WPCH 2BJZ Courier3|j ix6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M(PCL)(Add) 2000M RM813HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\n"#mX@26 ZF K3|j HP LaserJet 4M(PCL)(Add) 2000M RM813HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\n"#mX@"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2S K'KrKK "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN)>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g,?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222!2I822F2>>$?2@>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHH!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====I!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8K,H6X@`7h@ ?xxx,`x6Nhez7XH`x/c81,oMc PE37PaH<!,o,< PE37,Pbz-b81,x5b&_ x7XDny.f81,f_ pi7q|+c81,C3c*0 x]78wC;,oXw PE37XP"i~'K2^1?VSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Soooxodx?Sodxxduo]dxoodd888SS8SSJSJ;S]..S.]SSS??.]JoSJ?SSSS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.oSoSoSoSoSuoJoJoJoJoJ?.?.?.?.x]xSxSxSxSx]x]x]x]fJoSxSxSxSdJxSdSnSoSnSnInIoSoSxknIoSoSnIxSxSxSxSxS]]?.SSSS?SYSSoSd/dCdSd9d/x]{x]x]xSxS{n?n?oS]?]?]?]Sd?d/dSx]x]x]x]x]x]odSd?d?d?xSdSx]]SdSdSk8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS?SJJSSSSSS8SSSS888YYS..SSffSSxS```8YS8"xxSxixxS哓0S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SoS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxofo]f]oJoAfJJxJA.oJo]]xJoSxJxffSfSSfJfJofo]fffooASxfffJffffz88SSSSoSSSffff8fSJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k2f s=FZH",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L xP-#Xw PE37XP#  #c PE37 MP#X01Í ÍX81Í Í x` `  hh@hpp  xxDA 971319  X-  # o\  PC9XP#  X-#X\  P6G;P##Xj\  P6G;9XP#  X-2+ Before the [ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  Xl-TWashington, D.C. 20554 ĐTP  X'-In the Matter of hh@)  X-x` `  hh@)h  X-Western Union International, Inc.hh@)hppFile No. ISP96004ND x` `  hh@)  X -Petition for Reclassification as a hh@)h  X -Nondominant IMTS Carrier hh@)  X -from Guam to Overseas Pointshh@)  XX-; ORDER ă  X*-xAdopted: June 24, 1997hh@hppReleased: June 24, 1997  X- By the Chief, International Bureau:  X-G$ I. Introduction ă  X-x1.` ` We grant, subject to limited conditions, Western Union International, Inc.'s (WUI) petition for reclassification as a nondominant carrier in the Guam market for international message telephone service (IMTS). We conclude that WUI faces effective competition in the provision of all Guam IMTS, with the exception of four routes where WUI  XD-is the sole facilitiesbased IMTS carrier. We find that WUI carries a de minimis amount of traffic to these four locations, and we therefore forbear from imposing dominant carrier regulation on these routes, pursuant to Section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  X-amended.J zPz-ԍx47 U.S.C.  160.J We impose certain safeguards on WUI's GuamU.K. route because of WUI's relationship, through its parent company MCI Telecommunications Corp. (MCI), to British Telecommunications plc (BT).  X -3" II. Background ă  X!-  Xw"-x2.` ` Since 1980, the Commission has distinguished between carriers with market power (dominant carriers) and those without market power (nondominant carriers) for"`#Z0*0*0*G""  X-purposes of Title II rate and entry regulation. zPy-ԍXxSee Policy & Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities  zPC-Authorizations Therefor, First Report & Order, 85 F.C.C.2d 1 (1980) (Competitive Carrier Order);  zP -Second Report & Order, 91 F.C.C.2d 59 (1982), recon., 93 F.C.C.2d 54 (1983); Third Report &  zP-Order, 48 Fed. Reg. 46,791 (1983); Fourth Report & Order, 95 F.C.C.2d 554 (1983), vacated sub  zP-nom. AT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d 727 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v.  zPk-AT&T, 113 S.Ct. 3020 (1993); Fifth Report & Order, 98 F.C.C.2d 1191 (1984); Sixth Report &  zP5-Order, 99 F.C.C.2d 1020 (1985), vacated sub nom. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 765 F.2d  zP-1186 (D.C. Cir. 1985); see also 47 C.F.R.  61.3(o) (defining a dominant carrier as "[a] carrier found  zP-by the Commission to have market power (i.e., power to control prices)"). (#ƃ Nondominant common carriers are subject to  X-"streamlined" Title II regulatory requirements.C\ zPD -ԍXxThe Commission has streamlined the Title II regulation of nondominant international carriers. See  zP -Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12884 (1996). (#C The Commission first applied its dominant/nondominant regulatory scheme to U.S. international carriers in the 1985  X-International Competitive Carrier proceeding.i  zP:-ԍXxSee International Competitive Carrier Policies, Report and Order, 102 F.C.C.2d 812 (1985), recon.  