**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

BellSouth Petition for Forbearance ) CC Docket No. 97-172

for Nonlocal Directory Assistance )

Service )

)

Petition of SBC Communications Inc. ) CC Docket No. 97-172

for Forbearance of Structural Separation )

Requirements and Request for Immediate )

Interim Relief in Relation to the Provision of )

Nonlocal Directory Assistance Services )

)

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

Forbearance from Section 272 )

Requirements in Connection with National )

Directory Assistance Services )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: April 11, 2000 Released: April 11, 2000**

By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  BellSouth,[^1] SBC,[^2] and Bell Atlantic[^3] ("Petitioners") each
    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 services.[^4] In this
    Order, we conclude that the Petitioners' provision of nonlocal
    directory assistance service to their 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
    these services fall within the scope of the exception provided in
    section 271(g)(4), we conclude that the Petitioners may continue to
    provide nonlocal directory assistance service without obtaining
    authorization from the Commission to provide in-region, interLATA
    service pursuant to the requirements of section 271(d).

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,[^5] in accordance with
    section 10, we forbear, in part, from applying the requirements of
    section 272 to the Petitioners' nonlocal directory assistance
    services.[^6] We allow the Petitioners to provide nonlocal directory
    assistance on an integrated basis, but we require them to make
    available to unaffiliated entities all of the in-region telephone
    numbers they use to provide nonlocal directory assistance service at
    the same rates, terms, and conditions they impute to themselves
    pursuant to section 272(c)(1) and our authority under sections 4(i),
    10, and 303(r) of the Act.[^7]

    **II. BACKGROUND**

    **A. The Petitioners' Nonlocal Directory Assistance Services**

3.  The Petitioners offer nonlocal directory assistance service to
    customers throughout their regions.[^8] These services permit the
    Petitioners to offer both local and nonlocal directory assistance
    service from a single telephone number.[^9] By dialing the number
    for local directory assistance, the Petitioners' customers can
    obtain the telephone number of a subscriber located anywhere in the
    United States.[^10]

4.  The Petitioners' nonlocal directory assistance services are similar
    in terms of service configuration. Specifically, when a customer
    dials the number for local directory assistance service, the local
    central office switch will route the call to an operator services
    switch, which adds a voice response unit to the call.[^11] The voice
    response unit will deliver a script requesting the city, state, and
    listing desired and record the caller's responses.[^12] The operator
    receiving the call listens to the recorded request from the voice
    response unit, and if the end-user's response is incomplete or
    unintelligible, communicates directly with the caller to ascertain
    the desired listing.[^13] Upon obtaining this information, the
    operator launches a database query.

5.  If the requested number is local, the operator launches a query to
    an information storage facility that contains local directory
    listing information.[^14] On any such call, the caller, operator,
    and database may be located in different LATAs.[^15] The Petitioners
    typically use their Official Services Networks (OSN), which cross
    LATA boundaries, for the provision of local directory assistance
    service to their own local exchange subscribers.[^16]

6.  If the requested number is nonlocal, it will be retrieved from an
    information storage facility that contains either regional or
    nationwide listings.[^17] A regional information storage facility is
    queried when the caller requests the telephone number of a
    subscriber located within one of the Petitioners' in-region
    states.[^18] An information storage facility that contains national
    listings is queried when the caller requests the telephone number of
    a subscriber that resides outside the Petitioners' respective
    regions.[^19] On any nonlocal directory assistance call, the
    end-user, operator, and information storage facility information may
    be located in different LATAs. Thus, each Petitioner's nonlocal
    directory assistance service is provided on an interLATA basis. Each
    Petitioner states that it owns the information storage facility it
    uses in the provision of nonlocal directory assistance service.[^20]

## **B. Statutory Framework** {#b.-statutory-framework .unnumbered}

###  {#section .unnumbered}

### Sections 271 and 272

7.  Sections 271 and 272 establish a comprehensive framework governing
    BOC provision of "interLATA service."[^21] 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.[^22] There are two exceptions to this requirement in the
    statute: sections 271(f) and 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.[^23]

