Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CC Docket No. 99-273         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Provision of Directory Listing   | ) | CC Docket No. 92-105         |
| Information                      | * |                              |
|                                  | * | CC Docket No. 92-237         |
| Under the Communications Act of  |   |                              |
| 1934,                            | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| As Amended                       | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| The Use of N11 Codes and Other   | * |                              |
| Abbreviated                      |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Dialing Arrangements             | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Administration of the North      | * |                              |
| American                         | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Numbering Plan                   | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted:** December 21, 2001 **Released:** January 9, 2002

**Comment Date: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register**

**Reply Comment Date: 45 days after publication in the Federal
Register**

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Paragraph Number

I. introduction 1

II\. BACKGROUND [3](#background)

III\. DISCUSSION 7

A. Statutory Authority 7

B. Competition in the Retail DA Market 12

C. 411 Presubscription -- Telegate Proposal 15

1\. Necessity for Presubscription 17

2\. Technical Feasibility 22

3\. Economic Feasibility 30

4\. Other Considerations for 411 Presubscription 34

D. Other Solutions for Promoting Competitive DA Services 44

1\. 411 Elimination 45

2\. Enhanced DA 46

3\. National 555 Numbers 47

4\. Carrier Access Codes 50

5\. 411XX Numbers 53

6\. State Regulations 54

IV\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 56

*A.* *Ex Parte* Presentations 56

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 57

1\. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes. 58

2\. Legal Basis. 59

3\. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply. 60

4\. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements. 69

5\. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. 70

6\. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules. 72

C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 73

D. Comment Filing Procedures 74

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 81

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# introduction

1.  In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*Notice*) we seek comment on
    proposed methods of promoting competition and choice in the retail
    directory assistance (DA) market, in accordance with the
    pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework set forth
    in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,[^1] and as the Commission
    announced in the *Local Competition Second Report and Order*.[^2] In
    that order, the Commission anticipated that presubscription for
    particular services ultimately would be defined by technological,
    economic and marketing considerations, and noted its intent to
    monitor developments in this area and issue a Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking to address these long range considerations so
    that end users would be able to preselect alternative providers for
    a multitude of services, including directory assistance.[^3] In the
    five years since the release of the *Local Competition Second Report
    and Order*, DA has grown from a simple method of obtaining a
    telephone number to a sophisticated voice-based portal that
    potentially can offer the consumer a wide spectrum of high quality
    services at competitive prices. Accordingly, we initiate this
    rulemaking to solicit comments as to whether the market for the
    competitive provision of directory assistance has developed to the
    point that additional steps must now be taken to ensure that all
    competitors have the same opportunity for access to customers.[^4]
    Conversely, we seek comment whether the directory assistance market
    is sufficiently open to competition that further regulatory action
    is unnecessary.

2.  In prior proceedings the Commission has taken steps to ensure that a
    competitive DA market can develop.[^5] We now believe that the
    technological capabilities of both the network and the DA industry
    have advanced to the extent that we can seek comment, as
    contemplated in the *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, on
    whether specific measures designed to increase consumer access to DA
    services may help to remove any existing barriers to full
    competition. Specifically, we seek comment on Telegate, Inc.'s
    (Telegate's) proposal to enhance competition in the DA market by
    requiring local exchange carriers (LECs) to implement
    presubscription to 411.[^6] Central to Telegate's proposal is the
    argument that presubscription to the 411 code for access to DA
    services is necessary to ensure that full competition will develop
    in the retail DA market. We also seek comment on whether alternative
    dialing methods of providing access to DA services would provide a
    more level playing field for all DA providers to enter the retail DA
    market, and whether the elimination of the 411 dialing code is a
    necessary prerequisite for the success of such alternative dialing
    methods.

# BACKGROUND

3.  On September 9, 1999, the Commission released the *SLI/DA Order and
    Notice*.[^7] In the *SLI/DA Order and Notice*, the Commission
    tentatively concluded that competition in the directory assistance
    market is in the public interest.[^8] The Commission also
    tentatively concluded that competitive directory assistance
    providers are unable fully to compete without equal access to the
    local exchange carriers' (LECs) local directory assistance
    databases.[^9] The Commission invited comment on whether certain
    competitive directory assistance providers are providers of
    telephone exchange service or telephone toll service and thus
    entitled to nondiscriminatory access to those databases pursuant to
    section 251(b)(3) of the Act.[^10] The Commission also sought
    comment on whether competitive directory assistance providers that
    are not providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll
    service also are entitled to nondiscriminatory access to directory
    assistance, including access to directory assistance databases.[^11]

4.  On October 13, 1999, Telegate filed comments in response to the
    *SLI/DA Order and Notice*. In its comments, Telegate argued that
    full competition in the DA market could not exist until LECs no
    longer have exclusive possession of the 411 code. Telegate proposed
    opening up 411 to competition by allowing customers to choose by
    presubscription their provider of directory assistance service, just
    as they can presubscribe to their primary interexchange carrier
    (IXC) for long distance services. None of the reply comments
    substantively addressed this portion of Telegate's comments.[^12]

5.  On February 9, 2000, Telegate met with Common Carrier Bureau
    (Bureau) staff members to discuss further the 411 presubscription
    proposal. On March 10, 2000, at the Bureau's request, Telegate filed
    an *ex parte* memorandum illustrating Telegate's 411 presubscription
    proposal in further detail.[^13] On April 27, 2000, the Bureau
    issued a public notice seeking comment on Telegate's proposal.[^14]
    In the *Telegate Public Notice*, the Bureau solicited comments on
    Telegate's proposal to enhance competition in the directory
    assistance market by requiring LECs to implement presubscription for
    the 411 abbreviated dialing code,[^15] specifically soliciting
    comments on the technical feasibility and economic viability of
    requiring LECs to implement presubscription to N11 abbreviated
    dialing codes in general. This included presubscription to 411 in
    the directory assistance proceeding, as well as presubscription to
    other N11 codes, particularly to 711 for access to
    Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).[^16]

6.  On January 23, 2001, the Commission released the *SLI/DA First
    Report and Order* and concluded that LECs must provide competing DA
    providers that qualify under section 251(b)(3) of the Act with
    nondiscriminatory access to the LECs' local directory assistance
    databases, and must do so at nondiscriminatory and reasonable
    rates.[^17] To the extent that such DA providers qualify under
    section 251(b)(3), the Commission found that a LEC's failure to
    provide such access might also violate section 201(b).[^18] In the
    *SLI/DA First Report and Order* the Commission also explained that
    the competitive provision of directory assistance is a necessary
    element of a competitive local telecommunications market, and noted
    that Congress recognized it as such in section 251.[^19] The
    Commission also concluded that LECs are not required to grant
    competing directory assistance providers nondiscriminatory access to
    non-local directory assistance databases.[^20] Finally, in the
    *SLI/DA First Report and Order*, the Commission concluded that the
    language in section 222(e)[^21] concerning directory publishing "in
    any format" applies to telephone directories on the Internet, but
    that section 222(e) does not apply to orally provided directory
    listing information.[^22] Telegate's proposal was not addressed in
    that order.[^23]

# DISCUSSION

## Statutory Authority

7.  We believe that many of the proposals upon which we seek comment are
    fully consistent with the authority provided by Congress in section
    251(b)(3) of the Act.[^24] As the Commission has previously found,
    section 251(b)(3) first creates a duty for LECs to provide dialing
    parity (*i.e.*, the ability for a consumer to access a particular
    telecommunications service without having to dial extra codes) to
    competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll
    service with respect to [all]{.underline} telecommunications
    services that require dialing to route a call.[^25] As the
    Commission noted in the *Local Competition Second Report and Order*,
    nothing in the statutory language of section 251(b)(3) limits the
    scope of the dialing parity obligation to exchange and toll services
    or distinguishes among the various types of telecommunications
    services in imposing the dialing parity obligations.[^26] This
    conclusion is also supported by the statutory definition of dialing
    parity insofar as it refers to the provision of \"telecommunications
    services\" generally without distinction among various types of
    telecommunications services available.[^27] Further, as Commission
    precedent has concluded, DA has consistently been recognized as a
    service which facilitates the use of the basic network, and thus has
    been regulated, like other telecommunications services, under Title
    II of the Communications Act.[^28] In light of this precedent, we
    seek comment as to whether the dialing parity obligation of section
    251(b)(3) imposes upon LECs a duty to provide access to the 411 code
    to all competing providers of telephone exchange and telephone toll
    service. In providing comment on this issue, parties should note
    that the Commission, in the *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, included DA as a telecommunications service to which
    consumers ultimately would be able to presubscribe.[^29]

8.  Section 251(b)(3) of the Act also requires LECs to provide competing
    providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service
    with nondiscriminatory access to directory assistance. [^30] The
    Commission has previously taken several steps to promote competition
    in the DA market pursuant to the nondiscrimination requirements of
    section 251(b)(3). For example, in the *Local Competition Second
    Report and Order*, the Commission concluded that the requirement of
    nondiscriminatory access to DA under section 251(b)(3) required that
    LECs provide such competing providers with access to DA equal to
    that which the LECs provide to themselves and that LECs treat all
    such competitors equally.[^31] The Commission found that this
    requirement could be satisfied if LECs allowed competing providers
    to obtain access to the LECs' local DA databases, and complied with
    competing providers' reasonable and technically feasible requests to
    either rebrand DA services in the competing providers' names or
    remove the providing LEC's brand name.[^32] Subsequently, in the
    *SLI/DA Order and Notice*, the Commission affirmed that LECs must
    provide nondiscriminatory access to their local DA databases,[^33]
    and sought comment on whether DA providers that provide neither
    telephone exchange service nor telephone toll service are entitled
    to nondiscriminatory access to DA under section 251(b)(3).[^34] The
    Commission later concluded in the *SLI/DA First Report and Order*
    that DA providers that are certified as LECs, are agents of CLECs,
    or that offer call completion services are also entitled to
    nondiscriminatory access to DA including LEC local DA databases
    under section 251(b)(3).[^35]

9.  We seek comment on the extent to which the Act provides us with
    statutory authority, consistent with the Commission's prior actions,
    to require 411 presubscription, assign alternative dialing methods
    for DA, or eliminate entirely the use of the 411 code for DA,
    pursuant to section 251(b)(3).[^36] The Commission has determined
    that nondiscriminatory access to DA under section 251(b)(3) requires
    LECs to provide access to elements of DA service that are necessary
    to the competitive provision of DA, such as branding and DA
    databases.[^37] We seek comment on whether the 411 access code,
    currently under LEC control, qualifies as one such element.

10. In the *SLI/DA First Report and Order*, the Commission concluded
    that, because section 251(b)(3) only requires LECs to provide
    nondiscriminatory DA access to competing providers of telephone
    exchange or telephone toll service, only competing DA providers that
    are LECs, agents of LECs, or provide call completion qualify for the
    benefits of section 251(b)(3).[^38] We seek comment as to whether
    section 251(b)(3) similarly circumscribes the field of competing DA
    providers to which 411 presubscription must be offered. We also seek
    comment as to whether there would be any competing DA providers that
    do not offer services that would qualify either as telephone
    exchange or telephone toll services, but would nonetheless benefit
    from 411 presubscription. If so, we seek comment on whether we
    should rely on alternative statutory bases, such as sections 201(b)
    and 202(a),[^39] for requiring LECs to allow competing DA providers
    to presubscribe their customers to directory assistance via the 411
    code.

