**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Petition of Bell Atlantic for Forbearance from ) CC Docket No. 97-172

Section 272 Requirements in Connection )

With National Directory Assistance Services )

)

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: December 21, 1999 Released: December 22, 1999**

By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. On October 22, 1999, Bell Atlantic filed a petition for forbearance
from the enforcement of section 272 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act), in
connection with its provision of nonlocal directory assistance
service.[^1] In this Order, we conclude that Bell Atlantic\'s provision
of nonlocal directory assistance service to its in-region subscribers
constitutes the provision of in-region, interLATA service, as defined in
section 271(a) of the Act. Because we find, however, that such service
falls within the scope of the exception provided in section 271(g)(4),
we conclude that Bell Atlantic may continue to provide nonlocal
directory assistance service without obtaining section 271(d)
authorization from the Commission.

2.  We further conclude in this Order that, although the incidental
    interLATA services described in section 271(g)(4) must normally be
    provided through a separate affiliate,[^2] in accordance with
    section 10, we forbear, in part, from applying the requirements of
    section 272 to Bell Atlantic\'s provision of nonlocal directory
    assistance service. We allow Bell Atlantic to provide nonlocal
    directory assistance service on an integrated basis, but require it
    to make available to unaffiliated entities all of the in-region
    telephone numbers it uses to provide nonlocal directory assistance
    service at the same rates, terms, and conditions it imputes to
    itself pursuant to section 272(c)(1) and our authority under
    sections 4(i), 10, and 303(r).

**II. BACKGROUND**

**A. Bell Atlantic\'s Nonlocal Directory Assistance Service**

3.  Bell Atlantic offers nonlocal directory assistance service to
    customers throughout its region.[^3] This service permits Bell
    Atlantic to offer both local and nonlocal directory assistance
    service from a single telephone number.[^4] By dialing the number
    for local directory assistance, which is usually 411 or 555-1212, in
    the Bell Atlantic region, customers can obtain the telephone number
    of a subscriber located anywhere in the United States.[^5]

4\. Bell Atlantic explains that calls to 411 or 555-1212 are routed in
the following manner in its network. When a customer dials 411 or
555-1212, the local central office switch will route the call to an
operator services switch, which adds the Automatic Directory Assistance
Services (ADAS) platform to the call.[^6] The ADAS system will deliver a
script requesting the city, state, and listing desired.[^7] If the
caller requests the telephone number of a subscriber located in New York
or New England, the information is retrieved from an information storage
facility located either in New York or Massachusetts where Bell Atlantic
stores its local directory assistance information.[^8] Bell Atlantic
states that it uses its official services network (OSN), which cross
LATA boundaries, to retrieve information from its local directory
assistance databases.[^9]

5\. If the caller requests the telephone number of a subscriber located
outside New York or New England, the information is retrieved from an
information storage facility located either in Orange, California or
Wallington, New Jersey.[^10] Bell Atlantic states that, although these
storage facilities were owned by VoltDelta, they "have been purchased by
Bell Atlantic."[^11] Thus, according to Bell Atlantic, all of the
directory assistance information it uses in the provision of nonlocal
directory assistance service is stored in information storage facilities
that are owned by Bell Atlantic.[^12] Bell Atlantic states that the
information retrieved from the nonlocal directory assistance storage
facilities is transmitted by an interexchange carrier.[^13]

**B. Statutory Framework**

**1. Sections 271 and 272**

6\. Sections 271 and 272 establish a comprehensive framework governing
BOC provision of \"interLATA service.\"[^14] Pursuant to section 271,
neither a BOC nor a BOC affiliate may provide in-region, interLATA
service prior to receiving section 271(d) authorization from the
Commission.[^15] There are two exceptions to this requirement in the
statute: section 271(f) and section 271(b)(3). The first exception,
section 271(f), provides, in relevant part, that section 271(a) shall
not:

\[P\]rohibit a \[BOC\] or affiliate from engaging, at any time after the
date of enactment of the \[1996 Act\], in any activity to the extent
authorized by, and subject to the terms and conditions contained in, an
order entered by the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia pursuant to section VII or VIII(C) of the AT&T Consent Decree
if such order was entered on or before such date of enactment, to the
extent such order is not reversed or vacated on appeal.[^16]

