NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** DA 96-891 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies ) ) Offer of Comparably Efficient ) CCBPol 96-09 Interconnection to Providers of ) Internet Access Services ) ORDER Adopted: June 6, 1996 Released: June 6, 1996 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On March 8, 1996, pursuant to the requirements established in the Commission's Computer III rulemaking proceeding, the Bell Atlantic telephone companies (Bell Atlantic) filed a Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) plan for its Internet Access Service (IAS). Under the Computer III regulatory regime, a carrier is permitted to offer unregulated, enhanced services if it files a CEI plan demonstrating that the underlying regulated basic services are available on an equivalent basis to unaffiliated enhanced services providers (ESPs). Prior to offering the enhanced service, the carrier must obtain Commission approval of the CEI plan. For the reasons discussed below and subject to the conditions set forth below, we approve Bell Atlantic's CEI plan. 2. The Bureau gave public notice of Bell Atlantic's CEI Plan on March 13, 1996. MFS Communications Company, Inc. (MFS) filed comments opposing the plan on April 12, 1996. Bell Atlantic and BellSouth Corporation and its subsidiary BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) submitted reply comments supporting the plan on April 29, 1996. II. BACKGROUND 3. The requirement to file a CEI plan was first established in the Computer III proceeding, in which the Commission adopted a regulatory framework to govern the provision of integrated enhanced and basic services by the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs). Requiring BOCs to file CEI plans was one of the nonstructural safeguards adopted by the Commission, in lieu of structural separation, to prevent cross-subsidization and discrimination. As a first step in implementing the Computer III framework, the Commission permitted the BOCs, which remained subject to various structural separation requirements, to offer individual enhanced services on an integrated basis following approval of service-specific CEI plans. BOCs were required to describe in their CEI plans: (1) the enhanced service or services to be offered; (2) how the underlying basic services would be made available for use by competing ESPs; and (3) how the BOCs would comply with the other nonstructural safeguards imposed by Computer III. 4. The Computer III decision concluded that, in the longer term, with the implementation of Open Network Architecture (ONA), the BOCs should be allowed to provide integrated enhanced services without prior Commission approval of service-specific CEI plans. In a series of orders between 1988 and the end of 1992, the Commission approved the BOC ONA plans that described the unbundled basic services each BOC proposed to provide as ONA services and the terms under which they would be offered. During 1992-1993, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) lifted structural separation requirements for individual BOCs that showed they had implemented all of the ONA services set forth in their ONA plans. 5. In California III, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that, although the Commission had adequately explained its decision to strengthen the protections against cross-subsidization at issue in California I, it had not justified its retreat from its initial position regarding the level of unbundling necessary for eliminating structural separation. The court concluded that the Commission's cost-benefit analysis of its structural separation safeguards was flawed and vacated the BOC Safeguards Order as arbitrary and capricious. In response to the California III decision, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding to review the safeguards for BOC provision of enhanced services. 6. Following the California III decision, the Bureau issued an order allowing the BOCs to continue providing enhanced services and conducting market trials pursuant to CEI plans approved prior to the lifting of structural separation. The Bureau also granted waivers necessary to enable BOCs to continue providing other enhanced services and market trials, provided that the BOCs filed CEI plans or market trial notifications, respectively, within 60 days of the Bureau Interim Waiver Order. The Bureau required the BOCs to file CEI plans or market trial notifications prior to providing any new services or market trials. In addition, the Bureau Interim Waiver Order required the BOCs to continue to comply with the procedures established in approved ONA plans. For example, BOCs still must provide new ONA services that ESPs need to provide enhanced services and file federal and state tariffs for ONA services. III. SERVICE DESCRIPTION 7. Bell Atlantic states that its proposed Internet Access Service (IAS) will provide both residential and business users connection to the Internet. In addition to access to the Internet, Bell Atlantic will offer users supporting services, including access to the World Wide Web and Usenet, electronic mail, and "chat" services. 