zP-denied, 60 R.R.2d 1435 (1986) (International Competitive Carrier Order). The Commission recently  zP-proposed to modify its dominant carrier regulation for international carriers. See Rules and Policies on  zP-Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market, Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 97142, FCC 97195 (rel. June 4, 1997). (#i The Commission held that IMTS (including international switched services) and nonIMTS (including private line services) are separate product markets. The Commission also held that, in applying the dominant/nondominant regulatory scheme to international services, every destination country constitutes a separate  Xa-geographic market.a zP-ԍXxSee International Competitive Carrier Order, 102 F.C.C.2d at 828.(#Ɔ Guam, as well as certain other noncontiguous domestic points, was  XJ-distinguished from the continental United States as a distinct geographic market.NJ zP-ԍXxSee id. at 832.(#N  X -x3.` ` In 1985, WUI's predecessor in interest, RCA Global Communications, Inc.  X -(RCA Globcom),$  xP`-ԍXxMCI acquired RCA Globcom in 1988 and transferred its common carrier operations and assets,  zP( -including RCA Globcom's Guam IMTS, to WUI, a subsidiary of MCI. See IT&E Overseas, Inc. and  zP -PCI Communications Inc., Petition for Emergency Relief and Expedited Declaratory Ruling, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 4023, 4023 n.9 (1992).(#Ƽ had "virtually 100 percent" of the Guam IMTS market.C^  zPL#-ԍXxSee Western Union International, Inc., Nondominant Status in Providing International Message  zP$-Telecommunications Service to Guam and Overseas Points, File No. ISP96004ND, at 4 (filed Apr. 5,  zP$-1996) (WUI Petition).(#C Its first competitor, IT&E Overseas, Inc., entered the market that year and had few customers. Neither WUI nor its predecessor ever provided local exchange or exchange access services on Guam. The Commission determined, however, that back in 1985 the public nonprofit local" 0*(( " exchange and exchange access provider, the Guam Telephone Authority (GTA), engaged in anticompetitive practices to benefit RCA Globcom by slowing the rate at which interexchange  X-competition could develop on Guam.  zPK-ԍXxSee IT&E Overseas, Inc. and PCI Communications Inc., Petition for Emergency Relief and Expedited  zP-Declaratory Ruling, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 4023, 40254026 (1992). In 1992, however, the Commission imposed certain requirements on GTA to prevent any further unjust and  zP-unreasonable practices. See id. at 40264027. GTA subsequently filed an Integrated Compliance Plan  zPq-and a federal interstate access tariff, effective October 1, 1996. See Guam Telephone Authority,  zP;-Petition for Declaratory Ruling, DA 97595,  5 & n.9 (Com. Car. Bur. rel. Mar. 21, 1997).(#  X-x4.` ` The Commission found in its 1985 International Competitive Carrier Order  X-that RCA Globcom did not face effective competition in the Guam IMTS market. J zP -ԍXxSee International Competitive Carrier Order, 102 F.C.C.2d at 832.(#Ɔ As a  Xx-result, the Commission determined that RCA Globcom would be regulated as dominant in the provision of IMTS. At that time, the Commission also stated its intention to revisit the regulatory status of particular noncontiguous carriers (including RCA Globcom) once other  X3-carriers began to offer international telephone service in their markets.L 3 zP-ԍxSee id. at 832.L  X -x5.` ` In its petition for reclassification, WUI asserts that it faces substantial competition from two facilitiesbased and six resale providers. As a result, WUI argues, its market share has decreased significantly and it no longer possesses market power in the Guam  X -IMTS market.e n  zP-ԍXxSee WUI Petition at 413. (#e WUI contends that the public interest would be served by reclassifying it as nondominant and thereby providing WUI with more flexibility to meet the needs of  X-consumers on Guam.L   zPC-ԍXxSee id. at 2.(#L No parties filed comments in response to WUI's petition.  