7\. The second exception, section 271(b)(3), authorizes the BOCs to
engage in the provision of the \"incidental interLATA services\"
described in section 271(g) immediately after the date of enactment of
the 1996 Act.[^17] One such service is defined in section 271(g)(4) as
\"the interLATA provision by a \[BOC\] or its affiliate . . . of a
service that permits a customer that is located in one LATA to retrieve
stored information from, or file information for storage in, information
storage facilities of such company that are located in another
LATA.\"[^18] There are two limitations to section 271(g)(4). First, that
provision must be \"narrowly construed.\"[^19] Second, we must ensure
that the services authorized under that provision \"will not adversely
affect telephone exchange ratepayers or competition in any
telecommunications market.\"[^20] BOCs are required to provide the
services permitted under section 271(g)(4) through a separate
affiliate.[^21]

**2. Section 10**

8\. The 1996 Act requires the Commission to forbear from applying any
regulation or any provision of the Act to telecommunications carriers or
telecommunications services, or classes thereof, if the Commission
determines that the three conditions set forth in section 10 are
satisfied. In particular, section 10 provides that:

\[T\]he Commission shall forbear from applying any regulation or any
provision of this Act to a telecommunications carrier or
telecommunications service, or class of telecommunications carriers or
telecommunications services, in any or some of its or their geographic
markets, if the Commission determines that \--

\(1\) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to
ensure that the charges, practices, classifications or regulations by,
for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or
telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly
or unreasonably discriminatory;

\(2\) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for
the protection of consumers; and

\(3\) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is
consistent with the public interest.[^22]

With regard to the public interest determination required by section
10(a)(3), section 10(b) states that, \"\[i\]f the Commission determines
that such forbearance will promote competition among providers of
telecommunications services, that determination may be the basis for a
Commission finding that forbearance is in the public interest.\"[^23]
Section 10(d) specifies, however, that \"\[e\]xcept as provided in
section 251(f), the Commission may not forbear from applying the
requirements of section 251(c) or 271 under \[section 10(a)\] until it
determines that those requirements have been fully implemented.\"[^24]

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A. Overview**

9\. As a threshold matter, we note that, in the *U S WEST NDA
Forbearance Order*, the Commission considered, for the first time,
whether a BOC's provision of nonlocal directory assistance service is
lawful under the Act. In that proceeding, U S WEST generally argued that
it need not obtain authorization from the Commission to provide nonlocal
directory assistance service because the service: (1) did not constitute
the provision of in-region, interLATA service within the meaning of
section 271(a);[^25] (2) was previously authorized within the meaning of
section 271(f);[^26] or (3) was an incidental interLATA service within
the meaning of section 271(g)(4).[^27] The Commission held that U S WEST
may provide the regionwide component of its nonlocal directory
assistance service without obtaining authorization from the Commission
to provide in-region, interLATA service under section 271(d) because
such service fell within the scope of the exception provided in section
271(g)(4).[^28] Although section 272 requires the services described in
section 271(g)(4) to be provided through a separate affiliate, in the *U
S WEST NDA Forbearance Order*, the Commission forbore from enforcing
those requirements with respect to U S WEST's provision of the
regionwide component of its nonlocal directory assistance service, but
decided to retain the nondiscrimination requirements of section
272(c)(1).[^29]

**B. Section 271(g)(4)**

10. We conclude that Bell Atlantic's provision of nonlocal directory
    assistance service constitutes the provision of in-region, interLATA
    service. In providing nonlocal directory assistance service to its
    in-region subscribers, Bell Atlantic uses interLATA transmission to
    connect end-users to directory assistance operators and to retrieve
    directory listing information from the appropriate information
    storage facility.[^30] In view of these interLATA transmissions, we
    conclude that Bell Atlantic's nonlocal directory assistance service
    is an in-region, interLATA service within the meaning of section
    271(a).[^31] We further conclude, however, that Bell Atlantic may
    provide nonlocal directory assistance service without obtaining
    authorization from the Commission because such service falls within
    the scope of the exception provided in section 271(g)(4) for
    incidental interLATA services.