8. Bell Atlantic states that it will use several tariffed services in the provision of IAS, including Switched Multi-Megabit Data Service (SMDS), Frame Relay Service, and Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN). Bell Atlantic will also utilize a new service, Internet Protocol Routing Service (IPRS), in the provision of IAS. According to Bell Atlantic, IPRS "consists of network routers located at LATA hub sites that will collect the customer's end user traffic and concentrate it for connection and transport over a Bell Atlantic" SMDS interface. 9. Bell Atlantic states that end user customers will be able to dial into IAS using a standard seven or ten-digit telephone number, or may obtain direct connection through special access service. According to Bell Atlantic, in either case, the end user customer will subscribe to the telecommunications service connecting the end user to IAS. Bell Atlantic explains that end users using switched access will be connected to a digital modem or ISDN port at Bell Atlantic's premises. The modems and ports provide the customer with connection to a terminal router. After the customer has entered a valid identifying password, Bell Atlantic's processor will connect the call to the Internet. Once connected, Bell Atlantic states that the customer will be able to navigate the Internet through "browser" software and an Internet gateway service to be provided by Bell Atlantic on an unregulated, unbundled basis. 10. Bell Atlantic asserts that, consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it will not transport Internet traffic that originates within its service region across Local Access and Transport Area (LATA) boundaries until it obtains authorization from the Commission. Bell Atlantic states that "Internet traffic will be carried across LATA boundaries by interexchange service providers." 11. Finally, Bell Atlantic states that it will offer database providers with design and hosting services. Bell Atlantic explains that its design services will aid information providers in developing home pages and databases. According to Bell Atlantic, the hosting services will provide ESPs with the ability to store Internet information, such as home pages, databases, bulletin boards, and other data on Bell Atlantic's processor, from which connection is provided to the Internet. IV. DISCUSSION A. CEI Plan Requirements 12. The Commission's CEI requirements are designed to give ESPs equal and efficient access to those basic services that the BOCs use to provide their own enhanced services. The Commission has established nine CEI requirements. Bell Atlantic has described in its submissions how its proposed enhanced service will satisfy each of the Commission's nine CEI requirements. We review below Bell Atlantic's CEI plan with respect to each of the requirements established by the Commission. 1. Unbundling of Basic Services 13. The unbundling requirement obligates the carrier to unbundle, and associate with a specific rate element in a tariff, the basic services and basic service functions that underlie the carrier's enhanced service offering. Nonproprietary information used by the carrier in providing the unbundled basic services must be made available as part of CEI. In addition, the carrier must include in its unbundled offerings any options available to itself in the provision of such basic services or functions. 14. According to Bell Atlantic, the following underlying basic services will be used in providing IAS: SMDS, Frame Relay Service, ISDN, and IPRS. It avers that all of these underlying basic services are offered separately from each other and are unbundled from the proposed enhanced service. Bell Atlantic states that all basic services are available to competing ESPs under the same rates, terms, and conditions as they are available to Bell Atlantic's enhanced service operations. Bell Atlantic indicates that its IPRS has been available for non-commercial testing by ESPs since March 8, 1996. 15. MFS contends that Bell Atlantic should unbundle its network elements as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) to a lower functional level. Specifically, MFS would require Bell Atlantic to unbundle its provision of local service to the link and port level. MFS contends that Bell Atlantic's failure to unbundle its basic service offerings will give its enhanced service an unfair economic and competitive advantage. MFS contends that, according to a press report, Bell Atlantic will offer discounted Internet access to customers that purchase additional telephone lines or its ISDN offerings. 16. In reply comments, Bell Atlantic reiterates that its CEI plan complies fully with the Commission's CEI requirements. It states that it is offering all of the unbundled underlying basic services to all customers under both federal and, where applicable, state tariffs and that it will obtain those services under the same rates, terms, and conditions as any other unaffiliated ESP. 17. We find that Bell Atlantic's plan comports with the Commission's unbundling requirement. The Commission's CEI rules require that the basic services underlying Bell Atlantic's IAS be available to other ESPs under the same rates, terms, and conditions. They do not require the degree of service unbundling that MFS proposes. We conclude that MFS's argument regarding the 1996 Act is beyond the scope of this proceeding (see  47 infra.) 