Xd-#] III. Discussion ĐTP  X6-x6.` ` As an initial matter, we must determine whether to review WUI's Guam IMTS market position on a worldwide or routebyroute basis. With the possible exception of routes where WUI is the sole facilitiesbased provider or where WUI could potentially benefit from an ownership relationship with a dominant carrier in the destination market, the record in this proceeding indicates that WUI's market power does not differ materially among geographic markets. Although nearly 200 Guam IMTS routes exist, WUI has a market share above 70 percent for service to just 11 international locations, which account for 0.1189 percent of" 0*((p"  X-Guam IMTS billed revenues in 1995.$ zPy-ԍXxSee 1995 Section 43.61 International Traffic Data for Guam: FacilitiesBased and FacilitiesResale  zPC-Service, prepared by Jim Lande, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC (Mar. 7, 1997) (FCC 1995 Guam  zP -IMTS Report) (detailing WUI's 1995 market share for Guam IMTS and comparing the results to 1992  zP-data), pursuant to 1995 Section 43.61 International Telecommunications Data Report (rel. February  zP-1997). We note that WUI's market share on these and other routes may be considerably lower. See  zPk-infra note 22. Nonetheless, based on the Commission's formally compiled data, we find that WUI's relatively high market share in individual markets has declined significantly in recent years. In 1992,  zP-for example, WUI had a market share above 70 percent for service to 27 international points. See FCC  zP-1995 Guam IMTS Report.  (#$ Moreover, we find no evidence that entry barriers vary between these 11 routes and WUI's other IMTS routes. As the Commission previously recognized, U.S. facilitiesbased suppliers generally may enter all markets much more easily than a decade ago, whether through direct operating agreements, indirect transit arrangements,  X-or "switched hubbing."L zP -ԍXxSee Petition of GTE Hawaiian Telephone Company, Inc. for Reclassification as a Nondominant IMTS  zP-Carrier, Order, DA 961748,  14 (rel. Oct. 22, 1996) (GTE Hawaii Nondominance Order); Motion of  zP-AT&T Corp. to be Declared NonDominant for International Service, Order, FCC 96209,  35 (rel.  zP[- May 14, 1996) (AT&T International Nondominance Order). Switched hubbing is the practice whereby U.S. carriers route switched traffic over U.S. international private lines that terminate in equivalent countries, and then forward the traffic to a third, nonequivalent country by taking at published rates  zP-and reselling the IMTS of a carrier in the equivalent country. See Market Entry and Regulation of  zP-Foreignaffiliated Entities, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3873 at  169 (1995), recon. pending. (# Additionally, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 should stimulate  X-new competition for IMTS service. Consistent with previous Commission decisions, zP-ԍXxSee GTE Hawaii Nondominance Order at  1415; AT&T International Nondominance Order at  33.(#ƿ we do not believe that differences in WUI's market share among international routes warrant a routebyroute analysis of WUI's market position. Thus, with the exception of those routes where WUI is the sole facilitiesbased IMTS provider, we analyze WUI's Guam IMTS market position on a worldwide basis to determine whether it should be reclassified as a nondominant IMTS provider.  X -x7.` ` We separately analyze those routes where WUI is the sole facilitiesbased  X -provider reporting Guam billed revenue for IMTS. N xP-ԍXxThere are only four routes where WUI is the sole facilitiesbased provider reporting billed revenue  zP-from Guam: Anguilla, Gabon, Grenada, and Serbia. See FCC 1995 Guam IMTS Report.(# We also separately examine any route where WUI is related to a foreign carrier that possesses market power in that destination market.  Xy-xA.` ` WUI's Market Power in Guam  (#`  Xb-  XK-x8.