11. We also seek comment on the extent to which the Commission is
    authorized to promote competition in the retail DA market through
    411 presubscription, the assignment of alternative dialing codes to
    DA providers, or 411 elimination, pursuant to our plenary authority
    over numbering administration under section 251(e)(1) of the
    Act.[^40] The Commission's authority over numbering administration
    extends to the assignment of all N11 numbering codes including
    411.[^41] Thus, if the Commission, under section 251(e)(1), has the
    authority to assign 411 for the provision of DA, does this authority
    also allow the Commission to require presubscription as part of that
    assignment, or eliminate it as a code for that use?[^42] Further, as
    the Commission concluded in the *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, the Commission's authority over numbering administration
    extends to all portions of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP)
    that pertain to the United States,[^43] including the assignment of
    numbering codes such as carrier identification codes (CICs) and
    national 555 numbers. Thus, this authority allows the Commission to
    reserve those CICs and national 555 numbers that contain the 411
    code (e.g., 101X411, 101411X, 555-X411, and 555-411X) and assign
    them to various competing DA providers. Accordingly we seek comment
    as to whether we can exercise this authority as an alternative and
    additional basis for requiring presubscription to 411.

## Competition in the Retail DA Market

12. As a threshold matter, US West (now Qwest) argues that Commission
    efforts to promote retail DA competition are misplaced because
    Congress intended to promote competition between ILECs and CLECs in
    the local exchange market, not in adjacent markets such as DA.[^44]
    There are, however, several counter arguments. First, the Commission
    has consistently concluded that DA service is "a necessary element
    of a competitive local telecommunications market,"[^45] and that a
    goal of the Commission's rules should be to make DA available to
    competitors on an equal basis.[^46] Thus, we solicit comment as to
    whether Commission efforts to promote competition in the DA market
    translate into competition in the local exchange market as well.
    Second, the 1996 Act indicates that Congress recognized how
    competition for a variety of communications products and services
    including DA might also help promote competition among carriers in
    the local exchange market.[^47] For example, under Section
    271(c)(2)(B), a Bell Operating Company (BOC) must show, among other
    items, that it offers or provides other telecommunication carriers
    with "\[n\]ondiscriminatory access to directory assistance services
    to allow the other carrier's customers to obtain telephone numbers"
    in order to obtain authority to provide in-region interLATA
    services.[^48] Further, Congress explicitly required LECs to provide
    telephone exchange and telephone toll providers with
    nondiscriminatory access to DA pursuant to section 251(b)(3), a
    requirement that does not pertain solely to competition in the local
    exchange market. One of the goals of the 1996 Act is to open all
    telecommunications markets to competition.[^49] We seek comment as
    to whether Congress considered the DA market to be one of the
    telecommunications markets for which the Act requires the Commission
    to promote competition.

13. Some commenters also contend that the Commission's previous finding
    in the *UNE Remand Order* that there is competition in the DA
    market[^50] precludes our consideration of whether we should take
    additional steps to further promote competition in the retail DA
    market.[^51] We seek comment as to whether this is a valid argument
    in light of the following. First, the Commission's conclusion in the
    *UNE Remand Order*, that there was sufficient competition in the DA
    market that DA no longer had to be supplied as a UNE, was not a
    conclusion that further barriers to entry did not exist in the DA
    market, or that further Commission action would not be necessary. To
    the contrary, the Commission explicitly stated that, notwithstanding
    the elimination of DA as a UNE, statutory protection for competitive
    access to DA continued to exist pursuant to section 251(b)(3) of the
    Act.[^52] Further, the Commission's finding in the *UNE Remand
    Order* that competition existed in the DA market was made in the
    context of whether sufficient competition existed in the wholesale
    DA market such that removal of DA as a UNE would not "materially
    diminish a requesting carrier's ability to offer telecommunications
    service."[^53] We are engaging in a separate inquiry today, one that
    concerns the retail DA market, *i.e.*, that market where carriers
    offer DA services to the consumer, not to other carriers.
    Competition in one market neither assures nor precludes competition
    in another.[^54] We thus solicit comment to explore the distinction
    between the wholesale and retail DA markets so that we can consider
    whether a separate competitive analysis for the latter is justified.

14. Telegate's proposal specifically raises the issue of whether LEC
    monopoly over the 411 dialing code for DA is an unreasonable barrier
    to other competitors that wish to enter the market for the retail
    provision of DA services to consumers. We seek comment on the
    current extent of competition in this market. What are the barriers
    to entry for the provision of DA to consumers? Does the LEC monopoly
    over use of the 411 code constitute such a barrier? If such barriers
    are found to exist, what should the Commission's role in addressing
    this problem be? Do any of these barriers to entry violate the
    nondiscriminatory access requirements of section 251(b)(3) of the
    Act, or any other section of the Act? We also seek comment as to
    whether the current level of competition in the DA market indicates
    that LEC control over the 411 dialing code is not, in fact, a
    barrier to competition.

## 411 Presubscription -- Telegate Proposal

15. In its proposal, Telegate states that to bring the full benefits of
    DA competition to consumers, the Commission must go beyond merely
    requiring nondiscriminatory access to DA databases maintained by
    LECs.[^55] Specifically, Telegate contends that LECs' exclusive
    control of the universally recognized abbreviated 411 dialing code
    sequence is a significant barrier to competitive entry in the DA
    market despite the protections provided by the Act for
    nondiscriminatory access to DA, including access to LEC local DA
    databases.[^56] Telegate proposes that the Commission implement a
    system that would allow consumers to presubscribe to 411, thus
    extending the benefits of competition to the DA industry, and by
    extension to the telecommunications industry in general.[^57] We
    seek comment on whether such a system should be imposed through
    regulation or whether market forces alone will be sufficient to
    promote competition. We seek comment on whether LEC control of 411
    serves as a barrier to entry by independent DA providers to the
    retail DA market because 411 is easy to use and is well-established
    and recognized as the abbreviated dialing code[^58] that customers
    have associated for years with DA service. We note in this respect
    that Telegate also argues that other dialing codes may be used to
    help counter the effects of 411 as a barrier to competitive entry,
    even if the Commission does not require 411 presubscription, and
    seek comment on this alternative.[^59]

16. Telegate argues that Germany's efforts to increase competition in
    the DA market have led to high quality, innovative service and other
    public benefits that the U.S. should consider.[^60] Specifically,
    Telegate notes that consumers in Germany have benefited from the
    introduction of competition in the price, quality, and type of
    services offered.[^61] According to Telegate, competition in Germany
    has contributed to economic growth, an increase in the number of
    human operators, a reduction in unanswered calls, and the
    introduction of innovative call completion and foreign language
    services.[^62] Telegate states that Germany, Ireland, Britain and
    Spain have all successfully adopted plans for increasing competition
    by moving DA providers to new abbreviated dialing codes, and that
    Norway is also considering the use of uniform codes for DA.[^63]
    Telegate argues that the Commission should also consider the success
    that other countries have experienced with uniform codes for DA in
    deciding how to promote retail DA competition in the U.S.[^64] In
    this regard, Telegate filed *ex parte* submissions in this
    proceeding containing copies of the Oftel Consultation Document and
    statement by the Director General of Telecommunications on "Access
    Codes for Directory Enquiry Services."[^65] Telegate states that in
    the September 19, 2001 statement, Oftel adopted a plan to introduce
    a new 118XY number range for DA services and eliminate the "192"
    dialing code, Britain's version of 411.[^66] Telegate believes that
    the issues discussed in these Oftel documents are relevant to 411
    presubscription and/or elimination. We seek comment on the relevance
    of the Oftel documents to this proceeding. In addition, we seek
    comment on Telegate's assertions regarding DA in the above-mentioned
    countries, and on the success and difficulties, as well as the costs
    and benefits observed with the introduction of DA competition in
    those nations. We also seek comment on any differences that may
    exist in the U.S. market for DA services that would serve to
    differentiate it from these other countries, or otherwise mitigate
    the benefits these other countries have perceived or experienced as
    a result of using new codes.

### Necessity for Presubscription

17. Several commenters suggest that Telegate is trying to fix a problem
    that does not exist,[^67] because there is insufficient consumer
    demand for directory assistance to justify presubscription.[^68] We
    seek comment on the level of current demand for DA and whether 411
    presubscription would likely interest consumers if it were presented
    to them. Specifically, we seek comment on how much demand for DA
    services can be attributed to residential and to business consumers.
    What is the average consumer demand for DA? What is the typical cost
    for DA on a residential subscriber's bill? We also seek comment on
    whether there are "high use" customers that typically use DA to a
    greater extent than the average customer. For instance, is there a
    difference in the demand for DA among high and low-income consumers?
    Furthermore, if the Commission does adopt Telegate's proposal or any
    of the alternatives discussed below, what effect, if any, will that
    have on the current demographics of demand?

18. Telegate contends that the DA market is growing and that consumers
    will be more likely to use DA because of the proliferation of area
    codes, which makes some previously dialed numbers invalid. We find
    merit in this argument, but note that in recent years ILECs have
    consistently reported the declining use of their wireline 411 DA
    service.[^69] We seek comment on the ILECs' contention that their
    reduced call volume for wireline DA is indicative of increased
    competition in the DA market. We also seek comment on whether any
    such decline in wireline DA call volume could be due to other
    factors such as declining quality of service[^70] or the growth of
    wireless or Internet-based services.[^71]

19. Qwest submitted a study of the forecast for the local directory
    assistance market from 1996 though 2006, published by Frost &
    Sullivan, that indicates that rising prices for 411 and growing
    competition from print directories will keep the market from
    experiencing a rise in 411 usage.[^72] The Frost & Sullivan Report
    also states that rising Internet and wireless penetration will
    further lead to reduced usage of wireline local DA services.[^73]
    Thus, the report predicts that the revenue growth rate is likely to
    negatively spiral in 2004 as the steady decline in volume offsets
    the impact of increasing prices and consumers turn to alternative
    media of information.[^74] The report also predicts that revenues
    from local DA will reach \$2.22 billion in 2004 and drop to \$2.09
    billion in 2006.[^75] We seek comment on this report and on the
    availability of other relevant studies that measure the growth or
    decline of services and competition in the DA market.

20. The Frost & Sullivan Report also examines the national directory
    assistance market.[^76] The report predicts that national DA market
    revenues will grow at an average rate of 5.3% through the forecast
    period reaching \$1.69 billion in 2006.[^77] It is also estimated
    that national DA call volume will increase from 1.1 billion calls in
    1999 to 1.5 billion calls in 2006 and the rate of growth will start
    to drop in 2002.[^78] We seek comment on Frost and Sullivan Report's
    assumptions and conclusions regarding the predicted revenue and
    growth forecasts for the national DA market.

21. The Frost & Sullivan Report also discusses the enhanced DA services
    market. [^79] According to the report, the enhanced DA market is
    expected to grow from \$10.2 million in 1997 to \$20.0 million in
    2006, with the revenue growth rate fluctuating throughout that
    time.[^80] The wholesale volume for enhanced DA services is expected
    to experience significant growth through 2006. The volume of calls
    is expected to rise from 20.9 million in 1997 to 52.5 million in
    2006 and the growth rate will fluctuate.[^81] We seek comment on
    these conclusions.

