Cybertelecom
Cybertelecom
Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project

Notes: Others
Notes > Others These notes are not complete and there is no guarantee that they are accurate. They are presented simply as notes. Feel free to use them but as with all material on the Internet Telecom Project, you should consider them a beginning to your research and not an end.
Other Nonstructural Safeguards *
Nondiscrimination Reporting
Network Information Disclosure
Proprietary ESP Information *
  1. Other Nonstructural Safeguards
"In addition to the CEI requirements established in the Computer III proceeding, a BOC proposing to provide enhanced services on a structurally integrated basis must comply with requirements regarding the use of customer proprietary network information (CPNI), disclosure of network information, and nondiscrimination reporting." -- In the Matter of Ameritech's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Electronic Vaulting Service, CCBPol 97-03, Order ¶ 40 (December 31, 1997)

28. The Computer III Phase I Order and the BOC Safeguards Order describe a set of additional rules intended to safeguard against access discrimination, including Customer Proprietary Network Information rules, network information disclosure rules, and nondiscrimination reporting requirements. [FN65] The CPNI rules balance efficiency goals with competitive equity and privacy considerations, and seek to prevent the BOCs from unreasonably using their access to information about customer usage patterns for competitive advantage. [FN66] Network information disclosure rules are designed to ensure that independent ESPs receive timely access to technical information related to new or modified network services affecting the interconnection of enhanced services to the BOC networks. [FN67] The nondiscrimination reporting requirements compare the quality of basic services provided to the BOCs' own enhanced services with those provided to the BOCs' ESP competitors. [FN68]
29. There is evidence to suggest that these safeguards have been effective. For example, the Commission determined in the BOC Safeguards Order that BOC nondiscrimination reports over a three-year period showed that discrimination against competing ESPs had not taken place. [FN69] Nondiscrimination reports in the three years since that order have similarly not shown any access discrimination by BOCs. The nondiscrimination safeguards described in the BOC Safeguards Order provide the Commission and competing ESPs with data to monitor whether BOCs have engaged in access discrimination. Moreover, no formal complaints have been filed at the FCC by ESPs alleging BOC access discrimination since the Computer III Phase I Order.
-- In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶¶ 28-29 (February 21, 1995)

Nondiscrimination Reporting

27. BOCs are required to file quarterly nondiscrimination reports with respect to their basic services, thereby ensuring that they provide the access promised in their CEI plans. [FN69]

FN69. See BOC ONA Reconsideration Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3084, 3096, Appendix B (1990), BOC ONA Amendment Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3103 (1990), Erratum, 5 FCC Rcd 4045, pets. for review denied, California II, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th cir. 1993), recon., 8 FCC Rcd 7646 (1991), BOC ONA Second Further Amendment Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2606 (1993), pet. for review denied, California II, 4 F.3d 1505 (1993); and Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3082, P 73.

-- In The Matter Of The Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies Offer Of Comparably Efficient Interconnection To Intranet Management Service Providers, CCBPol 98-01, DA 98-1655 ¶ 27 (CCB August 20, 1998).

Finally, under the Commission's ONA nondiscrimination requirements, the BOCs and GTE are currently required to file quarterly reports measuring, among other things, the percentage of due dates missed and the average installation interval for their own affiliated enhanced service operations and for all other customers. See In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 88-2, 5 FCC Rcd 3084, 3093-94 and App. B (1990) ("BOC ONA Reconsideration Order"). -- In The Matter Of Performance Measurements And Reporting Requirements For Operations Support Systems, Interconnection, And Operator Services And Directory Assistance, CC Docket No. 98-56, RM-9101, FCC 98-72, note 82 (April 17, 1998).
 
