Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
                           Before the
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                   )                             
)    File No. EB-00-IH-0432
SBC Communications, Inc.           )    
                              )    NAL/Acct. No. 200132080011
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       )
                         
          
           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

 Adopted:  December 19, 2000             Released:  December 20, 
                              2000 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION
 
     1.   In this  Notice of  Apparent Liability  for  Forfeiture 
(NAL), we find that SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) has apparently 
violated certain of  the conditions that  the Commission  imposed 
pursuant to its approval of  the merger application of  Ameritech 
Corp. (Ameritech) and SBC.1  In  particular, it appears that,  in 
seven of  its in-region  states and  for  a period  of up  to  13 
months,  SBC2  failed  to  report  certain  performance  data  in 
accordance with  the  published  Business Rules  adopted  in  the 
Carrier-to-Carrier Performance Plan that SBC agreed to  undertake 
as part of  the merger  conditions adopted  in the  SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order.

     2.   The Carrier-to-Carrier Performance  Plan is central  to 
achieving  the   public   interest  goals   enumerated   in   the 
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, including that of ensuring open local 
markets by  monitoring  the quality  of  SBC's service  to  other 
telecommunications  carriers.3    The  Commission   adopted   the 
Performance Plan  as a  means  to ensure  that  ``SBC/Ameritech's 
service to telecommunications carriers will not deteriorate as  a 
result of the  merger and the  larger firm's increased  incentive 
and ability to discriminate and to stimulate the merged entity to 
adopt `best  practices' that  clearly  favor public  rather  than 
private interests....''4  Based upon our review of the facts  and 
circumstances surrounding  this  matter,  we  find  that  SBC  is 
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of eighty  eight 
thousand dollars ($88,000.00).
                         II.  BACKGROUND
                                   
     3.   SBC is an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)  that 
provides  local  telephone  service   in  13  states,   including 
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, California,  Nevada, 
Illinois, Michigan,  Indiana, Ohio,  Wisconsin, and  Connecticut.  
At the end of 1999, SBC  served nearly 60 million local  exchange 
access lines in its 13-state  region, and served customers in  23 
countries.5  SBC  also  provides in-region  interLATA,  wireless, 
Internet access,  out-of-region  interLATA,  cable  and  wireless 
television,  security   monitoring,  and   directory   publishing 
services.6  In 1999,  SBC had  total operating  revenues of  more 
than $49 billion.7

     4.   In  the  SBC/Ameritech  Merger  Order,  the  Commission 
concluded that the merger of SBC and Ameritech posed  significant 
public interest harms  that were  not mitigated  by the  proposed 
transaction's   potential   public   interest   benefits.8    The 
Commission, however,  also found  that the  voluntary  conditions 
submitted by the Applicants, and  as modified by the  Commission, 
would  alter   the   public  interest   balance   by   mitigating 
substantially the potential public interest harms while providing 
additional public interest  benefits.9  The Commission  explained 
that these  merger conditions  were designed  to accomplish  five 
primary  public  interest  goals:  (a)  promoting  equitable  and 
efficient advanced services deployment;  (b) ensuring open  local 
markets;  (c)   fostering   out-of-territory   competition;   (d) 
improving residential phone service; and (e) ensuring  compliance 
with and enforcement of the conditions.10  These conditions would 
remain in effect for 36 months after release of the SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order.11 
 
