******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) CABLE & WIRELESS, INC. ) ) Application for Streamlined Authority Pursuant) File No. ITC-98-180 to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934) as Amended, to Provide Resold and Facilities-) Based Switched and Private Line Service) Between the United States and Jamaica and Macau) ) Application for Streamlined Authority Pursuant ) File No. ITC-98-181 to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934) as Amended, to Provide Resold and Facilities-) Based Switched and Private Line Service) Between the United States and Barbados,) Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Maldives, Solomon) Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St.) Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and) Tobago ) ) and ) ) Cable & Wireless Global Card Services, Inc.) ) Application for Authority Pursuant to Section 214) File No. ITC-98-193 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended,) to Provide Resold Switched Telecommunications) Services Between the United States and) International Points ) ORDER, AUTHORIZATION AND CERTIFICATE Adopted: September 17, 1998 Released: September 18, 1998 By the Chief, Telecommunications Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we grant Cable & Wireless, Inc. ("CWI") authority to provide facilities- based switched and private line international telecommunications services, and to provide resold, non- interconnected private line services, between the United States and Macau, Barbados, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Maldives, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St.Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. We also grant CWI authority to provide facilities-based switched and private line services between the United States and Jamaica. We classify CWI as a dominant carrier in its provision of these authorized services. Further, we grant Cable & Wireless Global Card Services, Inc. ("C&W Card Services") authority to provide international message telephone service (IMTS) on a resale basis between the United States and international points excluding China and those points listed in Appendix A to this Order. We defer action on C&W Card Services' request to provide IMTS on a resale basis between the United States and China. We classify C&W Card Services as a dominant carrier, as detailed below, in its provision of these authorized services on routes where it is affiliated with a foreign carrier that has market power. II. BACKGROUND 2. CWI seeks authority to provide facilities-based switched and private line service and resold non-interconnected private line service between the United States and Macau, Barbados, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Maldives, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. It also seeks authority to provide facilities-based switched and private line service between the United States and Jamaica. 3. CWI is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Cable and Wireless, plc ("C&W plc"), a company organized under the laws of England and Wales. CWI has received numerous authorizations under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to provide switched and private line services between the United States and international points throughout the world, on both a facilities and resale basis. Grant of the instant applications would expand CWI's facilities-based and resold, non- interconnected private line authority to include the referenced international points, each of which is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). CWI certifies that it has an affiliation with a foreign carrier in each of the proposed destination markets and agrees to be regulated as a dominant carrier under Section 63.10 of the rules on each of these routes. 4. C&W Card Services also is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of C&W plc. C&W Card Services proposes to provide IMTS by reselling the facilities-based international services offered by its affiliate, CWI. C&W Card Services requests authority to provide IMTS on a resale basis between the United States and all international points where it states it is: (i) not affiliated with a foreign carrier; (ii) affiliated with a foreign carrier that lacks market power; or (iii) affiliated with a foreign carrier that has market power in a WTO Member country where C&W Card Services agrees to be regulated as a dominant carrier under Section 63.10(c). C&W Card Services requests that we defer action with respect to its request for authorization to serve China. 5. We placed the CWI and C&W Card Services applications on public notice on March 4, 1998 and March 11, 1998, respectively. Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) filed a petition to deny the CWI and C&W Card Services applications with respect to the provision of service on the U.S.- Jamaica and U.S.-St. Kitts and Nevis routes. AT&T Corp. (AT&T) filed comments on the CWI applications. AT&T does not oppose grant of these applications. It argues, however, that grant of the CWI applications would pose a very high risk to competition in the U.S. international services market unless certain additional conditions are imposed. III. DISCUSSION A. Market Entry Analysis 6. We analyze the applications from CWI and C&W Card Services under the rules adopted by the Commission in the Foreign Participation Order, which became effective on February 9, 1998. In that order, the Commission adopted, as a factor of its public interest analysis, a rebuttable presumption that applications for Section 214 authority from carriers from WTO Member countries do not pose concerns that would justify denial of an application on competition grounds. The Commission stated it would grant expeditiously the Section 214 application of any carrier seeking to serve a WTO Member country except in the exceptional case where a carrier's entry presents a very high risk to competition in the U.S. market that cannot be addressed by the Commission's safeguards or by additional conditions. In addition, we may further review applications if the Executive Branch raises serious concerns regarding national security, law enforcement, foreign policy or trade issues. 