### Technical Feasibility

22. *Current DA Network Deployment*. One of the issues raised by
    commenting parties is whether it would be technically feasible to
    implement 411 presubscription because it would require a significant
    change from the manner in which 411 calls currently are routed.[^82]
    Thus, information regarding how 411 calls currently are routed will
    enable the Commission to adequately assess the feasibility of
    changing the manner in which DA is deployed within the network.
    According to Telegate, end users normally access local DA service by
    dialing 411.[^83] When an end user is served by an incumbent LEC
    (ILEC), these calls are then generally routed from the end user's
    premises to a local switch, and directed over a dedicated trunk to
    an Operator Switch supporting the DA call center that the ILEC
    maintains.[^84] When an end user is served by a competitive LEC
    (CLEC), the CLEC may alternatively route the 411 calls to the ILEC
    call center, the CLEC's own DA call center, or a CLEC-designated
    outsourced DA service provider.[^85] Directory assistance calls are
    then usually answered with a front-end interactive voice response
    (IVR) to obtain the desired name and city information.[^86] If the
    information is not recognizable via IVR, a DA operator will come on
    the line and get the information directly from the caller.[^87] The
    operator then keys the information into the ILEC's local listing
    database to retrieve a local phone number.[^88] The number may be
    delivered to the caller automatically via IVR, or delivered orally
    if further assistance is needed.[^89] We recognize that there may be
    alternative routing methods for directing a local 411 call to a DA
    call center and thus we seek comment on alternative methods
    currently used to route calls for local DA service.

23. Telegate notes that for non-local or nationwide DA service, an end
    user may dial a set of digits such as 1-NPA-555-1212, where the NPA
    (Numbering Plan Area) is the area code of the non-local region.[^90]
    In general, the originating LEC, the IXC and the terminating LEC are
    all involved in handling such DA requests.[^91] The ILEC serving the
    called area code may provide the DA information or the IXC may
    transport the call to its own DA platform.[^92] Alternatively, some
    ILECs exclusively offer local and national DA service via 411.[^93]
    In these instances the ILEC DA operator will access the ILEC's local
    or national database as required. Once the call is routed to the
    appropriate DA platform, the DA operator will then generally perform
    a search for the requested number in the same fashion as with local
    411 service.[^94] Telegate states that national listings compiled by
    a third party company may be drawn from local ILEC databases, or may
    be compiled from secondary sources, such as telephone directories or
    credit reports. [^95] We seek comment on Telegate's description of
    the provision of nationwide DA service, and on alternative methods
    currently used to route these calls via 1-NPA-555-1212 and 411.

24. *Telegate's Proposal for Network Deployment of Presubscribed DA*.
    Telegate asserts that there are two options for implementing DA
    presubscription via 411: either through use of the Advanced
    Intelligent Network (AIN),[^96] or by reprogramming each central
    office switch to establish a connection to a preselected DA provider
    when 411 is dialed on any given line.[^97] Telegate recommends
    utilizing AIN, a network capability that Telegate asserts is already
    widely deployed in local switches and operational for services such
    as caller ID with name, and toll-free calls.[^98] Telegate believes
    that an AIN-based presubscription solution will give consumers a
    simple way to presubscribe to DA providers. Telegate also states
    that AIN technology would be the most efficient method of
    implementing 411 presubscription.[^99] By using AIN, according to
    Telegate, neither the software nor the hardware of any central
    office switch will need to be modified. Telegate argues that the
    only necessary change to central office switches would be made by a
    command that can be initiated from a carrier's Network Operations
    Center directing central office switches to activate the N11 Trigger
    feature contained in AIN software.[^100]

25. Telegate states that under the AIN approach, when a caller dials
    411, the N11 trigger feature will cause the signal switching point
    (SSP) at the subscriber's local switch to suspend the call and
    launch a query to a service control point (SCP) database to
    determine how to route the call.[^101] The destination of the
    routing depends on the caller's telephone number, which will contain
    information directing the Signaling System 7 (SS7) network to route
    411 calls to the ILEC DA call center, or to an alternate or
    competing DA service provider that the subscriber has
    preselected.[^102] In this way, Telegate explains, AIN software can
    be used to route a subscriber's DA calls to his or her preferred DA
    provider.[^103] Low Tech Designs, Inc. (LTD) agrees with Telegate
    that 411 presubscription is technically feasible using the AIN
    feature already deployed by the LECs.[^104] We seek comment on this
    proposed option and ask that commenters specifically discuss the
    technical feasibility of using the AIN to provide for 411
    presubscription.

26. Telegate believes that AIN presents the best method for achieving DA
    presubscription because it uses software capabilities already
    deployed in the vast majority of central office switches in the
    United States.[^105] To support its claim of technical feasibility,
    Telegate attaches the affidavit of John Celentano, President of
    Skyline Marketing Group, Ltd.[^106] Telegate also believes that this
    plan would not require significant change to central office
    switches. It states that implementation may require modest
    investment in upgrading the SS7 infrastructure to maintain the
    database of customer 411 presubscriptions and to route 411 calls to
    multiple DA providers.[^107] We seek comment on the extent to which
    AIN features and functionalities would have to be expanded or
    augmented to implement Telegate's proposal. Several commenters
    contend that AIN technology is not as widely deployed as Telegate
    suggests.[^108] We seek comment on this contention. For example, is
    AIN technology widely deployed by small carriers? Furthermore, some
    commenters state that an AIN-based 411 presubscription model
    involves much more work and is far more complex than Telegate
    claims.[^109] We therefore seek comment on Telegate's assertions
    regarding whether presubscription to 411 can be implemented in the
    manner proposed, and whether the AIN features necessary to implement
    Telegate's proposal are already sufficiently deployed nationwide.
    Alternatively, if they are not so deployed, should the Commission
    exempt those switches that lack the necessary AIN features from a
    more general presubscription requirement? In addition, we seek
    comment on whether currently deployed AIN switches are capable of
    supporting 411 presubscription. If not, what upgrades would be
    necessary and how much would they cost?

27. Telegate states that its AIN proposal can be implemented in a six to
    nine month time frame.[^110] US West, however, claims that Telegate
    understates this time frame, given that it assumes an underlying LEC
    readiness to proceed immediately to AIN deployment.[^111] Thus, we
    also seek comment on how long the implementation process for the AIN
    option would take and what obstacles providers may face during this
    period. In addition, we seek comment on what obstacles may prevent
    immediate LEC readiness. USTA notes that implementation of this
    method will also impose a significant number of technical burdens
    upon carriers.[^112] These include service order processing,
    conduction of balloting or similar processes, verification of
    customer selection, and processing customer change requests.[^113]
    In addition, SBC states that 411 presubscription will require
    telephone companies to make automatic message accounting (AMA)
    recordings at the end office when someone dials 411, so that the
    presubscribed 411 provider can account for calls to its service for
    billing purposes.[^114] SBC also notes that Telegate failed to
    consider changes to Operations Support Systems (OSS), including
    billing and service order systems, and to the Line Information
    Database (LIDB).[^115] We seek comment on these and any other
    potential technical burdens and their associated costs. In
    particular, we solicit comment as to how the estimated cost of
    deploying and maintaining presubscription compares to its potential
    benefits.

28. As an alternative option, Telegate notes that switch manufacturers
    could develop new software for their central office switching
    systems to allow for distinct routing to preselected DA
    providers.[^116] According to Telegate, this approach would require
    each central office switch to be programmed to establish a
    connection to a preselected DA provider when 411 is dialed on any
    given line.[^117] The connection would be facilitated by installing
    new call processing and translation software in each switch to
    recognize the unique routing requirements.[^118] In his affidavit,
    however, Celentano explains that creating new call processing and
    translation software for each central office switch to facilitate a
    distinct routing for each DA provider would be costly and difficult
    to implement.[^119] We seek comment on the technical feasibility of
    programming individual central office switches to create distinct
    routing for independent DA providers. We also seek comment on the
    relative advantages of using AIN versus modifying individual central
    office switches to facilitate 411 presubscription. According to
    Nortel Networks and Lucent Technologies, the call processing and
    translations capability of the present software of their switching
    systems cannot support 411 DA presubscription.[^120] Telegate
    estimates that it would cost switching system manufacturers
    approximately \$2 million alone to develop new software, and that
    this software would then most likely be made available to LECs as an
    update to their existing switching system software on a negotiated
    right-to-use fee basis.[^121] Furthermore, all the manufacturers of
    switches currently used in the US would have to update their
    software to accommodate this implementation. As a result, the cost
    for this development process will be increased tremendously.[^122]
    We thus seek comment on whether the cost involved would prevent
    distinct routing from being a viable option for 411 presubscription.

29. Illuminet, Inc. (Illuminet) submitted comments solely addressing the
    technical aspects of Telegate's proposal. Illuminet submits that if
    the Commission chooses to implement 411 presubscription, the
    existing LIDB platform, with minor modifications, should be relied
    upon to implement that directive.[^123] The LIDB platform consists
    of databases developed by local telephone companies to provide
    operator-based services for billing validation. Regional LIDB
    systems currently contain valid telephone and calling card numbers
    to allow local telephone companies to validate personal
    identification numbers, collect calls, etc.[^124] According to
    Illuminet, use of the existing LIDB platform may require capacity
    upgrades for additional query capacity and /or data storage
    capacity, but this solution avoids the need for creating entirely
    new databases solely for the purpose of providing 411
    presubscription.[^125] Some commenters, however, believe that this
    plan would involve major technological development and be very
    costly.[^126] We seek comment on the technical and economic
    feasibility of Illuminet's proposal to use the LIDB platform. We
    also seek comment on who should maintain control over and
    administration of the LIDB platform in the event we decide to
    implement 411 presubscription. In addition, we seek comment on any
    technical alternatives to use of the LIDB platform for 411
    presubscription.

### Economic Feasibility 

30. As mentioned above, Telegate believes that 411 presubscription can
    be achieved without imposing significant technical burdens on ILECs,
    other DA providers, or hardware and software vendors.[^127] Telegate
    also believes that the implementation of 411 presubscription will
    not impose a substantial economic burden on the industry or
    consumers.[^128] For example, Telegate estimates that the total
    investment to implement its proposed plan nationwide would be less
    than \$23 million.[^129] According to Telegate, the annual expenses
    associated with operating and maintaining the databases would be an
    estimated \$7.1 million. Telegate finds these amounts to be
    "essentially trivial" in comparison to the current estimated size of
    the DA market, which it estimates at almost \$3 billion.[^130] To
    support its claim and Celentano's cost estimates, Telegate also
    provided the affidavit of Stephen E. Siwek.[^131] Siwek states that
    the one-time capital investment in 411 presubscription is likely to
    cost, at most, approximately 11 cents per customer, particularly
    based on the assumptions made in his affidavit.[^132] We seek
    comment on Telegate and Siwek's assertions. We note that the Frost
    and Sullivan Report submitted by Qwest and discussed above in
    paragraphs 19 through 21 includes estimates for DA revenues in the
    local, national and enhanced DA service markets. We seek comment on
    whether these figures are consistent with the economic information
    that Telegate has provided.