 

112. The BOCs and GTE are also required to establish procedures to ensure that they do not discriminate in their provision of ONA services, including the installation, maintenance, and quality of such services, to unaffiliated ISPs and their customers. [FN259] For example, they must establish and publish standard intervals for routine installation orders based on type and quantity of services ordered, and follow these intervals in assigning due dates for installation, which are applicable to orders placed by competing service providers as well as orders placed by their own information services operations. [FN260] In addition, they must standardize their maintenance procedures where possible, by assigning repair dates based on nondiscriminatory criteria (e.g., available work force and severity of problem), and handling trouble reports on a first-come, first-served basis. [FN261]

113. In order to demonstrate compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements outlined above, the BOCs and GTE must file quarterly nondiscrimination reports comparing the timeliness of their installation and maintenance of ONA services for their own information services operations versus the information services operations of their competitors. [FN262] If a BOC or GTE demonstrates in its ONA plan that it lacks the ability to discriminate with respect to installation and maintenance services, and files an annual affidavit to that effect, it may modify its quarterly report to compare installation and maintenance services provided to its own information services operations with services provided to a sampling of all customers. [FN263] In their quarterly reports, the BOCs and GTE must include information on total orders, due dates missed, and average intervals for a set of service categories specified by the Commission, [FN264] following a format specified by the Commission. [FN265]

FN259. Computer III Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3084, PP 88-89.

FN260. BOC ONA Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 242, P 467. The installation process is tracked by mechanized systems, which must assign available facilities and equipment in a nondiscriminatory manner, without regard to the identity of the customer ordering the service. Id. at 243, 244, PP 468, 472.

FN261. BOC ONA Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 243, P 470.

FN262. Computer III Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3086, P 98. BOCs were also required to file other, similar quarterly installation and maintenance reports regarding their provision of services to affiliated and unaffiliated CPE vendors. See Furnishing of Customer Premises Equipment by the Bell Operating Telephone Companies and the Independent Telephone Companies, CC Docket No. 86-79, Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 143, 155, P 84 (1987) (BOC CPE Relief Order), modified on recon. 3 FCC Rcd 22 (1987) (BOC CPE Relief Reconsideration Order). These filing requirements were recently eliminated by the Bureau. See Revision of Filing Requirements, CC Docket No. 96-23, 11 FCC Rcd 16326 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996) (Revision of Filing Requirements Order).

FN263. Computer III Phase II Reconsideration Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 1161, P 84. In addition, the Computer III Phase II Order originally imposed a requirement to report on the quality and reliability of ONA services BOCs provided to their own enhanced services operations versus their enhanced services competitors. Computer III Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3086, P 98. This requirement was replaced with an annual affidavit, signed by the officer principally responsible for installation procedures, attesting that the BOC had followed installation procedures described in the BOC's ONA plan, and that the BOC had not, in fact, discriminated in the quality of services it had provided. Computer III Phase II Reconsideration, 3 FCC Rcd at 1160, P 76.

FN264. BOC ONA Reconsideration Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 3093-94, PP 77-80, and App. B. The specified service categories include: (1) Circuit Switched Line: Business Line, PBX, Centrex, WATS, Mobile, Feature Group A, Foreign Exchange; (2) Circuit Switched Trunk: Feature Group B, Feature Group D, DID (Line and Trunk); (3) Packet Switched Services (X.25 and X.75): Packet DDD Access Line, Packet Synchronous Access Line, Packet Asynchronous Access Line; (4) Dedicated Metallic: Protection Alarm, Protection Relaying, Control Circuit; (5) Dedicated Telegraph Grade: Telegraph Grade 75 Baud, Telegraph 150 Baud; (6) Dedicated Voice Grade: Voice Non-Switched Line, Voice Switched Line, Voice Switched Trunk, Voice and Tone-Radio Land Line, Data Low Speed, Basic Data and Voice, Voice and Data-PSN Access Tie Trunk, Voice and Data-SSN Access, Voice and Data-SSN-Intermachine Trunk, Data Extension-Voice Grade Data, Protection Relay Voice Grade, Telephoto and Facsimile; (7) Dedicated Program Audio: Program Audio 200-3500 HZ, Program Audio 100-5000 HZ, Program Audio 50-8000 HZ, Program Audio 50-15000 HZ; (8) Dedicated Video: TV Channel-One Way 15kHz Audio, TV Channel-One Way 5 kHz Audio; (9) Dedicated Digital: Digital Voice Circuit, Digital Data-2.4kb/s, Digital Data-4.8kb/s, Digital Data-9.6kb/s, Digital Data-56kb/s; (10) Dedicated High Capacity Digital: 1.544 MBPS BSA; (11) Dedicated High Capacity Digital (Greater than 1.544 MBPS): Dedicated Digital-3.152 MBPS, Dedicated Digital-6.312 MBPS, Dedicated Digital-44.736 MBPS, Dedicated Digital-45 MBPS or Higher; (12) Dedicated Alert Transport; (13) Dedicated Derived Channel; (14) Dedicated Network Access Link (DNAL).