7. Although CWI is affiliated with foreign carriers in each of the countries for which it seeks Section 214 authority, these countries are members of the WTO. CWI is therefore entitled to a presumption in favor of entry on each of these routes. With the exception of Russia, discussed separately in Section D below, we find that C&W Card Services has limited its request for authority to markets for which it is entitled to a presumption in favor of entry. The Executive Branch has not raised any concerns with respect to these applications. Two parties, however, question the presumption that entry by the applicants will promote competition in the U.S. international telecommunications market. 8. In developing an open entry policy for applicants from WTO Member countries, the Commission anticipated that entry into the U.S. market by an applicant that was itself, or was affiliated with, a foreign carrier from a WTO Member country may pose competitive risks by virtue of the applicant's ability to exercise market power on the foreign end of the affiliated route. The Commission stated that, in circumstances where it found our regulatory safeguards would be ineffective at preventing anticompetitive conduct injurious to end-user customers, it could find it necessary to impose additional conditions on the grant of authority. In addition, in the exceptional case where an application poses a very high risk to competition in the U.S. market, where our safeguards and conditions would be ineffective, the Commission reserved the right to deny an application. 9. The Commission further explained that, in order to pose a risk to competition that would warrant denial of an application, an applicant must possess the ability to harm competition in the U.S market in addition to the ability to exercise its foreign market power. The Commission stated that it would find denial warranted in circumstances where a carrier would have the ability upon entry, or shortly thereafter, to raise prices by restricting output. The Commission also stated that it would consider an applicant's past behavior as an indication whether it would fail to comply with regulatory safeguards and whose behavior, as a result, could damage competition and otherwise negatively impact the public interest. In particular, the Commission will consider whether a carrier has engaged in adjudicated violations of Commission rules, U.S. antitrust or other competition laws, or in demonstrated fraudulent or other criminal conduct. 10. Sprint argues that two of the applicants' monopoly affiliates, Cable & Wireless Jamaica, Ltd. (CWJ) and St. Kitts and Nevis Telecommunications, Ltd. (SKANTEL), have engaged in anticompetitive behavior that renders it highly likely that they, together with the applicants, will engage in conduct posing a very high risk to competition. In support of its argument, Sprint alleges instances of past improper and discriminatory actions by CWJ and SKANTEL. Sprint points to difficulties with SKANTEL in receiving return traffic, despite Sprint's direct interconnect agreement with SKANTEL and numerous requests for return traffic. Sprint makes several allegations against CWJ. It argues, first, that CWJ has refused to formalize their operating agreement for the provision of IMTS between the United States and Jamaica. Second, Sprint alleges that CWJ has improperly denied Sprint the ability to provide prepaid calling card services in Jamaica and denied use of Sprint's FONCard product except at certain hotels. These actions, according to Sprint, ignore a ruling by Jamaica's Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) that prepaid calling cards do not fall within the scope of CWJ's exclusive monopoly. Third, Sprint argues that CWJ has demanded that Sprint pay settlements on its Jamaica-originated Home Country Direct traffic to the United States at a discriminatory, assumed completion ratio of 85 percent. Sprint states that this ratio is much higher than the actual completion ratio and effectively permits a foreign monopoly carrier to raise settlement rates for U.S. carriers without the need for Commission approval. In a recent ex parte letter, Sprint advises the Commission of delays it has encountered in activating new circuits with CWJ. Sprint suggests that the delay is a deliberate attempt by CWJ to discriminate against Sprint. 11. Sprint believes that the behavior of the applicants and their monopoly affiliates indicates that compliance with Commission rules and safeguards is unlikely and that such noncompliance would damage competition in the U.S. market and otherwise negatively impact the public interest. Sprint argues further that it has no effective redress before the independent regulator in Jamaica because the OUR does not have the power to compel action by CWJ. According to Sprint, the lack of an effective independent regulator contravenes Jamaica's WTO commitment and undermines the Commission's assumptions underlying the presumption of favor of entry for carriers or affiliates of carriers from WTO Member countries. Sprint therefore believes that grant of authority to CWI and C&W Card Services on the U.S.- Jamaica and U.S.-St. Kitts and Nevis routes would pose a very high risk to competition that warrants denial. 