11. As previously noted, section 271(g)(4) authorizes \"the interLATA
    provision by a \[BOC\] or its affiliate . . . of a service that
    permits a customer that is located in one LATA to retrieve
    information from, or file information for storage in, information
    storage facilities of such company that are located in another
    LATA.\"[^32] In the *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order*, the Commission
    concluded that section 271(g)(4) authorizes BOC provision of the
    capability for customers to access only the BOC\'s *own* centralized
    information storage facilities.[^33] We find that Bell Atlantic's
    nonlocal directory assistance service is configured in the same
    manner as the regionwide component of the nonlocal directory
    assistance services the Commission considered in the *U S WEST NDA
    Forbearance Order*. As Bell Atlantic notes, the only difference
    between its nonlocal directory assistance service and U S WEST's
    nonlocal directory assistance service is that, unlike U S WEST, it
    owns all of the information storage facilities it uses in the
    provision of nonlocal directory assistance service.[^34] More
    specifically, Bell Atlantic states that, although the information
    storage facilities it uses in the provision of nonlocal directory
    assistance service were owned by VoltDelta, they are now owned by
    Bell Atlantic.[^35]

12. On the basis of Bell Atlantic's representation that it owns the
    information storage facilities it uses in the provision of nonlocal
    directory assistance service, we conclude that Bell Atlantic's
    nonlocal directory assistance service is an incidental interLATA
    service as that term is defined in section 271(g)(4).[^36] Bell
    Atlantic, therefore, may provide nonlocal directory assistance
    service to customers throughout its region without obtaining
    authorization from the Commission under section 271(d) to provide
    in-region, interLATA service.

13. We reject AT&T's claim that, before the Commission may grant Bell
    Atlantic's petition for forbearance, Bell Atlantic must first
    disclose "the precise terms of its agreements with VoltDelta."[^37]
    The *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* establishes that a BOC's
    provision of a data storage and retrieval service falls within the
    scope of section 271(g)(4) as long as it owns the information
    storage facility used in the provision of such service.[^38] As
    noted above, Bell Atlantic explicitly states that it owns the
    information storage facilities used in the provision of nonlocal
    directory assistance service. In the absence of evidence to the
    contrary, we find that such a representation is sufficient to
    demonstrate that Bell Atlantic's nonlocal directory assistance
    service constitutes an incidental interLATA service within the
    meaning of section 271(g)(4).

# Section 10

14. For the reasons set forth below, we forbear, in part, from
    section 272. We allow Bell Atlantic to provide nonlocal directory
    assistance service on an integrated basis, but require it to provide
    to unaffiliated entities all of the in-region directory listing
    information it uses to provide nonlocal directory assistance service
    at the same rates, terms, and conditions it imputes to itself. With
    respect to the first criterion for forbearance, we find it relevant
    that Bell Atlantic is a relatively new entrant in the market for
    nonlocal directory assistance service that faces competition from
    interexchange carriers such as AT&T and MCI, Internet service
    providers, providers of payphone and cellular services, and
    independent directory assistance service providers such as
    INFONXX.[^39] We also are persuaded by the fact that Bell Atlantic
    does not exercise monopoly power over the components used to provide
    the telephone numbers of customers outside its region.[^40]

15. Bell Atlantic correctly points out that, in the *U S WEST NDA
    Forbearance Order*, the Commission required U S WEST to comply with
    the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in section
    272(c)(1).[^41] We find that the reasoning set forth in the *U S
    WEST NDA Forbearance Order* is fully applicable to Bell Atlantic\'s
    nonlocal directory assistance service.[^42] We, therefore, impose
    these same requirements on Bell Atlantic. Thus, Bell Atlantic
    must: (1) make available to unaffiliated entities all of the
    directory listing information that is uses to provide regionwide
    directory assistance service at the same rates, terms, and
    conditions it imputes to itself; (2) make changes to its cost
    allocation manual to reflect this accounting change; and (3) update
    and maintain the directory listing information it provides to
    unaffiliated entities in the same manner it updates and maintains
    the directory listing information it uses in the provision of
    nonlocal directory assistance service.[^43] Bell Atlantic states
    that, in providing nonlocal directory assistance service, it will
    comply with the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in the *U S
    WEST NDA Forbearance Order*. On the basis of this finding, we
    conclude that the first criterion for criteria for forbearance is
    satisfied.