FN265. Id. at 3093-94, PP 77-80, and App. B. For installation reports, the Commission requires the BOCs and GTE to report separately for their own affiliated enhanced services operations and for all other customers, whether ISPs or other carriers, and to include information, for each specified service category, on: (1) total orders; (2) due dates missed; (3) percentage of due dates missed; and (4) average interval. The BOCs and GTE are also required to report maintenance activities separately for their own affiliated enhanced services operations and for all other customers. For maintenance activities with due dates, carriers are required to report: (1) total orders; (2) due dates missed; (3) percentage of due dates missed; and (4) average interval. For maintenance activities without due dates, carriers are required to report only total orders and average interval.

-- In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, CC Docket No. 98-10, FCC 98-8, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶¶ 112-13 (January 30, 1998).
 
 
 
 
 
 

"45. BOCs are required to file quarterly nondiscrimination reports with respect to their basic services, thereby ensuring that they provide the access promised in their CEI plans." -- In the Matter of Ameritech's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Electronic Vaulting Service, CCBPol 97-03, Order ¶ 45 (December 31, 1997)

48. Nondiscrimination Reporting: The BOC is also required to file quarterly nondiscrimination reports with respect to its enhanced services, thereby ensuring that it provides the access promised in its CEI plan.

As noted above, ONA and CEI requirements prohibit BOCs from discriminating between affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs. This restriction, among other things, bans a BOC from discriminating in the provision of installation, maintenance and repair services. The Commission required BOCs to describe in detail in their ONA plans the procedures they would employ to ensure that they would not discriminate in their provision of ONA services to unaffiliated

ESPs and their customers. In addition, the Commission requires BOCs to file (1) an annual affidavit stating that they do not engage in such discrimination, and (2) quarterly installation and

maintenance reports. The Commission has delineated 49 service categories for which BOCs should report installation and maintenance activities. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 60 (July 29, 1995)
 
 

"37. Bell Atlantic is required to file quarterly nondiscrimination reports with respect to its video dialtone services, thereby ensuring that Bell Atlantic provides the access promised in its CEI plan." -- In the Matter of Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies, Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Providers of Video Dialtone-Related Enhanced Services, DA 95-1283, Order (June 9, 1995)
 
 

First, we required AT & T and the BOCs to file quarterly nondiscrimination reports that provide comparative data on the timing of installation and maintenance, as well as the quality and reliability, of the basic services offered as part of any CEI/ONA tariff. -- -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ¶ 25 (December 22, 1988)
 
 

451. The Phase II Order required the BOCs to include in their ONA plans a detailed description of the procedures they will utilize to ensure that they will not discriminate in their provision of ONA services, including the installation, maintenance, and quality of such services, to competitive ESPs and their customers. [FN1099] In addition, we required the BOCs to file quarterly nondiscrimination reports comparing the timeliness of their installation and maintenance of ONA services for their own enhanced services operations versus their enhanced services competitors, as well as the quality and reliability of ONA services that they provide to each. [FN1100]

452. The Phase II Reconsideration removed the quality reporting requirement for any BOC that demonstrated in its plan amendment that it lacked the ability to discriminate in the quality of its ONA/CEI services, provided that the BOC agreed to file an annual affidavit, signed by the officer principally responsible for installation procedures, attesting that it had followed the installation procedures described in its plan, as amended, and that it had not, in fact, discriminated in the quality of services it had provided. [FN1101] We also held that any BOC that demonstrated in its plan, as amended, that it lacked the ability to discriminate in the timing of its installation and maintenance service, and agreed to file an annual affidavit to that effect, would be permitted to modify the format of its installation and maintenance reports to compare the timing of services provided to its own enhanced service operations against a sampling of all customers. 1102

. . . . .