12. AT&T limits its arguments to the CWI applications. It contends, however, that our international dominant carrier safeguards are not sufficient to reduce the risk that CWI will distort competition on the affiliated routes it seeks to serve. AT&T urges that additional conditions are warranted because the international facilities-based markets in the destination countries will likely remain closed for a significant number of years. AT&T also submits that Sprint's petition demonstrates a risk to competition sufficient to, at a minimum, impose the conditions AT&T requests. 13. The applicants request that we reject the arguments presented by Sprint and AT&T and grant the applications because the parties fail to meet the heavy burden that the Commission established for denying applications. According to CWI and C&W Card Services, there has been no showing that the Commission's safeguards are inadequate to detect and deter anticompetitive conduct, nor has any party provided evidence of adjudicated violations of the Commission's rules and regulations. C&W Card Services adds that Sprint's arguments are commercial disputes that should not be handled within the Commission's Section 214 process. In response to a staff request for further information, the applicants maintain that Sprint has not responded to CWJ's objection to certain terms and conditions that Sprint has sought to impose in a formal operating agreement. Sprint responds, however, that the delay in finalizing the operating agreement is due to the inaction of CWJ, not Sprint. In any event, according to the applicants, the lack of a formal agreement has not affected the exchange of service between CWJ and Sprint. They note that CWJ provides service to other U.S. carriers, such as MCI, pursuant to informal arrangements. The parties also confirm that CWJ applies an 85 percent completion ratio for the home country direct traffic of all U.S. carriers, not just Sprint. 14. The applicants also respond further to Sprint's allegations that CWJ improperly denied Sprint the ability to provide prepaid calling card service and limited use of Sprint's premium FONCard to certain hotels. The applicants maintain that the only restriction CWJ places on the use of foreign carrier phone cards is that they cannot be used to call third countries. They state that this restriction applies to the phone cards of all foreign carriers. According to C&W Card Services, foreign carrier provision of calling card service in Jamaica to originate international calls to third countries would be in derogation of CWJ's exclusive license on international voice telephony from Jamaica. To the extent hotels themselves are blocking calls, the applicants state that CWJ has created an alternative calling arrangement to enable hotel guests to use their credit cards to pay for calls when access is blocked, and this alternative calling arrangement is available to all U.S. carriers. 15. We are concerned about the disputes between Sprint and the applicants' foreign affiliates. We do not find, however, that Sprint and AT&T have demonstrated that grant of these applications would pose a very high risk to competition which cannot be addressed by safeguards or additional conditions. Clearly, Sprint has encountered problems with the applicants' foreign affiliates in Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis. These problems encountered by Sprint, however, are not unique. Other U.S.-authorized carriers face the same or similar obstacles in providing U.S. international service in correspondence with foreign carriers that possess market power. They also face obstacles in attempting to provide services, such as prepaid calling card service, that compete with services provided by the foreign carrier in its own market. Indeed, the Commission has recognized on numerous occasions that "foreign market power. . .can be abused with or without a U.S. affiliate." The Commission has therefore adopted safeguards that apply to all U.S. carriers in their correspondent relations with foreign carriers. 16. At the same time, the Commission has recognized that an affiliation between a U.S. carrier and a foreign carrier with market power creates a heightened risk of anticompetitive conduct on the affiliated U.S. international route. In the Foreign Participation Order, the Commission dealt at length with the issue of safeguards for U.S. carriers on routes where they are affiliated with foreign carriers that have sufficient market power to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market. The Commission revised its international "dominant carrier" safeguards "to ensure that entry by a foreign carrier with market power does not cause anticompetitive harm in the U.S. market." To this end, the Commission also has adopted a benchmark settlement rate condition and related enforcement mechanisms for detecting market distortions by foreign-affiliated U.S. carriers. The Commission additionally has adopted a general rule enabling it to review a carrier's authorization and, if warranted, to impose additional conditions on its authorization where it appears that harm to competition is occurring on one or more U.S. international rates. 17. The issue posed by the instant applications is whether these safeguards, taken together, are sufficient to address the heightened risk of anticompetitive conduct by the applicants on the affiliated routes included in their applications. We conclude that neither Sprint nor AT&T has demonstrated that our safeguards and enforcement authority are not adequate to prevent anticompetitive behavior. The conduct of CWJ and SKANTEL does not demonstrate an unwillingness by the applicants to comply with our rules and regulations. The parties have failed to provide evidence that the applicants and their foreign affiliates have engaged in adjudicated violations that would indicate an applicant's potential noncompliance with our rules and regulations. We therefore find no basis to deny the applicants authority to serve Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis. 18. We also find no basis to impose the additional conditions requested by AT&T. The Commission in the Foreign Participation Order specifically found that its regulatory safeguards and enforcement authority would be sufficient to detect and deter anticompetitive conduct by U.S.