WPC ; 2 BNZArial (TT)3|I jXX2PQXP"5^88Goo&CCNu8C88oooooooooo88uuuo˅z8dozz888^oCoodoo8oo--d-ooooCd8oddddC4Cu8CCCCPCnzoooooȲdoooo88888888ooooooooodoozodoooooddooooooooPzCzCC8zdoȽdNF8koCzoooooJIoCoC--CCoCCoo-CCCNCnnuPsuoos88Goo&CCNu8C88oooooooooo88uuuo˅z8dozz888^oCoodoo8oo--d-ooooCd8oddddC4Cu-oCooCȅC--CCFoCdC8Coooo4oCJouCnPnCCCsk8CCIozȐ8888uzoooooodoooo8888ooooooonzoooodoHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXPSHPLA5SMX.WRSXX2PQ,,,%cXP2  "0RXB X4#&I\  P6Q &P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#XP\  P6QXP#Arial (TT)Times New Roman (TT)"5^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====I=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\G\fGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7N=ddgIig\\i.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Id77=iS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\11XC8XjXX2PQXP:2I=.X  &I\  P6Q&P7PC2X XP\  P6QXPXX` ` 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of 2>   "5^2BQdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BBBBPBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdNdoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd3|I "5^(1<d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd S' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Q &P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#XP\  P6QXP##&J\  P6Q &P#"5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS2g0$'*w-"5^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BV*7777C7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJoJoJoJSSS]]C]A]A7A]SSx]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2||S}277SSS77SS7S72N7[[_C`_SS`*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BVv7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7|2S_7|SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5^.=f\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====I=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQzQzQzQ\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\\fGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7N=ddhIih\\i.=f\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\h=\Id77=ic.=7=\\zzzzGGGGhpf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\d\ffff\f"5^2BoddȦ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BBBBPBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNBNoddȐoNNF2ldBddddddd<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2: 0^3 7F^"5^2Nodd8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdNdzzozzzB8BrdBddYdYBdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNE,Er2BBBBPBdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYdddooPdNdNBNdddoNNF2ddNdddddd5"(# 1  X4X\II. COMPARABLY EFFICIENT INTERCONNECTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS p>"(# 7 XX` ` A. BACKGROUND ` p>"(# 7 XX` ` B. DISCUSSION ` p"(# 11 XX` ` X ` ` 1. Introduction p"(# 11 XX` ` X ` ` 2. Benefits of Public Disclosure of CEI Compliance p"(# 13 XX` ` X ` ` 3. Elimination of Filing and Preapproval of CEI Plans p"(# 21  X4XX` ` X ` ` 4. CEI Plans for Telemessaging, Alarm Monitoring, and Payphone   Services p"(# 24  X!4XX` ` X X a. Section 260 Telemessaging and Section 275 Alarm Monitoring Services p"(# 24 XX` ` X X b. Section 276 Payphone Services p"(# 26  XF$4XX` ` X ` ` 5. IntraLATA Information Services Provided Through 272 and 274  Affiliates p"(# 29 XX` ` X X a. Background p"(# 29 XX` ` X X b. Discussion p"(# 33 XX` ` X ` ` 6. Pending CEI Matters p"(# 35 XX` ` X X a. Background p"(# 35"(, * *,,("ԌXX` ` X X b. Discussion p"(# 36 X\III. NETWORK INFORMATION DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS p"(# 38 XX` ` A. BACKGROUND ` p"(# 38  Xt4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Computer II Network Disclosure Rules p"(# 39  XS4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Computer III Network Disclosure p"(# 41 XX` ` X ` ` 3. Section 251(c)(5) Network Disclosure Rules p"(# 43 XX` ` B. DISCUSSION ` p"(# 44  X4XX` ` X ` ` 1. Computer III Network Disclosure Rules p"(# 45  X4XX` ` X ` ` 2. Computer II Network Disclosure Rules p"(# 46 XX` ` X X a. The Separate Subsidiary Rule p"(# 47 XX` ` X X b. The All Carrier Rule p"(# 48 X\IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS p"(# 54  X 4XX` ` A.` ` Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ` p"(# 54  X 4XX` ` B.` ` Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification ` p"(# 56 X\V. ORDERING CLAUSES p"(# 57  Xo4K: I. INTRODUCTION ׃  X)41.` ` Inthe Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Congress directed the Commission to examine its rules every two years and repeal or modify those found to be no  X4longer in the public interest.I yO\' "E ԍTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C.  151 etseq.  