31. Several commenters believe that the costs of 411 presubscription
    would be far greater than Telegate's estimates and that many costs
    are not included in Telegate's analysis.[^133] Bell Atlantic (now
    Verizon) states that Telegate\'s proposal may require major
    technical upgrades that cannot be forecasted yet.[^134] BellSouth
    states that Telegate's cost estimates are materially understated
    even for carriers like BellSouth that have already invested in SS7
    and AIN technology. BellSouth estimates its upfront costs would be
    \$2.5 to \$3.5 million dollars and that those costs would be
    substantially higher for carriers that have not already invested in
    SS7 and AIN as heavily as BellSouth.[^135] US West states that for
    their region alone, the Telegate proposal would require an
    incremental investment of \$20.8 million with an annual recurring
    network maintenance expense of \$1.2 million.[^136] USTA contends
    that the costs of providing presubscribed N11 services would be
    prohibitive and would create an unwarranted burden on carriers and
    customers.[^137] GTE (now Verizon) estimates that the major costs
    would total over \$310 million.[^138] In addition, GTE believes that
    over \$40 million would be necessary to deploy full AIN
    capabilities, and that Telegate failed to include the costs to
    activate the 411 trigger and maintaining the local switch
    translations.[^139] We seek comment on these assertions.

32. Telegate defends its cost analysis in its reply comments by stating
    that its proposal clearly states that the \$29.9 million estimate
    does not include the cost of balloting and allocation, nor the costs
    of equipping local switches with AIN 0.1 software functionality.
    This figure also does not include the cost of process changes in the
    ILEC Service Order Process (SOP) to acquire and transmit the
    presubscribed DA provider to the SMS/service center.[^140] Thus,
    Telegate suggests that the Commission should break down the
    individual estimates to determine their validity.[^141] Furthermore,
    Telegate contests some of the ILECs figures.[^142] Telegate contends
    that the Commission should reject speculative OSS cost
    estimates.[^143] In addition, Telegate states that 411
    presubscription will not require the same level of investment as
    local number portability (LNP) and that the Commission should
    disregard the unrealistic costs estimates based on LNP.[^144]
    Telegate also claims that ILEC cost projections for establishing AIN
    databases and developing N11 software for 411 presubscription are
    unsubstantiated and blown out of proportion.[^145] Finally, Telegate
    contends that the cost of implementing 411 presubscription are
    minimal compared to the public benefits.[^146]

33. Accordingly, we seek comment on the cost projections discussed
    above. We generally seek comment on what the costs of implementing
    411 presubscription would be for all types of carriers. We also
    specifically seek comment on whether adoption of Telegate's AIN
    based 411 presubscription plan would place a significant economic
    burden on existing carriers given their currently deployed software
    or hardware systems. Would the costs of implementing 411
    presubscription be prohibitive for smaller companies? How great a
    range would there be between the costs for large and small
    companies, and what is the cause of any difference in costs? In
    addition, we seek comment on possible low cost alternatives to an
    AIN-based 411 presubscription approach. Should the Commission
    consider such alternatives or an exemption for small carriers, and
    how could such alternatives be implemented? We also request comment
    on the rationale behind any difference between Telegate's estimated
    costs[^147] and those of other parties. [^148]

### Other Considerations for 411 Presubscription 

#### Consumer Protection Concerns

34. The proposals discussed in this Notice could result in a spectrum of
    new, reasonably priced services that would be of great benefit to
    the consumer. We therefore seek comment on the tentative conclusions
    we make today, including the costs and benefits of the various
    proposals. Some commenters are concerned that if proposals such as
    411 presubscription are implemented, the need for customers to make
    an additional choice would cause substantial customer confusion,
    thus negating any benefit that might otherwise result.[^149] We seek
    comment on this assertion. In the *Local Competition Second Report
    and Order*, the Commission adopted a mechanism for intraLATA toll
    presubscription that allowed customers who chose not to presubscribe
    to remain with the ILEC that had previously provided intraLATA
    service.[^150] We seek comment on whether the adoption of this
    mechanism for DA would minimize customer confusion. We also seek
    comment on other ways that any customer confusion could be
    prevented. For example, should information be placed in consumers'
    phone bills? Should a toll-free number be established to answer
    questions? How long should these services be provided?

35. If 411 presubscription is implemented, several parties contend that
    one of their primary concerns is the potential for new slamming and
    cramming opportunities.[^151] SBC believes that 411 presubscription,
    particularly in the case of entities that are not telecommunications
    carriers, will create additional opportunities for slamming and
    cramming, and it is unclear if the Commission would have the
    authority to address those concerns.[^152] SBC also states that 411
    presubscription could create additional responsibilities for the
    LECs to police the cramming of 411 users as a result of competition
    among providers.[^153] Telegate states that these concerns are
    merely speculative and that slamming in the DA market is unlikely
    because DA providers generally identify themselves at the beginning
    of the call.[^154] We seek comment on whether 411 presubscription
    would potentially create new slamming and cramming opportunities.
    Would the rules in place to address these problems be adequate to
    resolve such complaints? Would the current slamming rules have to be
    amended to address 411 prescription? We also seek comment on how
    slamming and cramming can be avoided. For example, should the
    Commission require identification of the DA provider at the
    beginning of a call? In general, we seek comment on the FCC's role
    and jurisdiction in handling these matters.

#### Billing

36. InfoNXX raises several issues regarding billing and
    collection.[^155] How should competing DA providers bill customers?
    How should billing be handled if an ILEC refuses to include DA
    service charges on a customer's bill? Should billing be done in the
    same manner as with long d**i**stance services? Should ILECs be
    required to provide billing and collection services to keep the
    costs of implementation reasonable? What will the costs of billing
    be? We seek comment on these issues.

37. BellSouth contends that 411 presubscription is inconsistent with
    Commission pay-per-call rules that require 900 numbers for
    information services such as the enhanced DA that independent DA
    providers might offer.[^156] We seek comment on whether, if enhanced
    DA were to be available through 411 presubscription, this would be
    consistent with our rules regarding pay-per-call services and 900
    numbers calls. We note that the Act states that pay-per-call
    services must be provided through the use of certain telephone
    number prefixes and area codes.[^157] This requirement, however,
    does not pertain to DA services provided by a common carrier or its
    affiliate or by a local exchange carrier or its affiliate, or any
    service for which users are assessed charges only after entering
    into a presubscription or comparable arrangement with the provider
    of such service.[^158] Thus, we seek comment on whether it is
    permissible to implement a 411 presubscription scheme on a
    pay-per-call-basis. In addition, we seek comment on what alternative
    DA systems would be permissible under our rules.

#### Implementation of 411 Presubscription 

38. Telegate initially proposed that 411 presubscription should be
    implemented through a balloting procedure.[^159] Siwek's affidavit
    estimates the cost of conducting balloting and allocation for
    presubscription of DA to be a one-time cost of \$1.13 per
    line.[^160] Several commenters, however, oppose balloting[^161] and
    others believe that Telegate's estimate is too low.[^162] In the
    past, parties have claimed that balloting is confusing to the
    customers, costly, and forces consumers to make selections before
    they might otherwise choose to do so.[^163] As balloting can be
    complicated and extremely costly, we seek comment on alternatives to
    balloting. For example, in the *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, the Commission adopted rules to implement intraLATA toll
    presubscription.[^164] Rather than impose a federally-based
    balloting system, the Commission adopted a basic presubscription
    method called 2-PIC, and left the specifics of presubscription
    administration to the states.[^165] Under the 2-PIC system for
    intraLATA toll service, a LEC was required to offer the consumers a
    choice between the LEC's service and that offered by another service
    provider, a list of which would be provided to the consumer.[^166]
    If the consumer did not make a choice, he or she would remain with
    the original provider of the service. Thus, those who wished to take
    advantage of presubscription could do so, and those who did not wish
    to presubscribe were not forced to migrate to another service
    provider. We seek comment on whether this system should be adopted
    for 411 presubscription.

39. Despite section 251(b)(3)'s applicability to all LECs, [^167]
    InfoNXX suggests that only ILECs should be required to implement 411
    presubscription.[^168] InfoNXX explains that when a customer
    purchases wireline service from a CLEC, the customer purchases DA as
    a bundle of services that the CLEC offers. Thus, the customer
    purchases DA in a competitive environment, and the CLEC cannot be
    said to control the 411 dialing code because it does not control the
    primary market for wireline service. The ILECs, however, despite the
    presence of some CLEC competition, control the primary market for
    wireline service.[^169] We seek comment on whether 411
    presubscription should be mandatory for all LECs.

40. InfoNXX also suggests that 411 presubscription should only apply to
    wireline carriers because only wireline carriers can be said to
    control the 411 dialing code by virtue of their monopoly position
    and because the wireless industry is already fully
    competitive.[^170] InfoNXX also states that although wireless
    carriers utilize the 411 dialing code, DA is simply part of a bundle
    of services that a wireless customer purchases from competing
    carriers. [^171] In addition, InfoNXX asserts that it was on this
    basis that Congress declared in the Act that wireless carriers are
    not required to provide equal access to long distance companies
    because customers may choose between carriers providing various long
    distance options.[^172] As a result, InfoNXX believes that no
    principle of communications regulation or safeguarding competition
    supports extending 411 presubscription to wireless carriers, should
    the Commission ever implement such a system.[^173] We seek comment
    on this position.

#### Cost Allocation

41. We also seek comment on how the costs associated with 411
    presubscription should be allocated. US West believes that not all
    telecommunications consumers should have to pay to implement 411
    presubscription. Rather, US West believes that DA providers and
    their customers, rather than all end-users, should bear these
    costs.[^174] In addition, Moultrie does not believe that ILECs
    should be required to pay for competitors' entry into the DA
    market.[^175] However, the Commission and carriers also have
    experience implementing competitively neutral methods of cost
    allocation, as are used, for example, for local number
    portability.[^176] We seek comment on whether the cost for
    implementing 411 presubscription should therefore be borne by all
    entities that provide DA service, on a competitively neutral basis.
    We specifically seek comment on whether the competitively neutral
    model for cost recovery that the Commission established for local
    number portability should be used to allocate the costs of 411
    presubscription, if implemented.[^177] We also seek comment on
    whether some other method is more appropriate in the context of this
    service.

#### Directory Assistance Administrator

42. In the *Telegate Public Notice*, the Bureau asked whether a
    directory assistance administrator would be necessary to maintain
    correct correlation between customers and their presubscribed DA
    providers, or to ensure that the telephone numbers are kept up to
    date if presubscription is implemented.[^178] Bell Atlantic states
    that there is no need for such an administrator because Telegate's
    proposal is like long distance presubscription and local exchange
    carriers have kept their customers' presubscription selections up to
    date for years.[^179] Metro One also believes that a database
    administrator is not necessary if competitive DA providers have
    nondiscriminatory access to the ILECs' DA listing databases.[^180]
    Several parties, however, contend that a neutral third party
    administrator is necessary.[^181] If an administrator is used, LTD
    suggests that consumers could select and change their DA providers
    by calling a toll-free number.[^182] We seek comment on whether a
    third party administrator is actually necessary. If so, how would
    this administrator be selected and what would its duties be?