` ` In determining a carrier's classification, the Commission has applied standard principles of antitrust analysis to decide whether a carrier possesses market power in the"40*(( "  X-provision of the relevant service in the relevant geographic market. zPy-ԍXxSee GTE Hawaii Nondominance Order at  12; AT&T International Nondominance Order at  36;  zPC-Motion of AT&T to be Reclassified as a NonDominant Carrier, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3271, 329394  zP -(1995) (AT&T Domestic Nondominance Order); Revisions to Price Cap Rules for AT&T Corp., Report  zP-and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 3009, 30143018 (1995) (Commercial Services Order); Competition in the  zP-Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5880, 58875892 (1991) (First  zPk-Interexchange Competition Order), recon., 6 FCC Rcd 7569 (1991), further recon., 7 FCC Rcd 2677  zP5-(1992), further recon., 10 FCC Rcd 4562 (1995); Competitive Carrier Order, 85 F.C.C.2d at 21.(#ƞ This analysis examines: (1) market share; (2) the supply elasticity of the market and the demand elasticity of the carrier's customers; (3) the carrier's cost structure, size, and resources; and (4) control of  X-bottleneck facilities.^ zP -ԍXxSee GTE Hawaii Nondominance Order at  12; AT&T International Nondominance Order  at  36.  zPL -See also Commercial Services Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 3016 (describing demand elasticity); First  zP -Interexchange Competition Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5888 (describing supply elasticity).(#ƻ  X- x9.` ` Market  Share. WUI's Guam IMTS market share has declined significantly since the Commission classified its predecessor in interest, RCA Globcom, as a dominant  X_-IMTS carrier in 1985.x_<  zPL-ԍxSee International Competitive Carrier Order, 102 F.C.C.2d at 832.x At that time RCA Globcom had "virtually 100 percent" of the Guam  XH-IMTS market.MH  zP-ԍxSee WUI Petition at 4.M In 1992, WUI's share of Guam IMTS billed revenues was 44.2 percent. By  X1-1995, WUI's share had dropped to 31.9 percent.: 1`  zPB-ԍXxSee FCC 1995 Guam IMTS Report. The Commission's formally compiled statistics likely overstate WUI's share of the Guam IMTS market. Sprint Communications, L.P. (Sprint) has failed to file Section 43.61 international traffic data reports for Guam, despite operating as a facilitiesbased Guam  zP-IMTS carrier since December 1993. See Sprint Waiver of Section 43.61 of the Commission's Rules  zPf-Concerning Separation of Guam Traffic (filed Mar. 21, 1997) (Sprint Waiver) (requesting a waiver for 1995 traffic and committing to separate out Guam traffic for the 1996 Section 43.61 Report). Although Sprint estimates that it carries 20 percent of Guam IMTS billed minutes, the Commission's 1995 traffic data recognizes WUI and IT&E Overseas, Inc. as the only facilitiesbased Guam IMTS carriers. (#  zPP-XxWe also note that we examine Guam traffic to foreign and U.S. points in order to assess WUI's Guam IMTS market share. As the Commission previously concluded, an analysis of market power in the Guam international market "would be incomplete" without considering traffic carried from Guam to the U.S. mainland or Hawaii because carriers often transport IMTS traffic back to their U.S. facilities  zPr!-before switching the calls on to foreign points. See Manual for Filing International Traffic Statistics  zP<"-under Section 43.61 of the Commission's Rules, Order, 7 FCC Rcd 4965, 4965 n.4 (1992).(#: This decline likely results from  X -competitors offering long distance and international calling plans,  zP$-ԍXxSee WUI Petition, Attachment B. This attachment contains competitors' advertisements in Guam.(#ƣ and is evidence of WUI's inability to control prices. " ~0*((! "Ԍ X-x 10.` ` Supply and Demand Elasticity. Two factors determine supply elasticity in a market: the supply capacity of existing competitors and the extent of entry barriers for new competitors. Supply elasticity tends to be high if existing competitors have or can easily acquire significant additional capacity in a relatively short time period. Supply elasticity also tends to be high if new suppliers can enter the market relatively easily and add to existing  X-capacity. zP-ԍXxSee First Interexchange Competition Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5888.(#Ƃ  X_-x 11.` ` WUI notes that the transmission capacity available from multiple sources has  XH-increased dramatically since 1985.[HZ zPS -ԍXxSee WUI Petition at 9.(#[ WUI contends that TransPacific Cable 5 (TPC5), which carries traffic from the U.S. mainland to Guam and Japan, offers "more capacity . . . alone  X -than the capacity needed for all existing Guam IMTS carriers combined."  