8.  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.[^24] 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."[^25] There are two limitations to our
    interpretation of section 271(g)(4). First, that provision must be
    "narrowly construed."[^26] Second, we must ensure that the services
    authorized under section 271(g)(4) "will not adversely affect
    telephone exchange service ratepayers or competition in any
    telecommunications market."[^27] BOC's are required to provide the
    services authorized under section 271(g)(4) through a separate
    affiliate.[^28]

###  2. Section 10 {#section-10 .unnumbered}

9.  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 \--

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(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.[^29]

    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."[^30]

# III. DISCUSSION {#iii.-discussion .unnumbered}

## **A. Overview** {#a.-overview .unnumbered}

10. As a threshold matter, we note that in the *U S WEST NDA Forbearance
    Order*, 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).[^31] 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).[^32]

## **B. Section 271(g)(4)** {#b.-section-271g4 .unnumbered}

11. We conclude that the Petitioners' provision of nonlocal directory
    assistance service constitutes the provision of in-region, interLATA
    service. In providing nonlocal directory assistance service to their
    in-region subscribers, Petitioners use interLATA transmission to
    connect end-users to directory assistance operators and to retrieve
    directory listing information from the appropriate information
    storage facility.[^33] We further find, however, that Petitioners'
    nonlocal directory assistance services fall within the scope of the
    exception provided in section 271(g)(4) for incidental, interLATA
    services.

12. 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 stored
    information from, or file information for storage in, information
    storage facilities of such company that are located in another
    LATA.\"[^34] 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.[^35] Each Petitioner states that it
    owns the information storage facility it uses in the provision of
    nonlocal directory assistance service.[^36] We, therefore, find that
    the Petitioners' nonlocal directory assistance services are
    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*.

13. On the basis of the Petitioners' representations that they own the
    information storage facilities they use in the provision of nonlocal
    directory assistance service, we conclude that each Petitioners'
    nonlocal directory assistance service is an incidental, interLATA
    service as that term is defined in section 271(g)(4).[^37] The
    Petitioners, therefore, may provide nonlocal directory assistance
    service to customers throughout their respective regions without
    obtaining authorization from the Commission under section 271(d) to
    provide in-region, interLATA service.

# Section 10

14. For the reasons set forth below, we forbear from applying the
    separate affiliate requirements of section 272 to Petitioners'
    nonlocal directory assistance services. We allow the Petitioners to
    provide nonlocal directory assistance service on an integrated
    basis, but require them to provide to unaffiliated entities all of
    the in-region directory listing information they use to provide
    nonlocal directory assistance service at the same rates, terms, and
    conditions they impute to themselves. With respect to the first
    criterion for forbearance,[^38] we find it relevant that Petitioners
    are relatively new entrants in the market for nonlocal directory
    assistance service that face competition from interexchange carriers
    (such as AT&T, Sprint, and MCI), Internet service providers, and
    providers of payphone and cellular services.[^39] We also are
    persuaded by the fact that the Petitioners do not exercise monopoly
    power over the components used to provide the telephone numbers of
    customers outside their regions.[^40]

15. 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 the
    Petitioners' nonlocal directory assistance services.[^42] We,
    therefore, impose these same requirements on the Petitioners. Thus,
    Petitioners must: (1) make available to unaffiliated entities all of
    the directory listing information that they use to provide
    regionwide directory assistance service at the same rates, terms,
    and conditions they impute to themselves; (2) make changes to their
    cost allocation manuals to reflect this accounting change; and (3)
    update and maintain the directory listing information they provide
    to unaffiliated entities in the same manner they update and maintain
    the directory listing information they use in the provision of
    nonlocal directory assistance service.[^43] The Petitioners must
    also comply with the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in the
    *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order*.[^44] Given our expectation that
    the Petitioners will comply with these requirements, we conclude
    that the first criterion for forbearance is satisfied.