     5.   The Carrier-to-Carrier Performance Plan is part of  the 
package of conditions designed to foster the public interest goal 
of opening local  markets to competition  by ensuring that  SBC's 
service to competitors does  not deteriorate as  a result of  the 
merger.12  The Performance  Plan requires  SBC to  file with  the 
Commission and  each  of the  relevant  state commissions,  on  a 
monthly  basis,   performance   data  reflecting   20   different 
categories for each of SBC's 13 in-region states.13  The data  in 
the 20  categories reflect  SBC's  performance in  responding  to 
requests for facilities and services from its rivals, as well  as 
its end-user customers.14   The Business  Rules accompanying  the 
Carrier-to-Carrier Performance  Plan describe  the specific  data 
requirements  and  measurement  standards  for  each  performance 
measurement.15   This  condition  also  requires  that  SBC  make 
voluntary incentive payments  to the U.S.  Treasury in the  event 
that it fails to  meet designated performance thresholds.16   The 
merger conditions  also  require  SBC to  retain  an  independent 
auditor to  provide a  thorough and  systematic review  of  SBC's 
compliance with the conditions  and to determine the  sufficiency 
of  its  internal  controls.17   The  Commission  approved  SBC's 
retention of Ernst and Young, LLC as its independent auditor.18                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

     6.   On August  31,  2000,  Ernst and  Young  submitted  its 
attestation  report   regarding   SBC's   compliance   with   the 
Commission's merger  conditions  from  October  8,  1999  through 
December  31,  1999.19   The  independent  auditor's  report   is 
confined to the statements made by  SBC in its assertion, in  the 
accompanying Report of Management  on Compliance with the  Merger 
Conditions, that it had complied  with the merger conditions  set 
forth in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, except as noted therein, 
and  had  corrected  the  noted  deficiencies.20   The  auditor's 
report, along with the underlying data in SBC's monthly  filings, 
revealed numerous instances of SBC's  failure to comply with  the 
requirements of the  Carrier-to-Carrier Performance Plan  through 
the submission of inaccurate performance data.21  In  particular, 
the  record  shows  that,  in  submitting  data  for  13  of  the 
performance measurements for  Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas,  Missouri, 
Arkansas, California, and Nevada, SBC continuously used incorrect 
benchmarks and disaggregation levels, and also excluded key  data 
for a period of up to 13 months.22  

     7.   The performance  measurements  at  issue  in  this  NAL 
concern: Percent Firm Order Confirmations (FOCs) Returned  Within 
``X'' Hours  (PM  1); Average  Response  Time for  OSS  Pre-Order 
Interfaces (PM 2);  Order Process  Percent Flow  Through (PM  3); 
Percent SWBT Caused Missed Due  Dates (PM 4); Average Delay  Days 
for SWBT Caused Missed  Due Dates (PM  7); Average Response  Time 
for Loop Qualification Information (PM  9); Mean Time to  Restore 
(PM 12); Trouble Report Date  (PM 13); Average Trunk  Restoration 
Interval (PM 14); Percent Trunk Blockage (PM 15); Percent  Missed 
Collocation Due Dates  (PM 17); Billing  Timeliness (PM 18);  and 
OSS Interface Availability (PM 19).  

     8.   Because the  Commission's ability  to detect  potential 
discriminatory conduct depends upon SBC's strict compliance  with 
the approved  terms  and  conditions  of  the  Carrier-to-Carrier 
Performance Plan,  failure  to  report the  performance  data  in 
accordance with the published Business Rules could compromise the 
effectiveness of  the merger  conditions in  ensuring open  local 
markets.23    The   Carrier-to-Carrier   Performance   Plan   is, 
therefore, a key  aspect of the  Commission's oversight of  SBC's 
behavior towards it competitors.

                      III.      DISCUSSION

A.   Violations 

     9.   Based on the facts set forth below, we find that SBC is 
apparently liable  for  a  forfeiture for  willful  and  repeated 
violation of the merger  conditions adopted in the  SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order.  For  a period of  up to 13  months from  November, 
1999  through  November,  2000,   SBC  apparently  violated   its 
obligation  to  report   accurately  the  data   sought  by   the 
performance measurements  in the  Carrier-to-Carrier  Performance 
Plan for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, California, 
and  Nevada.   We  find  that   SBC's  failure  to  report   this 
information  accurately  is  willful  and  repeated.   The   term 
``willful'' means that the violator knew it was taking the action 
in  question,  irrespective   of  any  intent   to  violate   the 
Commission's  rules,  and  repeated   means  more  than   once.24  
Furthermore, a  continuing violation  is "repeated"  if it  lasts 
more than one day.25 

