WPC6 2B<J CourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic3|j 0_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@26KF Z 3|j"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xj\  P6G;\oeXPbertus2i %.ZyKX Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSXj\  P6G;\EXP"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddda8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2y~,a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2 m3ya1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2P& e$G%%PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<.<<<<  X:-ԍXx  See supra note 5.(#b When we first adopted these benchmarks, only 2 out of 86 countries were within the benchmark ranges; today 24 out of 86 are. We also required U.S. carriers to file progress reports on their accounting rate negotiations with foreign administrations. These progress reports identified those countries which resisted moving  X-toward more costbased accounting rates.B   X$-ԍXxId.(#B In addition, we have long published U.S. accounting rates.  X-x15.` ` These policies have resulted in reduced U.S. accounting rates. For example," 0*((R" the average U.S. accounting rate has declined steadily from $1.29 per minute in 1985 to its current level of $0.83 per minute. Rates for many countries have fallen even more dramatically. For example, the rate with Deutsche Telekom (Germany) has fallen from 1.2 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) ($1.32) in 1985 to 0.26 SDR ($0.39). The U.S.Australia accounting rate has fallen from 1.5 SDR ($1.65) to 0.4 SDR ($0.60), and the accounting rate with British Telecom (United Kingdom) has fallen from $1.06 (0.8 SDR) to 0.25 SDR ($0.38) during this period.  XH-x16.` ` Despite this progress, accounting rates remain significantly above the cost of  X1-originating and terminating international telephone calls.1 X -ԍXxFor example, AT&T has estimated that a costbased accounting rate for the United  X -Kingdom is 0.08 SDR. See AT&T Comments, BTNA Application for Authority Under Section 214 of the Communications Act to Provide International Resale Services as a  Xg -Nondominant Common Carrier, File No. ITC93126 (filed Mar. 22, 1995). The current accounting rate with the United Kingdom is .25 SDR.(# Moreover, the everincreasing number of U.S. originated calls and the growing disparity between U.S.and foreignbilled minutes have resulted in a dramatic increase in U.S. net settlement outpayments. Since 1985,  X -the net settlement outpayment has quadrupled, reaching over 4.3 billion dollars in 1994. ! X-ԍXx See FCC Common Carrier Bureau Report, 1994 Section 43.61 International  X-Telecommunications Data, Figure 1, No. 61154 (rel. Jan. 19, 1996). (# While we recognize a competitive global market might still yield a net U.S. deficit, our concern is that a substantial part of the current settlements outpayments is the result of economically inefficient accounting rates and monopoly pricing practices for consumers in foreign markets. We believe a new approach to accounting rates will better enable us to  Xy-address these problems.  XK-,0 Discussion ă  X4-A New Accounting Rate Policy  X-x17.` ` We believe that two forces will continue to drive changes in the market place: the emergence of competition and the emergence of new technologies. The emergence of competition has encouraged suppliers to utilize existing technologies in new ways. This has changed both the types of services available and the pricing structure of the communications market. For example, competitors have responded to the discrepancy between U.S. and foreign collection rates by introducing callback and country direct services. Such services allow these carriers and their customers to take advantage of U.S. collection rates. International private line resale has provided yet another option to traditional correspondent International Message Telephone Service (IMTS), focusing competitive pressure on both collection charges and accounting rates. These types of services have greatly benefited U.S. and foreign consumers. XxX` ` (#` " 0*((="Ԍ X-x18.` ` Today, new technologies are emerging that offer even greater benefits, both to U.S. consumers and to the global economy. Advances in digitization and routing technology can potentially revolutionize global communications. New routing software and hardware increase a sender's ability to determine instantaneously the most costefficient method of providing service. And digital technology enables voice as well as data to be transmitted in the same form as a ubiquitous "bit." Digital technology also opens the way to practices that go beyond callback and resale and may some day significantly erode the effectiveness of ISP safeguards.  X1-x19.` ` These trends suggest that the fundamental assumption of the traditional system  X -(i.e., services provided jointly by two carriers) may not be the best way to organize new  X -global services in the future. Indeed, these new technologies offer new and improved forms of communication and should thus be encouraged. Development of these technologies would be advanced by a new, more flexible regulatory framework providing greater economic incentive to invest in and use the infrastructure necessary to support these technological innovations. Such a framework should be able to accommodate fundamentally different ways of organizing the supply and pricing of services.  