2. Interface Functionality 18. The interface functionality requirement obligates the carrier to "make available standardized hardware and software interfaces that are able to support transmission, switching, and signalling functions identical to those utilized in the enhanced service provided by the carrier." 19. Bell Atlantic asserts that its existing standard network interfaces will be used to interconnect all Internet access providers with Bell Atlantic's basic telecommunications network. Bell Atlantic states that: "No special interfaces, signaling, abbreviated dialing, or other unique capabilities will be provided to end users, to any Internet access provider, or to other vendors in support of the enhanced services described in this plan." Bell Atlantic states that, to the extent any new interfaces are introduced in the future, such interfaces will be disclosed in advance, as required by the Commission's network disclosure requirements. 20. MFS contends that Bell Atlantic does not propose standard interfaces because it fails to describe how competing ESPs can interconnect with the network if the ESP uses a different service technology. MFS argues that, if a competing Internet service provider uses asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) to provide its Internet service, the competitor will not be able to interconnect with the Bell Atlantic network because ADSL is not among the services supported by Bell Atlantic's CEI plan. Thus, MFS contends that Bell Atlantic's plan does not propose standard interfaces as required by the Commission's CEI requirements. 21. Bell Atlantic argues that the Commission's requirements do not obligate it to envision all of the possible alternative technologies an unaffiliated ESP could use to connect to Bell Atlantic's network. Bell Atlantic contends that, under the ONA requirements, any ESP can request that Bell Atlantic consider offering a new underlying basic service to facilitate the use of a different technology. 22. The interface functionality requirement obligates the BOC to make available standardized hardware and software interfaces that will be able to support transmission, switching, and signalling functions identical to those utilized in the enhanced service provided by the BOC. We do not interpret this obligation to require Bell Atlantic to make available, as part of its initial service offering, every conceivable interface that an ESP may need or want in order to provide its enhanced offering. We note that MFS has not represented that it intends to provide an Internet access service that requires ADSL technology. Moreover, as Bell Atlantic indicates, any ESP can request Bell Atlantic to consider offering a new underlying basic service to permit the ESP to use a different technology to offer its enhanced service. We conclude that Bell Atlantic's plan complies with the interface functionality requirement. 3. Resale 23. The resale requirement obligates a "carrier's enhanced service operations to take the basic services used in its enhanced service offerings at their unbundled tariffed rates as a means of preventing improper cost-shifting to regulated operations and anti-competitive pricing in unregulated markets." 24. Bell Atlantic states that it will purchase all underlying basic services at their tariffed rates, add the Internet access enhancements, and provide the resulting enhanced service on an unregulated basis. We find that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan comports with the resale requirement established by the Commission. 4. Technical Characteristics 25. This requirement obligates a carrier to provide basic services with technical characteristics that are equal to the technical characteristics the carrier uses for its own enhanced services. 26. Bell Atlantic avers that it will provide facilities that are comparably efficient in type, quality and all technical parameters to affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs. We find that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan comports with the technical characteristics requirement established by the Commission. 5. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 27. This requirement ensures that the periods for installation, maintenance, and repair of the basic services and facilities included in a CEI offering are the same as those the carrier provides to its own enhanced service operations. Carriers also must satisfy reporting and other requirements showing that they have met this requirement. 28. Bell Atlantic indicates that the procedures for ordering, installing, maintaining, and repairing underlying basic services will be identical for affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs. It contends that these procedures will ensure that there can be no discrimination in response or intervals for these functions. We find that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan comports with the installation, maintenance, and repair requirement established by the Commission. 