     10.   SBC, in its Assertion on Compliance, does not  dispute 
that it gathered  and reported  the data sought  by the  specific 
performance measurements discussed below in a manner contrary  to 
the Business  Rules for  those measurements.26   Although we  are 
aware that a few of the violations occurred as a result of  SBC's 
application of different  standards, which were  required by  the 
Texas and  California  business  rules,  SBC  was,  nevertheless, 
obligated to  seek the  Commission's advice  and approval  before 
modifying  the   Commission's  Business   Rules.27   The   merger 
conditions require  that  no  changes be  implemented  until  the 
Common Carrier Bureau  is notified and  directs SBC to  implement 
such  changes.28   Given  the   importance  of  maintaining   the 
integrity of the Carrier-to-Carrier  Performance Plan, we  cannot 
excuse SBC's failure to diligently follow the Business Rules  set 
forth in the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order. 

     11.    Consistent with the Commission's determination in the 
SBC/Ameritech  Merger  Order   that  our   monitoring  of   SBC's 
performance  through  these  measurements   is  a  key  tool   in 
offsetting or preventing some of the potential harmful effects of 
that merger,29 we find SBC's  lack of diligence in following  the 
Business Rules  to  be  significant.  One  of  the  goals  behind 
establishing detailed Business  Rules at the  outset was to  have 
the Carrier-to-Carrier Performance Plan work in a  self-executing 
manner  in  order  to   ensure  timely  disclosure  of   accurate 
performance data and submission  of any required payments.   This 
would enable Commission staff to focus its resources on analyzing 
the results of the data, rather than monitoring the gathering  of 
the data.  SBC's failure to follow the Business Rules could  lead 
to inaccurate and unreliable  results which would compromise  the 
Commission's ability to monitor effectively SBC's conduct towards 
other carriers.  For example, the use of less rigorous  standards 
than those  required under  the designated  business rules  could 
mask material deficiencies  in SBC's  performance and  ultimately 
undermine the voluntary payment scheme established in the  merger 
conditions.  The  omission  of key  data  could also  lead  to  a 
``muddying'' of the  reported results.   In addition,  inaccurate 
results  will   make  it   difficult  for   CLECs  to   determine 
independently  whether   there   are   discrimination   problems. 
Therefore, we must insist on  rigorous adherence to the  Carrier-
to-Carrier Performance Plan. 

     12.    The record evidences the following specific  apparent 
violations by SBC of the Carrier-to-Carrier Performance Plan:

     Apparent  violations   of   PM   1   (Percent   Firm   Order 
Confirmations (FOCs) Returned Within ``X'' Hours) by SBC:

      For ten months from November 1, 1999, until August 31, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 130 in the SWBT region by failing 
       to report correctly the percent of FOCs timely returned 
       by using the incorrect date, and standard (i.e., 2:00), 
       instead of military (i.e.,14:00), time.31  The use of 
       standard time masked whether the return of FOCs occurred 
       in the a.m. or p.m. and thereby potentially overstated 
       the percent of FOCs timely returned.

      For three months from December 1, 1999, until February 
       20, 2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 132 in the PacBell and Nevada 
       Bell regions by overstating the percent of FOCs timely 
       returned by excluding from the measurement the interval 
       of time from the receipt of a fax request to the time the 
       information was entered into the order entry system.33

     Apparent violations of PM 2 (Average Response Time for OSS 
Pre-Order Interfaces)34 by SBC:

      For six months from November 1, 1999, until April 17, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 2 in the SWBT region by 
       overstating its speed in assessing service availability 
       by using a benchmark of 86,400 seconds, instead of 5.5 
       seconds.35 

      For six months from November 1, 1999, until April 17, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 2 in the SWBT region by failing 
       to report accurately the response time for requests for 
       customer service records by collecting the data into a 
       single category, instead of disaggregating the data into 
       two categories of ``CSR Summary 1-30 Lines'' and ``CSR 31 
       Lines or more,''36 thereby masking differences between 
       the categories.