zP-ԍXxId. at 11. Any decisions regarding future available capacity on this cable, moreover, would be made by the consortium of owners of the TPC5 cable in accordance with the TPC5 Construction and  zPI-Maintenance Agreement, not solely by WUI or its parent company MCI. See Joint Application for a License to Land and Operate a High Capacity Digital Submarine Cable Network Between and Among  zP-the United States Mainland, the State of Hawaii, the Island of Guam and Japan, 7 FCC Rcd 7674  zP-(Com. Car. Bur. 1992); Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Construct, Acquire Capacity in and Operate a High Capacity Digital Submarine Cable Network Between and Among the United States Mainland, the State of Hawaii, the  zP-Island of Guam and Japan, 7 FCC Rcd 7758 (Com. Car. Bur. 1992). (# Additional GuamU.S. mainland capacity is relevant to an analysis of Guam IMTS supply elasticity because carriers often "backhaul" their Guam IMTS traffic to their U.S. facilities before transporting it  X -to foreign points.  zPL-ԍXxSee, e.g., Sprint Waiver, supra note 22, at 1 (noting that "all [Sprint] traffic originating in Guam is backloaded to Sprint's Stockton, CA gateway for switching").(# We also have recently granted cable landing licenses for cables extending  X -between Guam and Hawaii and between Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.  zP-ԍXxSee Guam Telecom Ltd., L.C., Application for a License to Land and Operate a Submarine Fiber Optic  zPY-Cable Extending Between the U.S. Territory of Guam and the State of Hawaii, Cable Landing License,  zP#-10 FCC Rcd 12104 (Int'l Bur. 1995); GST Telecom, Inc., Application for a License to Land and Operate a Submarine Fiber Optic Cable Extending Between the Northern Mariana Islands of Saupan,  zP-Tinian, and Rota and the Territory of Guam, Cable Landing License, File No. SCL96001 (Int'l Bur. rel. Mar. 14, 1997). More recently, press reports suggest that Guam IMTS supply elasticity will remain high. Four U.S. carriers and six Asian carriers have announced plans to construct an undersea cable that will provide a direct link between China and the United States, with cable station locations in  zP"-Japan, Korea, and Guam. See Communications Daily, April 1, 1997, at 56.(# WUI asserts that although there is an earth station on Guam with a WUI nexus that transmits and receives telecommunications traffic, other carriers either are offering or will soon offer  Xy-competing earth station services.\y zP$'-ԍXxSee WUI Petition at 10.(#\ AT&T, for example, maintains an earth station located at"y0*((" Tanguisson Point, Guam, and PCI Communications, Inc. is authorized to operate an international earth station on Guam to communicate with INTELSAT Pacific Ocean Region  X-satellites.: zPK-ԍXxSee id. at 1011 (citing AT&T, Application for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Establish via the Tanguisson Point (Harmon) Earth Station Circuits for Restoring Digital Fiber Optic Cables and Providing AT&T's Authorized Services between Points in or  zP-Reached Via both the United States and Various Pacific Ocean Locations, Memorandum, Opinion and  zPo-Authorization, 7 FCC Rcd 5219 (Int'l Facilities Div. 1992); PCI Communications, Inc., Application for  zP9-Authority to Construct and Operate an International Earth Station located at Agana, Guam, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 9 FCC Rcd 1841 (Int'l Facilities Div. 1994)).(#: In addition, Sprint's emergence as a facilitiesbased IMTS carrier offers evidence  X-that low entry barriers exist in the Guam IMTS market.` zP| -ԍXxSee Sprint Waiver, supra note 22.(#` As a result, we believe that the increase in cable and earth station capacity, as well as the addition of a new facilitiesbased carrier, supports a finding that supply elasticity is high in the Guam IMTS market.  X_-x 12.` ` Demand elasticity measures the willingness of customers to switch carriers or otherwise change the amount of services they purchase in response to relative changes in price  X1-and quality. 1 zP-ԍXxSee e.g., AT&T Domestic Nondominance Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 33053307.(#Ƅ High demand elasticity indicates that it is unlikely that significant market  X -power exists.w! 4  zP-ԍXxSee Commercial Services Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 3016.(#w  X -x 13.` ` The record demonstrates that several of WUI's competitors use promotions,  X -calling plans, and discounts to attract customers in the Guam IMTS market.