#### Advanced Services

43. If 411 presubscription is implemented, LTD proposes that AIN
    technology could be used to bridge the digital divide for those
    consumers who own a telephone but do not have access to the
    Internet.[^183] At present, the most sophisticated kinds of
    directories tend to be Internet-based, since this real-time,
    computer-connected medium permits a wide variety of searches and
    links to a wide variety of information, e.g., a street map
    containing the address of the contact desired. Pursuant to Section
    706 of the Act, the Commission has been monitoring the deployment of
    advanced telecommunication services to all Americans.[^184] Although
    the Commission has thus far found deployment to be \"reasonable and
    timely\" in general,[^185] it has been noted that certain
    groups\--including people from low-income, minority, and disability
    communities\--may be lagging behind others in access to the
    Internet.[^186] Accordingly, we seek comment on LTD's proposal. What
    additional services could be available and is there consumer demand
    for these services? How would customers be billed for these
    services? Could consumers use one provider for some services and
    another provider for other services? Would these services only be
    available through a consumer's presubscribed DA provider?

## Other Solutions for Promoting Competitive DA Services

44. Metro One states that Telegate's proposal for DA presubscription is
    not an effective means of fostering competition in the DA
    market.[^187] Metro One believes that presubscription would allow
    the DA market to continue to be dominated by a few well-known
    incumbent carriers because consumers are often unaware that their
    current service is actually being provided by an alternative DA
    provider or that competitive DA providers exist.[^188] Thus, Metro
    One supports the use of alternative numbering mechanisms such as
    555,[^189] Carrier Access Codes (CACs),[^190] or access numbers
    created by adding a two or three digit suffix to 411, which would
    enable multiple DA providers to have an easily recognizable number
    containing 411[^191] for the provision of DA service. Metro One also
    believes that these are lower cost alternatives.[^192] We explore
    these options in greater detail below. We seek comment on whether
    any of these options, or a combination of them, would an effective
    method of promoting competition among DA service providers. Would
    these methods be less burdensome than 411 presubscription? In
    addition, we seek comment on whether it would be technically,
    economically or administratively feasible to implement 411
    presubscription when other numbering solutions exist that would
    promote customer choice in the retail DA market.

### 411 Elimination 

45. Telegate states that if presubscription to 411 is not implemented
    and/or alternative methods are used for providing DA service
    (*e.g.*, 555 numbers or CACs), then the use of 411 as an access code
    for DA must be eliminated. [^193] We seek comment on this position.
    Moultrie supports Telegate's proposal for presubscription, but
    believes that the 411 code should be preserved.[^194] Several other
    commenters who do not support presubscription also believe that the
    elimination of 411 is a bad idea.[^195] We seek comment on the costs
    and benefits of 411 elimination. What is the potential impact of 411
    elimination on customers? Would elimination of 411 create undue
    customer confusion? Is elimination necessary to create a fully
    competitive DA market?

### Enhanced DA

46. At least one industry analyst expects enhanced DA services to grow,
    in both the wireline and wireless markets.[^196] Further, Telegate's
    proposal indicates that it intends to supply an enhanced DA service,
    and wishes to do so using "411." Other competing DA providers also
    indicate their desire to offer enhanced DA. In the *N11 First Report
    and Order*, the Commission encouraged LECs to expand the range of
    service they offer to the public, but recognized the possible
    competitive advantage the LECs would be given if they were able to
    use N11 codes for their enhanced services offerings.[^197] Thus, the
    Commission concluded that a LEC may not itself offer enhanced
    services using a 411 code, or any other N11 code, unless that LEC
    offers access to the code on a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis
    to competing enhanced service providers in the local area for which
    it is using the code to offer enhanced services.[^198] As a result,
    ILECs cannot provide enhanced services via the 411 number unless
    they are willing to make the code available to other providers.
    Because 411 presubscription would require ILECs to share the 411
    code, we seek comment on the likely result that ILECs would then be
    able to offer enhanced services through 411.

### National 555 Numbers

47. National 555 numbers were created to provide a variety of
    information and telecommunications services in the 555-XXXX
    format.[^199] 555 numbers may be assigned for local or national
    (non-local) services.[^200] The INC 555 Assignment Guidelines[^201]
    define a National 555 number as a unique number in the 555 NXX
    assigned to an entity for use in at least 30% of all NPAs, states,
    or provinces in the NANP area.[^202]

48. Metro One believes that using national 555 numbers for DA could be
    an effective alternative to 411 presubscription.[^203] Metro One has
    found, however, that most ILECs will not activate Metro One's
    assigned 555 numbers.[^204] Metro One recommends that the Commission
    act to ensure that national 555 numbers are made available and
    activated promptly and that the rates for the services are
    nondiscriminatory and cost-based.[^205] We seek comment on Metro
    One's request and on the feasibility of using 555 numbers for DA
    services in general. What are the costs and benefits of implementing
    555 numbers for DA services? Would 555 numbers enhance competition
    in the DA market? We seek comment on how a plan to provide DA using
    national 555 numbers would be implemented. Would the use of 555
    numbers create customer confusion? Do technical or other barriers to
    the use of 555 numbers exist, and is Commission action necessary to
    overcome any such barriers?

49. We also seek comment on whether certain specific easily identifiable
    555 numbers should be set aside for DA service providers. For
    example, we could set aside the 555-X411 and 555-411X numbers for DA
    service. We also seek comment on any other benefits or costs
    associated with setting aside easily identifiable 555 numbers for DA
    service, and whether any providers should be given priority for
    assignment of these numbers. We further seek comment whether easily
    identifiable national 555 numbers would offer access to DA
    sufficiently comparable to that provided by 411 that presubscription
    to 411 would not be necessary. If such national 555 numbers were
    used instead of 411 presubscription, would the introduction of
    national 555 numbers for DA obviate any need to eliminate 411?

### Carrier Access Codes

50. Carrier access codes (CACs) are created by adding a CIC to the
    prefix "101".[^206] CICs are unique numeric codes that have
    traditionally been assigned to IXCs to identify them to LECs
    providing interstate interexchange access services.[^207] A caller
    using a CAC may "dial around" his or her presubscribed IXC to reach
    an alternative IXC directly.[^208] LECs use the CICs not only to
    route traffic to the proper IXC, but also to bill for interstate
    access services provided. CACs facilitate competition in the
    interexchange market by enabling callers to use the services of any
    IXC that the caller may choose, whether or not it is the IXC to
    which the caller is presubscribed.[^209]

51. Metro One believes that assigning unique CICs to competitive DA
    providers would be a better, lower cost alternative to 411
    presubscription.[^210] LTD, however, states that it will be
    confusing for consumers to use CACs to access DA.[^211] We note that
    the Commission can, at any time, assign unique CICs to competitive
    DA providers, and seek comment on whether CACs can provide a viable,
    immediate, low cost alternative to 411, and the relative costs and
    benefits of doing so. In particular, we seek comment on whether CACs
    could be an effective means of providing access to competitive DA
    service as compared to 411. We also seek comment on whether a
    limited number of CIC codes should be used for assignment to DA
    service providers. The Commission has recently reserved the 411X and
    X411 CICs for possible DA service.[^212] We seek comment on whether
    the 411X and X411 CICs could provide consumers with several easily
    recognizable alternatives to 411 and whether these CICs should be
    reserved for particular DA service providers. We also seek comment
    on whether there would be a need to eliminate 411 or implement 411
    presubscription with this approach. We seek comment on the viability
    and the limitations of this plan. Specifically, how would 411X and
    X411 CICs be assigned? What methods might be available for an
    equitable distribution of the 411X and X411 CICs? Should CIC numbers
    be used in addition to 555 numbers to provide consumers with even
    more options?

52. If the Commission implements access to DA service using CACs as an
    alternative to 411 presubscription, Metro One states that the
    Commission must promulgate and enforce rules and adopt procedures to
    ensure that these services are made available and activated promptly
    and that the rates and services are nondiscriminatory and
    cost-based.[^213] We seek comment on whether such regulations would
    be necessary.

### 411XX Numbers

53. Metro One argues that the most equitable solution to the DA issue,
    and possibly the easiest to implement, would be to assign a two or
    three digit suffix to the 411 access code, thereby giving every DA
    provider, including the ILECs, its own 411XX code.[^214] When a
    caller dials 411XX, the call would be routed to a designated DA
    provider instead of the ILECs DA service call center. According to
    Metro One, this system would even the playing field for competitive
    DA providers, while preserving the 411 code.[^215] SBC states that
    this idea is not fully developed and ignores potential problems such
    as the customer confusion that would arise from the use of longer
    codes with different identification numbers for each DA
    provider.[^216] Some commenters caution that this system is limited
    by the number of providers it can accommodate due to the N11XX
    code.[^217] We note, however, that adding two digits to 411 result
    in up to 100 411XX codes for DA service providers. If codes longer
    than N11XX were used, Bell Atlantic cautions that it would not be a
    very abbreviated code.[^218] We seek comment on the costs and
    benefits of utilizing 411XX numbers for DA services. Would this five
    digit abbreviated code be effective in evening the playing field? Is
    this proposal technically and economically feasible? Furthermore,
    would using 411XX numbers in addition to 555 numbers or CACs enhance
    competition? We seek comment on these proposals and concerns.

### State Regulations

54. We seek comment on how proposals such as 411 presubscription, 411
    elimination, enhanced DA services, national 555 numbers, carrier
    access codes and 411XX numbers would affect the states.
    Specifically, we seek comment from state public service commissions
    on how such proposals might affect traditional state regulation of
    DA. We seek comment on which proposals would be most cost effective
    for the states and the least burdensome to implement. We also seek
    comment on the effect on existing state regulations of any of the
    proposals contained in this notice.

55. In this regard, BellSouth asserts that even if Telegate's proposal
    were technically and economically feasible, 411 presubscription
    still raises several public policy problems that the Commission
    would have to resolve after developing an appropriate record.[^219]
    An initial concern echoed by BellSouth and other ILEC commenters is
    that state commissions have traditionally imposed requirements
    related to DA service on ILECs for quality of service,
    speed-of-answer, price, number of free DA calls per month, or, in
    the case of people with disabilities, free DA service.[^220] ILECs
    question whether it is fair for the Commission to take further steps
    to open the DA market to competition and thus reduce ILEC market
    share while independent DA providers remain free of these state
    regulations.[^221] We seek comment on this issue. Specifically,
    would it be necessary for the FCC to establish minimum regulatory
    guidelines so that state PUCs can apply regulations to all
    competitors? If so, should all competitive DA providers be subject
    to such guidelines, or should regulation only be reserved for those
    providers with more than a *de minimis* share of the DA market?

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

## *Ex Parte* Presentations 

56. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.
    *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine
    Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the
    Commission\'s rules. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203,
    and 1.1206(a) (1994). Written submissions, however, will be limited
    as discussed below.