Xd-x20.` ` Thus, recent changes in national market structures, technological innovations, and the success of alternative services such as callback and resale have caused us to rethink our approach to international accounting rate issues. These developments convince us that an exclusive reliance on the traditional accounting rate system is no longer appropriate. We believe that greater regulatory flexibility is needed to create or replicate marketbased  X-incentives and prices for both suppliers and consumers of international service.!~ Xj-ԍXxSee Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers; Equal Access and Interconnection Obligations Pertaining to  X>-Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC  X)-Docket Nos. 95185 & 9454, FCC 95505, 4 (released Jan. 11, 1996)(CMRS  X-Interconnection Order) (Policies that reflect marketbased incentives should maximize consumer choice).(#! Thus, we believe we can best assist the continued development of competitive market structures and technological innovations by refocusing our accounting rates policy in three ways. First, we intend even more actively to encourage and promote alternative services which will bring about both lower accounting rates and collection rates. Second, we will tailor our accounting rate policies, including the ISP, to reflect the diversity of national market structures. Third, we will more actively pursue measures to encourage accounting rate reductions.  X9-xA. A Further Commitment to Alternative Services and Facilities  X -x21.` ` Our experience has shown that services that are provided in a way which differs from the traditional correspondent IMTS can serve the public interest by providing increased competition in U.S. and foreign markets. These services include switched resale,"0*((" resale of private lines to provide switched service (or international simple resale (ISR)), country direct, callback, and switched hubbing. Some of these services are provided by new market entrants and some use new routing technologies to access traditional services. They all take advantage of price arbitrage opportunities to offer new, innovative services to consumers. Many offer additional value to consumers, such as itemized billing. x  Xv-x22.` ` These types of services offer many benefits when offered consistent with safeguards like our equivalency policy which we have imposed to protect against monopoly market power. By increasing competitive pressures in foreign markets, these services place significant downward pressure on foreign IMTS collection rates. These reductions stimulate additional foreignoriginated traffic, which should in turn have the beneficial effect of reducing the U.S. traffic imbalance, U.S. net settlement payments, and U.S. carriers' average  X -net settlement cost per minute.  Xe -ԍXxThe net settlement cost is the difference between settlements owed by U.S. carriers for U.S.billed service and settlement payments owed to U.S. carriers for foreign billed service.(# Such services also enable competitors to provide costeffective service to their customers on a global basis. In addition, these services stimulate  X -market entry by enabling the creation of specialized offerings.  X-x23.` ` We continue to encourage U.S. carriers to provide these types of alternative services, consistent with legal obligations. In addition, we will support U.S. carriers which develop additional innovative services and construct costeffective new facilities which  XK-provide similar competitive pressure. We also note that our recent Foreign Carrier Entry  X6-OrderV6K4 X2-ԍXx See supra note 3.(#V opens the door to foreign firms to enter the U.S. market and provide telecommunications services and facilities. We believe that new entrants and creative offerings of services and facilities will encourage further innovation and competitive pricing that will accelerate the development of effectively competitive markets around the world.  X-xB. Regulatory Flexibility to Reflect Diverse Markets  X-x24.` ` Competitive markets and technological advances do not develop simultaneously in all countries. Some governments have not embraced private ownership and competition. Additionally, economic conditions vary among countries; for example, cost characteristics, facilities, and resource endowments differ. We believe our approach to accounting rates should be flexible enough to recognize different market conditions throughout the world. Our analysis suggests that future policies should address at three least different conditions: (1) traditional monopoly or highly concentrated markets; (2) effectively competitive markets; and (3) developing countries. x  X -x` ` (1) Monopoly/Highly Concentrated Markets" 0*(("Ԍ X-ԙx25.` ` In most countries, suppliers with significant market power still provide international switched telephone service. To increase profits, the foreign carrier may use its market power to maintain high accounting rates and collection rates and "whipsaw" competing U.S. carriers. These profits may then be used to hold down domestic charges or to thwart attempts by new suppliers to enter the carrier's international market. In such countries the need to ensure that foreign carriers do not abuse their market power in negotiations with U.S.  