16. With respect to the second criterion for forbearance, we note that
    retention of the section 272(c)(1) nondiscrimination requirements
    with respect to Bell Atlantic's in-region telephone numbers should
    promote the development of a fully competitive market for nonlocal
    directory assistance service by ensuring that no one competitor will
    have an undue advantage in the nonlocal directory assistance
    services market.[^44] This should stimulate the entry of new
    providers of nonlocal directory assistance service, which, in turn,
    will encourage the providers of these services to compete on the
    basis of price and quality.[^45] Because competition will ultimately
    benefit consumers, we conclude that the enforcement of section 272
    is not necessary to prevent Bell Atlantic from engaging in conduct
    that would impede competition in the market for nonlocal directory
    assistance service, and thereby harm consumers.[^46] We, therefore,
    find that the second criterion for forbearance is met.

17. With respect to the third criterion for forbearance, we conclude
    that allowing Bell Atlantic to provide nonlocal directory assistance
    service on an integrated basis will allow Bell Atlantic to be a more
    effective competitor in the nonlocal directory assistance services
    market.[^47] Conversely, if Bell Atlantic were required to provide
    nonlocal directory assistance service through a separate affiliate,
    while continuing to provide local directory assistance service on an
    integrated basis, the section 272 safeguards would pose significant
    adverse competitive consequences for Bell Atlantic, without positive
    benefits for consumers.[^48] We conclude that the market for
    nonlocal directory assistance service should become increasingly
    competitive if Bell Atlantic is allowed to remain an effective
    competitor in the nonlocal directory assistance services market,
    which would ultimately benefit consumers because they would be able
    to obtain a convenient, competitively priced service.[^49] On the
    basis of these findings, we conclude that the third criterion for
    forbearance was met. Because we also find that the first and second
    criteria for forbearance are met, we forbear, in part, from the
    enforcement of section 272 as to Bell Atlantic's provision of
    nonlocal directory assistance service.

18. Some commenters state that the section 272(c)(1) nondiscrimination
    requirements are not sufficient to ensure that Bell Atlantic will
    treat unaffiliated entities in a nondiscriminatory fashion.[^50]
    Excell maintains, for example, that, under the nondiscrimination
    requirement, the BOCs "are able to charge any rate, no matter how
    unreasonable, to unaffiliated entities as long as they 'impute'
    those same rates to themselves."[^51] According to these commenters,
    the Commission should require BOCs to provide directory listing
    information at rates that allow them a reasonable opportunity to
    compete.[^52]

19. We find that these commenters are requesting behavior that is not
    contemplated by the terms of the statute. The statute requires only
    that a BOC provide access to the in-region telephone numbers it uses
    in the provision of nonlocal directory assistance service on terms
    that comply with the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in
    section 272(c)(1). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to
    demonstrate that Bell Atlantic will fail to comply with the
    requirements set forth in section 272(c)(1). We thus reject these
    commenters claims that, before we may grant Bell Atlantic's
    forbearance petition, we must first ascertain specific facts as to
    how and when Bell Atlantic will implement the section 272(c)(1)
    nondiscrimination requirements. We further find that any arguments
    concerning Bell Atlantic's failure to comply with the requirements
    set forth in section 272(c)(1) or this Order are more appropriately
    addressed in the context of a formal complaint.

**IV. CONCLUSION**

20\. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Bell Atlantic may
continue providing nonlocal directory assistance service because that
service falls within the scope of section 271(g)(4). We further conclude
that, as long as Bell Atlantic complies with the nondiscrimination
requirements set forth above with respect to providing unaffiliated
entities with access to all of the in-region directory listing
information it uses to provide nonlocal directory assistance service,
the statutory criteria for forbearance set forth in section 10 are
satisfied for us to forbear, in part, from applying the requirements of
section 272. Thus, we allow Bell Atlantic to provide nonlocal directory
assistance service on an integrated basis, subject to these
nondiscrimination requirements.

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 10, 272,
    303(r), 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 160, 272, and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 0.291 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 that Bell Atlantic\'s petition
    for forbearance with respect to its nonlocal directory assistance
    service is GRANTED.

22. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.103(a) of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.103(a) that the effective date of
    this Order is December 22, 1999.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Robert C. Atkinson Deputy Chief

Common Carrier Bureau

**APPENDIX**

## [Comments \-- November 12, 1999]{.underline}

AT&T Corp. (AT&T)

Excell Agent Services, L.L.C.

MCI WorldCom, Inc. (MCI)

[Reply Comments \-- November 23, 1999 and November 29, 1999]{.underline}

AT&T

Bell Atlantic

Excell

MCI

INFONXX, Inc.

TelTrust, Inc.

