WPC  2 B7P Z Courier 10cpiCourier 10cpiCourier 10cpi (Bold)CG Times (Scalable)HP LaserJet IIISi ROOM 544 (LPT2)HPLASIII.PRSx  @H58\X@2<#LZ3|xCourier 10cpiCourier 10cpi (Bold)CG Times (Scalable)HP LaserJet IIISi (LPT2)1)HPLASIII.PRSx  @HttX@2vpkk`a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2&vta2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 X   Na2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2e 5    a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2u  gTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2dUa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   23a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx( C<Ѝ` ` Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1042,  164.m  ?< 0<30. Bell Atlantic states that affiliated and unaffiliated   0<programmercustomers will be charged the same rate for all  C(<  <underlying basic services.W?(( C<Ѝ` ` Bell Atlantic CEI Plan at 8.W Bell Atlantic points out that the   h<Commission previously has found that this parameter is satisfied if   h<the carrier "charges itself an access link rate that is the same as   <that paid by noncollocated enhanced service providers, provided   0<that the access connections in each case are equivalent in  C<  x<technical quality."@\( CP#<  <Ѝ` ` Amendment to Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and   <Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry), Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 3 FCC Rcd 1150, 1155 (1988),  34.  No party has challenged this aspect of Bell   <Atlantic's CEI plan. We find that Bell Atlantic's plan comports   h<with the minimization of transport costs requirement established by the Commission."p @0*((!"Ԍ ?<ԙ 9. Recipients of CEI  ?<  ?< 0<31. This parameter prevents carriers from restricting the   <availability of the CEI offering to any particular class of  C <customer or enhanced service competitor.mA ( Cx<Ѝ` ` Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1042,  165.m  ?< <32. Bell Atlantic states that all the underlying basic   x<services the company uses to provide enhanced services related to   <the provision of video dialtone service will be available to all   <users for any lawful purpose. No party has challenged this aspect   <of Bell Atlantic's CEI plan. We find that Bell Atlantic's plan   <comports with the CEI reception requirement established by the Commission.  ? < B.Other Nonstructural Safeguards  ? <  ?L < < 33. In addition to the CEI requirements established in  ?<  <Computer III, a LEC proposing to provide enhanced services on a   <structurally integrated basis must comply with requirements   <regarding the use of customer proprietary network information   <(CPNI), disclosure of network information, and nondiscrimination  C4<reporting.kB4\( C <ԍ` ` Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3082,  7375. k  ?<  1.` ` Customer Proprietary Network Information  ?X< <!34. Bell Atlantic is required to describe the procedures it  C <  h<intends to establish to comply with CPNI safeguards.XC ( C<ԍ` ` Phase II Order at 3095,  156.X The Phase II  ?<  <Order established CPNI requirements for BOCs' enhanced service   h<operations, requiring them in part to (1) make CPNI available, upon   <customer request, to unaffiliated enhanced service vendors, on the   <same terms and conditions that are available to their own enhanced   <services personnel; (2) limit their enhanced services personnel   <from accessing a customers CPNI if the customer so requests; and   <(3) notify multiline business customers annually of their CPNI  Cd<  <rights.Dd( Cx"<  <ԍ` ` Id. at 30933097,  141174. The Commission   0<subsequently amended its CPNI requirements to prohibit BOC   <personnel engaged in the marketing of enhanced services from   <accessing the CPNI of customers with more than 20 lines, unless  ?%<  <they first obtain permission from the customer. BOC Safeguards  ?d&<Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 7613,  89. The Commission also requires BOCs, but not AT&T, to   <provide to unaffiliated enhanced service vendors on the same terms"0 D0*((8""   <and conditions, any nonproprietary, aggregate CPNI that the BOCs  C<provide to their own enhanced services personnel.jE( C <ԍ` ` Phase II Order 2 FCC Rcd at 3097,  172174.j  ?