`"  zPL-ԍXxSee WUI Petition at Attachment B.(#` The fact that WUI's IMTS market share has dropped 28 percent from 1992 to 1995 indicates that  X -customers in Guam are highly demand elastic.Y# X  zP-ԍXxSee Guam 1995 IMTS Report.(#Y  Xy-x 14.` ` Cost Structure, Size and Resources. Although WUI at one time enjoyed certain advantages as a dominant Guam IMTS provider, we believe that those benefits have been  XK-effectively eroded. At the time of the International Competitive Carrier Order, WUI's predecessor in interest, RCA Globcom, had a single competitor, IT&E, that was new to the market and did not provide a sufficient degree of competition to prevent anticompetitive  X-conduct.$ zP$-ԍXxSee International Competitive Carrier Order, 102 F.C.C.2d at 832.(#ƀ Today, however, a number of wellestablished international carriers have cut WUI's IMTS market share considerably. In addition to the facilitiesbased competition provided by IT&E and Sprint, WUI observes that PCI Communications, Access Telecom, Columbia Communications Corp., Asian American Telecom, Island Long Distance, and Micro"|$0*(("  X-Business Systems all provide IMTS to Guam consumers.[% zPy-ԍXxSee WUI Petition at 6.(#[ AT&T offers IMTS to and from  X-Guam for its cardholders.>&Z zP-ԍxSee id.>  X-x15.` ` WUI is a subsidiary of MCI, the second largest provider of IMTS in the  X-United States after AT&T.' zPA -ԍXxSee 1995 Section 43.61 International Telecommunications Data Report, at 19 fig. 7.(#Ɨ With the possible exception of WUI's service to the United  X-Kingdom, which we analyze below,W(~ zP -ԍXxSee infra Section III.C.(#W the record offers no evidence to suggest that WUI's size and resources allow it to obtain favorable treatment from foreign correspondents. The Commission, moreover, has concluded that even a carrier the size of AT&T, which enjoys resource advantages, scale economies, longterm relationships with suppliers, and ready access  X1-to capital, does not necessarily possess market power.)1 zP-ԍXxSee AT&T International Nondominance Order at  67; AT&T Domestic Nondominance Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3309.(#Ƹ The same conclusion applies in this case.  X -x16.` ` Control of Bottleneck Facilities. WUI states that "it does not, and never did,  X -control Guam's access facilities."W* j  zP-ԍXxWUI Petition at 9.(#W Rather, the Guam Telephone Authority is the sole provider of access services to Guam IMTS providers. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Guam Telephone Authority currently is engaged in anticompetitive practices to benefit WUI. In addition, the record does not suggest that WUI maintains bottleneck control of international gateways. We therefore find no evidence to indicate that WUI controls bottleneck facilities that could be used to gain market power.  X4-x17.` ` We find, based on WUI's low market share, its size and resources, its lack of bottleneck control, and the high supply and demand elasticity in the Guam IMTS market, that unlike in 1985, WUI faces effective competition and no longer warrants classification as a dominant carrier in the provision of IMTS from Guam.  X-  X-xB.` ` Forbearance  X-x18.` ` As noted in paragraph 7 above, the most recent data formally compiled by the Commission reveals that WUI is the sole facilitiesbased carrier reporting Guam billed"| *0*((P"  X-revenue for IMTS to four international locations.y+ zPy-ԍXxBecause Sprint has not filed IMTS traffic data for Guam, see supra note 22, it is possible that the Commission's formally compiled traffic data does not account for facilitiesbased competition that exists on these four routes. In addition, given the generally low level of actual billed revenue on each of the four routes, it is possible that another carrier's customers simply did not make calls to these locations.  zP-Nonetheless, we make this forbearance determination based on the data in the FCC 1995 Guam IMTS  zPe-Report. (#y These are: Anguilla, Gabon, Grenada,  X-and Serbia.],F zP-ԍXxSee FCC 1995 Guam IMTS Report.(#] Based on the record developed in this proceeding, we believe that it is appropriate to forbear from imposing dominant carrier regulation on WUI's provision of IMTS to these locations.  X-x19.