WPC 2BJZ Courier3|jix6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4 LPT2:ional)HPLA4ADD.PRSx  @\4!k`X@2'6<F ZK3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicHP LaserJet 4 LPT2:ional)HPLA4ADD.PRSXN\  P\4!k`XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2SYK}tX01Í ÍX0Í ÍX0Í ÍX8Í ÍҊ"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""0*((" participation with BCE consists of a 12.85 percent interest in Bell Cablemedia plc, a provider  X-of cable and telephony services.|Z7 yOb-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxNotification and Application at 7. This interest is well below the 25 percent affiliation threshold established under the Commission's rules, and we find no other basis to consider CWI affiliated with  {O-Bell Cablemedia plc. See 47 C.F.R.  63.18(h)(1)(i).(#| d7. AT&T requested that the Commission defer consideration of CWI's request for non X-dominant carrier regulation on the U.S.Canada route until it completed work on the Foreign  X-Carrier Entry NPRM.{7 yO* -#X\  P6G;IP#эXxAT&T Petition to Deny at 6.(#{ AT&T argued that CWI's request should be analyzed under the then Xz-anticipated Foreign Carrier Entry Order so that proper consideration could be made of CWI's  Xe-affiliates in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Canada.iez7 {O -#X\  P6G;IP#эXxId.(#i d8. Upon further review, we do not find that BCE's 20 percent interest in Mercury constitutes an affiliation between CWI and BCE or that this investment otherwise necessitates  X -regulating CWI as a dominant carrier on the U.S.Canada route. 7 {O-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 39003906 ( 7387) and 47 C.F.R  63.18(h)(1)(i).(# In International Services,  X -the Commission adopted a routebyroute approach under which a carrier would be regulated as dominant only on those routes where a foreign affiliate of the carrier has the ability to discriminate in favor of its U.S. affiliate through the control of bottleneck services or facilities  X -on the foreign end of the route. 7 {O-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee International Services, 7 FCC Rcd at 7332 ( 4).(#ƣ The Commission affirmed the appropriateness of this route X-byroute approach in its Foreign Carrier Entry Order.\0 7 {Oy-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxForeign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3912 ( 102) and 39663977 ( 246) (maintaining the  {OC-basic regulatory framework adopted in International Services for determining the regulatory status of  yO -U.S. international carriers that are affiliated with foreign carriers).(#Ƹ That order, which established standards for regulating foreign carrier entry into the U.S. market, did not alter the rules regarding the regulatory classification of authorized carriers with foreign affiliates. Therefore, AT&T's concerns about the market power of CWI's foreign affiliates in destinations other  X>-than Canada are misplaced. Under International Services and the Foreign Carrier Entry  X)-Order, we limit our market power analysis to CWI's Canadian affiliate, HKT (Canada). d9. After reviewing the record, we conclude that CWI's sole Canadian affiliate lacks the ability to discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. carriers providing service to Canada. As noted above, CWI's affiliate, HKT (Canada), operates purely on a resale basis. HKT (Canada) does not own or control any telecommunications facilities in Canada. As CWI points out, the Commission has previously found that there is no substantial risk of discrimination against unaffiliated U.S. carriers where the foreign carrieraffiliate does not own any"T 0*((P"  X-telecommunications facilities in the foreign market./7 {Oy-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxNotification and Application at 6, citing fONOROLA Corporation, ISP93001ND (rel. May 31, 1995)  {OC-at  7; see also KDD America, Inc., Order, Authorization and Certificate, File No. ITC95481, DA 96 {O -399 (rel. March 21, 1996) at  7, citing 47 C.F.R.  63.12(c)(1) as amended in Streamlining the  {O-International Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements, IB Docket No. 95118, FCC 9679 (rel. March 13, 1996) at Appendix A (allows for streamlined processing of resale and facilitiesbased applications filed by foreign carriers that do not own or control telecommunications facilities in the destination country).(#/ We see no other evidence to suggest that CWI's affiliate has market power in Canada such that it could discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. carriers. Continued regulation of CWI as a dominant carrier on the U.S.Canadian route is unnecessary because HKT (Canada) does not have the ability to favor CWI through control of bottleneck services or facilities in Canada.  Xv-d B. U.S.Japan Route d10. CWI is authorized to resell switched and noninterconnected private line service  X1-between the United States and Japan.^17 {O-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee Cable & Wireless Communications, Inc., File No. ITC90190, 8 FCC Rcd 1664 (1993); Cable &  {O-Wireless Communications, Inc., File No. ITC02099, 7 FCC Rcd 6653 (1992); and Cable & Wireless  {O-Communications, Inc., File Nos. ITC88132, ITC88156, 3 FCC Rcd 6114 (1988).(#Ƶ According to CWI, C&W has invested in several telecommunications companies in Japan. C&W has a two to eight percent interest in 18 cellular carriers in Japan; a 17.6 percent interest in IDC, a Japanese facilitiesbased carrier;  X -and an 87.8 percent interest in C&W Japan Communications Service Limited (Japan CSL).~ 6 7 yO-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSupplemental Information at 3.(#~ CWI states that most of the services Japan CSL provides would be considered "enhanced  X -services" under Section 64.702(a) of the Commission's rules. 7 {O5-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxId., citing 47 C.F.R.  64.702(a). (#ƒ Japan CSL also provides international private line service on a resale basis but does not own or control any facilities. According to CWI, Japan CSL controls less than five percent of the Japanese international private line (IPL) market. d11. AT&T opposed CWI's request for reclassification as a nondominant private line carrier on the U.S.Japan route. It argued that government policy in Japan limits the number of carriers authorized to provide facilitiesbased international private line services. According to AT&T, this policy affords IDC a "privileged" position, enabling it to discriminate against  X-unaffiliated U.S. carriers in the provision of private line services.X 7 {O#-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee AT&T Petition to Deny at 1114; AT&T Reply at 34.