-authorized carriers and their foreign affiliates in WTO countries, regardless of the quality of their market opening commitments in the WTO or the extent of implementation of their commitments. Moreover, as explained above, we find insufficient evidence that CWI and C&W Card Services are unlikely to comply with these safeguards. 19. Our decision to grant these applications should not be construed as condoning the conduct alleged by Sprint. We are willing to intervene on any U.S. carrier's behalf in disputes with foreign carriers, such as difficulties in receiving return traffic and imposition of unreasonable or discriminatory completion ratios for U.S. international traffic. We will continue to work with Sprint and the applicants to resolve the outstanding issues raised in this proceeding. We also observe that our "No Special Concessions" rule and International Settlements Policy (ISP) prohibit the applicants from agreeing to accept from SKANTEL or CWJ preferential treatment in the receipt of return traffic or other matters that involve: (1) operating agreements for the provision of basic services; (2) distribution arrangements or interconnection arrangements, including pricing, technical specifications, functional capabilities, or other quality and operational characteristics, such as provisioning and maintenance times; or (3) any information, prior to public disclosure, about a foreign carrier's basic network services that affects either the provision of basic or enhanced services or interconnection to the foreign country's domestic network by U.S. carriers or their U.S. customers. For example, we would scrutinize as a potential special concession any operating agreement that CWJ may grant CWI (including for the provision of U.S. premium calling card services for U.S. customers traveling in Jamaica) prior to formalizing an operating arrangement with Sprint. In light of the continuing unresolved disputes between Sprint and CWJ, and the apparent delay in SKANTEL's initiation of return traffic to Sprint, we condition grant of this authority expressly on the applicants, SKANTEL and CWJ not engaging in anticompetitive actions that will give the applicants an unfair advantage in the U.S. international services market. If we find evidence of such anticompetitive conduct, we reserve the right to impose substantial forfeitures or suspend or terminate this authorization for failure to meet the conditions of the grant. 20. With respect to Sprint's difficulties in providing calling card service for the provision of third country calling in Jamaica, we agree with the applicants that this dispute should be handled by the OUR or through other legal redress in Jamaica. Sprint's right to provide such service in Jamaica is a matter that, in the first instance, is properly decided by Jamaican legal and regulatory authorities. The proper forum for addressing the adequacy of regulation in WTO Member countries is the WTO Dispute Resolution Body in Geneva. B. Conditions on Service 21. In the Benchmarks Order, the Commission adopted a benchmark settlement rate condition, effective January 1, 1998, for authorizations to provide facilities-based switched or private line services to destination markets where the authorized carrier is affiliated with a foreign carrier. The Benchmarks Order requires that we condition CWI's facilities-based authorizations on its affiliated foreign carriers offering U.S. international carriers a settlement rate for each affiliated market that is at or below the relevant benchmark settlement rate adopted in that order. We impose this condition in order to reduce the ability of U.S.-authorized carriers to engage in a predatory price squeeze when providing service to an affiliated market. The settlement rates of the applicant's foreign affiliate must be at or below the relevant benchmark on the affiliated route at the time the applicant commences service on that route. CWI will therefore be prohibited from using its facilities-based authority on each affiliated route until the settlement rates of its respective foreign carrier affiliates reach the relevant benchmark rates established in the Benchmarks Order. Presently, none of CWI's affiliates in markets covered by its applications satisfies the benchmark condition. 22. Because we read the C&W Card Services application to request authority to provide IMTS both by reselling the switched and private line services of its affiliate CWI, we impose on the C&W Card Services authorizations the benchmark settlement rate condition adopted in the Benchmarks Order for U.S. carrier provision of "international simple resale (ISR)." In order to provide ISR between the United States and a particular foreign destination market, the Benchmarks Order requires that settlement rates for at least 50 percent of the settled U.S.