481. As we have discussed in paragraphs 472-473 above, all of the BOCs except Bell Atlantic demonstrate that their provisioning procedures and systems preclude quality-based discrimination. Accordingly, we remove the quality reporting requirement for all BOCs other than Bell Atlantic. All of these BOCs must file the annual affidavits regarding quality specified in the Phase II Reconsideration. 1163 We will evaluate whether to remove this requirement for Bell Atlantic based on the showing it makes in its ONA amendments on this issue.

. . . . .

(iii) Modification of Format

483. All BOCs except US West have shown that they employ procedures that should prevent discrimination in the timeliness of their installation and maintenance service. Therefore, we permit each BOC except US West to modify the format of its nondiscrimination reports to compare installation and maintenance performance provided for its own enhanced services with that provided to a sampling of all customers. 1167 Each BOC that so modifies its installation and maintenance reports must submit an annual affidavit, signed by the officer principally responsible for installation and maintenance operations, attesting that it has followed the nondiscrimination procedures outlined in its plan and that it has not discriminated in its installation and maintenance service based on the identity of the customer. 1168

. . . . .

487. Because we find that none of the BOCs' proposed reporting categories is entirely adequate, we require each BOC to amend its plan to include new categories that reflect basic service categories relevant to its provision of enhanced services by May 19, 1989. 1172 Specifically, we require each BOC to report on each ONA service, including each BSA, BSE, and CNS that its enhanced services operation purchases for its provision of enhanced services.1173

. . . . .

488. We also require each BOC to show total orders, due dates missed, and average intervals for each category within its installation and maintenance reports. 1174 Currently, only Pactel proposes to provide data in each of these categories. We require the other BOCs to do so as well because data on the percentage of due dates missed, which the other BOCs do include in their reports, would not, by itself, provide sufficient information regarding discrimination in the assignment of due dates. Providing data in these categories should not be burdensome for the BOCs, since each of them tracks this information in its service order processing systems. Thus, we require the other BOCs to amend their plans by May 19, 1989 to include this data report requirement.

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (December 22, 1988)

    Network Information Disclosure


    See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.325 - 335.
    47 C.F.R. § 51.327
    Sec. 51.327 Notice of network changes: Content of notice.
    (a) Public notice of planned network changes must, at a minimum,
    include:
    (1) The carrier's name and address;
    (2) The name and telephone number of a contact person who can supply
    additional information regarding the planned changes;
    (3) The implementation date of the planned changes;
    (4) The location(s) at which the changes will occur;
    (5) A description of the type of changes planned (Information
    provided to satisfy this requirement must include, as applicable, but is
    not limited to, references to technical specifications, protocols, and
    standards regarding transmission, signaling, routing, and facility
    assignment as well as references to technical standards that would be
    applicable to any new technologies or equipment, or that may otherwise
    affect interconnection); and
    (6) A description of the reasonably foreseeable impact of the
    planned changes.
    (b) The incumbent LEC also shall follow, as necessary, procedures
    relating to confidential or proprietary information contained in
    Sec. 51.335.
    [61 FR 47351, Sept. 6, 1996]
     
     