` ` Under Section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission must forbear from imposing any regulation "in any or some . . . geographic markets" if we determine that: (1) enforcement of such regulation is not necessary to ensure that rates are just and reasonable and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such regulation is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying such regulation is consistent with  X -the public interest.O-  xP-ԍXx47 U.S.C.  160(a).(#O Moreover, as part of the determination, the Commission must also consider whether forbearance from enforcing such regulation will promote competitive market conditions, including the extent to which forbearance will enhance competition among  X -providers of telecommunications services.S. h  zP-ԍXxSee id.  160(b).(#S  X-x20.` ` WUI's tariffed rates reveal that the charges for service to Anguilla, Gabon, Grenada, and Serbia are no higher than those that WUI charges for service on routes where it  Xb-faces effective competition./b  zP -ԍXxCompare Western Union International, Inc., Tariff F.C.C. No. 28, Section D.2 with FCC 1995 Guam  zP-IMTS Report.(# Moreover, the absence of barriers to entry suggest that facilitiesbased competition may soon develop on these four routes, as it did on each of the 13  X4-additional routes that WUI served as the sole facilitiesbased carrier in 1992.]04V  zP;!-ԍXxSee FCC 1995 Guam IMTS Report.(#] As the Commission has noted previously, such potential competition can ensure that prices are just  X-and reasonable.m1 zP$-ԍxSee AT&T International Nondominance Order at  96.m Therefore, we conclude that dominant carrier regulation on routes to these four locations is not necessary to ensure rates are just and reasonable or otherwise to protect  X-consumers. " z10*(("Ԍ X-x21.` ` We also note that these routes account for 0.055 percent of the total 1995  X-Guam billed revenue for IMTS.B2\ zPb-ԍXxSee FCC 1995 Guam IMTS Report. Individually, these routes account for the following share of total Guam IMTS traffic: Anguilla (0.00003 percent); Gabon (0.0008 percent); Grenada (0.002 percent);  zP-and Serbia (0.05 percent). See id.(#B We find that this traffic is a de minimis amount and  X-therefore we cannot justify the economic costs of dominant carrier regulation for these routes. In such circumstances, dominant carrier regulation can impede, rather than promote, competition among providers of telecommunications services. Accordingly, we will forbear from applying dominant carrier regulation on WUI's IMTS routes to Anguilla, Gabon, Grenada, and Serbia.  XJ- xC.` ` Regulatory Status of Service to the United Kingdom  X -x22.` ` We also must examine whether a potential risk exists that WUI, through its parent company MCI's relationship to BT, may gain anticompetitive advantages on its Guam X -U.K. route. In the 1994 BT/MCI Order, the Commission found that BT was the largest telecommunications operator in the United Kingdom and "the principal service provider in the  X -[U.K.] international facilitiesbased service market."x3^  zP_-ԍXxSee MCI Communications Corporation, British Telecommunications plc, Joint Petition for Declaratory  zP)-Ruling Concerning Section 310(b)(4) and (d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,  zP-Declaratory Ruling and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 3960, 3960 n.2 (1994) (BT/MCI Order).(#x Even though BT's acquisition of a 20 percent interest in MCI did not rise to "affiliated" status within the meaning of the  X-Commission's rules,4 xPW-ԍXxIn general, a U.S. carrier is affiliated with a foreign carrier when a foreign carrier owns a greater than 25 percent interest in, or controls, the U.S. carrier, or when a U.S. carrier owns a greater than 25  zP-percent interest in, or controls, a foreign carrier. See 47 C.F.R.  63.10(a)(4) & 63.18(h)(1)(i). The Commission regulates U.S. international carriers as dominant on routes where an affiliated foreign carrier has the ability to discriminate in favor of its U.S. affiliate through control of bottleneck services  zPA-or facilities in the destination market. See Regulation of International Common Carrier Services,  zP -Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 7331, 7334 (1992); see also Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign zP-affiliated Entities, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3873, 39663971 (1995) recon. pending (reaffirming the basic framework). (# the Commission determined that the acquisition "may provide BT with the incentive . . . to discriminate in favor of MCI" over competing U.S. international  Xf-carriers._5f zP!