-billed traffic between the United States and that market are at or below the relevant benchmark established in that order. In cases where the ISR benchmark condition is not met, the Foreign Participation Order authorizes the provision of ISR to a WTO Member if the WTO Member affords U.S. carriers opportunities to provide ISR that are "equivalent" to those available under U.S. law. The Commission will authorize a carrier to provide ISR between the United States and a non- WTO Member country only if it finds that both the settlement rate condition and the equivalency test are met. Thus, we here authorize C&W Card Services to provide ISR on all routes for which the Commission has made or in the future makes these required findings. We also note that the facilities- based authority granted here to CWI pursuant to  63.18(e)(2) and (6) includes the authority to provide ISR over its facilities-based private lines on the authorized routes provided: (1) the Commission makes the findings required for ISR on a particular route; and (2) the settlement rates of CWI's affiliated foreign carrier on that route are at or below the relevant benchmark. C. Regulatory Treatment 23. Commission regulations have traditionally distinguished between "dominant" and "non- dominant" carriers. We have classified carriers operating in the U.S. market, whether U.S.- or foreign- owned, as dominant in their provision of U.S. international services on particular routes in two circumstances: (1) where we have determined that a U.S. carrier can exercise market power on the U.S. end of a particular route; and (2) where we have determined that a foreign carrier has market power on the foreign end of a particular route that can adversely affect competition in the U.S. international services market. Carriers regulated as dominant on a particular route due to an affiliation with a carrier possessing market power on the foreign end of that route are subject to specific safeguards set forth in Section 63.10 of our rules. In the Foreign Participation Order, we established a presumption that a carrier with less than 50 percent market share on the foreign end should not be subject to dominant carrier safeguards on that route. 24. CWI has agreed to be classified as a dominant carrier under Section 63.10 to all the destination markets named in its applications. CWI has foreign carrier affiliates in each of these markets. C&W Card Services has agreed to be classified as dominant to particular affiliated destination markets, indicated in Appendix B to this Order, including Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis. We find that C&W Card Services has demonstrated that it qualifies for non-dominant carrier regulation to all other affiliated markets for which we here grant it Section 214 authority. 25. We note that CWI has existing Section 214 authority to resell the switched services of other U.S. international carriers on the routes covered by its applications and is classified as non-dominant in its provision of such service. We find that CWI warrants continued regulation as a non-dominant provider of switched services on these routes for so long as it provides such services only through the resale of other U.S-authorized carriers' switched services, except affiliated U.S. carriers regulated as dominant in the provision of switched services on a particular route. However, because CWI does not contend that any of its affiliates lacks market power, or does not collect settlement payments from U.S. carriers, we find that CWI is required to file quarterly traffic reports for its switched resale services on these routes pursuant to Section 43.61(c) of the rules. 26. Similarly, we find that C&W Card Services warrants regulation as a non-dominant carrier for its provision of IMTS along the affiliated routes for which it has agreed to be classified as dominant, for so long as it provides IMTS only through the resale of other U.S-authorized carriers' switched services, except affiliated U.S. carriers regulated as dominant in the provision of switched services on a particular route. Pursuant to Section 43.61(c), however, we will require C&W Card Services to file quarterly traffic reports for its switched resale services on routes where it has agreed to be regulated as a dominant carrier. CWI does not contend that any of its affiliates on those routes lacks market power or does not collect settlement payments from U.S. carriers. D. Service to Russia 27. C&W Card Services' application includes a request to serve Russia, where C&W Card Services has an affiliation with two carriers providing service in the Sakhalin Island region. While Russia is not a member of the WTO, C&W Card Services initially sought a grant of resale authority to Russia on the basis that its affiliates do not possess market power. Since the filing of the C&W Card Services application, the International Bureau has granted CWI facilities-based switched and private line authority to Russia. The Bureau found that CWI had not shown that its affiliates operating in Sakhalin lack market power. At the same time, the Bureau found that it would not serve the purposes of the ECO test to apply it to the CWI application. We find no basis to treat the C&W Card Services application any differently that the CWI application to serve Russia. We therefore grant C&W Card Services' request to provide IMTS on a resale basis to Russia. Consistent with the Bureau's decision in the CWI Russia Order, we will classify C&W Card Services as dominant in its provision of IMTS between the United States and the Sakhalin Island region of Russia. We classify C&W Card Services as non-dominant in its provision of service to all other regions of Russia. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 28. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the present and future public interest, convenience, and necessity require a grant of the referenced applications. 29. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that application File No. ITC-98-180 IS GRANTED, and CWI is authorized, pursuant to Section 63.18(e)(1)-(2) & (6) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  63.18(e)(1)-(2) & (6), to provide facilities-based switched and private line service between the United States and Jamaica and Macau and to provide resold non-interconnected private line service between the United States and Macau. 