        E. Impact of Bundling on Network Disclosure and Part 68 Requirements
            1. CPE Bundling
      55. We conclude that our existing network disclosure policy and rules ensure that carriers that bundle CPE and transmission services will continue to provide CPE suppliers with access to information about the carriers' networks that the suppliers require to offer competitive products.  The Commission sought comment in the Further Notice on whether the network disclosure requirement promulgated in Computer II that was referred to as the "all-carrier" rule would provide competitive CPE suppliers with adequate disclosure of a carrier's network interfaces.   In 1999, the Commission eliminated the "all carrier" rule in a separate proceeding.   It found that interexchange carriers are not likely to gain the individual market power that would allow them profitably to withhold information about their network interfaces that competitive CPE suppliers require, and that the rule, as it applied to interexchange carriers, was therefore no longer necessary.   We also emphasized that sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act impose nondiscrimination requirements that prohibit carriers that manufacture CPE from favoring their own CPE over that of competitive suppliers.   We continue to believe that normal market forces pressure interexchange carriers to provide CPE suppliers with necessary network information, and that sections 201 and 202 of the Act safeguard against anticompetitive conduct in this area.  We therefore do not find that any additional public disclosure requirements are necessary for interexchange carriers that bundle CPE with interstate, domestic, interexchange services.
        56. Our rules require incumbent LECs to disclose network changes that could affect the manner in which CPE is attached to their networks.   When the Commission eliminated the Computer II "all-carrier" rule, it extended the disclosure requirements in section 51.325(a) of our rules to require incumbent LECs to provide public notice of any network changes that will affect CPE manufacturers.   This rule applies to all interconnected CPE whether or not the incumbent LEC provides the CPE as part of a bundled offering.  It is necessary because failure to disclose network changes that affect CPE could give incumbent LECs a significant head start in providing fully compatible equipment and could thereby adversely affect competition in the CPE market.   While we believe that incumbent LECs, like other carriers, should have a business incentive to make interconnection to their networks available to all customers regardless of the type of CPE they use, this rule requires incumbent LECs to provide the specifications that competitive CPE suppliers need to provide compatible equipment.
        57. We also conclude that allowing carriers to bundle CPE with transmission services will not affect the Commission's requirement that CPE not cause harm to the network.  We sought comment in the Further Notice on whether the "demarcation point" between telephone company communications facilities and terminal equipment, as defined in section 68.3 of the Commission's rules,  would change if CPE and interexchange carriers' network offerings were bundled and what effect, if any, this would have on the Commission's Part 68 program.   In November 2000, the Commission adopted an Order eliminating certain portions of the Part 68 regulations governing the development of technical criteria and registration procedures for CPE.   It found that the highly competitive nature of the CPE market makes it no longer necessary for the Commission to establish technical criteria for CPE or approve the use of new CPE.   The Commission stated that eliminating these regulations should bring innovative equipment to the marketplace faster, thereby increasing choices available to consumers.   Accordingly, our action with regard to Part 68 should enhance further the ability of consumers to secure new and innovative CPE separately or as part of a bundled offering.  Allowing carriers to bundle CPE with transmission service does not affect the technical criteria that the telecommunications industry will now establish on its own to ensure that CPE does not cause harm to the network, and we agree, in particular, with KMC that the Further Notice did not contemplate allowing carriers to technically bundle CPE and telecommunications service in such a way as to contravene the requirement that CPE not cause harm to the network.   Moreover, as the Commission noted in the Part 68 Streamlining Order, providers of telecommunications have an inherent interest in preventing harm to the public switched network,  and therefore also have an incentive to ensure that bundled CPE does not cause such harm.
            2. Enhanced Services Bundling
        58. We find that the Commission's network disclosure rules will also act as an important safeguard to prevent incumbent LECs that bundle enhanced services with local exchange service from acting in an anticompetitive manner.  The Commission found, as several commenters assert in this proceeding,  that enhanced service providers remain dependent on incumbent LECs for local access to their customers, and that we must ensure that these carriers do not withhold network information that enhanced service providers need to interconnect with the incumbent LECs' networks.   We recognize that incumbent LECs may be able to leverage control over their local exchange facilities into market power over new or existing services if they are allowed to modify network interfaces without disclosing the changes to competitors.  Our network disclosure rules therefore require all incumbent LECs to disclose publicly, at a minimum, "complete information about network design, technical standards and planned changes to the network."   These rules will continue to apply to incumbent LECs that bundle enhanced services with local exchange service.
-- In re Policy And Rules Concering The Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace/Implementation Of Section 254(G) Of The Communications Act Of 1934, As Amended/In 1998 Biennial Review -- Review Of Customer Premises Equipment And Enhanced Services Unbundling Rules In the Interexchange, Exchange Access and Local Exchange Markets, CC Docket No. 98-183; CC Docket No. 96-61, Report and Order (March 31, 2001) <www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01098.doc> (footnotes omitted).
     