[^1]: *Petition of Bell Atlantic for Forbearance from Section 272
    Requirements in Connection with National Directory Assistance
    Services*, CC Docket No. 97-172 (filed Oct. 22, 1999) (Bell
    Atlantic-North Petition). This petition was submitted by New York
    Telephone Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company.
    Bell Atlantic has filed a separate petition for its operating
    companies in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
    Washington, D.C., and West Virginia. *Petition of Bell Atlantic for
    Further Forbearance from Section 272 Requirements in Connection with
    National Directory Assistance* Services, CC Docket No. 97-172 (filed
    Nov. 5, 1999) (Bell Atlantic-South Petition). The forbearance
    granted in this Order extends only to Bell Atlantic's operating
    companies in New York and New England. A list of commenters on the
    Bell Atlantic-North petition is set forth in the Appendix.

[^2]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 272(a)(2)(B)(i).

[^3]: Bell Atlantic-North Forbearance Petition at 1. In the *U S WEST
    NDA Forbearance Order*, the Commission noted that there are two
    types of directory assistance service available to customers
    throughout the United States: local directory assistance and
    nonlocal directory assistance service. *In the Matter of Petition of
    U S WEST Communications, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling Regarding the
    Provision of National Directory Assistance,* CC Docket No. 97-172,
    *Petition of U S 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, FCC 99-133 (rel. Sept. 27, 1999) (*U S WEST NDA Forbearance
    Order*), at paras. 5-6. Directory assistance service is considered
    "local" whenever a customer requests the telephone number of a
    subscriber within his or her LATA or area code. *Id.* at para. 5*.*
    Customers typically access their LEC's local directory assistance
    service by dialing 411, 1-411, or 555-1212. Directory assistance
    service is considered "nonlocal" whenever a customer requests the
    telephone number of a subscriber located outside his or her LATA or
    area code. *Id*. at para. 6. Under the MFJ, BOCs were prohibited
    from providing nonlocal directory assistance service. *Id.* at para.
    5. Thus, nonlocal directory assistance service traditionally has
    been provided by interexchange carriers.

[^4]: *Id*.

[^5]: *Id.* at 2.

[^6]: *Id.*

[^7]: *Id.*

[^8]: Bell Atlantic-North Forbearance Petition at 2.

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *Id.*

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.* at 1; *see also* Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 4.

[^13]: Bell Atlantic-North Forbearance Petition at 2.

[^14]: The term "interLATA service" is defined in the Act as
    "telecommunications between a point located in a local access and
    transport area \[LATA\] and a point located outside such area." 47
    U.S.C. § 153(21). "Telecommunications," in turn, is defined as "the
    transmission, between or among points specified by the user, or
    information of the user's choosing without change in the form or
    content of the information as sent and received." *Id.* § 153(43).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(b)(1).

[^16]: *Id.* § 271(f).

[^17]: *Id*. § 271(b)(3).

[^18]: *Id*. § 271(g)(4). Section 272(a)(2)(B)(i) directs that a BOC
    provide such data retrieval and storage services only through a
    separate affiliate.

[^19]: *Id*. § 271(h).

[^20]: *Id*.

[^21]: *Id.* § 272(a)(2)(B).

[^22]: *Id*. § 160(a).

[^23]: *Id*. § 160(b).

[^24]: *Id*. § 160(d).

[^25]: *See U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at paras. 18-20.

[^26]: *Id.* at paras. 21-22.

[^27]: *Id.* at paras. 23-27.

[^28]: In the *U S WEST NDA Forbearanc*e Order, the Commission found
    that U S WEST provided two types of nonlocal directory assistance
    service: (1) regionwide directory assistance service; and (2)
    nationwide directory assistance service. The regionwide component of
    U S WEST's nonlocal directory assistance service allowed U S WEST
    subscribers to obtain the telephone number of a subscriber located
    within U S WEST's region. In providing regionwide directory
    assistance service, U S WEST used its own Regional Directory
    Assistance system located in Portland, Oregon. The nationwide
    component of U S WEST's nonlocal directory assistance service
    permitted U S WEST subscribers to obtain the telephone number of a
    subscriber located outside U S WEST's region. In providing
    nationwide directory assistance service, U S WEST used a "Nortel
    owned Quest411 system" located in Chicago, Illinois. *See id.* at
    paras. 9, 23-24. Upon noting that section 271(g)(4) permits a BOC to
    provide the services described therein only when it uses its own
    facilities, the Commission held that U S WEST could provide the
    regionwide component of its nonlocal directory assistance service
    pursuant to section 271(g)(4). It further ruled, however, that the
    nationwide component of U S WEST's nonlocal directory assistance
    service did not fall within the scope of section 271(g)(4) because U
    S WEST did not own the information storage facility it used in the
    provision of such service. *Id.* at para. 23-24.