(#Ƣ The Common Carrier Bureau deferred taking action on CWI's request for nondominant treatment for its resold"0*((" noninterconnected IPL service between the United States and Japan because of C&W's  X-interest in IDC. 7 {Ob-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxPrivate Line Nondominance Order at 6097 ( 13).(#Ɵ d12. C&W's interests in IDC and the 18 cellular carriers fall well below the affiliation  X-threshold established under the Commission's rules.}!Z7 {O-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee 47 C.F.R. 63.18(h).(#} In the Foreign Carrier Entry Order, the Commission stated that it would normally only scrutinize the market power of a foreign carrier in a destination market when the applicant's attributable investment in or by the foreign carrier exceeds 25 percent, or when the applicant directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the foreign carrier. However, the Commission reserved the right to scrutinize an investment of 25 percent or less where such an investment "presents a significant potential impact on competition in the U.S. market for  X -international telecommunications services."" 7 {O-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxForeign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3906 ( 89).(#Ơ d13. We find no evidence in this record to conclude that C&W's small investment interest in either IDC or the 18 cellular carriers presents a significant potential impact on competition in the U.S. market for international telecommunications services. C&W's investment in Japan  X-CSL does appear to create an affiliation between CWI and Japan CSL.#~7 {O-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee 47 C.F.R.  63.18(h)(1)(i).(#ƈ However, because Japan CSL neither owns nor controls any telecommunications facilities in Japan, we find that there is little risk that this CWI affiliate could discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. carriers  XM-serving the U.SJapan noninterconnected private line service route.$M7 {O-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee  9 and n.27 supra.(#Ɔ Consequently, we find that CWI should be regulated as a nondominant carrier for its authorized services on the U.S.Japan route.  X-d C. U.S.Australia Route d14. CWI is authorized to resell switched and noninterconnected private line service  X-between the United States and Australia.%^7 {O!-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee Cable & Wireless Communications, Inc., File No. ITC90190, 8 FCC Rcd 1664 (1993); Cable &  {O"-Wireless Communications, Inc., File No. ITC02099, 7 FCC Rcd 6653 (1992) Cable & Wireless  {O#-Communications, Inc., File Nos. ITC88132, ITC88156, 3 FCC Rcd 6114 (1988).(#Ʈ According to CWI, C&W currently has a 24.5 percent interest in Optus Communications PTY Limited (Optus). Optus is one of two carriers authorized to provide facilitiesbased telephone service and one of three carriers authorized to"~ %0*((P"  X-provide cellular service in Australia.&7 yOy-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSupplemental Information at 5. Bell South owns another 24.5 percent of Optus and a consortium of Australian companies control the remaining 51 percent.(# However, CWI asserts that the Australian Telecommunications Act, passed in 1991, terminates the duopoly on fixed telecommunications networks and the triopoly on cellular networks in June, 1997. CWI argues that because Optus is a secondtier carrier in Australia, it cannot discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. carriers seeking to serve the Australian market. In addition, CWI argues that because C&W's investment in Optus falls below the affiliation threshold, CWI should be entitled to the  Xv-presumption of nondominance on the U.S.Australia private line route.i'v 7 {OG -#X\  P6G;IP#эXxId.(#i AT&T opposed CWI's request for nondominant treatment on the U.S.Australia private line route for the  XH-same reasons it opposed CWI's request on the U.S.Japan route.}(H7 {O -#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee 1, supra.(#} The Common Carrier  X1-Bureau deferred action on CWI's request because of C&W's interest in Optus.r)1D7 X&-ԍXxPrivate Line Nondominance Order at 6097 ( 13).(#r d15. Under the Commission's rules, C&W's 24.5 percent interest in Optus does not create  X -an affiliation between CWI and Optus.* 7 {O-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee 47 C.F.R.  63.18(h)(1)(i).(#ƈ In addition, we find there is no basis in this record to conclude that C&W's investment in Optus presents a significant potential impact on  X -competition in the U.S. market for international telecommunications services.+ 7 {O-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee  12, supra.(#  X-} IV. CONCLUSION ĐTP d16. We find that reclassifying CWI as nondominant on the U.S.Canada route for all services, and on the U.S.Australia and the U.S.Japan routes for resold, noninterconnected international private line service, will serve the public interest. This reclassification should foster lower prices, innovative services, and increased responsiveness to U.S. consumer needs. d }!R " +0*(( "  }!R   X-6 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ĐTP d17. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that CWI shall be regulated as a nondominant carrier for all authorized international services on the U.S.Canada route, and for resold, noninterconnected international private line service on the U.S.Japan and U.S.Australia routes. d18. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, as a nondominant carrier for all authorized international services on the U.S.Canada route, and for resold, noninterconnected international private line service on the U.S.Japan and U.S.Australia routes, CWI shall comply with Sections 43.82, 63.15(b) and 63.21 of the Commission's rules.  X -d19. This order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission's Rules and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's Rules may be filed within 30 days of the date of the public notice of this Order (see 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(2)). ,Xp,XpdxFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION dxDonald H. Gips dxChief, International Bureau T