4. The Commission has reviewed the initial request made by CIX in its petition - that we clarify our network information disclosure rules to require incumbent local exchange carriers to provide information regarding DSLAMs and line conditioning to ISPs. CIX essentially asks the Commission to clarify that section 251(c)(5) of the Communications Act and the rules implementing that section require disclosure of such information. Under the network disclosure rules in section 251 (c) (5), ISPs will have access to the same information from incumbent local exchange carriers that they received under the Computer II and Computer III rules that were eliminated in the Computer III Remand Order. The question of whether to expand the network disclosure rules as CIX requests was not raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 95-20, the Computer III Further Remand Proceeding. Accordingly, we do not adopt additional requirements in this reconsideration.
5. Nevertheless, we note that, under section 251(c)(5) and the Commission's regulations, incumbent LECs are required to disclose at a minimum "complete information about network design, technical standards and planned changes to the network." In addition, we reemphasize that, if a carrier fails to disclose network information that enables other entities to interconnect to the carrier's telecommunications facilities and services in a just and reasonable manner, such action would violate section 201 of the Act. In addition, the BOCs are still subject to our Computer III rules, which require that they provide Internet service providers with nondiscriminatory access to their telecommunications services.
-- In the Matter of Computer III Remand Proceeding: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, CC Docket No. 98-10, Order, ¶ 4 (December 17, 1999).
     
We also conclude that the network information disclosure rules set forth in the Computer II and Computer III proceedings have been effectively superseded by the disclosure rules that the Commission adopted pursuant to the 1996 Act, and we therefore eliminate those rules. For reasons set forth below, however, we retain the Computer II network disclosure requirement that incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) must disclose network changes that could affect the manner in which customer premises equipment (CPE) is attached to the interstate network. -- In the Matter of Computer III Remand Proceeding: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, CC Docket No. 98-10, Report and Order, ¶ 4 (March 10, 1999).
     
The Computer II network information disclosure rules consist of two requirements: one, termed Athe separate subsidiary rule,@ that depends on the existence of a Computer II separate subsidiary; and another, termed Athe all carrier rule,@ that applies to all carriers owning basic transmission facilities, independent of whether the carrier has a separate subsidiary. The separate subsidiary network disclosure requirement obligates the BOCs to disclose Aat a minimum, . . . any network information which is necessary to enable all [information] service . . . vendors to gain access to and utilize and to interact effectively with [the BOCs=] network services or capabilities, to the same extent that [the BOCs=Computer II separate affiliate] is able to use and interact with those network services or capabilities.@ In addition to technical information, the information required includes marketing information, such as Acommitments of the carrier with respect to the timing of introduction, pricing, and geographic availability of new network services or capabilities.@ The other component of the Computer II network disclosure rules, the all carrier rule, encompasses Aall information relating to network design . . . which would affect either intercarrier interconnection or the manner in which customer premises equipment is attached to the interstate network. . . .@
-- In the Matter of Computer III Remand Proceeding: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, CC Docket No. 98-10, Report and Order, ¶ 39 (March 10, 1999) <footnote numbering incorrect>.
     