Xv-carriers is unchanged.v X-ԍXxWe have faced similar concerns in considering domestic interconnection issues, where we determined that an entity with market power may have the incentive and the ability to set interconnection rates at excessive level. This can result in the restriction of  X -entry and a reduction in demand and excessive prices. See CMRS Interconnection  X -Order, FCC 95505,  12. (#  XH-4 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d244 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d24x26.` ` In such market conditions, we must continue to rely on the existing accounting rate system, including the ISP. The ISP has proven to be an effective method for preventing discrimination by safeguarding multiple U.S. carriers from the exercise of foreign carriers' market power to extract financial concessions, and promises to remain viable for the foreseeable future.  X -x` `    X -x27.` ` We will also continue to advocate more costbased accounting rates, and support U.S. carriers in their pursuit of lower accounting rates. Despite recent progress, accounting rates are still far above cost. We anticipate seeing significant, additional movement toward more costbased accounting rates, particularly with monopoly carriers.  XK-x28.` ` If we do not see substantial progress toward accounting rate reform, we will take stronger measures to reduce accounting rates. U.S. industry and consumers can no longer be required to bear the burden of abovecost accounting rate payments to foreign carriers. The measures we contemplate may include: supporting U.S. carriers which refuse to continue to pay high accounting rates when existing agreements expire, or tying reductions in accounting rates to growth in net settlement payments. We invite U.S. carriers' suggestions regarding what additional measures would be appropriate. These suggestions should take into consideration the broader goals of increased competition and greater market efficiency. Proposals should not inadvertently produce inefficient barriers to market entry or inhibit efficient, competitive pricing.  Xe-  XN-x29.` ` Finally, we recognize that, even in some highly concentrated markets, regulatory barriers to entry are being reduced. Limited entry is occurring at the margins of  X -the market. The rate at which additional entry occurs will depend, at least in part, on the legal and regulatory framework, conditions of entry, economies of scale, consumer preferences, and the efficiency of the incumbent. In circumstances where a carrier's ability to abuse its market power is constrained by its market position or market conditions in general, a partial relaxation of the ISP, combined with some limited reliance on market forces and" !0*((" appropriate safeguards, may facilitate new forms of competition and cause further progress towards competitive markets. Thus, we encourage U.S. carriers to submit for our approval alternative settlement arrangements which may necessitate waivers of certain portions of the ISP, even for markets that are not yet effectively competitive. We will review these requests based on their ability to achieve more marketoriented pricing and competition strategies while precluding abuse of market power. We will monitor the results of these arrangements via measures like average net settlement per minute, and will intervene if we discern significant negative trends.  XH-  X1-Xx` ` (2) Effectively Competitive Markets(# 4 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d244 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d24  X -x30.` ` An increasing number of countries are choosing to change from the traditional model of correspondent national monopolies to a fully competitive market. These 4 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d244 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d24countries are currently adopting the regulatory and economic reforms necessary to enable competition to emerge, as the United States has done over the last decade. New suppliers are entering the international telecommunications market, and competition among suppliers is now less frequently restricted to isolated or niche markets. As in the United States, some foreign incumbents' large share of the market appears to be declining, and there are indications that this trend will continue as new firms enter and recent entrants solidify their market positions. Where such entry is occurring, and the incumbent firms' ability to exercise market power is effectively constrained, we believe that our policies should promote continued development of competitive market structures.  X-x31.` ` The ISP was designed for a world characterized by bilateral negotiations between carriers with market power. Where markets are becoming competitive, the ISP, with its requirements of an equal division of accounting rates, proportionate return of traffic, and uniform accounting rates, may impede competitive behavior and the development of effectively competitive markets.  