6. End User Access 29. This requirement obligates the carrier to provide to all end users the same abbreviated dialing and signalling capabilities that are needed to activate or obtain access to enhanced services that use the carrier's facilities. This requirement provides end users equal opportunities to obtain access to basic facilities through derived channels, whether they use the enhanced service offerings of the carrier or of a competing provider. 30. Bell Atlantic states that end user customers will be able to access the services of both affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs through its basic services in the same manner. It states that all ESPs will have an equal ability to provide end users with the access arrangements of their choosing. Bell Atlantic states that no abbreviated dialing or special derived channel access arrangements are associated with its IAS offering. We find that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan comports with the end user access requirement established by the Commission. 7. CEI Availability 31. This requirement obligates a carrier's CEI offering to be available and fully operational on the date that it offers its corresponding enhanced service to the public. The requirement also obligates the carrier to provide a reasonable time prior to that date when prospective users of the CEI offering can use the CEI facilities and services for purposes of testing their enhanced service offerings. The testing period is necessary "to balance the conflicting interests of the carrier, which should have a reasonable period to develop, test, and 'de-bug' its CEI offerings before making them publicly available, and other CEI users, such as competitors, that might suffer an unfair competitive disadvantage if carriers were able to test and perfect their enhanced services -- particularly, their interconnection with the basic underlying facilities -- while withholding those same basic facilities from others." Consequently, the Commission has required a BOC to notify unaffiliated ESPs in advance about the impending deployment of new basic services and to amend its ONA plan at least 90 days prior to the initiation of service to the public. In addition, the Commission has separately stated that a carrier's CEI plan should contain a description of the geographic areas in which it will offer the enhanced service, as well as the network locations within those areas through which it will provide such service. 32. Bell Atlantic states that all underlying basic services will be available to both affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs at the same time in any given geographical service area. Presently, however, Bell Atlantic has not filed both state and federal tariffs for all the underlying basic services. In its original CEI Plan, Bell Atlantic indicates that IPRS, SMDS, and Frame Relay service are available through federal tariffs and multiple state tariffs. Bell Atlantic has committed to filing by August 31, 1996 an intrastate SMDS tariff for New Jersey and intrastate Frame Relay tariffs for New Jersey and Delaware. In addition, Bell Atlantic has committed to filing by September 30, 1996 intrastate tariffs for IPRS in all states within its region, except the District of Columbia. Bell Atlantic seeks a waiver of the requirement to file an intrastate tariff for IPRS in the District of Columbia because no intrastate access tariff exists in that jurisdiction. Bell Atlantic claims that it is unlikely that an Internet access provider in the District of Columbia would want an IPRS-type arrangement, in lieu of SMDS and Frame Relay service. Bell Atlantic has committed, however, to offer IPRS in the appropriate local services tariff if an Internet access provider requests use of IPRS on an "intrastate" basis within the District of Columbia. Finally, Bell Atlantic contends that filing an interstate tariff for the ISDN services used to provide IAS is technically infeasible because those services are end user services provided using only "user-network" interfaces between the end user's point of termination and the end office. Bell Atlantic adds that its interstate access tariff does not contain "user-network" interfaces, but instead provides only "network- network" interfaces. 33. The Commission's ONA obligations require Bell Atlantic to file both federal and state tariffs for basic ONA services and services underlying its CEI plan for enhanced IAS. Bell Atlantic offers Frame Relay service, SMDS, and IPRS through interstate tariffs, and it has committed to filing applicable intrastate tariffs by specific dates. Because Bell Atlantic has committed to tariff on an intrastate basis several basic services not currently available in all states, we grant Bell Atlantic certain waivers to file those intrastate tariffs. Bell Atlantic must file by August 31, 1996 an intrastate SMDS tariff for New Jersey and intrastate Frame Relay tariffs for New Jersey and Delaware. In addition, Bell Atlantic must file by September 30, 1996 intrastate tariffs for IPRS in all states within its region, except the District of Columbia. If Bell Atlantic receives a request for intrastate IPRS service in the District of Columbia, Bell Atlantic must either file an intrastate tariff to provide IPRS or request a further waiver of the intrastate tariffing requirement. Bell Atlantic must use these underlying basic services under the same rates, terms, and conditions that are available to other ESPs, i.e., under the interstate tariffs until such time as an applicable intrastate tariff is in effect. Finally, we waive presently the federal tariffing requirement regarding the underlying basic ISDN services, provided that, if in the future, a customer requests these services on an interstate basis, Bell Atlantic must federally tariff these services or seek a further waiver of the federal tariffing requirement. 