x Hereinafter, all citations to the 1996 Act will be to the 1996 Act as it is codified in the United States Code. The  xV 1996 Act amended the Communications Act of 1934. We will refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as  x amended, as the Communications Act or the Act. The Biennial Review of Regulations is codified at 47 U.S.C.  161. I Consistent with the directive of Congress, in 1998 the Commission undertook a comprehensive biennial review of the Commissions rules to promote meaningful deregulation and streamlining where competition or other considerations  Xz4warrant such action.zx {O'ԍSee 1998 Biennial Review of FCC Regulations Begun Early, FCC News Release (rel. Nov. 18, 1997).  X442. ` ` In this Report and Order (Order) the Commission evaluates the utility of two of the regulatory safeguards we employ to prevent carriers that control local exchange and exchange access facilities from using their market power for anticompetitive purposes in the provision of intraLATA information services. The first safeguard we review is the requirement that Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) file servicespecific Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) plans, and obtain the Commissions approval of those plans, prior to  Xd4initiating or altering their intraLATA information services. JACKAL \~d  {O&' "g ԍIn the NonAccounting Safeguards Order, we concluded that all the services the Commission has previously  {O&' x considered to be enhanced services are information services as defined in the Act. See Implementation of the"&,|(|(&"  {O' x. NonAccounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket  yOZ' x No. 96149, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905, 21955,  102  {O"' x| (1996) (NonAccounting Safeguards Order). Hence, we do not distinguish between an Enhanced Service Provider  x3 (ESP) and an Information Service Provider (ISP). For the sake of historical congruity, in this Memorandum  yO' x Opinion and Order we use the term ESP in describing the background of the Commissions decisions in the  {O|' x Computer II and Computer III proceedings. (See infra notes COMPUTERIII11 and COMPUTERII13 for citations to those proceedings). Elsewhere we use the synonymous ISP with no intended change in meaning. \ The other safeguards we review"d,|(|(,," are the Commissions network information disclosure requirements, which seek to prevent anticompetitive behavior by ensuring that Information Service Providers (ISPs) and others have timely access to information affecting interconnection to the BOCs, AT&Ts, and other  X4carriers networks. {OV 'ԍSee infra n.ALLCARRIER149 (describing application of the all carrier network disclosure rule).  XQ43.` ` Our consideration of these two issues is part of a larger proceeding to reexamine issues relating to the safeguards the Commission applies primarily to the provision  X 4of information services by the BOCs.p   {O\' " ԍIn 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the Commission's Computer  {O&' x III rules because the Commission had not adequately explained how its nonstructural safeguards offered adequate  {O' x protection against discriminatory interconnection by the BOCs. California v. FCC, 39 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 1994)  {O' x (CaliforniaIII), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1427 (1995). In 1995, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed  {O' x Rulemaking which sought comment on both the remand issue in California III and the effectiveness of the  {ON' x* Commission's Computer III and Open Network Architecture (ONA) nonstructural rules in general. Computer III  {O' xx Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 9520,  {O' x Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 8360 (1995) (Computer III Further Remand Notice). Since the  {O' x adoption of the Computer III Further Remand Notice, significant changes occurred in the telecommunications  x7 industry that affect our analysis of the issues raised in this proceeding. Most importantly, Congress passed the  x Telecommunications Act of 1996 to establish "a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework" in order  xD to make available to all Americans "advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services by  x opening all telecommunications markets to competition." Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230,  xx 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1996). In light of the 1996 Act and ensuing changes in telecommunications technologies  xH and markets, the Commission believed it necessary not only to respond to the issues remanded by the Ninth Circuit,  x but also to reexamine the nonstructural safeguards regime governing the provision of information services by the  x BOCs. We therefore issued in 1998 a Further Notice to address issues raised by the interplay between the safeguards  {O' x and terminology established in the 1996 Act and the Computer III regime. Computer III Further Remand  x Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review ! Review  {OH' xx of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No.  {O '9810, 13 FCC Rcd 6040 (1998) (Further Notice). p In January 1998, the Commission released a Further  X4Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) in the Computer III proceeding to reevaluate our approach to structural and nonstructural safeguards in light of recent developments, among  X4them a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (California III),  X 4and the enactment of the 1996 Act.#(  {O%' " ԍThis order focuses exclusively on CEI plans (Further Notice at 607682,  6073) and network information  {O%' x disclosure requirements (Further Notice at 610311,  117123), and we do not reach other issues raised in the  {O&' x Further Notice. In particular, we do not address the issues in this docket on remand from the United States Court  {Oz'' x; of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We will address those issues in a separate decision at a later date. See infra, n.COMPUTERIII11, "z',|(|('"  {O'for citations relating to the Computer III proceeding. # We also intended to reappraise our safeguards in" Z,|(|(,, " response to the direction of Congress that the Commission review its regulations every two years, and repeal or modify any that we determine to be no longer necessary in the public  X4interest.JZ yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  161(a)(2).J In the Further Notice, we explained that the Commission sought to strike a reasonable balance between the goal of reducing and eliminating those regulatory requirements it could, and the recognition that, until full competition is realized, certain  XS4safeguards may still be necessary.cS {O 'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6046,  7. c  X 44. ` ` For reasons we explain below, we conclude that although the BOCs must continue to comply with their CEI obligations, they should no longer be required to file or obtain preapproval of CEI plans and plan amendments before initiating or altering an intraLATA information service. Instead, we will require the BOCs to post their CEI plans and plan amendments on their publicly accessible Internet sites, and to notify the Common Carrier Bureau upon such posting. JELL  JELL  We also conclude that the network information disclosure  X; 4rules set forth in the Computer II and Computer III proceedings have been effectively superseded by the disclosure rules that the Commission adopted pursuant to the 1996 Act, and we therefore eliminate those rules. For reasons set forth below, however, we retain the  X 4Computer II network disclosure requirement that incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) must disclose network changes that could affect the manner in which customer premises  X4equipment (CPE) is attached to the interstate network.z | {O'ԍSee Appendix B, 47 C.F.R.  51.325(a) and 47 C.F.R.  64.702.z  XJ45. ` ` This modification of our CEI rules should reduce substantially the burden of compliance with these requirements by the BOCs. By eliminating the need to obtain preapproval of the BOCs CEI plans, we remove the delay that has sometimes hampered the BOCs in their introduction of new intraLATA information services. As we explain below, requiring the BOCs to post CEI plans on their publicly accessible Internet sites should not delay the introduction of innovative information services, because posting and service initiation may occur simultaneously. Also, by limiting the notification aspect of the requirement to a singlepage letter stating the Internet address and path to the relevant CEI plan, the new procedure minimizes the administrative burden associated with the plans. Removing the CEI plan preapproval process not only lifts a regulatory burden from the BOCs, but also allows them to bring new services to consumers sooner. At the same time, by requiring BOCs to post their CEI plans on the Internet, we ensure that the information which the BOCs competitors still need will continue to be widely and conveniently available. Freely available information concerning interconnection helps make vigorous competition possible, which ultimately benefits consumers.  X=4  X46. ` ` By removing the Computer II and Computer III network disclosure regimes, we reduce from three to one the sources to which an incumbent LEC must look to ascertain its" ,|(|(,,? " disclosure obligations. All of the Commissions network disclosure obligations now reside together in sections 51.325!335 of our rules, which clarifies and streamlines the network  X4disclosure regulation that remains.  {O3'ԍSee infra. n.COMPUTERII13 for citations to the Computer II proceeding. In addition, by eliminating the Computer II all carrier rule, we remove entirely the regulatory burden of network information disclosure obligations from both IXCs and competitive LECs. Instead, we rely on market forces to ensure network disclosure by those sectors of the telecommunications industry that we find to be subject to competitive pressures, and in which no carrier enjoys the degree of market power that could  X 4make anticompetitive nondisclosure appealing. The measures we adopt in this Order thus carry out the Commissions obligation to review our rules to determine whether they are no longer necessary in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic competition.  X ' VII. COMPARABLY EFFICIENT INTERCONNECTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS ׃  X= ' A. BACKGROUND  X 4   X 47.BOY` ` The Commission has long sought to maintain appropriate safeguards for the  X 4provision by the BOCs of enhanced services.  Z yO' " ԍCOMPUTERIIIBasic services, such as plain old telephone service (POTS), are regulated as tariffed services under Title  x II of the Communications Act. Enhanced services use the existing telephone network to deliver services that provide  xQ more than a basic transmission offering. Examples of enhanced services include, among other things, voice mail,  x electronic mail, electronic storeandforward, facsimile storeandforward, data processing, and gateways to online  {O' x databases. See, e.g. Bell Operating Companies' Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules, Memorandum  {O' x& Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1724 n.3 (1995) (Interim Waiver Order); 47C.F.R.  64.702(a); Amendment of  {O' x Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Computer III), Report and Order, CC Docket No. 85229,  {O]' xt PhaseI, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986) (Phase I Order), recon., 2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987) (Phase I Recon. Order), further  {O'' x& recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1135 (1988) (Phase I Further Recon. Order), second further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989)  {O' x (Phase I Second Further Recon.), Phase I Order and Phase I Recon. Order, vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d  {O' x 1217 (9th Cir. 1990) (CaliforniaI); Phase II, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 (1987) (Phase II Order), recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1150  {O' x (1988) (PhaseII Recon. Order), further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989) (Phase II Further Recon. Order), PhaseII  {OO' x Order vacated, CaliforniaI, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Computer III Remand Proceedings, 5 FCC Rcd 7719  {O' xg (1990) (ONA Remand Order), recon., 7 FCC Rcd 909 (1992), pets. for review denied, California v. FCC, 4 F.3d  {O' x 1505 (9th Cir. 1993) (CaliforniaII); Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Safeguards and  {O' xQ Tier1 Local Exchange Company Safeguards, 6FCC Rcd 7571 (1991) (BOC Safeguards Order), recon. dismissed  {Ow' xg in part, Order, CC Docket Nos.90623, 11 FCC Rcd 12513 (1996); BOC Safeguards Order vacated in part and  {OA' x remanded, California v. FCC, 39 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 1994) (CaliforniaIII), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1427 (1995)  {O ' x (referred to collectively as the ComputerIII proceeding); Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans,  {O ' x^ 4 FCC Rcd 1 (1988) (BOC ONA Order), recon., 5 FCC Rcd 3084 (1990) (BOC ONA Reconsideration Order); 5 FCC  {O!' x" Rcd 3103 (1990) (BOC ONA Amendment Order), erratum, 5 FCC Rcd 4045 (1990), pets. for review denied,  {Oi"' x[ California v. FCC, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993), recon., 8 FCC Rcd 97 (1993) (BOC ONA Amendment  {O3#' x Reconsideration Order); 6 FCC Rcd 7646 (1991) (BOC ONA Further Amendment Order); 8 FCC Rcd 2606 (1993)  {O#' x (BOC ONA Second Further Amendment Order), pet. for review denied, California v. FCC, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993).  Since its Computer I proceeding, the Commission has adopted a variety of regulatory tools to prevent improper cost allocation and access discrimination against ESPs in the provision of enhanced services, both by the BOCs," ,|(|(,,"  X4and, before divestiture, by their predecessor in interest, AT&T. & {Oy' " ԍRegulatory and Policy Problems Presented by the Interdependence of Computer and Communication  {OC' xg Services and Facilities (Computer I), 28 FCC 2d 291 (1970) (Tentative Decision); 28 FCC 2d 267 (1971) (Final  {O ' x Decision), aff'd in part sub nom. GTE Service Corp. v. FCC, 474 F.2d 724 (2d Cir. 1973), decision on remand, 40 FCC 2d 293 (1973).  In the Computer II  X4proceeding, the Commission required the thenintegrated Bell System to establish structurally separate affiliates for the provision of enhanced services in order to address the concern over  X4AT&Ts incentive and ability to engage in anticompetitive activity.  {O ' " ԍCOMPUTERIIAmendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Computer II), 77 FCC 2d  {O ' x8 384,475486,  23360. (1980) (Computer II Final Decision), recon., 84 FCC 2d 50 (1980) (Computer II  {O ' xM Reconsideration Order), further recon., 88 FCC 2d 512 (1981) (Computer II Further Reconsideration Order),  {O^ ' x& affirmed sub nom. Computer and Communications Industry Ass'n v. FCC, 693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert.  {O( 'denied, 461 U.S. 938 (1983).  Following the  Xv4divestiture of AT&T in 1984,vp  {O' "< ԍUnited States v. AT&T, 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), affirmed sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). the Commission extended the structural separation  XS4requirements of Computer II to the BOCs.S  {O' "V ԍPolicy and Rules Concerning the Furnishing of Customer Premises Equipment, Enhanced Services and  {O' x Cellular Communications Equipment by the Bell Operating Companies, CC Docket No 83115, Report and Order,  {Ob' xQ 95 FCC 2d 1117, 1120,  3 (1984) (BOC Separation Order), affirmed sub nom. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC,  {O,' x 740 F.2d 465 (7th Cir. 1984), affirmed on recon., FCC 84252, 49 Fed. Reg. 26056 (1984) (BOC Separation  {O' x Reconsideration Order), affirmed sub nom. North American Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 772F.2d 1282 (7th Cir. 1985).  In Computer III, after reexamining the telecommunications marketplace and the effects of structural separation during the six years  X4since Computer II, the Commission determined that the costs of structural separation outweighed the benefits, and that nonstructural safeguards could protect competitive ESPs from improper cost allocation and discrimination by the BOCs while avoiding the  X4inefficiencies associated with structural separation.EL {O' " ԍComputer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 964965,  36. We discussed in detail the history of the  {Oo'Computer III proceeding in the Computer III Further Remand Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 83628369,  310.E  Xb 48.` ` Under Computer III and our Open Network Architecture rules, the BOCs are  XA 4permitted to provide enhanced services on an integrated basis through the regulated entity,  X 4subject to certain nonstructural safeguards.J   {Ow!' " ԍThe Commission initially applied the Computer III and ONA rules to both AT&T and the BOCs. Computer  {OA"' xx III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986). In subsequent orders, the Commission first modified, and then relieved,  {O #' x. AT&T of most Computer III and ONA requirements.  See, e.g., Computer III Phase I Reconsideration Order, 2 FCC  {O#' x Rcd 3035 (1987); Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5880  {O$' x (1991); Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, Memorandum Opinion and Order on  x Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 4562 (1995). ONA is the overall design of a carrier's basic network services to permit  x* all users of the basic network, including the information services operations of the carrier and its competitors, to  xb interconnect to specific basic network functions and interfaces on an unbundled and equalaccess basis. The BOCs"&,|(|(&"  xb and GTE through ONA must unbundle key components, or elements, of their basic services and make them available  x^ under tariff, regardless of whether their information services operations utilize the unbundled components. Such  x unbundling ensures that competitors of the carrier's information services operations can develop information services that utilize the carrier's network on an economical and efficient basis.  One of the safeguards the Commission instituted" ,|(|(,, "  X4in the Computer III decision requires the BOCs to obtain Commission approval of, and to comply with, a servicespecific Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) plan in order to  X4offer a new enhanced service." {O' " ԍSee Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 10351042,  147166. The Commission initially imposed  x these CEI requirements on AT&T as well. In subsequent orders, the Commission first modified, and then relieved,  xp AT&T of these requirements. The Commission has never imposed CEI requirements on GTE or any other independent LEC.  In these CEI plans, which address nine separate parameters, the BOC must explain how it would offer to competitive ESPs, on a nondiscriminatory basis, all the underlying basic services that the BOC uses to provide its own enhanced service  XS4offering."S {O' " ԍId. The nine CEI parameters involve 1) interface functionality; 2) unbundling of basic services; 3) resale;  x 4)technical characteristics; 5) installation, maintenance, and repair; 6) end user access; 7) CEI availability as of the  x^ date the BOC offers its own enhanced service to the public; 8) minimization of transport costs; and 9)availability of the offering to all interested ISPs. The Commission indicated that such a CEI requirement, itself a form of interconnection making basic network facilities and services available to the public, could promote the efficiencies of competition in enhanced services markets by permitting the BOCs  X4to participate in such markets, provided they opened their networks to competitors.Y  {O'ԍId. at 963, 1039,  2, 156.Y  X49.