IP: FCC Public Notice on Computer III

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

******** www.cybertelecom.org **********

DA 01-620
March 7, 2001
FURTHER COMMENT REQUESTED TO UPDATE AND REFRESH RECORD
ON COMPUTER III REQUIREMENTS
CC DOCKET NOS. 95-20; 98-10
COMMENTS DUE: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register
REPLY COMMENTS DUE: 45 days after publication in the Federal Register

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


******** www.cybertelecom.org **********


______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/