34. On March 8, 1996, Bell Atlantic informed unaffiliated ESPs that the IPRS offering was available for noncommercial testing. To ensure that unaffiliated ESPs have at least 90 days advance notice of the availability of IPRS, we require that Bell Atlantic's use of IPRS in the provision of its IAS pursuant to this order not begin until June 7, 1996. If, in the future, Bell Atlantic chooses to offer its enhanced service in areas where the basic underlying services were not previously available, Bell Atlantic must make these basic services available for testing by affiliates and non-affiliates in these other jurisdictions for at least 90 days before using these services in its own offerings. Moreover, if Bell Atlantic uses any additional basic services to provide its enhanced service, it must file an amendment to its CEI plan. We find that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan, subject to the requirements outlined above, comports with the CEI availability requirement established by the Commission. 8. Minimization of Transport Costs 35. This requirement obligates carriers to provide competitors with interconnection facilities that minimize transport costs. 36. Bell Atlantic contends that the Commission has found this requirement satisfied where affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs are charged the same rate for all underlying basic services. Bell Atlantic argues that this is the case with its enhanced IAS offering. We find that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan comports with the minimization of transport costs requirement established by the Commission. 9. Recipients of CEI 37. This requirement prohibits carriers from restricting the availability of the CEI offering to any particular class of customer or enhanced service competitor. 38. Bell Atlantic avers that all of the underlying basic services that it will use to provide IAS are available to all users for any lawful purpose. We find that Bell Atlantic has proposed to provide service to CEI recipients in compliance with the Commission's requirements. B. Other Nonstructural Safeguards 39. In addition to the CEI requirements established in Computer III, a BOC 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 reporting. 1. Customer Proprietary Network Information 40. Bell Atlantic is required to describe the procedures it intends to establish to comply with the CPNI safeguards of Computer III. Bell Atlantic states that it will continue to comply fully with existing, and any revised, CPNI requirements. We note that the 1996 Act added to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Communications Act) new Section 222, which concerns privacy of customer information. The 1996 Act sets forth, among other things, restrictions on the use of CPNI obtained by telecommunications carriers in providing telecommunications service to customers. Although the requirements of Section 702 of the 1996 Act were immediately effective, after receiving requests by local exchange carriers (LECs) for clarification of their obligations, the Commission has tentatively concluded that regulations interpreting and specifying in more detail a telecommunications carrier's obligations under subsections 222(c)-(f) of the Communications Act are in the public interest. In the CPNI NPRM, the Commission concluded that the 1996 Act does not prohibit the Commission from enforcing CPNI requirements that are not inconsistent with the 1996 Act. Therefore, we require Bell Atlantic to comply with the Commission's existing CPNI requirements that are not inconsistent with Section 222 of the Communications Act, Section 222 of the Communications Act, and any subsequent regulations adopted by the Commission pursuant to Section 222. 2. Network Information Disclosure 41. 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 services with the network. Bell Atlantic must make that disclosure at the "make/buy" point, that is, when it decides whether to make or to procure from an unaffiliated entity any product whose design affects or relies on the network interface. Bell Atlantic must provide that information to members of the enhanced services industry that sign a nondisclosure agreement, within 30 days after execution of such nondisclosure agreement. Bell Atlantic also must publicly disclose technical information about a new or modified network service 12 months before that service is introduced. If Bell Atlantic is able to introduce such a network service between six and 12 months after the make/buy point, however, it must publicly disclose information about the service at the make/buy point, and it may not 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 rules. Bell Atlantic states that it has complied and will continue to comply with the Commission's network disclosure requirements, including any revised requirements. We find that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan comports with the Commission's network information disclosure requirements. 