     Apparent violation of PM 3 (Order Process Percent Flow 
Through)37 by SBC:

      For nine months from November 1, 1999, until July 20, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 3 in the SWBT region by failing 
       to
       report accurately the percent of  Mechanized Order 
       Generator (MOG) eligible orders that progress through 
       SBC's ordering system by disaggregating the data by OSS 
       interface, rather than by service type,38 thereby masking 
       potential problems occurring within different types of 
       services.

     Apparent violations of PM 4 (Percent SWBT Caused Missed Due 
     Dates) by SBC:

      For six months from November 1, 1999, until April 20, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 4c39 in the SWBT region by 
       failing to report accurately the percent of missed due 
       dates for installation of UNEs by disaggregating the data 
       into two categories of field work and no field work, 
       instead of a single UNE category.40

      For eight months from November 1, 1999, until June 20, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 4c in the SWBT region by failing 
       to report accurately the percent of missed due dates for 
       installation of UNEs by excluding the data from two 
       categories.41

     Apparent violation of PM 7 (Average Delay Days for SWBT 
     Caused Missed Due Dates) by SBC:

      For nine months from November 1, 1999, until July 20, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 7c42 in the SWBT region by 
       failing to report accurately the average number of delay 
       days on missed due dates for installation of UNEs by 
       excluding the data from two categories.43

     Apparent violations of PM 9 (Average Response Time for Loop 
     Qualification Information) by SBC:

      For five months from December 1, 1999, until April 20, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 944 in the PacBell and Nevada 
       Bell regions by understating the average response time 
       for providing loop qualification information for ADSL by 
       excluding the data reflecting the time interval between 
       receipt of a request for loop information and the 
       submission of the request to the Outside Plant Engineer 
       handling this request.45

      For four months from November 1, 1999, until February 20, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 946 in the SWBT region by 
       understating the average response time for providing loop 
       qualification information for ADSL by excluding the data 
       reflecting the time interval between receipt of a request 
       for loop information and the submission of the request to 
       the Outside Plant Engineer handling this request.47

     Apparent violations of PM 12 (Mean Time to Restore) by SBC:

      For eight months from November 1, 1999, until June 5, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 12b48 in the SWBT region by 
       failing to report accurately the mean time to restore 
       design service by disaggregating the data into categories 
       of dispatch and no dispatch, instead of a single category 
       for design service.49

      For eight months from November 1, 1999, until June 5, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 12c50 in the SWBT region by 
       failing to report accurately the mean time to restore UNE 
       by disaggregating the data into categories of dispatch 
       and no dispatch, instead of a single category for UNE 
       service.51

     Apparent violation of PM 13 (Trouble Report Date) by SBC:

      For nine months from December 1, 1999, until August 31, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 13a52 in the Nevada Bell region 
       by failing to report accurately the frequency of customer 
       trouble reports by using an incorrect number of UNEs in 
       the denominator of the calculation of the trouble report 
       rate.53 

     Apparent violation of PM 14 (Average Trunk Restoration 
     Interval)54 by SBC:

      For ten months, from December 1, 1999, until September 8, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 14 in the PacBell region by 
       failing to report accurately the average trunk 
       restoration interval by disaggregating the data at a 
       statewide level, rather than by market region,55 thereby 
       masking potential problems occurring at the market region 
       level.

     Apparent violation of PM 15 (Percent Trunk Blockage)56 by 
     SBC:

      For nine months from December 1, 1999, until August 31, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 15 in the PacBell region by 
       failing to report accurately the percent of trunk 
       blockage by disaggregating the data at a statewide level, 
       rather than by market region,57 thereby masking potential 
       problems occurring at the market region level. 