\< <"35. Bell Atlantic has filed a statement that, in providing   <enhanced services in conjunction with video dialtone service, it   <will comply with the CPNI procedures described in its previously  C<  <filed in its Open Network Architecture Plan Amendments.F\\( C<  @<ԍ` ` Bell Atlantic April 4, 1995 Ex Parte Filing (referencing   <Bell Atlantic Open Network Architecture Plan Amendments, CC Docket 882, filed May 19, 1989, April 15, 1991, and April 15, 1992). No party   <has challenged this aspect of Bell Atlantic's CEI plan. We find   <that Bell Atlantic's plan comports with the Commission's CPNI requirements.  ?< 2.` ` Network Information Disclosure (#`  ?0 < P<#36. Bell Atlantic is also required to disclose to the   <enhanced services industry information about network changes and   <new network services that affect the interconnection of enhanced   h<services with the network. Bell Atlantic must make that disclosure   <at the "make/buy" point, that is, when the carrier decides whether   h<to make or to procure from an unaffiliated entity any product whose  C<  <design affects or relies on the network interface.XG( C<ԍ` ` Phase II Order at 3086,  102.X Bell Atlantic   x<must provide that information to members of the enhanced services   <industry that sign a nondisclosure agreement, within 30 days after  C<<  h<the execution of such nondisclosure agreement.ZH<( C<ԍ` ` Id. at 30913093,  134140.Z Bell Atlantic also   <must publicly disclose technical information about a new or   <modified network service twelve months before that service is  C<  h<introduced.I( C<  P<ԍ` ` Id. at 3092,  136. If a BOC is able to introduce the   h<service within twelve months of the make/buy point, however, it may   h<make public disclosure at the make/buy point. It may not, however,   <introduce the service less than six months after the public disclosure. BOCs need not describe network disclosure procedures   <in their CEI plans, because they are obligated to obey those  C,<  <rules.J,\ ( C$<  <ԍ` ` Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, 4 FCC Rcd 1, 252 (1988) at  490. Bell Atlantic said that it would comply with existing and  C<  <any revised Network Information Disclosure requirements.MK( C@'<ԍ` ` Bell Atlantic CEI Plan at 9.M None of"LK0*(("   x<the parties has suggested that Bell Atlantic has failed to comply   h<with the network information disclosure requirements. We find that   <Bell Atlantic's plan comports with the Commission's Network Information Disclosure requirements.  ?< 3.` ` Nondiscrimination Reporting  ?x< <$37. Bell Atlantic is required to file quarterly   <nondiscrimination reports with respect to its video dialtone   x<services, thereby ensuring that Bell Atlantic provides the access  C<  h<promised in its CEI plan.L( C( <  <Ѝ` ` See Filing of Open Network Architecture Plans, Memorandum   <Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 5 FCC Rcd 3084, 3096,  ? <  <Appendix B (1990) (BOC ONA Recon. Order), 5 FCC Rcd 3103 (1990)  ? <  <(BOC ONA Amendment Order), Erratum, 5 FCC Rcd 4045, pets. for  ?L <  <review denied, California v. FCC, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993),  ?<  <recon., 8 FCC Rcd 7646 (1991), 8 FCC Rcd 2606 (1993) (BOC ONA  ?<  <Second Further Amendment Order), pet. for review denied, MCI  ?<  <Telecomm. Corp. v. FCC, 4 F.3d 1505 (1993); Phase II Order, 2 FCC  ?l<  <Rcd at 3082,  73; Video Dialtone Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 351352,  232. Bell Atlantic said that it would comply   <with existing and any revised Nondiscrimination Reporting  Cd <  <requirements.MMd d ( CX<ԍ` ` Bell Atlantic CEI Plan at 9.M None of the parties has suggested that Bell   <Atlantic has failed to comply with its nondiscrimination reporting   <requirements. We find that Bell Atlantic's plan comports with the Commission's Nondiscrimination Reporting requirements.  ?P < C.Other Compliance Issues  ?< 1. Filing Separate CEI Plans  ?p<(a)` ` Positions of the Parties  ?