## Regulatory Flexibility Act

57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^222] the
    Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
    entities by the policies and rules proposed in this *Notice*.
    Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be
    identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
    deadlines for comments on the *Notice* provided below in section
    IV.D. The Commission will send a copy of the *Notice*, including
    this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration (SBA). [^223] In addition, the *Notice* and IRFA (or
    summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^224]

### Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes 

58. The Commission is issuing this *Notice* to seek comment on whether
    to modify the Commission's rules to permit presubscription to
    directory assistance services in order to promote competition and
    choice in the retail DA market. Additionally, the Commission seeks
    input concerning other methods of providing DA and their impact on
    consumers and providers. In the *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, the Commission anticipated that presubscription for
    particular services ultimately would be defined by technological,
    economic and marketing considerations, and noted its intent to
    monitor developments in this area and issue a Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking to address these long range considerations so
    that end users would be able to preselect alternative providers for
    a multitude of services, including directory assistance. In the five
    years since the release of the *Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, DA has grown from a simple method of obtaining a telephone
    number to a sophisticated voice-based portal that potentially can
    offer the consumer a wide spectrum of high quality services at
    competitive prices. We solicit comments as to whether the market for
    the competitive provision of directory assistance has developed to
    the point that additional steps must now be taken to ensure that all
    competitors have the same opportunity for access to customers and
    whether the directory assistance market is sufficiently open to
    competition that further regulatory action is unnecessary.

### Legal Basis

59. The authority for actions proposed in this *Notice* may be found in
    sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 201, 202, 222, and 251 of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 152, 153, 154, 201,
    202, 222, and 251.

### Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

60. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^225] The RFA defines
    the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the terms
    \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small governmental
    jurisdiction.\"[^226] In addition, the term \"small business\" has
    the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\" under the
    Small Business Act.[^227] 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 SBA.[^228] A small organization is generally
    \"any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
    operated and is not dominant in its field.\"[^229] Nationwide, as of
    1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^230]
    \"Small governmental jurisdiction\"[^231] generally means
    \"governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
    school districts, or special districts, with a population of less
    than 50,000.\"[^232] As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006
    such governmental entities in the United States.[^233] This number
    includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or
    96%, have populations of fewer than 50,000.[^234] The Census Bureau
    estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all
    governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we
    estimate that 81,600 (96%) are small entities.

61. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity
    licensees and regulatees that may be affected by these rules. The
    most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of
    certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as
    the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the
    Commission publishes annually in its *Telecommunications Provider
    Locator* report, regarding FCC Form 499-A.[^235]

62. *Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected.* The decisions and
    rules adopted herein may have a significant effect on a substantial
    number of the small telephone companies identified by SBA. The
    Census Bureau reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497
    firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein,
    for at least one year.[^236] These firms include a variety of
    different categories of carriers, including LECs, interexchange
    carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile
    service carriers, operator services providers, pay telephone
    operators, personal communications service (PCS) providers, covered
    specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers. It seems certain
    that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as
    small entities because they are not \"independently owned and
    operated.\"[^237] For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated
    with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would
    not meet the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable to
    conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms
    are small entity telephone service firms that may be affected by
    this *Notice*. Since 1992, however, many new carriers have entered
    the telephone services marketplace. At least some of these new
    entrants may be small entities that are affected by this *Notice.*

63. *Wireline Carriers and Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a
    definition of small entities for telephone communications companies
    except radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau
    reports that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation
    for at least one year at the end of 1992.[^238] According to the
    SBA\'s definition, a small business telephone company other than a
    radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^239] All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies
    listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000
    employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than
    1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non‑radiotelephone
    companies that might qualify as small entities or small ILECs. We do
    not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not
    independently owned and operated, and thus are unable at this time
    to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers
    and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns
    under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer
    than 2,295 small telephone communications companies other than
    radiotelephone companies are small entities or small incumbent LECs.

64. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis.
    As noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, *inter
    alia*, meets the pertinent small business size standard (*e.g.*, a
    telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees),
    and is not dominant in its field of operation.[^240] The SBA's
    Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent
    LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such
    dominance is not "national" in scope.[^241] We have therefore
    included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analyses, although we
    emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and
    determination in other, non-RFA contexts.

65. *Interexchange Carriers* (IXCs)*.* Neither the Commission nor SBA
    has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable
    to providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable
    definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies
    other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^242] The most
    reliable source of information regarding the number of IXCs
    nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we
    collect annually in connection with the *Telecommunications
    Reporting Worksheet*, FCC Form 499-A. According to our most recent
    data, 229 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision
    of interexchange services.[^243] Although it seems certain that some
    of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have
    more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate
    with greater precision the number of IXCs that would qualify as
    small business concerns under SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we
    estimate that there are fewer than 229 small entity IXCs that may be
    affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this *Notice.*

66. *Competitive Access Providers.* Neither the Commission nor SBA has
    developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
    providers of competitive access services (CAPs). The closest
    applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone
    communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)
    companies.[^244] The most reliable source of information regarding
    the number of CAPs nationwide of which we are aware appears to be
    the data that we collect annually in connection with the
    *Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet*, FCC Form 499-A. According
    to our most recent data, 532 companies reported that they were
    engaged in the provision of competitive access services.[^245]
    Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
    independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees,
    we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
    number of CAPs that would qualify as small business concerns under
    SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer
    than 532 small entity CAPs that may be affected by the decisions and
    rules adopted in this *Notice.*

67. *Operator Service Providers.* Neither the Commission nor SBA has
    developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
    providers of operator services. The closest applicable definition
    under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than
    radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^246] The most reliable source
    of information regarding the number of operator services providers
    nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we
    collect annually in connection with the *Telecommunications
    Reporting Worksheet*, FCC Form 499-A. According to our most recent
    data, 22 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision
    of operator services.[^247] Although it seems certain that some of
    these companies are not independently owned and operated, or have
    more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate
    with greater precision the number of operator services providers
    that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA\'s
    definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 22
    small entity operator services providers that may be affected by the
    decisions and rules adopted in this *Notice*.

68. *Payphone Providers*. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a
    definition of small entities specifically applicable to payphone
    providers. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for
    telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone
    (wireless) companies.[^248] The most reliable source of information
    regarding the number of payphone providers nationwide of which we
    are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in
    connection with the *Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet*, FCC
    Form 499-A. According to our most recent data, 936 companies
    reported that they were engaged in the provision of pay telephone
    services.[^249] Although it seems certain that some of these
    carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than
    1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater
    precision the number of payphone providers that would qualify as
    small business concerns under SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we
    estimate that there are fewer than 936 small entity payphone
    providers that may be affected by this *Notice*.

### Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

69. Future rules may require carriers to submit status reports
    concerning the technologies they will use to provide DA services. We
    expect the costs incurred in generating such reports to be nominal
    for all carriers, including small entities. Any costs incurred as a
    result of this proceeding on the entities affected, including any
    small businesses, will vary depending on the method of DA provision
    utilized and its underlying implementation costs. This proceeding
    may allow some small businesses to participate in the DA market for
    the first time, which would involve initial start-up costs. These
    costs, however, could be offset by future profits upon entering the
    market.

### Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

70. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
    entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
    and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
    for small entities.[^250]

71. This *Notice* offers several possible methods of opening the local
    DA market up to competition. Each of these methods will have a
    different impact on small businesses. One alternative involves
    eliminating the 411 code for DA services. This alternative would
    provide expanded opportunities for small businesses to enter the
    market; however, the cost of market entry appears significant. This
    alternative is discussed *supra* at paragraph 45. While this
    alternative provides a level playing field for all entities, it
    could also be the most technologically advanced requirement and the
    alternative with the greatest cost. A second alternative considered
    herein explores the possibility of using alternative dialing schemes
    (such as 555 numbers and abbreviated 411XX dialing codes). National
    555 numbers were created to provide a variety of information and
    telecommunications services. In addition, 555 numbers and 411XX
    codes could be used instead of the alternative of 411
    presubscription. Further comment on these thoughts is included
    *supra* in paragraphs 47 through 52. These alternatives could be
    easier to implement and less costly for small businesses to enter
    the market. Both of these alternatives are designed to open the
    local DA market to competition. Our belief is that by enhancing
    competition, we have created a space for small businesses to enter
    the market.

### Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules. 

72. None.

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 

73. This *Notice* *co*ntains 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 *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
    *Notice*; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of
    this *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.

## Comment Filing Procedures

74. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties shall file comments on or
    before thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this
    *Notice* in the Federal Register, and reply comments forty-five (45)
    days from the date of publication of this *Notice* in the Federal
    Register. 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, 13 FCC
    Rcd. 11322, 11326 (1998).

75. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<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. Or you may obtain a copy of
    the ASCII Electronic Transmittal From (FORM-ET) at
    \<[www.fcc.gov/e-file/email.html](http://www.fcc.gov/efile/email.html)\>
    .

76. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
    appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit
    two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
    number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary,
    Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties
    also should send three paper copies of their filing to Pam
    Slipakoff, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room 4-C421,
    Washington, D.C. 20554.

77. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
    comments on diskette to Pam Slipakoff, Network Services Division,
    Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^
    Street, S.W., Room 4-C421, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission
    should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM-compatible
    format using Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or a compatible software.
    The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be
    submitted in "read-only" mode. The diskette should be clearly
    labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding, including the lead
    docket number in the proceeding (CC Docket No. 99-273, type of
    pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the
    name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also
    include the following phrase ("Disk Copy Not an Original.") Each
    diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a
    single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette
    copies to the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International,
    Portals II, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC,
    20554.

78. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
    information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
    1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, are due on or before 30 days after date of
    publication in the Federal Register. Written comments must be
    submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the
    proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60
    days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition
    to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
    information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy
    Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12^th^
    Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
    [jboley@fcc.gov]{.underline} and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk
    Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 -- 17^th^ Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    20503.

79. The full text of this document is available for public inspection
    and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference
    Information Center, Portals II, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Room CY-A257,
    Washington, DC, 20554. This document may also be purchased from the
    Commission\'s duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals
    II, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554,
    telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail
    <qualexint@aol.com>**.** Alternative formats (computer diskette,
    large print, audio cassette and Braille) are available to persons
    with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418‑7426,
    TTY (202) 418‑7365, or at bmillin@fcc.gov.

80. [Other requirements]{.underline}. 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
    Commissions rules. 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. Comments and reply comments
    also must clearly identify the specific portion of this *Notice* to
    which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive. If a
    portion of a party\'s comments does not fall under a particular
    topic listed in the outline of this *Notice*, such comments must be
    included in a clearly labeled section at the beginning or end of the
    filing. [For further information contact]{.underline}: Pam Slipakoff
    at (202) 418-7705 (voice), (202) 418-0484 (TTY), or pslipako@fcc.gov
    (e-mail).

# ORDERING CLAUSES

81. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 3, 4,
    201, 202, 222, and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 153, 154, 201,202, 222, and 251 the
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* is hereby ADOPTED.

82. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, including the Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

#  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

#  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION {#federal-communications-commission .unnumbered}

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
    (1996 Act) (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."

[^2]: Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, *Second Report
    and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 19392, 19416
    (1996) (*Local Competition Second Report and Order*), *vacated in
    part, People of the State of California v. FCC*, 124 F.3d 934 (8^th^
    Cir. 1997), *rev. AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Util. Bd*., 119 S.Ct. 721 (Jan.
    25, 1999).