-ԍXxBT/MCI Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3967.(#_ Rather than regulating MCI as a dominant carrier on its U.S.U.K. route, however, the Commission imposed limited safeguards that it determined were "sufficient to ensure that  X8-the parties do not engage in anticompetitive activities."68| zPe$-ԍXxId. The Commission concluded that certain provisions of dominant carrier regulation, including extended notice of tariff filings, cost support justification, and prior Section 214 authorization for  zP%-circuit additions, were "needlessly burdensome in this context." Id. n.69. The Commission therefore required that MCI: (1) amend its Section 214 certificates to include a "no special concessions" clause"'50*((&" stating that it will not accept, directly or indirectly, any special concessions from any foreign carrier or administration with respect to traffic or settlement flows between the United States and any foreign country; (2) maintain complete records on the provisioning and maintenance of network facilities and services that it procures from BT, to be made available to the Commission upon request; and (3) provide: (i) monthly circuit status reports for U.S.U.K. circuits, to be made publicly available on a quarterly basis, (ii) notification of any addition to the number of circuits on the U.S.U.K. route, specifying the joint owner; and (iii) reports covering revenue, number of messages, and number of minutes of both originating and terminating traffic between the United States and the United Kingdom,  zP-to be filed within 90 days from the end of each calendar quarter. See id. at 39663968. (#Ƽ We believe the same safeguards are"8 b 60*(( " warranted in this case. We also note that the Commission has before it a petition regarding  X-the proposed merger between BT and MCI.7b  zP -ԍXxSeeĠMCI Communications Corporation and British Telecommunications plc Seek FCC Consent for  zP -Proposed Transfer of Control, Public Notice, DA 962079 (rel. Dec. 10, 1996).(# If that transaction is approved and the Commission imposes any conditions on MCI's IMTS traffic, these safeguards will apply to WUI.  X-"C IV. Conclusion ĐTP  X_-x23.` ` We conclude that the reclassification of WUI as a nondominant provider of Guam IMTS to all but four international routes is in the public interest. Our decision is based on the finding that WUI faces effective IMTS competition in Guam. We also forbear from  X -imposing dominant carrier requirements on the remaining four de minimis routes under Section 10 of the Communications Act. As a condition of reclassification, we impose on WUI's GuamU.K. route the same safeguards that we impose on the U.S.U.K. route of WUI's parent company, MCI.  X -x24.` ` WUI will still be subject to regulation under Title II of the Communications  X-Act.8  zP-ԍXxSee Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12884 (1996).(# WUI is required to offer international services under rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory (Sections 201 and 202), and is subject to  Xd-the Commission's complaint process (Sections 206209).b9d xP- -ԍXx47 U.S.C.  201, 202, and 206209.(#b  X6-P V. Ordering Clauses ĐTP  X-x25.` ` Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that WUI's petition for reclassification as a nondominant carrier of Guam international message telephone service under " 90*(("  X-International Competitive Carrier Policies, 102 F.C.C.2d 812 (1985), is hereby GRANTED,  X-subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 26.  X-x26.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that WUI shall comply with the obligations we  X-imposed on MCI's U.S.U.K. IMTS route in the BT/MCI Order, 9 FCC Rcd 3960 (1994), and any future conditions we may impose on MCI on the U.S.U.K. IMTS route.  Xc-x27.` ` This order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules and is effective immediately. 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  X -of the public notice of this order (see Section 1.4(b)(2) of the Commission's rules). x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Peter F. Cowhey  Xh-x` `  hh@Chief, International Bureau Đ