< <%38. NCTA argues that Bell Atlantic improperly seeks to obtain   <approval of "a generic CEI plan that covers video programming,   <interactive services, Level Two Gateway, and 'other related  CX<  <enhanced services'."NNX ( C <Ѝ` ` NCTA Comments at 2.N NCTA claims that "Bell Atlantic is required   <to file a separate CEI plan for each proposed enhanced service  C<  <offering."DO ( C$<Ѝ` ` Id.D The Joint Cable Parties likewise argue that we should   h<not grant Bell Atlantic generic approval for all enhanced services,   <but instead should require the company to file a separate CEI plan" O0*(("  C<if it subsequently introduces new enhanced services.cP( CX<Ѝ` ` Joint Cable Parties Reply Comments at 5.c  ?< <&39. In response, Bell Atlantic claims that the Commission has   h<already rejected the assertion that a separate CEI plan is required   x<for each videorelated enhanced service, even if the service uses   h<the network in the same way as services for which Bell Atlantic has  C<  <already received approval.=Q$\( C<  @<Ѝ` ` Bell Atlantic Reply at 2 (citing Bell Atlantic Telephone   <Companies, Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to   <Providers of Gateway Services, 3 FCC Rcd 6045, 60466047,  16 (Com. Car. Bur. 1988)).= Bell Atlantic claims that NCTA merely   <seeks to delay Bell Atlantic's video dialtone service, and that   <there is no reason to require separate plans for "packaged"  C<  <enhanced services.DRH( C<Ѝ` ` Id.D In a supplemental filing, Bell Atlantic   @<clarified that "its CEI plan for enhanced video services   <specifically requests approval of plans to offer Level Two Gateway  Cl <  h<Services as well as programming content and interactive services."nSl ( C<Ѝ` ` Bell Atlantic March 16, 1995 Ex Parte filing.n   h<That filing also provided additional information about the enhanced   <services that Bell Atlantic plans to offer, and the underlying   @<basic services that will be used to furnish the enhanced  C <offerings.DT p ( C<Ѝ` ` Id.D  ?$< <'40. NCTA asserts in its reply that the Commission decision  ?<  h<cited by Bell Atlantic was overruled in the January 11, 1995 Bureau  C<  h<Interim Remand Order.TU ( CH<Ѝ` ` NCTA Reply Comments at 1.T NCTA adds that Bell Atlantic is required to  C<file servicespecific CEI plans.V ( C<  `<Ѝ` ` Id. at 12 (citing the Computer III Remand Notice of  ?t<Proposed Rulemaking).  ?<(b)` ` Discussion  ?< <(41. It is unclear whether NCTA and the Joint Cable Parties   x<are claiming (1) that Bell Atlantic must file a separate CEI plan   <for every enhanced service it seeks to provide in conjunction with   h<video dialtone service, or (2) that the filing originally submitted   <by Bell Atlantic failed to specify adequately each of the enhanced   <services it plans to offer in conjunction with video dialtone   h<service. We reject any assertion that Bell Atlantic is required to"TV0*(("   <file a separate CEI plan for each enhanced service related to it   <video dialtone service. The Commission has held that a carrier   <need not file separate CEI plans for enhanced services that are  CX<  h<provided as a package.zWX( C<Ѝ` ` Bell Atlantic CEI Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 60466047,  16.z Nothing in the Bureau Interim Remand Order  ?$<  h<or in the Computer III Remand Notice of Proposed Rulemaking altered  C<  x<that decision.X\\( C<  P<Ѝ` ` NCTA cites no specific provision in the Bureau Interim  ?<  <Remand Order in support of its claim that the holding in Bell  ?l <Atlantic CEI Order was overruled. To the contrary, the Bureau Interim Remand Order  C<  <reaffirmed existing CEI standards.Y( C <  <Ѝ` ` See, e.g., Bureau Interim Remand Order at  23 (requiring   <BOCs to continue to comply with existing safeguards against   <discrimination, such as CEI parameters) and at  30(a) (permitting   <BOCs to continue providing service pursuant to previouslyapproved CEI plans). On the other hand, we agree   <with NCTA and the Joint Cable Parties that Bell Atlantic may not   x<obtain generic approval to provide enhanced video services. This   <is consistent with the Commission decision cited by Bell Atlantic,   h<which states that a telephone company must demonstrate that the CEI   x<arrangements for the services it seeks to provide comply with the  Cl <  <Commission's CEI requirements.Zl 4 ( C0<Ѝ` ` Bell Atlantic CEI Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 60466047,  16. Bell Atlantic may file a single   <CEI plan for enhanced services it provides as a package, but it   <must describe each service with specificity. We find that the CEI   <plan and the additional material submitted by Bell Atlantic   <identify with adequate specificity the enhanced videorelated  CX <  x<services the company presently proposes to offer.n[X ( C<ԍ` ` See Bell Atlantic March 16, 1995 Ex Parte filing.n Bell Atlantic   x<must file amendments to its CEI plan for video dialtone, however,   <if it intends to offer additional enhanced services or alter the   <underlying basic transmission facilities used to provide such   h<enhanced services. Bell Atlantic need not file new CEI plans if it   <intends to offer identical services on the same terms in different locations.  ?< 2. Amendment of Cost Allocation Manual  ?,<(a)` ` Positions of the Parties  ?< @<)42. NCTA claims that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan should be   h<rejected because Bell Atlantic has failed to satisfy its obligation"\ [0*(("  C<  <to file an amended Cost Allocation Manual (CAM).\( CX<  <Ѝ` ` NCTA Comments at 3 (citing Video Dialtone  ?$<Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 330,  181). The Video  ?<  h<Dialtone Reconsideration Order requires LECs to file CAM amendments   <within thirty days after the effective date of a Section 214   x<authorization and at least 60 days prior to providing unregulated  C$<  <products or services related to video dialtone.]$$( C<  @<Ѝ` ` Video Dialtone Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 330,  181. NCTA and the   x<Joint Cable Parties claim that, to their knowledge, Bell Atlantic  C<has not complied with this requirement.^( C <  <Ѝ` ` NCTA Comments at 3; Joint Cable Parties Reply Comments at 56.  ?L< <*43. Bell Atlantic responds that it was not obligated to file   <an amended CAM, because Bell Atlantic does not plan to offer   h<directly any enhanced services in connection with the Dover system.   x<Rather, Bell Atlantic states, the current CAM specifies that Bell   h<Atlantic will provide Bell Atlantic Video Services, Inc. (BVS) with   x<regulated, tariffed services, and that no amendment of the CAM is  C <  h<required.]_ ( Ch<Ѝ` ` Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 5.] In its supplemental filing, Bell Atlantic asserts that,   h<to the extent its CAM requires any revisions based on the provision   <of videorelated enhanced services, Bell Atlantic will comply with  ?X <  <the requirements set forth in the Video Dialtone Reconsideration  C <Order with respect to filing CAM amendments.n` p ( C <Ѝ` ` Bell Atlantic March 16, 1995 Ex Parte filing.n  ?<(b)` ` Discussion  ?D<  <+44. The Video Dialtone Reconsideration Order requires a LEC   x<to amend its CAM to reflect any provision of unregulated services   x<or products related to video dialtone. All CAM revisions related   <to video dialtone also must conform with the CAM filing   h<requirements set forth in the Responsible Accounting Officer Letter  C,<  <25.a, ( C!<  <ԍ` ` Responsible Accounting Officer Letter 25, DA 95703   <(Accounting and Audits Div., Com. Car. Bur. released April 3,   <1995). Among other things, that letter requires "LECs to amend   <their CAMs to identify any affiliate transactions related to their  ?$<provision of video dialtone service." Į Bell Atlantic has not yet amended its CAM, but has stated   x<that it will file any necessary CAM amendments in accordance with   0<Commission requirements. Our approval of this CEI plan is   <conditioned upon Bell Atlantic's compliance, before it begins to"a0*(("   <provide service, with the CAM filing requirements set forth in the  ?<  h<Video Dialtone Reconsideration Order and the Responsible Accounting Officer Letter 25.  ?< 3. Requiring Structural Separation  ?x<(a)` ` Positions of the Parties  ?< <,45. In their Reply Comments, the Joint Cable Parties argue   <that the Commission should require Bell Atlantic to offer video   <dialtonerelated enhanced services on a structurally separated  ?` <  x<basis pending Commission action on the Computer III Remand Notice  ?