of the Notice in the Federal
Register and reply comments 45 days after such publication.

Ex parte presentations in this proceeding continue to be governed by the
procedures set forth in Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. § 1.1206, covering "permit-but-disclose" proceedings.

Comments may be filed using the Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. *See* Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).
Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via
the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e- file/ecfs.html\>. Generally,
only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple
docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding,
however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to
each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In
completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full
name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also submit electronic comments by
Internet e-mail. To receive filing instructions for e-mail comments,
commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the
following words in the body of the message, \"get form \<your e-mail
address\>.\" A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
copies of each filing with the Office of the Secretary, FCC, 445 12^th^
Street, S.W., Suite TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition,
parties should send two copies to Janice Myles, Common Carrier Bureau
Policy and Program Planning Division, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., 5-C327,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available
for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the
Commission's Public Reference Center, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Suite
CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554, 202-418-0270. Copies will also be
available from International Transcription Service, 445 12^th^ Street,
S.W., Suite CY-B400, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling 202-314-3070.

For more information, please contact Jodie Donovan-May or Jessica
Rosenworcel, Common Carrier Bureau Policy and Program Planning Division,
202-418-1580.

[^1]: *Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company
    Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --
    Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements*, Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 6040 (1999) (*FNPRM*).

[^2]: *Id*. at 6042, para. 1 (citations omitted). The Commission has
    concluded that "enhanced services" and "information services" should
    be interpreted to extend to the same functions. It used both terms
    throughout the *FNPRM*.

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

[^4]: The Commission has required the BOCs to implement ONA regardless
    of whether ONA provided the basis for the elimination of structural
    separation. *FNPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6085, para. 78.

[^5]: *See id*. at 6043-47, paras. 2-7. The *FNPRM* also sought comment
    on several issues related to Comparably Efficient Interconnection
    (CEI) requirements under *Computer III* that the Commission has
    already addressed. *Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell
    Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial
    Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and
    Requirements*, CC Docket Nos. 95-20; 98-10, Report and Order, 14 FCC
    Rcd 4289 (1999), *recon*., 14 FCC Rcd 21,628 (1999).

[^6]: The *FNPRM* discussed the sustained growth of competition in the
    information services market, particularly for access to the
    Internet, and noted the entrance of many ISPs into the market. 13
    FCC Rcd 6063-64, para. 36.

[^7]: *Id.* at 6089, para. 90.

[^8]: *Id*. at 6093-6103, paras. 99-116.

[^9]: *Id*. at 6046, para. 7.

[^10]: *Id.* at 6046, para. 6.

[^11]: *Id*. at 6059-62, 6090-91, paras. 29-34, 92-96.

[^12]: *See* *Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Third Report and Order and Fourth
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 3696 (1999)
    (citing *AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.*, 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999)), *recons.
    pending.*

[^13]: *FNPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6071, 6073-76, 6079-83, 6092-93, paras.
    48, 52-59; 66-74, 97-98. In a separate proceeding, the Commission is
    examining, as part of a remand from the United States Court of
    Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, whether the term "interLATA services"
    as used in section 271 of the Act encompasses not only interLATA
    telecommunications services, but also interLATA information
    services. *See Comments Requested in Connection with Court Remand of
    Non-Accounting Safeguards Order*, CC Docket No. 96-149, Public
    Notice, DA 00-2530 (rel. Nov. 8, 2000).

[^14]: *FNPRM* at 6075, para. 56.

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 272(f)(2); 274(g)(2). *See also Request For
    Extension of the Sunset Date of the Structural, Nondiscrimination,
    and Other Behavioral Safeguards Governing Bell Operating Company
    Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Informational Services*, CC Docket
    No. 96-149, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3267 (2000) (denying request for
    extension of section 272 sunset date).