16. With respect to the second criterion for forbearance,[^45] we note
    that retention of the section 272(c)(1) nondiscrimination
    requirements with respect to the Petitioners' in-region telephone
    numbers should protect consumers by promoting the development of a
    fully competitive market for nonlocal directory assistance service,
    and by ensuring that no competitor will have an undue advantage in
    the nonlocal directory assistance services market.[^46] 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.[^47]
    Because competition will ultimately benefit consumers, we conclude
    that the enforcement of section 272 is not necessary to prevent the
    Petitioners from engaging in conduct that would impede competition
    in the market for nonlocal directory assistance service, and thereby
    harm consumers.[^48] We, therefore, find that the second criterion
    for forbearance is met.

17. With respect to the third criterion for forbearance,[^49] we
    conclude that allowing the Petitioners to provide nonlocal directory
    assistance service on an integrated basis is in the public interest
    because it will allow the Petitioners to be more effective
    competitors in the nonlocal directory assistance services
    market.[^50] Conversely, if the Petitioners 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 the Petitioners, without
    positive benefits for consumers.[^51] We conclude that the market
    for nonlocal directory assistance service should become increasingly
    competitive if the Petitioners are allowed to remain effective
    competitors in the market for nonlocal directory assistance service,
    which would ultimately benefit consumers because they would be able
    to obtain a convenient, competitively priced service.[^52] On the
    basis of these findings, we conclude that the third criterion for
    forbearance is 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 the Petitioners' provision of
    nonlocal directory assistance services.

18. Excell and INFONXX maintain that SBC's petition for forbearance must
    be denied because SBC refuses to provide directory listing
    information to providers of directory assistance that are not also
    local exchange carriers.[^53] We note that the Commission recently
    issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with respect with this
    issue.[^54] We, therefore, do not decide in this proceeding whether,
    pursuant to section 272(c)(1), a BOC must provide directory listing
    information to providers of directory assistance service that are
    not also local exchange carriers.

19. Some commenters state that the section 272(c)(1) nondiscrimination
    requirements are not sufficient to ensure that Petitioners will
    treat unaffiliated entities in a nondiscriminatory fashion.[^55]
    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."[^56] According to these commenters,
    the Commission should require BOCs to provide directory listing
    information at rates that are based on cost.[^57]

20. Similar to the Commission's finding in the *U S WEST NDA Forbearance
    Order*, we find that the accounting safeguards described above
    should ensure that the rates the Petitioners impute to themselves,
    and therefore charge to unaffiliated entities, will not adversely
    affect competition in the nonlocal directory assistance services
    market.[^58] Accordingly, we reject commenters' claims that, before
    we may grant the Petitioners' forbearance petitions, additional
    procompetitive safeguards are necessary to prevent the Petitioners
    from charging exorbitant rates.[^59]

21. We also reject these commenters' claims that, before we may grant
    Petitioners' forbearance petitions, we must first ascertain specific
    facts as to how and when Petitioners will implement the section
    272(c)(1) nondiscrimination requirements. We further find that any
    arguments concerning the Petitioners' failure to comply with the
    requirements set forth in section 272(c)(1) or this Order are more
    appropriately addressed in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

    **IV. CONCLUSION**

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

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

23. 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 BellSouth's, SBC's and
    Bell Atlantic\'s petitions for forbearance with respect to their
    nonlocal directory assistance services ARE GRANTED.

24. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.103(a) of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.103(a), that this Memorandum
    Opinion and Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Robert C. Atkinson Deputy Chief

Common Carrier Bureau

**APPENDIX**

## [Comments \-- November 29, 1999]{.underline} {#comments----november-29-1999 .unnumbered}

AT&T Corp. (AT&T)

Excell Agent Services, L.L.C. (Excell)

INFONXX, Inc.

MCI WorldCom, Inc. (MCI)

TelTrust, Inc.