( <  <of Proposed Rulemaking and the video dialtone Fourth Further  C <  <Notice.cb ( CH <Ѝ` ` Joint Cable Parties Reply Comments at 2.c The Joint Cable Parties argue that it will be more   <efficient and less complicated to require structural separation  C <  <pending completion of the rulemaking proceedings.Jc \( Cp<Ѝ` ` Id. at 3.J In addition,   <the Joint Cable Parties claim that the safeguards provided by   <structural separation of enhanced services related to video   <dialtone service outweigh the benefits (if any) of integration.   <The Joint Cable Parties also contend that Bell Atlantic has not   <shown that integration would increase efficiency or provide any  C8<  ,<benefits.Ld8( C<Ѝ` ` Id. at 34.L In addition, the Joint Cable Parties urge that, if the   <Commission finds that integration would produce efficiencies, it   <should require Bell Atlantic to offer enhanced services offered in   <conjunction with video dialtone, including provision of video  C\<  <programming, in a separate subsidiary.Je\( Cp<Ѝ` ` Id. at 4.J Bell Atlantic did not have   <an opportunity to respond to this argument within the pleading  ?<  h<cycle established by the Commission, and made no response in its ex  ?<parte filings.  ?H<(b)` ` Discussion  ?< <-46. We have already addressed the issues raised by the Joint   <Cable Parties. We previously considered and rejected arguments  ?h<  <urging us to require structural separation pending conclusion of  ?0<  h<the remand proceeding regarding issues raised by the California III  C<  <decision.zf( C%<Ѝ` ` See Bureau Interim Remand Order at  14, 20.z Moreover, while the remand is pending, we expressly   0<declined to treat video dialtonerelated enhanced services"f0*((6$"   <differently from other services subject to CEI filing  C<  <requirements.Pg( CX<Ѝ` ` Id. at  31.P The Commission has initiated a rulemaking   <proceeding to determine whether, and to what extent, structural   <separation should be reimposed on BOCs seeking to provide enhanced  C$<  <services.h$( CH<  `<ԍ` ` Computer III Remand Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 3540. The Joint Cable Parties have presented no reason that   <would justify treating video dialtonerelated enhanced services   h<differently from other enhanced services during the pendency of the  ?<  <Computer III Remand rulemaking. The Commission has established   <protections against crosssubsidization and discrimination that   <remain in effect pending the conclusion of the rulemaking  C<  <proceedings.~i$( CX <  <Ѝ` ` The Commission specifically declined to impose   0<comprehensive, video dialtonespecific accounting and cost  ?<  <allocation rules before authorizing video dialtone service. Video  ?<Dialtone Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 322,  162.~ The Joint Cable Parties have not demonstrated that   <these safeguards are inadequate with respect to video dialtone  <related enhanced services. We reject the claim that complete   x<structural separation should be imposed pending the conclusion of outstanding rulemakings.  ? < C.Conclusion  ?<  <.47. We conclude that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan complies with  ?<  x<the Computer III requirements, but that Bell Atlantic has not yet   h<satisfied its CAM filing requirements. Accordingly, in this Order,   x<we approve Bell Atlantic's CEI plan to offer enhanced services in   h<conjunction with its provision of regulated video dialtone service,   <upon the condition that Bell Atlantic comply with all applicable   h<CAM filing requirements before it provides service pursuant to this CEI plan. "$i0*(("  ?<< V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  ?<  < /48. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i)   x<and (j), 201, 202, 203, 205, and 218 of the Communications Act of   <1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i) and (j), 201, 202, 203,   <205, and 218, and authority delegated thereunder pursuant to   <Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.    <0.91 and 0.291, Bell Atlantic's Offer of Comparably Efficient   0<Interconnection for enhanced services it plans to offer in   <conjunction with its provision of regulated video dialtone service   x<IS APPROVED UPON THE CONDITION that Bell Atlantic comply with all   <applicable Cost Allocation Manual filing requirements before it provides service pursuant to this order. ` `  hh,VFederal Communications Commission ` `  hh,VKathleen M.H. Wallman ` `  hh,VChief, Common Carrier Bureau