     Apparent violations of PM 17 (Percent Missed Collocation Due 
     Dates)58 by SBC:

      For eight months from November 1, 1999, until June 5, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 17 in the SWBT region by failing 
       to report accurately the percent of missed collocation 
       due dates by disaggregating the data into additional 
       categories of collocation (caged initial; caged augments; 
       cageless initial; cageless augments; shared caged 
       initial; shared caged augments; virtual initial; and 
       virtual augments.), instead of limiting the 
       disaggregation to the categories of physical, virtual, 
       cageless, and additions.59

     Apparent violation of PM 18 (Billing Timeliness)60 by SBC:

      For 13 months from November 1, 1999, until at least 
       November 20, 2000, SBC apparently violated the Business 
       Rules for Performance Measurement 18 in the SWBT region 
       by failing to report accurately billing timeliness by 
       excluding the billing information for all provisioned 
       UNEs.61
 
     Apparent violations of PM 19 (OSS Interface Availability)62 
     by SBC:

      For nine months from December 1, 1999, until August 30, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 19 in the PacBell region by 
       region by failing to report accurately on their web site 
       the availability of OSS interface by failing to include 
       the Z-scores for this measurement.63
      
      For three months from December 1, 1999, until March 20, 
       2000, SBC apparently violated the Business Rules for 
       Performance Measurement 19 in the PacBell and Nevada Bell 
       regions by overstating OSS interface availability by 
       excluding system outage data.64

B.   Forfeiture Amount   

     13.  In light of SBC's apparent willful or repeated failure 
to comply with the merger conditions in the SBC/Ameritech Merger 
Order, we find that a forfeiture is warranted.  Section 503(b)(1) 
of the Act states that any person that willfully or repeatedly 
fails to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, 
regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to 
the United States for a forfeiture penalty.65  For the time 
period relevant to this proceeding, section 503(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to 
$110,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing 
violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,100,000 for a single 
act or failure to act.66  In determining the appropriate 
forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 
503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, 
extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the 
violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior 
offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may 
require.''67

     14.   SBC has submitted 13 monthly reports embodying one or 
more of the apparent violations detailed above and thus has 
committed 13 separate apparent violations of the SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order. While several of the apparent violations discussed 
in this NAL clearly had the effect of casting SBC's performance 
in a more favorable light, all of the apparent violations we have 
discussed demonstrate that SBC repeatedly failed to implement the 
Business Rules as adopted by the Commission.  Because section 
503(b)(6) of the Act limits the Commission's jurisdiction over 
this cause of action to one year from the time the action 
accrued, our forfeiture calculation does not include a penalty 
for any violations that occurred during November and December of 
1999.  Therefore, for forfeiture purposes, SBC has committed 11 
apparent violations of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order.

     15. Under the Commission's  forfeiture guidelines, the  base 
forfeiture  amount  for  failure   to  file  required  forms   or 
information is $3000  per violation.68   The Commission's  rules, 
however, explicitly provide that the Commission and its staff may 
issue  a  higher  or  lower  forfeiture  than  provided  in   the 
guidelines, as permitted by statute.   We believe that an  upward 
adjustment in the  forfeiture amount is  warranted in this  case.  
As explained above, inaccurate reporting of performance data  may 
compromise  the  effectiveness  of   the  merger  conditions   in 
promoting open local markets.  Moreover,  we are faced here  with 
noncompliance with a number of the reporting requirements in  the 
SBC/Ameritech Merger  Order  over  an extended  period  of  time.  
Therefore, we will apply a forfeiture amount of $8000 to each  of 
the 11  violations  described  herein, and  find  SBC  apparently 
liable for a forfeiture amount in the amount of $88,000.  We note 
that our imposition of a  proposed forfeiture in this  proceeding 
is independent of SBC's obligation to make voluntary payments for 
failure to perform according to  the benchmarks and other  parity 
guidelines set forth  in Appendix C  of the SBC/Ameritech  Merger 
Order. 69   

                         IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

 16.    ACCORDINGLY,  IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  section 
  503(b) of  the Act,  70 and  section 1.80  of the  Commission's 
  Rules,  71  SBC  Communications  is  HEREBY  NOTIFIED  of   its 
  APPARENT  LIABILITY FOR  FORFEITURE  in the  amount  of  eighty 
  eight   thousand   dollars  ($88,000.00)   for   willfully   or 
  repeatedly violating the Commission's merger conditions in  the 
  SBC/Ameritech Merger Order.
 