[^29]: Upon noting that U S WEST's current practices with respect to the
    telephone numbers of subscribers inside its region were not
    sufficient to ensure that competition in the nonlocal directory
    assistance services market would continue to grow, the Commission
    decided to retain the nondiscrimination requirements of section
    272(c)(1). *Id.* at paras. 33-37. The Commission declined to apply
    the requirements of section 272 in their entirety on the basis that
    such requirements were broader than necessary to address the
    competitive advantages U S WEST enjoys with respect to the telephone
    numbers of subscribers within its region. *Id.* at para. 38.

[^30]: Bell Atlantic-North Forbearance Petition at 2; *see also*
    Attachment to Bell Atlantic-North Forbearance Petition (diagram
    explaining in detail how nonlocal directory assistance service calls
    are routed through Bell Atlantic's network). End-users, directory
    assistance operators, and the databases from which directory listing
    information are obtain are often located in different LATAs.

[^31]: *See U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 18.

[^32]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(g)(4).

[^33]: The Commission found that such a construction of the statute is
    apparent from Congress\' use of the term \"such company\" in setting
    forth the types of services authorized by section 271(g)(4). The
    Commission further noted that such a construction of section
    271(g)(4) is consistent with Congress\' directive that the
    provisions of section 271(g) are to be narrowly construed. *U S WEST
    NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 23.

[^34]: Bell Atlantic-North Forbearance Petition at 1.

[^35]: Some commenters urge the Commission to sanction Bell Atlantic for
    providing nonlocal directory assistance service using facilities
    that were owned by VoltDelta. *See* AT&T Comments at 4-8; Excell
    Comments at 4, 8-9; MCI Comments at 2. We find, however, that these
    arguments are more appropriately addressed in the context of a
    formal complaint proceeding.

[^36]: *See id.* § 271(h).

[^37]: AT&T Comments at 11-12.

[^38]: *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at paras. 23-27.

[^39]: Bell Atlantic-North Forbearance Petition at 3.

[^40]: In the *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order*, we noted that, like
    competing providers of nonlocal directory assistance service, U S
    WEST must obtain the telephone numbers of subscribers outside its
    region from non-affiliated entities that compile national listings
    or from other LECs. *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 33.

[^41]: Bell Atlantic-North Forbearance Petition at 3-5.

[^42]: In the *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order*, the Commission found
    that the competitive advantages U S WEST enjoyed with respect to the
    provision of directory assistance service throughout its region
    stemmed from its dominant position in the local exchange and
    exchange access markets. Specifically, the Commission found that,
    because of its dominance in these markets, U S WEST had access to a
    more complete, accurate, and reliable database than its competitors.
    Given that U S WEST's competitive advantages in the provision of
    regionwide directory assistance service stemmed from its local
    exchange and exchange access monopolies, the Commission found that U
    S WEST must comply with the nondiscrimination requirements set forth
    in section 272 with respect to the in-region telephone numbers it
    uses in the provision of nonlocal directory assistance service. *U S
    WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 35. Bell Atlantic has been the
    dominant provider of local exchange and exchange access services in
    New York and New England for many years. Like U S WEST, the
    competitive advantages Bell Atlantic possesses in the provision of
    the telephone numbers of customers inside its region that stem from
    its dominance in these markets.

[^43]: *See* *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 37.

[^44]: *Id.* at para. 47.

[^45]: *Id.*

[^46]: *Id.*

[^47]: *Id.* at paras. 48-51.

[^48]: *Id.* at para. 49.

[^49]: *Id.* at paras. 50-51.

[^50]: Excell Comments at 3; Teltrust Comments at 12-14.

[^51]: Excell Comments at 5.

[^52]: Excell Comments at 3 (arguing that such information should be
    provided at cost-based rates); *see also* INFONXX Comments at 7
    (stating that the Commission should require BOCs to provide
    directory listing information at "costs that make it economical for
    competing providers to access the data); Teltrust Comments at 11-16.