[Reply Comments -- December 8, 1999]{.underline}

Bell Atlantic

BellSouth

MCI

SBC

## [Comments on SBC Supplemental Description \-- December 17, 1999]{.underline} {#comments-on-sbc-supplemental-description----december-17-1999 .unnumbered}

Excell

[^1]: BellSouth Petition for Forbearance for Nonlocal Directory
    Assistance Service, CC Docket No. 97-172 (filed Oct. 8, 1999)
    (BellSouth Petition).

[^2]: Petition of SBC Communications Inc. for Forbearance of Structural
    Separation Requirements and Request for Immediate Interim Relief in
    Relation to the Provision of Nonlocal Directory Assistance Services,
    CC Docket No. 97-172 (filed Nov. 2, 1999) (SBC Petition); *see also*
    SBC Communications Inc.'s Clarification and Supplement to its
    Petition for Forbearance (filed Nov. 19, 1999). SBC filed a petition
    on behalf of Ameritech, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT),
    Pacific Bell, and Nevada Bell. The forbearance granted in this Order
    extends only to Ameritech, SWBT, and Pacific Bell. We do not address
    in this Order the petition filed on behalf of Nevada Bell because
    Nevada Bell does not currently provide nonlocal directory assistance
    service. Nevada Bell must demonstrate that its nonlocal directory
    assistance service falls within the scope of section 271(g)(4) at
    the time it seeks to provide such service.

[^3]: Petition of Bell Atlantic for Further Forbearance from Section 272
    Requirements in Connection with National Directory Assistance
    Services (filed Oct. 22, 1999) (Bell Atlantic-South Petition). We
    granted Bell Atlantic's petition for forbearance with respect to its
    operating companies in New York and New England on December 22,
    1999. *In the Matter of Petition of Bell Atlantic for Forbearance
    from Section 272 Requirements in Connection with National Directory
    Assistance* Services, CC Docket No. 97-172, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, DA 99-2990 (rel. Dec. 22, 1999)(*Bell Atlantic-North NDA
    Forbearance Order)*, *recon. pending*. The forbearance granted in
    this Order extends to Bell Atlantic's operating companies in
    Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington,
    D.C., and West Virginia.

[^4]: A list of commenters on the petitions filed by BellSouth, SBC, and
    Bell Atlantic-South, is set forth in the Appendix.

[^5]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 272(a)(2)(B)(i).

[^6]: *See 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, 14 FCC Rcd 16252
    (1999)(*U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order*), at paras. 2-3.

[^7]: *See id.* at para. 3.

[^8]: In the *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order*, the Commission noted that
    there are two types of directory assistance services available to
    customers throughout the United States: local directory assistance
    service and nonlocal directory assistance service. *Id.* 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 local exchange carrier'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 Modified Final Judgment (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.

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

[^10]: *See, e.g.,* Bell Atlantic-South Petition at 1.

[^11]: *See* Bell Atlantic-South Petition at 2 (noting that its
    operating companies use either an Automatic Directory Assistance
    Service (ADAS) system or a Personal Audio Unit (PAU) to deliver a
    script asking the caller for the city, state, and listing desired);
    BellSouth Petition at 1 (stating that an incoming call to
    BellSouth's directory assistance service is recognized as a
    directory assistance call and routed within BellSouth's network to a
    Traffic Operator Position System (TOPS) remote switch, which bridges
    an ADAS platform onto the call); *see also* BellSouth Supplemental
    Description of Network Architecture for BellSouth's NDA Service, CC
    Docket No. 97-172 (filed Nov. 8, 1999) (*BellSouth Supplemental
    Description*) at 1.

[^12]: BellSouth Supplemental Description at 1.

[^13]: *Id.* at 2; *see also* BellSouth Petition at 5. BellSouth states
    that there are forty-three distributed operator service centers in
    its region. BellSouth Supplemental Description at 1.