Xe-x32.` ` For example, our policy of requiring return traffic to be allocated proportionately among U.S. carriers may deter U.S. terminating carriers from offering innovative pricing and supply arrangements. The ISP also retards carriers from negotiating alternative commercial contractual arrangements for handling international telephone service. For example, some carriers may find it more efficient to terminate U.S.originated traffic abroad by bypassing the incumbent international gateway carrier and interconnecting directly to the domestic long distance network of the foreign country. This has the advantage of terminating traffic at an access charge which is likely to reflect competitive prices in the domestic market, not the traditionally high, abovecost accounting rates. Moreover, it allows the U.S. carrier to pick up international traffic from specialized domestic networks in a foreign country.  XQ%-x 33.` ` It is impossible to predict the most effective way of providing international telecommunications service in the future. Where possible, competitive market forces should determine the allocation of resources. Therefore, in markets where the legal, regulatory, and"#' 0*((%"  X-economic conditions support competition, we believe that we should allow U.S. carriers the flexibility to negotiate alternative settlement or payment arrangements with their foreign correspondents, without necessarily being bound by the ISP. For example, in a future proceeding, we anticipate modifying our rules so that carriers may negotiate termination fees for international interconnection into domestic networks on the same terms and conditions as rates available to domestic carriers. This approach is consistent with our approach to interconnection pricing in the domestic U.S. telecommunications market. Domestically, we have recognized that in the absence of market power or other distortions, efficient forms of  XH-interconnection may develop through private negotiation.H X -ԍXxCMRS Interconnection Order, FCC 95505,  11 ("In the absence of market power or other distortions, efficient forms of interconnection may develop through private negotiation").(#  X -x!34.` ` Such alternative payment arrangements would be subject to FCC approval, and to approval by the correspondent carrier's government. We shall work with U.S. carriers to facilitate such agreements where appropriate. Additionally, we will monitor the results of these arrangements via measures like U.S. carrier progress reports and average net settlements per minute.  X-x"35.` ` In a Public Notice issued contemporaneously with this Policy Statement, the  Xy-International Bureau invites interested parties to file supplemental comments in In the Matter  Xd-of Regulation of International Accounting Rates, CC Docket No. 90337, (Phase II) Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 8040 (1992). We will consider the framework for alternative payment arrangements in that proceeding.  X -Xx` ` (3) Developing Countries(#  X-x#36.` ` Developing countries receive a large and growing share of the net settlement payments transmitted by U.S. carriers to foreign carriers. Approximately seventy percent of  X-the payments by U.S carriers go to carriers in developing countries.TM X-ԍXxSee Section 43.61 International Telecommunications Data, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Federal Communications Commission (various years). The World Bank defines "developing countries" as countries where the annual income per capita is below $8,356. (#T In 1994, these payments totalled approximately $3 billion. The abovecost portion of these payments places a highly disproportionate, economically inefficient financial burden on U.S. industry and consumers.  X;-x$37.` ` 4 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d244 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d24We also recognize, however, that the changing global telecommunications market presents particular challenges for the communications needs of developing countries. Settlement payments received from U.S. and other foreign carriers have often been a source"  0*((=" of hard currency available for the purchase of facilities and equipment necessary to improve communications networks. Curtailment of these funds may, therefore, disrupt plans to make communications service more widely accessible to a larger portion of the people in these countries.  X-x%38.` ` International settlement payments, however, are not the only source of funding for such upgrades. More conventional sources of investment capital can provide the necessary currency for infrastructure improvements, and are a more economically efficient method of financing. Accounting rates which are artificially inflated far above costs are a form of distorted pricing that restricts market entry and hurts more than helps the creation of a sound economic foundation for network development. Moreover, settlement funds are not always  X -used to improve communications networks, but are allocated to other activities.  X| -ԍXx#Xx P|XP##Xj\  P6G; XP#See World Telecommunication Development Report, World Telecommunication Indicators, International Telecommunication Union, 1994, pp. 58 & 79. (#  X -x&39.