The Computer III network information disclosure rules initially were imposed on AT&T and the BOCs in the Phase I Order and Phase II Order. The Commission later extended the Computer III network information disclosure rules and other nondiscrimination safeguards to GTE in the GTE ONA Order. Under Computer III, the scope of network information that carriers must disclose is adopted from, and identical to, the Computer II requirements. Specifically, at the Amake/buy@ point, AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE must disclose that a network change or network service is under development. The notice itself need not contain the full range of relevant network information, but it must describe the proposed network service with sufficient detail to convey what the new service is and what its capabilities are. The notice must also indicate that the carrier will supply, subject to a nondisclosure agreement, any ISP with the technical information required for the development of compatible information services. Once an entity has entered into a nondisclosure agreement, AT&T, the BOCs, or GTE must provide the full range of relevant information.
--In the Matter of Computer III Remand Proceeding: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, CC Docket No. 98-10, Report and Order, ¶ 41 (March 10, 1999) <footnote numbering incorrect>.
     
43. The Commission promulgated the rules implementing the section 251(c)(5) network disclosure requirements in the Local Competition Second Report and Order. The section 251(c)(5) network disclosure requirements apply to all incumbent LECs, as the term is defined in section 251(h) of the Act. Under the Commission's regulations, incumbent LECs are required to disclose, at a minimum, "complete information about network design, technical standards and planned changes to the network." The requirements are triggered when an incumbent LEC makes a decision to implement a network change that affects "competing service providers' performance or ability to provide service; or otherwise affects the ability of the incumbent LEC's and a competing service provider's facilities or network to connect, to exchange information, or to use the information exchanged." The timing requirements for public notice under section 251(c)(5) were adopted, with modifications, from the timing requirements for public notice under the Computer III regime. Incumbent LECs must disclose planned network changes at the make/buy point, but at least twelve months before implementation of the change. If the planned changes can be implemented within six months of the make/buy point, then the public notice may be provided less than six months before implementation, so long as additional requirements set forth in section 51.333 of the Commission=s rules are met. An incumbent LEC may fulfill its network disclosure obligations by filing a public notice with the Commission, or by providing public notice through industry fora or publications, or on the incumbent LEC=s own publicly accessible Internet sites.
--In the Matter of Computer III Remand Proceeding: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, CC Docket No. 98-10, Report and Order, ¶ 43 (March 10, 1999) <footnote numbering incorrect>.
 

See In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, CC Docket No. 98-10, FCC 98-8, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶ 117 et seq (January 30, 1998) (discussing network disclosure rules of Computer II and III, and of the Act).
 

"43. Ameritech is also required to disclose to the enhanced services industry information about network changes and new network services that affect the interconnection of enhanced services with the network. Ameritech must make that disclosure at the "make/buy" point, that is, when Ameritech decides whether to make or to procure from an unaffiliated entity any product whose design affects or relies on the network interface. Ameritech must provide that information to members of the enhanced services industry that sign a nondisclosure agreement, within 30 days after the execution of such nondisclosure agreement. Ameritech also must publicly disclose technical information about a new or modified network service twelve months before that service is introduced. If a BOC is able to introduce the service within twelve months of the make/buy point, however, it may make public disclosure at the make/buy point. It may not, however, introduce the service earlier than six months after the public disclosure. BOCs need not describe network disclosure procedures in their CEI plans, because they are obligated to obey those rules." -- In the Matter of Ameritech's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Electronic Vaulting Service, CCBPol 97-03, Order ¶ 43 (December 31, 1997) (footnote numbering off)

     
47. Network Information Disclosure: The BOC is also required to disclose to the enhanced services industry information about network changes and new network services that affect the interconnection of enhanced services with the network. The BOC must make that disclosure at the "make/buy" point, that is, when it decides whether to make or to procure from an unaffiliated entity any product whose design affects or relies on the network interface. The BOC must provide that information to members of the enhanced services industry that sign a nondisclosure agreement, within 30 days after the execution of such nondisclosure agreement. The BOC must also publicly disclose technical information about a new or modified network service twelve months before that service is introduced.
-- In the Matter of Bell Operating Companies Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules, DA 95-2264, Order (October 31, 1995)
     