[^14]: BellSouth Petition at 5; BellSouth Supplemental Description at 2;
    Bell Atlantic-South Petition at 2 (stating that all queries are sent
    over Bell Atlantic official services facilities to one of two
    locations in Pennsylvania where Bell Atlantic stores its local
    directory assistance information).

[^15]: BellSouth Petition at 5.

[^16]: *See* Bell Atlantic-South Petition at 2; *see also* *U S WEST NDA
    Forbearance Order* at para. 8.

[^17]: The information storage facilities Ameritech uses in the
    provision of both regionwide and nationwide directory assistance
    service are located in Milwaukee, WI and Troy, MI. *See* SBC
    Petition at 2 & n.4. The information storage facilities SWBT uses in
    the provision of both local and regionwide directory assistance
    service are located in St. Louis, MO, Oklahoma City, OK, Dallas, TX,
    and Houston, TX. *Id.* at 3 & n. 5. The information storage
    facilities Pacific Bell uses in the provision of both local and
    regionwide directory assistance service are located in Concord, CA
    and Buena Park, CA. *Id.*

[^18]: Bell Atlantic-South Petition at 2; BellSouth Supplemental
    Description; SBC Petition Attachment at 3; Letter from Christine
    Jines, Director---Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 97-172 (dated Jan. 28, 2000) (*SBC Jan
    28, 2000 Ex Parte*).

[^19]: Bell Atlantic-South, SWBT, and Pacific Bell each use an
    information storage facility located in Illinois, in the provision
    of nationwide directory assistance service. Bell Atlantic-South
    Petition at 2; SBC Petition at 2-3. The information storage facility
    BellSouth uses in the provision of nationwide directory assistance
    service is located in a LATA outside of BellSouth's region.
    BellSouth Petition at 5-6.

[^20]: Letter from Ben G. Almond, Vice-President---Federal Regulatory,
    BellSouth, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No.
    97-172 (dated Feb. 2, 2000) (*BellSouth Feb. 2, 2000 Ex Parte*);
    Letter from Marie T. Breslin, Director---Federal Regulatory, Bell
    Atlantic, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No.
    97-172 (dated Dec. 21, 1999) (*Bell Atlantic Dec. 21, 1999 Ex
    Parte*); SBC *Jan 28, 2000 Ex Parte*.

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

[^22]: *Id*. § 271(b)(1).

[^23]: *Id*. § 271(f).

[^24]: *Id*. § 271(b)(3).

[^25]: *Id*. § 271(g)(4).

[^26]: *Id*. § 271(h).

[^27]: *Id*.

[^28]: *Id*. § 271(a)(2)(B)(iii).

[^29]: *Id*. § 160(a).

[^30]: *Id.* § 160 (b). Section 10(d) specifies 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." *Id.* § 160 (d).

[^31]: *See U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at paras. 23-24; *see also
    Bell Atlantic-North NDA Forbearance Order* at paras. 10-11.

[^32]: *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at paras. 33-38.

[^33]: BellSouth Supplemental Description at 3; SBC Petition at 3; Bell
    Atlantic South-Petition at 2-3; *see also* Attachment to BellSouth
    Supplemental Description; Attachment to SBC Petition; Attachment to
    Bell Atlantic-South Petition (providing diagrams explaining how
    nonlocal directory assistance service calls are routed through the
    Petitioners' networks).

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(g)(4).

[^35]: 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; *see also Bell Atlantic-North
    NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 11.

[^36]: *See supra* note 20 and accompanying text.

[^37]: We thus reject the arguments raised by some commenters that
    Petitioners do not satisfy the requirement set forth in section
    271(g)(4) that a BOC must own the information storage facility it
    uses in the provision of the data storage and retrieval services
    described therein. *See* AT&T Comments at 5-6; Excell Comments at
    6-8; MCI Reply Comments at 3-5; Teltrust Comments at 6-7.