` ` As noted above, the Commission in 1998 released a Further Notice to reexamine the issues of structural and nonstructural safeguards in light of further  X` 4developments. We observed in the Further Notice that the BOCs remain the dominant  X? 4providers of local exchange and exchange access services in their inregion states,\?  yO' " ԍThe BOCs currently account for approximately 97 percent of the local service revenues in those markets.  {O' xQ FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Local Competition, December 1998, tbl. 2.1.; see also  {O'NonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21912,  10. and thus  X 4continue to have the ability to engage in anticompetitive behavior against competitive ISPs.c : {O'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6072,  51.c We noted that the movement toward local exchange and exchange access competition should, over time, decrease and eventually eliminate the need for regulation of the BOCs to ensure that they do not discriminate against competitive ISPs in providing access to their basic  X4service offerings.; {O $'ԍId. ; The Commission also acknowledged that Congress recognized, in passing  Xm4the 1996 Act, that competition will not immediately supplant monopolies.Nm^ {O|&'ԍId. at 604546,  5.N In addition, we noted that Congress required the Commission to conduct a biennial review of regulations that"J,|(|(,," apply to operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service, and to repeal  X4or modify any regulation we determine to be no longer necessary in the public interest.e {OV'ԍ47 U.S.C.  161(a)(2); Id. at 6046,  6.e  X'  ă  X4  10.` ` In the Further Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that we should eliminate the requirement that BOCs file CEI plans and obtain Commission approval for those  XS4plans prior to providing new intraLATA information services.cSZ {O^'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6077,  61.c Given the protection afforded  X04by the Commissions ONA requirementsVF0 {O ' "l ԍId. The BOCs currently make available to competing ISPs over 150 ONA network services. Under the  x Commission's ONA requirements, not only must the BOCs offer network services to competing ISPs in compliance  x with the nine CEI equal access parameters, but the BOCs must also unbundle and tariff key network service  x elements beyond those they use to provide their own enhanced services offerings. Such unbundling ensures that  x! competitors of the carrier's information services operations can develop information services that utilize the carrier's  x network on an economical and efficient basis, and constitute an additional safeguard against access discrimination  {O' x following the lifting of structural separation. Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 101920,  113; see also  {OI'Computer III Further Remand Proceedings, 10 FCC Rcd at 837374,  1819.V and the 1996 Act, we tentatively concluded that the administrative costs associated with BOC preparation and agency review of CEI plans outweighed their utility as an additional safeguard against access discrimination, and that the preparation and review of CEI plans could delay the introduction of new information services  X4by the BOCs, without commensurate regulatory benefits.k  {OO'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6078,  62. k We tentatively concluded that such a result would be contrary to one of the Commissions original purposes in adopting a nonstructural safeguards regime, which was to promote and speed introduction of new  X; 4information services.;  {Ox'ԍId. at 6078,  63.  See generally Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 10071011,  8897. Finding that the burden imposed by these requirements outweighed their benefit as additional safeguards against access discrimination, we tentatively concluded that we should eliminate the requirement that BOCs file CEI plans, and obtain Bureau  X 4approval for those plans, prior to providing new information services.S  {O'ԍId. at 6079,  64. S We also tentatively concluded that lifting the CEI plan filing requirement would further our statutory obligation to  X4review and eliminate regulations that are no longer necessary in the public interest. {O 'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6079,  64; See 47 U.S.C.  161. We  Xi4sought comment on these tentative conclusions and our supporting analysis. iB {O\#' "~ ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 