[^3]: *Id.*

[^4]: Provision of Directory Listing Information under the
    Telecommunications Act of 1934, as Amended, *First Report and
    Order*, CC Docket. 99-273, 16 FCC Rcd 2736 (2001) (*SLI/DA First
    Report and Order*).

[^5]: *See SLI/DA First Report and Order*. *See also,* Implementation of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use
    of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer
    Information, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Provision of Directory Listing
    Information under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, As Amended*,*
    CC Docket Nos. 96-115, 96-98, 99-273, *Third Report and Order*,
    *Second Order on Reconsideration*, and *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 15550 (1999) (*SLI/DA Order and Notice*).

[^6]: Telegate *ex parte* at ii (filed Mar. 10, 2000) (Telegate
    Proposal). Telegate is the US subsidiary of Telegate AG, a German
    corporation founded in August 1996. The core business of Telegate AG
    is the provision of DA and other directory services such as call
    completion. As we discuss in paragraphs 7-11 *infra*, under the
    applicable sections of the Act, the duty to provide presubscription
    to 411 would apply to all LECs, not just incumbent LECs.

[^7]: *See SLI/DA Order and Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd 15550.

[^8]: *Id.* at 15645.

[^9]: *Id.* at 15648-49.

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3).

[^11]: *SLI/DA Order and Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 15646.

[^12]: Several commenters opined that consideration of Telegate's
    proposal was inappropriate in that proceeding. *See, e.g.,* Bell
    Atlantic Comments at 2; BellSouth Comments at 3; BellSouth Reply
    Comments at 2; InfoNXX Comments at 1--6.

[^13]: Telegate Proposal.

[^14]: Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Further Comment on Telegate's
    Proposal for Presubscription to "411" Directory Assistance Services,
    *Public Notice*, CC Docket Nos. 99-273 and 98-67, DA 00-930 (CCB
    April 27, 2000) (*Telegate Public Notice*). The *Telegate Public
    Notice* also sought comment on the technical and economic
    feasibility of implementing presubscription to other N11 codes, such
    as 711 access for Telecommunications Relay Services. Several parties
    filed extensive comments on this proposal. We plan to address this
    proposal and the corresponding comments in a separate proceeding at
    a later date.

[^15]: *Id*. at 1.

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *SLI/DA First Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 2376.

[^18]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 251(b)(3).

[^19]: *SLI/DA First Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 2738; *see also*
    47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3).

[^20]: *SLI/DA First Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 2738-39.

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 222(e).

[^22]: *SLI/DA First Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 2739.

[^23]: *Id.* at 2741 at n. 28. Several commenters opined that
    consideration of Telegate's proposal was inappropriate in that
    proceeding. *See, e.g.,* Bell Atlantic Comments at 2; BellSouth
    Comments at 3; BellSouth Reply Comments at 2; InfoNXX Comments at
    1--6.

[^24]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3).

[^25]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 19409.

[^26]: *Id.* at 19410.

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: *See* Petition of US West Communications, Inc. for a Declaratory
    Ruling Regarding the Provision of National Directory Assistance,
    Petition of US West Communications, Inc. for Forbearance, CC Docket
    No. 97-172, The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing
    Arrangements, CC Docket No. 92-105, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    14 FCC Rcd 16252, 16284-86 (1999) (*US West NDA Forbearance Order*);
    *also citing* to The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing
    Arrangements, CC Docket No. 92-105, *First Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 5572, 5600-01
    (1997) (*N11 First Report and Order*).

[^29]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19416.

[^30]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3).

[^31]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19402,
    19444.

[^32]: *Id.* at 19461-63.

[^33]: *SLI/DA Order and Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 15618.

[^34]: *Id.* at 15646.

[^35]: *SLI/DA First Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 2744-50.

[^36]: *See e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd*., 525 U.S. 366, 378
    (1999) (holding that the Commission has rulemaking authority to
    carry out the provisions of the Act including section 251).

[^37]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19461-63.

[^38]: *SLI/DA First Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 2743-49.

[^39]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 202(a).

[^40]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1).

[^41]: *See e.g., N11 First Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5579-80.
    The Commission's authority over N11 codes includes authority over
    "911" for emergency services, "711" for telephone relay services
    (TRS), and "311" for non-emergency police calls.

[^42]: We note that the 411 code, although popularly associated with DA,
    has never been permanently assigned by the Commission for that
    purpose.

[^43]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19508.
    *See also N11 First Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5579-80.

[^44]: US West Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^45]: *See SLI/DA First Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 2738. *See
    also* *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19399, 19444-45, 19461; *SLI/DA Order and Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    15556, 15616; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, *Third
    Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    15 FCC Rcd 3696, 3890 (1999) (*UNE Remand Order*).

[^46]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19399.

[^47]: *See, e.g.,* 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b)(3) and 271.

[^48]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B).

[^49]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19398.

[^50]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3891, 3894 (the Commission
    found significant evidence of a wholesale market available to
    carriers for the provision of operator services and directory
    assistance, and therefore concluded that, where ILECs provide
    customized routing, ILECs should not be required under section
    251(c)(3) to provide DA to requesting telecommunications providers
    as an unbundled network element).

[^51]: US West Comments at 4.

[^52]: *See UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3891-92; *see also SLI/DA
    First Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 2741.

[^53]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 389.

[^54]: The Commission has taken many steps to promote competition in
    both the retail and wholesale DA markets. For example, in the *Local
    Competition Second Report and Order*, the Commission required the
    LECs to provide nondiscriminatory access to a wholesale DA item,
    access to databases, and a retail item, branding. *See* *Local
    Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19461, 19463.

[^55]: Telegate Proposal at 2.

[^56]: *Id*.

[^57]: *Id*. at 2-3.

[^58]: Abbreviated dialing codes provide consumers with easy access to
    important services from any location in the country. For example, in
    the *N11 Second Report and Order*, the Commission stated "\[t\]he
    sooner 711 access to TRS is implemented on a nationwide basis, the
    sooner all Americans will experience the enhanced efficiency and
    convenience that three-digit dialing has to offer." *See* The Use of
    N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, *Second Report
    and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 15188, 15204 (2000).

[^59]: *See e.g.*, Telegate *ex parte* at 7, July 24, 2001.

[^60]: Telegate Proposal at 6-7.

[^61]: *See* Telegate *ex parte*, attachment at 3, September 26, 2001.

[^62]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^63]: *Id.* at 2.

[^64]: *See e.g.*, Telegate *ex parte* at 10, July 24, 2001.

[^65]: *See* Telegate *ex parte*, January 23, 2001; Telegate *ex parte*,
    September 26, 2001.

[^66]: *See* Telegate *ex parte*, attachment at 5, September 26, 2001.

[^67]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 1; Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 1;
    BellSouth Comments at 16; SBC Comments at 1; USTA Comments at 1; US
    West Comments at 4 .

[^68]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 7, GTE Comments at 8.

[^69]: *See BellSouth, et al. ex parte* at 11, March 12, 2001, *citing*
    *Local Directory Assistance Services Market*, Frost & Sullivan
    (2000) (Frost & Sullivan Report).

[^70]: *See e.g.,* Telegate *ex parte* at 4 , July 24, 2001, (regarding
    low accuracy rates and poor service quality associated with LEC
    provision of DA service).

[^71]: *See, e.g.,* Qwest *ex parte,* May 24, 2001, *citing* Frost &
    Sullivan Report at 46 (2000).

[^72]: Qwest *ex parte*, May 24, 2001, *citing* Frost & Sullivan Report
    at 46 (2000).

[^73]: *Id*.

[^74]: *Id*.

[^75]: *Id*.

[^76]: *Id*. at 51.

[^77]: *Id*.

[^78]: *Id*. at 53.

[^79]: Enhanced DA services are DA services that offer additional
    features such as multiple listing from a single call or concierge
    services. We discuss the provision of enhanced DA by LECs and
    competitive DA providers in para. 46, *infra*.

[^80]: Frost & Sullivan Report at 25-26.

[^81]: *Id*. at 26.

[^82]: *See* Metro One Comments at 2-5, SBC Comments at 2-5, USTA
    Comments at 6-8.

[^83]: Telegate Proposal, Attachment A, Affidavit of John M. Celentano,
    para. 4 (Celentano Affidavit). Mr. Celentano is the President of
    Skyline Marketing Group, Ltd.

[^84]: *Id*. at para. 4.

[^85]: *Id*.

[^86]: *Id*.

[^87]: *Id*.

[^88]: *Id*.

[^89]: *Id*.

[^90]: *Id*. at para. 6.

[^91]: *Id*.

[^92]: *Id*.

[^93]: *Id*.

[^94]: *Id*.

[^95]: *Id*. at para. 7. The Commission has concluded that under section
    271(g)(4), a BOC is only authorized to provide customers with the
    capability to access that BOC's own centralized information storage
    facilities, but this requirement does not similarly limit IXC
    provision of non-local DA service. *See US West NDA Forbearance
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 16254. In the *US West NDA Forbearance Order*,
    the Commission concluded that US West's provision of nonlocal DA
    service to its in-region subscribers constitutes the provision of
    in-region, interLATA service, as defined in section 271 of the Act.
    The Commission, however, found that the region wide component of US
    West's nonlocal DA service falls within the scope of the exception
    provided in section 271(g)(4) of the Act for incidental interLATA
    services. Thus, US West was permitted to provide this service
    without obtaining authorization from the Commission to provide
    in-region, interLATA service under section 271(d) of the Act.

[^96]: AIN is an advanced telephone network architecture that allows the
    routing of calls based on information stored in databases external
    to the network's central office switches. *See* Celentano Affidavit
    at paras. 16-19. Through the use of AIN, that part of a Class 5
    digital switching system known as the signal switching point (SSP)
    is able to utilize SS7 signaling to communicate via packet data
    switches known as signal transfer points (STPs) with databases known
    as service control points (SCPs). *Id*. at paras. 20-21. These SCPs
    contain subscriber-specific information that may then be used to
    route calls for specific services. *Id*. at para. 20. AIN inserts
    trigger detection points between the multiple serial actions of call
    processing in a local switch. *Id*. at para. 19. When a trigger
    detection point is set, the SSP will suspend the call, and launch a
    query to the SCP to find out how the call should be routed. *Id*. at
    21. Call processing resumes when the SCP responds with routing
    instructions. *Id*. at para. 21. This "query and response" activity
    typically takes place within about half a second after a caller
    dials the last digit of a telephone number. *Id*.

[^97]: Telegate Proposal, Attachment A at 8.

[^98]: *See* Celentano Affidavit at para. 9.

[^99]: Telegate Reply Comments at 29.

[^100]: Telegate Proposal at 12-13.

[^101]: Celentano Affidavit at paras. 16-21, 28.

[^102]: *Id*. at para. 31; *see also* Telegate Proposal at 13.

[^103]: Celentano Affidavit at paras. 9, 16.

[^104]: LTD Comments at 5.

[^105]: Telegate Proposal at 12.

[^106]: *Id*.

[^107]: Telegate Proposal at 14.

[^108]: *See* BellSouth Comments at 16; GTE Comments at 11; USTA
    Comments at 7; US West Comments at 14.

[^109]: *See* SBC Comments at 3; USTA Comments at 7.

[^110]: Celentano Affidavit at para. 28.