[^38]: The first criterion requires the Commission to forbear if it
    determines tat "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." 47 U.S.C. §
    160(a).

[^39]: *See* BellSouth Petition at 7; Bell Atlantic-South Petition at
    3-4.

[^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 unaffiliated entities that compile national listings, or
    from other LECs. *U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 33.

[^41]: *See U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at paras. 37-38.

[^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. Petitioners have been the
    dominant providers of local exchange and exchange access services in
    their respective regions for many years. Like U S WEST, the
    competitive advantages Petitioners possess in the provision of the
    telephone numbers of customers inside their regions stem from their
    dominance in these markets.

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

[^44]: To the extent that any BOC cannot make available to unaffiliated
    entities the directory listing information it uses in the provision
    of nonlocal directory assistance, it must cease using these listings
    in its own provision of nonlocal directory assistance service. *See
    U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 37.

[^45]: The second criterion requires the Commission to forbear if it
    determines that "enforcement of such regulation or provision is not
    necessary for the protection of consumers." 47 U.S.C. § 160(a).

[^46]: *See U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 47.

[^47]: *Id.*

[^48]: *Id.*

[^49]: The third criterion requires the Commission to forbear if it
    determines that "forbearance from applying such provision or
    regulation is consistent with the public interest." 47 U.S.C.
    §160(a).

[^50]: *Id.* at paras. 48-51.

[^51]: *Id.* at para. 49.

[^52]: *Id.* at paras. 50-51.

[^53]: *See* Excell Comments at 13-14; INFONXX Comments at 5-7; *see
    also* MCI WorldCom Comments at 5-6; Teltrust Comments at 9-11. *But
    see* SBC Petition at 4; SBC Reply at 2-3 (stating that the term
    "unaffiliated entities," as used in section 272(c)(1), does not
    include non-carriers).

[^54]: *Provision of Directory Listings Information Under the
    Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended,* CC Docket No. 99-273,
    FCC 99-227*, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (rel. Sept. 9, 1999)*.*

[^55]: Excell Comments at 3, 10-12; MCI WorldCom Comments at 9-11;
    Teltrust Comments at 12-16; *see also* Letter from Karen M. Johnson,
    Associate Counsel---Regulatory Affairs, MCI WorldCom, to Magalie
    Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 97-172 (filed Feb. 2,
    2000) (*MCI Feb. 2, 2000 Ex Parte*).

[^56]: Excell Comments at 10; *see also* MCI WorldCom Comments at 9-11.

[^57]: Excell Comments at 4 (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"); MCI WorldCom Comments at
    9-11; Teltrust Comments at 11-16.

[^58]: *See U S WEST NDA Forbearance Order* at para. 25 & n.72; *see
    also Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
    Accounting Safeguards Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC
    Docket No. 96-150, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. 17539, 17567-73,
    paras. 61-76 (1996) (concluding that the accounting safeguards
    ensure that the BOCs provision of incidental interLATA services on
    an integrated basis will not adversely affect telephone exchange
    ratepayers or competition in any telecommunications market).

[^59]: *See* Excell Comments at 11. We further note that, in the context
    of these forbearance petitions, we are required to determine whether
    enforcement of section 272 *is necessary* to ensure that the rates,
    terms, and conditions for and in connection with the Petitioners'
    nonlocal directory assistance services are just and reasonable and
    not unjustly or unreasonably nondiscriminatory. In this regard, we
    note that, if forbearance were denied, each Petitioner would be
    required to provide nonlocal directory assistance service through a
    separate affiliate pursuant to the requirements of section 272,
    including the nondiscrimination requirements set forth in section
    272(c)(1). As noted above, we decline to forbear from the
    nondiscrimination requirements set forth in section 271(c)(1) with
    respect to the Petitioners' nonlocal directory assistance services.
    Thus, the rates that the Petitioners charge for access to in-region
    directory listing information are governed by section 272(c)(1)
    irrespective of whether we grant or deny their forbearance
    petitions.