     17.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of 
the Commission's Rules,  within thirty (30)  days of the  release 
date of  this NOTICE  OF APPARENT  LIABILITY, SBC  Communications 
SHALL PAY to the  United States the full  amount of the  proposed 
forfeiture OR  SHALL FILE  a written  statement showing  why  the 
proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced.

     18. Payment of the forfeiture amount may be made by  mailing 
a check or similar instrument payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection  Section, 
Finance  Branch,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  P.O.  Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  The payment should note the 
``NAL/ Acct. No.'' referenced above.

     19.  The response, if any, must be mailed to Charles W. 
Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street S.W., 
Room 3-B443, Washington, D.C., 20554, and must include the 
``NAL/Acct. No.'' referenced above.

     20.  The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling 
a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless 
the respondent submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most 
recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared 
according to generally accepted accounting practices (``GAAP''); 
or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that 
accurately reflects the respondent's current financial status.  
Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the 
basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation 
provided.

     21.  IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of  this Notice  of 
Apparent Liability shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt 
Requested  to  SBC  Communications,  c/o  Sandra  L.Wagner,  Vice 
President-Federal Regulatory, 1401  I Street,  N.W., Suite  1100, 
Washington, D.C. 20005.


                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                    David H. Solomon
                    Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1    Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC 
Communications, Inc., Transferee, For Consent to Transfer Control 
of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to 
Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 
22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission's Rules, CC 
Docket 98-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14712, 
14856 (1999) (``SBC/Ameritech Merger Order'')

2    SBC refers to SBC Communications, Inc. and all its 
affilliates, including its incumbent LECs. 

3    SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14856, 14867.

4    SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14867.

5
     SBC 1999 Annual Report at 6.

6    SBC 1999 Annual Report at 4.

7    SBC 1999 Annual Report at 76.

8    SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14854.

9    SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14855.

10   SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14856.

11   SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14868.

12   SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14867.

13   See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14867, Appendix C 
at  24, and Attachment A at  13.  The categories cover key 
aspects of pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and 
repair associated with UNEs, interconnection, and resold 
services.  Id.  SBC is required to file this report on the 20th 
of each month.  The filing of performance data for the states in 
the original Southwestern Bell Telephone (SWBT) region (Texas, 
Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas) was required beginning 
on November 1, 1999, for the months of August and September, on 
November 20th for the month of October, and then on 20th of each 
month thereafter for the previous month's data.  The performance 
data for the Pacific Bell (PacBell) and Nevada Bell states of 
California and Nevada had to be filed beginning on December 1, 
1999, for the months of September and October, on December 20th 
for the month of November, and on the 20th of each subsequent 
month.  The Commission required SBC to file similar data for the 
states in the Ameritech region (Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, 
Indiana and Michigan) in two phases with the filing of the first 
set commencing on January 6, 2000, and the second set starting on 
March 6, 2000.  The filing of performance data in the Southern 
New England Telephone region of Connecticut began on October 8, 
2000.  The subsequent monthly reports for the Ameritech states 
and Connecticut are also due on the 20th of each month.  See 
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C at  24.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
14   SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14867.

15   See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachments A-
2a, , ``SBC/Ameritech Performance Measurements Business Rules 
(except California and Nevada),'' and A-2b, ``SBC/Ameritech 
Performance Measurements Business Rules (California and 
Nevada).''  The applicable business rules for performance 
measures in all states except for California and Nevada are those 
developed in a Texas collaborative process involving SBC's 
application for in-region, interLATA authorization.  The 
performance measures in California and Nevada are reported using 
rules that were developed in a collaborative process in 
California. SBC/Ameritech Merger Order at  379.

