[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15064-15065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-6411]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 51, 53, and 64

[CC Docket Nos. 95-20; 98-10; DA 01-620]


Update and Refresh Record on Computer III Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document invites parties to update and refresh the record 
on issues raised in the Computer III Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking that the Commission issued on January 30, 1998.

DATES: Comments are due April 16, 2001, and reply comments are due 
April 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodie Donovan-May or Jessica 
Rosenworcel, Attorney Advisors, Policy and Program Planning Division, 
Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice regarding CC Docket Nos. 95-20 and 98-10, released on March 7, 
2001. The complete text of this document is available for inspection 
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Services (ITS, Inc.), CY-B400, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is also available on the Commission's 
website at http://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of Public Notice

    1. On January 30, 1998, the Commission released a Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket Nos. 95-20 and 98-10 (63 FR 
9749, Feb. 26, 1998) 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 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 the Commission Open Network Architecture (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. The 
Public Notice invites parties to update and refresh the record on these 
issues.
    2. 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 Comparably Efficient Interconnection (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.
    3. 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 also asks 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.
    4. 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 (see 65 FR 2542, Jan. 18, 
2000), and we ask parties to comment on how the new rules and

[[Page 15065]]

any resulting changes in the marketplace may affect our analysis in the 
FNPRM.
    5. 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.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Parts 51

    Communications common carriers, Interconnection.

47 CFR Part 53

    Bell Operating Companies, Communications common carriers, InterLATA 
services, Separate affiliate safeguards, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telephone.


Federal Communications Commission.
Michelle Carey,
Chief, Policy and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-6411 Filed 3-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U