3. Nondiscrimination Reporting 42. BOCs are required to file quarterly nondiscrimination reports with respect to their basic services, thereby ensuring that they provide the access promised in their CEI plans. Bell Atlantic states that it has complied and will continue to comply with the Commission's nondiscrimination reporting requirements, including any subsequent revisions to those requirements. We find that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan comports with the Commission's nondiscrimination reporting requirements. C. Accounting Safeguards 43. In addition, the BOCs must adhere to certain accounting procedures to protect ratepayers from bearing misallocated costs. This system consists of five principal parts: (1) the establishment of effective accounting rules, in accordance with the Commission's Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts requirements, and cost allocation standards; (2) the requirement that telecommunications carriers file cost allocation manuals reflecting accounting rules and cost allocation standards they have adopted; (3) mandatory audits of carrier cost allocations by independent auditors, who must state affirmatively whether the audited carriers' allocations comply with their cost allocation manuals; (4) the establishment of detailed reporting requirements and the development of an automated system to store and analyze the data; and (5) the performance of on-site audits by Commission staff. Bell Atlantic must comply with these accounting safeguards. D. Other Issues 1. Compliance with Sections 251 and 252 44. MFS contends that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan should be rejected because the plan does not comply with Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act. Specifically, MFS argues that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan for IAS should comply with the Section 251(c) provisions requiring incumbent LECs to provide interconnection and access to unbundled network elements. MFS also asserts that Bell Atlantic's plan does not comply with the pricing standards set forth in Section 252(d) because Bell Atlantic fails to indicate that it will offer the underlying basic services at cost-based rates. 45. Bell Atlantic responds that the issue of further unbundling of underlying basic services is beyond the scope of this proceeding, which Bell Atlantic contends is limited to whether its CEI plan complies with the Commission's rules and regulations. Bell Atlantic contends that Section 251(c)(3) applies only to the competitive provision of a "telecommunications service" and not to an "information service". Bell Atlantic asserts that its proposed IAS is an information service because it will provide users with the ability to retrieve and utilize a variety of stored information. Bell Atlantic adds that the Commission's joint cost rules will ensure that the enhanced service will bear fully its own costs, including the costs of the underlying basic services it uses, and will ensure that no costs are improperly shifted to customers of basic services. Furthermore, Bell Atlantic states that information and enhanced services are not regulated under Title II of the Communications Act. 46. BellSouth concurs with Bell Atlantic and argues that MFS "fail[s] to recognize that the Telecommunications Act and the Commission's CEI requirements are intended to, and do, address different relationships." BellSouth asserts that Sections 251 and 252 address the rights and duties of an incumbent LEC and a carrier that requests interconnection with the LEC. On the other hand, BellSouth contends that the Commission's CEI regime concerns the rights and obligations of a BOC that chooses to offer an enhanced service on a structurally integrated basis and other providers of enhanced services. BellSouth claims that MFS has not cited any provision of the 1996 Act that imposes additional obligations on carrier-to-ESP relationships for CEI purposes. BellSouth also argues that MFS's interconnection argument is misplaced because Section 251(c)(2) applies only to "telecommunications carriers" and ESPs are not considered "telecommunications carriers" under the Communications Act. 47. We conclude that MFS's arguments regarding Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act are beyond the scope of this proceeding. This proceeding is limited to determining whether Bell Atlantic's CEI plan complies with the Commission's Computer III requirements. MFS's arguments are best addressed in a rulemaking proceeding. We note that MFS has raised these arguments, with specific reference to Bell Atlantic's CEI Plan, in response to the Interconnection NPRM, which addresses, among other things, the scope of the Section 251 interconnection and unbundling requirements and the Section 252 pricing standards. 