16   See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-3, 
``Calculation of Parity and Benchmark Performance and Voluntary 
Payments,'' and Attachment A-4, ``Voluntary Payments for 
Performance Measurements.''  The amount of the payments varies 
according to the level and significance of discrimination 
detected. SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14867.  SBC is 
required to make its first payments to the U.S. Treasury for 
failing to meet the performance thresholds during the months of 
August, September, and October of 2000 no later than December 20, 
2000.  The reported data form the basis for calculating the 
payments.

17   SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C at  67.

18   See Aug. 24, 1999 Letter from Robert C. Atkinson, Deputy 
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to Charles Foster, Group President, 
SBC.

19   See Aug. 31, 2000 Report of Independent Auditors, Ernst & 
Young, LLP (Auditor's Report on Compliance).   This report only 
covered SBC's conduct in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and 
Arkansas, California and Nevada.  

20   See Aug. 31, 2000 Report of Management on Compliance with 
the Merger Conditions (Management's Assertion on Compliance).  In 
its statement, SBC stated that it had corrected some of the 
deficiencies by the time of the release of the auditor's report 
and had scheduled correction of other deficiencies prospectively.  
Although the independent auditor has not provided us with 
confirmation of the implementation of any corrections to date, 
the Common Carrier Bureau has been able to confirm corrections of 
deficiencies in the use of incorrect benchmarks and 
disaggregation levels from SBC's monthly filings.  The monthly 
filings, however, do not inform us whether the deficiencies 
involving the exclusion of data have been corrected.  We are 
relying on SBC's representations in its statement regarding the 
date of correction of the deficiencies involving the exclusion of 
data.

21   Auditor's Report on Compliance at 2.  See also SBC's 
Initial, Monthly, and Interim Performance Data Submissions, Nov. 
1, 1999, through Nov. 20, 2000.

22   See Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A.  
Although the Auditor's Report only covered SBC's performance in 
1999, the attached Management's Assertion on Compliance covers 
SBC's correction of the deficiencies through August, 2000.

23   SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14867, 14868.

24   See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 
4388 (1991); see also Hale Broadcasting Corp., 79 FCC 2d 169, 171 
(1980).

25   Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4388. 
 
26   Management's Assertion on Compliance at 1, 3, and Attachment 
A.   

27   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13,  
e; 14,  a; 15,  b; 16,  g and h.  See also June 5, 2000 
Letter from Chris Jines, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, 
SBC, to Carol Mattey, Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau.  The 
Commission subsequently incorporated some aspects of the Texas 
Business Rules on May 1, 2000.  See May 30, 2000 Letter from 
Carol Mattey, Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to Marian 
Dyer, Vice President-Federal Regulatory, SBC. 

28   See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A at 
 4.  See also May 30, 2000 Letter from Carol Mattey, Deputy 
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to Marian Dyer, Vice President-
Federal Regulatory, SBC. 

29   SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14868.

30   This performance measurement measures the percent of FOCs 
returned within a specific time frame from receipt of a complete 
and accurate service request to return of confirmation to CLEC.  
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2a at A-12.

31   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 15,  
d.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; Aug. 31, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data 
Submission, Aug. 31, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Mark Stone, FCC.

32   This performance measurement measures the average time from 
receipt of a service request to return of a FOC/Local Service 
Confirmation (LSC).  SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, 
Attachment A-2b at A-52.

33   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 16,  
f.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 1, 
1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, Feb. 20, 2000.

34   This performance measurement measures the average response 
time in seconds from the SWBT side of the Remote Access Facility 
(RAF) and return for pre-order interfaces (Verigate, DataGate and 
EDI where the pre-order functionality is integrated) by function.  
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2a at A-15.

35   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13,  
b.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; SBC Interim Performance Data Submission, April 17, 2000.

36   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13,  
c.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; SBC Interim Performance Data Submission, April 17, 2000.

37   This performance measurement measures the percent of orders 
or LSRs from entry to distribution that progress through SWBT 
ordering systems.  SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, 
Attachment A-2a at A-17.