30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that application File No. ITC-98-181 IS GRANTED, and CWI is authorized, pursuant to Section 63.18(e)(1)-(2) & (6) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  63.18(e)(1)-(2) & (6), to provide facilities-based switched and private line service and resold non- interconnected private line service between the United States and Barbados, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Maldives, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. 31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that application File No. ITC-98-193 IS GRANTED, and C&W Card Services is authorized, pursuant to Section 63.18(e)(2) & (6) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  63.18(e)(2) & (6), to provide international message telephone service on a resale basis between the United States and international points excluding Anguilla, Ascension Island, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, China, Diego Garcia, Falkland Islands, Latvia, Montserrat, Seychelles, St. Helena, Tonga, Turks & Caicos, Vanuatu, and Yemen. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that we will defer action on C&W Card Services' request to provide international message telephone service on a resale basis between the United States and China. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI may not -- and CWI's tariffs must state that its customers may not -- connect their private lines to the public switched network at either the U.S. or foreign end, or both, for the provision of international switched basic services unless the Commission has authorized the provision of such service. See 47 C.F.R.  63.18(e)(2)(ii)(c), (e)(3)-(4); 63.21(a). 33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI's authorizations to provide facilities-based service between the United States and the markets authorized in this Order are subject to the conditions specified in International Settlement Rates, Report and Order, IB Docket No. 96-261, 12 FCC Rcd 19806, that is, CWI may provide facilities-based service between the United States and each such market only if its affiliate in each such market has in effect a settlement rate with U.S. international carriers that is at or below the Commission's relevant benchmark. See id.  231. 34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI shall be regulated as a dominant carrier under Section 63.10 of the rules and shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of that section for the authorized services. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that C&W Card Services shall be regulated as a dominant carrier under Section 63.10 of the rules and shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of that section for the authorized services between the United States and Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Fiji, St. Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Macao, Maldives, Panama, Solomon Islands, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and Trinidad and Tobago. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI and C&W Card Services shall each comply with the requirements of Section 43.61(c) of the rules with respect to their provision of resold switched services to all markets for which they are subject to dominant carrier regulation. 37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI and C&W Card Services shall not agree to accept special concessions from their affiliated foreign carriers in any market for which they are subject to dominant carrier regulation pursuant to this Order. "Special concessions" is defined in Section 63.14(b) of the Commission's rules as amended by the Commission's Foreign Participation Order, FCC 97-398. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the authorization is conditioned on CWI, C&W Card Services, and their foreign affiliates in Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis not engaging in anticompetitive actions that would provide the applicants with an unfair advantage in the U.S. international services market. 39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sprint's petition to deny IS DENIED. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI and C&W Card Services shall comply with the requirements specified in Sections 43.82, 63.14, 63.15(b), 63.19, and 63.21 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  43.82, 63.14, 63.15(b), 63.19, and 63.21. 41. This Order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.261, and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115, may be filed within 30 days of the date of public notice of this Order and Authorization (see 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(2)). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Diane J. Cornell Chief, Telecommunications Division International Bureau APPENDIX A COUNTRIES FOR WHICH C&W CARD SERVICES DOES NOT REQUEST AUTHORITY Anguilla Ascension Island Bermuda British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Diego Garcia Falkland Islands Latvia Montserrat Seychelles St. Helena Tonga Turks & Caicos Vanuatu Yemen APPENDIX B C&W CARD SERVICES FOREIGN AFFILIATIONS IN FOREIGN POINTS FOR WHICH AUTHORITY IS REQUESTED Antigua* Australia Barbados* Bulgaria Canada China Dominica* Fiji* St. Kitts & Nevis* Grenada* Hong Kong* Indonesia Japan Jamaica* Macao* Maldives* Pakistan Panama* Philippines Russia** Solomon Islands* St. Lucia* St. Vincent* Thailand Trinidad & Tobago* United Kingdom * Affiliated Markets for which C&W Card Services has agreed to be regulated as dominant. ** C&W Card services will be subject to dominant carrier regulation on the U.S.-Sakhalin Island route.