[^111]: US West Comments at 19.

[^112]: USTA Comments at 7.

[^113]: *Id*.

[^114]: SBC Comments at 3.

[^115]: *Id*.

[^116]: *See* Telegate Proposal at 13, n.17; Celentano Affidavit at
    paras. 8-15.

[^117]: Celentano Affidavit at para. 11.

[^118]: *Id.*

[^119]: *Id.* at para. 8.

[^120]: *Id*. at para. 12.

[^121]: *Id*. at para. 13-14.

[^122]: *Id*. at para. 15.

[^123]: Illuminet Comments at 2; Illuminet Reply Comments at 1-3.

[^124]: Non-listed numbers are not included in the LIDB databases, and
    apparently only a limited number of LIDB databases include address
    and ZIP Code information.

[^125]: Illuminet Reply Comments at 2.

[^126]: GTE Reply Comments at 6; SBC Reply Comments at 6.

[^127]: Telegate Proposal at 14.

[^128]: *Id.* at 15. *See also* WorldCom Comments at 2.

[^129]: Telegate Proposal at 14.

[^130]: *Id*.

[^131]: Telegate Proposal, Attachment B, Affidavit of Affidavit of
    Stephen E. Siwek (Siwek Affidavit). Siwek is a Principal with the
    Washington, D.C. based consulting firm of Economists Incorporated.

[^132]: Telegate Proposal at 15, *citing* Siwek Affidavit at para. 25.

[^133]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 3; Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 1;
    BellSouth Comments at 5, 15-17; GTE Comments at 10, 13-15; GTE Reply
    Comments at 2; Moultrie Comments at 2; SBC Comments at 5-7; SBC
    Comments at 5-7; Sprint Reply Comments at 2-3; USTA Comments at 8-9;
    US West Comments at 12, 15-19.

[^134]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 3.

[^135]: BellSouth Comments at 16.

[^136]: US West Comments at 15. US West also notes that they are the
    smallest of the ILECs.

[^137]: USTA Comments at 8.

[^138]: GTE Comments at 10.

[^139]: *Id*. at 14.

[^140]: Telegate Reply Comments at 17.

[^141]: *Id*. at 18.

[^142]: *Id*. at 18-20.

[^143]: *Id*. at 20-22.

[^144]: *Id*. at 22-25.

[^145]: *Id*. at 26-37.

[^146]: *Id*. at 27-28.

[^147]: Telegate Proposal at 14.

[^148]: For example, US West claims that the actual costs will be four
    times what Telegate proposes. *See, e.g.*, US West Comments at 12.

[^149]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 4-5.

[^150]: *See Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19418-20.

[^151]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 5; BellSouth Comments at 11; GTE
    Comments at 19. Slamming is changing a consumer's telephone
    provider. Cramming is the practice of adding additional or
    discretionary services to a customer's bill for services without the
    customer's authorization. Unlike slamming, cramming usually does not
    involve a change of the customer's service provider.

[^152]: SBC Comments at 8; GTE Reply Comments at 5. Section 258 of the
    Act addresses slamming by carriers, not by stand-alone DA providers.

[^153]: SBC Comments at 8.

[^154]: Telegate Reply Comments at 34-35.

[^155]: InfoNXX Comments at 9.

[^156]: BellSouth Comments at 14. 900 number calls are direct-dialed
    information access services. These calls are generally billed on a
    per call basis. A provider may elect to bill customers directly or
    use their carrier's billing services.

[^157]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 228(i)(1), 228(b)(5).

[^158]: 47 U.S.C. § 228(i)(2).

[^159]: Telegate Proposal at 16-18. *See also* WorldCom Comments at 5.

[^160]: Telegate Proposal at 17, *citing* Siwek Affidavit at para. 31.

[^161]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 8, USTA Comments at 10. An informal
    survey conducted by 10-10PhoneRates.com indicates that 60% of
    respondents would prefer to choose their 411 provider via balloting,
    25% would not choose balloting, and 15% do not care. *See*
    10-10PhoneRates.com Comments at 2

[^162]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 8, BellSouth Comments at 17.

[^163]: *See* *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19434.

[^164]: *Id*. at 19418-20.

[^165]: *Id*. at 19419-20.

[^166]: *Id*. at 19400-01, 19418-20.

[^167]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(3).

[^168]: InfoNXX Comments at 7.

[^169]: *Id*. at 8.

[^170]: *Id*. at 7. Currently, ILECs have exclusive control of 411
    access for their customers.

[^171]: *Id*. at 7-8.

[^172]: *Id*. at 8, *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(8).

[^173]: *Id* at 8.

[^174]: US West Comments at 12.

[^175]: Moultrie Comments at 4. (Moultrie states that the costs
    associated with implementation of competitive DA should be allocated
    to the interstate jurisdiction because, in a fully competitive DA
    service scenario, DA centers will likely be nationally or regionally
    centralized, and since a rational assumption can be made that
    facilities transporting DA queries to DA call centers likely contain
    interstate traffic in excess of ten percent. Moultrie also states
    that allocating to the interstate jurisdiction both the initial and
    ongoing costs and expenses associated with the implementation of DA
    competition should remove any argument any state public utility
    commission could make regarding state jurisdiction over the recovery
    of costs.)

[^176]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.32-52.33.

[^177]: *See* Telephone Number Portability, *Third Report and Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd 11701 (1998) (*Telephone Number Portability Third Report and
    Order*); *see also* Numbering Resource Optimization, *Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 7574
    (2000) (*Numbering Resource Optimization Report and Order and
    FNPRM*).

[^178]: *Telegate Public Notice* at 3.

[^179]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 5, Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 2.

[^180]: Metro One Comments at 7.

[^181]: LTD Comments at 5-6. *See also* Moultrie Comments at 3-4
    (Moultrie also notes that a centralized database would ensure the
    privacy of nonpublished numbers); WorldCom Comments at 10-12.

[^182]: LTD Comments at 6.

[^183]: LTD would also like to see a "human voice," with local
    knowledge, brought back to directory assistance. LTD believes this
    can be implemented through AIN and IP technology. LTD Comments at
    3-5.

[^184]: *See* Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability to all Americans in a Reasonable and
    Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment
    Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC
    Docket No. 98-146, *Second Report*, 15 FCC Rcd 20913 (2000) (*Second
    Broadband Report*). A third report from the Commission is now
    pending, for Congress has instructed the Commission to conduct
    regular inquiries concerning the availability of advanced
    telecommunications capability pursuant to section 706.

[^185]: *Second Broadband Report*, 15 FCC Rcd at 20918, 20991.

[^186]: *Id*. at 20918, 20994-21003.

[^187]: Metro One Comments at 2-3.

[^188]: *Id*. at 3-5.

[^189]: 555-XXXX numbers were originally intended for the support of DA
    service and are now used to provide a variety of information and
    telecommunications services. These numbers may be used for local or
    national services. *See* paras. 47-49, *infra*.

[^190]: CACs are created when a 101 number is followed by a carrier
    identification code (CIC). CICs are numeric codes that enable LECs
    providing interstate interexchange access services to identify the
    interstate IXC that the originating caller wishes to use to transmit
    its interstate call. *See* paras. 50-52, *infra*.

[^191]: *See* paras. 50-52, *infra.*

[^192]: Metro One Comments at 6.

[^193]: Telegate *ex parte* at 3, March 14, 2001.

[^194]: Moultrie Comments at 1.

[^195]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 10; GTE Comments at 5-7; SBC Reply
    Comments at 5.

[^196]: *See* Siwek Affidavit at para. 14 (*citing* Frost & Sullivan
    Report).

[^197]: *N11 First Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 5600-02.

[^198]: *Id*.

[^199]: *See* \<[www.nanpa.com\>;]() *see also* Industry Numbering
    Committee, *555 Technical Service Interconnection Arrangements* at
    para. 1.2 (Sept. 10, 1999) (555 Service Arrangements).

[^200]: *See* \<www.nanpa.com\>.

[^201]: *See* Industry Numbering Committee, *555 NXX Assignment
    Guidelines* (July 13, 1998) (INC Guidelines).

[^202]: The NANP was established over 50 years ago by AT&T to facilitate
    the expansion of long distance calling. It is the basic numbering
    scheme for the United States, Canada, and most Caribbean countries.
    The NANP is based on a 10-digit dialing pattern in the format
    NXX-NXX-XXXX where "N" represents any digit 2-9 and "X" represents
    any digit 0-9. The first three digits represent the numbering plan
    area (NPA), commonly known as the area code. The second three digits
    represent the central office, or NXX code, commonly referred to as
    an exchange. The last four digits represent the subscriber line
    number.

[^203]: Metro One Comments at 6.

[^204]: *Id.* at 6.

[^205]: *Id*.

[^206]: *See* Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Change
    Provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules
    Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers Long Distance Carriers
    *Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,*
    CC Docket No. 94-129, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1595-97 (1998).

[^207]: *Id*.

[^208]: *Id*.

[^209]: *Id*.

[^210]: Metro One Comments at 6.

[^211]: LTD Comments at 6.

[^212]: On June 25, 2001, the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau directed the
    North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) to make
    available for assignment additional Feature Group D Carrier
    Identification Codes, starting on August 6, 2001. *See* Common
    Carrier Bureau Direct the NANPA to Make Available For Assignment
    Additional Feature Group D Carrier Identification Codes*, Public
    Notice*, DA 01-1519 (CCB rel. June 26, 2001).

[^213]: Metro One Comments at 6.

[^214]: *Id*.

[^215]: *Id*.

[^216]: SBC Reply Comments at 5.

[^217]: Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 2; GTE Reply Comments at 7; SBC
    Reply Comments at 5.

[^218]: Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 2-3.

[^219]: *Id*. at 4-6.

[^220]: *See* BellSouth Comments at 4-6; GTE Comments at 18.

[^221]: *See e.g.*, BellSouth Comments at 5.

[^222]: 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, 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).

[^223]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^224]: *Id*.

[^225]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^226]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^227]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    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 definition(s) of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^228]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^229]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^230]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^231]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162.

[^232]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^233]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census of
    Governments.\"

[^234]: *Id*.

[^235]: FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
    *Telecommunications Provider Locator*, Tables 1-2 (November 2001)
    (*Provider Locator*).

[^236]: *1992 Census* at Firm Size 1‑123.

[^237]: 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1).

[^238]: *1992 Census* at Firm Size 1-123.

[^239]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) codes 513310, 513330, and 513340.

[^240]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^241]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business
    Act contains a definition of "small business concern," which the RFA
    incorporates into its own definition of "small business." *See* 15
    U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA). SBA
    regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the
    concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b).
    Since 1996, out of an abundance of caution, the Commission has
    included small incumbent LECs in its regulatory flexibility
    analyses. *See, e.g.*, Implementation of the Local Competition
    Provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket, 96-98,
    *First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16144-45 (1996).

[^242]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 513310, 513330, and 513340.

[^243]: *Provider Locator* at Table 1.

[^244]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 513310, 513330, and 513340.

[^245]: *Provider Locator* at Table 1.

[^246]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 513310, 513330, and 513340.

[^247]: *Provider Locator* at Table 1.

[^248]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 513310, 513330, and 513340.

[^249]: *Provider Locator* at Table 1.

[^250]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).