38   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13,  
d.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; June 20, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data 
Submission, June 20, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Anthony Dale, FCC.

39   This performance measurement measures the percent of UNEs 
(8db loops are measured at an order level) where installations 
are not completed by the negotiated due date.  SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2a at A-20.

40   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13,  
e.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, April 20, 2000.

41   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 15,  
c.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, July 20, 2000.

42   This performance measurement measures the average calendar 
days from due date to completion date on company missed UNEs (8db 
loops are measured at an order level).  SBC/Ameritech Merger 
Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2a at A-31.

43   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 15,  
c.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, July 20, 2000.

44   This performance measurement measures the average time 
required to provide loop qualification information to ADSL.  
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2b at A-84.

45   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 16,  
g.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 1, 
1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, April 20, 2000.

46   This performance measurement measures the average time 
required to provide loop qualification for ADSL.  SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2a at A-33.
 
47   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 14,  
a.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, Feb. 20, 2000.

48   This performance measurement measures the average duration 
of network customer trouble reports for design service from the 
receipt of the customer trouble report to the time that the 
trouble report is cleared.  SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix 
C, Attachment A-2a at A-40.

49   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13,  
e.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; June 5, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data 
Submission, June 5, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Carol E. Mattey, FCC.

50   This performance measurement measures the average duration 
of network customer trouble reports for UNEs from the receipt of 
the customer trouble report to the time the trouble report is 
cleared excluding no access and delayed maintenance.  
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2a at A-41.

51   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13,  
e.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; June 5, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data 
Submission, June 5, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Carol E. Mattey, FCC.

52   This performance measurement measures the total number of 
network customer trouble reports for POTS received within a 
calendar month per 100 access lines.  SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 
Appendix C, Attachment A-2b at A-99.

53   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 14,  
i.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 1, 
1999; Aug. 31, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data 
Submission, Aug. 31, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Mark Stone, FCC.

54   This performance measurement measures the average time to 
restore service affecting new trunk groups.  SBC/Ameritech Merger 
Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2b at A-104.

55   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 14,  
h.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 1, 
1999; Sep. 8, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data 
Submission, Sep. 8, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Mark Stone, FCC.

56   This performance measurement measures the percent of calls 
blocked on outgoing traffic from LEC end office to CLEC end 
office and from LEC tandem to CLEC end office.  SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2b at A-105.

57   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 14,  
g.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 1, 
1999; Aug. 31, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data 
Submission, Aug. 31, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Mark Stone, FCC.

58   This performance measurement measures the percent of SWBT 
caused missed due dates for collocation projects.  SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2a at A-48.

59   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 13,  
e.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999; June 5, 2000 letter and attached Interim Performance Data 
Submission, June 5, 2000, from Chris Jines, Executive Director, 
Federal Regulatory, SBC, to Carol E. Mattey, FCC.

60   This performance measurement measures the length of time 
from the billing date to the time a wholesale bill is sent or 
transmitted (made available) to the CLECs.  SBC/Ameritech Merger 
Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2a at A-49.

61   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 15,  
b.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Nov. 1, 
1999.

62   This performance measurement measures the percent of time 
OSS interface is available compared to scheduled availability.  
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-2b at A-110.

63   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 14,  
m.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 1, 
1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, August 30, 2000.

64   Management's Assertion on Compliance, Attachment A at 16,  
e.  See also SBC Initial Performance Data Submission, Dec. 1, 
1999; SBC Monthly Performance Data Submission, March 20, 2000. 

65   47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a)(2).

66   47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R  1.80(b)(2).

67   47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D); see also The Commission's 
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the 
Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100 (1997) (``Forfeiture 
Policy Statement''); recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 
C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).

68   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd 17114.

69    See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C, Attachment A-3, 
``Calculation of Parity and Benchmark Performance and Voluntary 
Payments,'' and Attachment A-4, ``Voluntary Payments for 
Performance Measurements.''

70   47 U.S.C.  503(b).
 
71   47 C.F.R.  1.80.