"36. Bell Atlantic is also required to disclose to the enhanced services industry information about network changes and new network services that affect the interconnection of enhanced services with the network. Bell Atlantic must make that disclosure at the "make/buy" point, that is, when the carrier decides whether to make or to procure from an unaffiliated entity any product whose design affects or relies on the network interface. Bell Atlantic must provide that information to members of the enhanced services industry that sign a nondisclosure agreement, within 30 days after the execution of such nondisclosure agreement. Bell Atlantic also must publicly disclose technical information about a new or modified network service twelve months before that service is introduced. BOCs need not describe network disclosure procedures in their CEI plans, because they are obligated to obey those rules." -- In the Matter of Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies, Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Providers of Video Dialtone-Related Enhanced Services, DA 95-1283, Order (June 9, 1995)
     
Under the network disclosure rules, a carrier must disclose the relevant network information (1) to a ESP at the "make/buy point," subject to and within 30 days of the ESP's execution of a nondisclosure agreement, and (2) to the public twelve months before the new or modified network service is introduced. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 87 (July 29, 1995)
     
Second, we established network information disclosure rules that require AT & T and the BOCs to inform enhanced service providers of new or modified network services. -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ¶ 25 (December 22, 1988)
     
489. The Phase II Order required the BOCs to disclose, at two different points in time, information about changes in their networks or new network services that affect the interconnection of enhanced services with the network. [FN1175] First, at the "make/buy" point--that is, when a BOC decides to make itself, or procure from an unaffiliated entity, any product the design of which affects or relies on the network interface--the BOC must notify the enhanced services industry [FN1176] of the new or changed network service, and disclose technical information about the new or changed service to those members of the enhanced services industry that execute a nondisclosure agreement. The BOC must provide this information within thirty days of the execution of such agreement. Second, twelve months before a new or modified network service is introduced, a BOC must publicly disclose technical information about the service. If the BOC can introduce the service within twelve months of the make/buy point, it may make a public disclosure at the make/buy point, but not less than six months before the introduction of the service.
-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order, ¶ 489 (December 22, 1988)
     
 15. We also decided to require AT & T's basic service affiliates to disclose network design and other network information.  We imposed this requirement in light of our finding in the Reconsideration Order that all carriers are capable of obstructing competition in markets that utilize basic services by withholding from competitors information regarding their networks. 35  We required all carriers to disclose information regarding any new service or change in the network at a time reasonably before the implementation of a new service or change (the All Carrier Rule). 36  Because of AT & T's special position, we subjected it to an additional requirement that it disclose to the public any network information disclosed to its separate subsidiary. 37  We further refined AT & T's disclosure obligations in an order that specifically considered network service disclosure obligations. 38  In the Disclosure Order, we found that, in many instances, the characteristics of the intercity network determine whether an enhanced service or CPE offering would function properly. 39  Accordingly, we required AT & T to disclose all technical information concerning new network services or changes in existing network services, as well as "additional information which relates ... to the timing of introduction, pricing, and geographic availability of new network services or capabilities...." 40  We required this disclosure at the time AT & T provides such information to its separate subsidiary or to other entities for the benefit of its separate subsidiary.  We also required AT & T to disclose technical and other information involving joint research and development by AT & T and its separate subsidiary, leading to the design or manufacture of any product that either affects the network interface or relies on a not-yet implemented interface.  AT & T is required to disclose this information at the "make/buy" point, i.e., the time when AT & T decides either to manufacture the product itself or to procure it from an unaffiliated entity. 41
--In the Matters of: Amendment of Sections 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry);  and Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities Authorizations Thereof Communications Protocols under Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, CC Docket No. 85-229, Report and Order (June 16, 1986)
  1. Proprietary ESP Information
89. BOCs are required to report on their progress in developing, through the IILC, procedures for safeguarding an ESP's proprietary marketing and technological information while the BOC is evaluating an ESP request for a new service. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 89 (July 29, 1995)
 
 
Web services provided by
Wyoming.com
[Home] [Federal Legislation] [E-mail]
[Links] [CyberTelecom-l] [Disclaimer] [Notes] [Search]
© Cybertelecom 1997-2004