` ` Greater emphasis should be placed on creating competitive market structures in developing countries. Competition, private investment (including foreign investment) and sound regulatory practices would encourage private capital markets to meet the financing needs of these countries. If necessary, those measures can be supplemented by an explicit subsidy mechanism targeted at expanding network infrastructure to promote universal access.  XK-x'40.` ` We recognize this transition may be difficult for many developing countries. Such countries are at different levels of economic and infrastructure development and have  X-different needs. Thus, we may need to tailor our policies regarding the developing world.-d X2-ԍXxCf. CMRS Interconnection Order, FCC 95505,  5 (Where we recognized in the context of the U.S. market that specific programs may be necessary to advance universal service in areas and for individuals where special needs exist).(#-  X-x(41.` ` We will soon consider alternative ways for U.S. carriers to work with foreign governments and carriers to facilitate the transition to lower accounting rates. In the meantime, we will maintain our current policies when dealing with foreign carriers with market power as described in Section B.1. above. We recognize that foreign carriers in developing countries need to ensure that they derive meaningful benefits from costbased accounting rates. For those interested in pursuing various alternatives, we will be willing to work with them on achieving solutions.  X7-xC. Measuring Progress  X -x)42.` ` In the past, we have relied on U.S. carrier benchmark settlement ranges and progress reports to measure movement toward costbased accounting rates. Our benchmarks provided U.S. carriers with estimates of appropriate settlement rates which enabled them to" 0*((" negotiate more effectively with foreign carriers. Additionally, U.S. carrier progress reports helped us to identify foreign carriers reluctant to move toward costbased accounting rates. These objective criteria are valuable measures of accounting rate progress. We intend to modify and update our settlement benchmark ranges, and we invite U.S. carriers to update and expand their progress report submissions.  Xv- x*43.` ` We believe that our benchmark ranges should reflect recent technological improvements, their associated cost reductions, and the market structure changes occurring in the global telecommunications markets. Accordingly, in establishing new benchmarks, we will investigate factors such as (1) whether the recent changes in global market structure  X -suggest that our benchmark categories should be based on other than geographic criteria (e.g., developing/developed world, high density routes vs. low density routes), and (2) whether our benchmarks should be adjusted annually to reflect technological changes and productivity advances. Our modified benchmark levels should also reflect the cost components for providing the facilities necessary to terminate an international call set forth in Annex A to ITU resolution D.140. Regional information on the cost of these components would greatly assist our efforts in establishing new benchmark ranges.  Xd-x+44.` ` Finally, we invite AT&T, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Sprint Communications Company L.P., and LDDS Communications, Inc. to submit updated progress reports. We are particularly interested in U.S. carriers identifying those foreign administrations most resistant to lowering accounting rates, and an empirical analysis of the factors that contribute to the settlements deficit. An updated list of those foreign carriers that are reluctant to reduce accounting rates will enable us to identify those countries which should be the focus of our efforts. Additionally, information on the factors contributing to the settlements deficit will help us to focus our efforts. Relevant information could include identification of the relative impact on the settlements deficit of U.S.billed services such as callback and country direct, international private line resale, availability or absence of closed user group services, international audiotext services, the disparity between U.S. and foreign  Xg-calling prices, and currency fluctuations. x  X9-. Conclusion ă  X -x,45.` ` We believe that the accounting rates reform we have described in this Policy Statement will better enable us to actively promote competition and technological innovation. We look forward to working with U.S. industry and consumers as well as foreign governments and carriers to develop a more effective accounting rate policy.  X"-`  Procedural Matters; Ordering Clauses ă  Xj$-x-46.` ` IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201205, 211, 215, 218220, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154, 201205, 211, 215, 218220, and 303, this Policy Statement is ADOPTED, and is effective upon publication in the Federal Register."%' 0*((%"Ԍ X-ԙx.47.` ` The notice and comment and effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply to this Policy Statement. 5 U.S.C.  553(b)(A),(d)(2). x x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x x` `  hh@William F. Caton  X -x` `  hh@Acting Secretary   (#  X -  X -