2. IAS as an InterLATA Long-Distance Service Offering 48. MFS contends that Bell Atlantic will be engaged in the unlawful resale of interLATA service through its proposed IAS offering. Because end users will use Bell Atlantic's proposed service to access computer servers that may be located in the same state, a different state, or another country, MFS argues that the retail Internet services that Bell Atlantic proposes to offer are interLATA services. MFS asserts that, until Bell Atlantic satisfies the "competitive checklist" set forth in Section 271 of the Communications Act, it cannot lawfully offer interLATA telecommunications services that originate within its service region. 49. Bell Atlantic states that it will not carry long-distance traffic that originates within its region across LATA boundaries until it receives authorization to provide such services. Bell Atlantic asserts that, in using IAS, end user customers will have to select, and establish separate arrangements with, interexchange carriers to carry traffic to and from servers on the Internet that are located across LATA boundaries. Bell Atlantic maintains that IAS is simply an access service for connection to the Internet. Bell Atlantic argues that the proposed service is enhanced because it includes browser capabilities and database storage capabilities, but otherwise, is no different from other information access capabilities it has offered consistent with the Modification of Final Judgment. 50. According to its assertions, Bell Atlantic will not be engaged in the provision of interLATA telecommunications services and that its proposed IAS does not involve the resale of interLATA services. Based upon the information Bell Atlantic has provided, IAS will provide end user access to the Internet through a structurally integrated enhanced services operation. To connect or transmit to Internet servers or facilities located in other LATAs, the end user customer must have a pre-existing arrangement with an interLATA Internet provider. IAS, like exchange access service, will provide access to interLATA Internet providers that will complete connections to servers located in other LATAs. 51. Pursuant to Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act, BOCs must provide interLATA information services through separate affiliates. The interLATA provision of information services by the BOCs pursuant to Sections 271 and 272 will be considered in a separate proceeding. Bell Atlantic's provision of Internet services on an interLATA basis will be subject to the requirements established in that proceeding. 3. Database Design and Hosting Services 52. MFS contends that Bell Atlantic does not provide sufficient information or detail in its CEI plan concerning proposed database design and hosting services. MFS states that Bell Atlantic does not include these proposed services among the unbundled basic services described in its CEI plan. MFS argues that, if Bell Atlantic's hosting services are collocated in Bell Atlantic's central offices, collocation also must be offered to other Internet service providers as part of the CEI plan. MFS claims that Bell Atlantic fails to provide any information concerning the locations of these services. 53. Bell Atlantic asserts that the features to which MFS refers are enhanced service features and, consequently, are non-communications functions that will be offered by Bell Atlantic as enhanced services. Bell Atlantic argues that the Commission's Title II authority does not extend to enhanced services and non-communication services, and that the Commission does not mandate access to enhanced services features. 54. We find that the computer database design and Internet hosting services Bell Atlantic proposes in its plan are features of its enhanced services. The Commission's Computer III rules do not require offering collocation arrangements to unaffiliated parties. Bell Atlantic, however, must comply with the Commission's Expanded Interconnection requirements and any applicable collocation requirements established by the Interconnection NPRM proceeding. V. CONCLUSION 55. Subject to the conditions set forth in this Order and the waivers granted herein, we conclude that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan for IAS complies with the Commission's Computer III requirements. If Bell Atlantic offers new enhanced services not described in this CEI plan, or if Bell Atlantic uses additional, underlying basic services, it must file a CEI plan amendment. VI. ORDERING CLAUSE 56. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, and 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i) and (j), 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, and 222, 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 Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Enhanced Internet Access Service IS APPROVED, subject to the requirements and conditions provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Regina M. Keeney Chief, Common Carrier Bureau