607879,  64. See Attachment A for a list of commenters in this proceeding. "F ,|(|(,,"Ԍ X'. B. DISCUSSION   X4  X'` ` 1. IntroductionhhC  Xt4 11. ` ` We believe that, in todays telecommunications market, compliance with the Commissions CEI requirements remains conducive to the operation of a fair and competitive. market for information services. Moreover, we believe that full public disclosure of how a BOC intends to comply with these requirements facilitates the successful operation of the requirements themselves. Based on the record before us in this proceeding, and as we discuss below, we conclude that the BOCs CEI plans have continuing importance in that they provide nonBOC ISPs with helpful information regarding their interconnection rights, options, and methods. These plans thus ensure that nonBOC ISPs have access to the underlying basic services that the BOCs use for their own information service offerings, access which enables those nonBOC ISPs to provide competitive offerings. We find that neither the protection afforded by ONA nor the effect of the 1996 Act has yet rendered the CEI plans superfluous as an effective means of making this information available and of  X 4promoting BOC compliance with their interconnection obligations.!  {OI'ԍSee Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 103942,  154166. For these reasons, we do not at this time eliminate the requirement that BOCs publicly disclose in a written document how they will comply with the Commissions CEI parameters.  XD4 12.` ` We further conclude, however, that, although the BOCs must continue to prepare CEI plans, we should no longer require BOCs to file their CEI plans with the Commission, or obtain the Commissions approval of these plans, before initiating a new or changing an existing intraLATA information service. We conclude that the chief burdens associated with the CEI requirements ! the administrative burden associated with filing the plans, and the delay in the introduction of new services ! can be eliminated without compromising the efficient dissemination of the information contained in the BOC CEI plans. For these reasons, and as we discuss below, we eliminate the requirement that BOCs file with the Commission and obtain from the Commission approval of their CEI plans. In its place, we require the BOCs to post on their publicly accessible Internet page, linked to and searchable from the BOCs main Internet page, their CEI plan for any new or altered intraLATA information service offering, and to notify the Common Carrier Bureau at the time  X4of the posting."Z {O'ԍSpecific posting and notification requirements are listed infra at  POSTING20.  JELL  JELL  Through this public disclosure requirement, we protect the emerging development of competition in the information services marketplace, which has yielded consumer benefits.  X' ` ` 2. Benefits of Public Disclosure of CEI Compliance   X 4 13. ` ` As stated above, the Commission continues to believe that public disclosure of  X!4how a BOC is complying with CEI facilitates the successful operation of the CEI requirements themselves. From the nine parameters of a BOCs CEI plan, an ISP can obtain detailed information regarding the following: "e# ",|(|(,,#"Ԍ X4ԙ ` ` Interface Functionality. The BOC must make available standardized hardware and software interfaces that are able to support transmission, switching, and signalling  X4functions identical to those utilized in the enhanced service provided by the carrier.p# {O5'ԍComputer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1039,  157.p This provision ensures that a competitive ISP will know what interfaces it must use to interconnect with the BOCs network.  X04 ` ` Unbundling of Basic Services. The BOC must unbundle, and associate with a specific rate in the tariff, the basic services and basic service functions that underlie the  X4carriers enhanced service offering.M$Z {O 'ԍId. at 1040,  158.M This provision ensures that a competitive ISP can purchase the underlying telecommunications services on which it bases its enhanced services. For example, an ISP might purchase tariffed transport services for its voicemail service.  X` 4 ` ` Resale. The BOCs enhanced service operations [must] take the basic services used in its enhanced services offerings at their unbundled tariffed rates as a means of preventing improper costshifting to regulated operations and anticompetitive pricing in  X 4unregulated markets.M%  {O'ԍId. at 1040,  159.M This provision ensures that both BOC and nonBOC ISPs pay the same amount for the underlying telecommunications services obtained from the BOC.  X4 ` ` Technical Characteristics. The BOC must provide basic services with technical characteristics that are equal to the technical characteristics the carrier uses for its  XL4own enhanced services.M&L~ {O{'ԍId. at 1040,  160.M This provision ensures that a competitive ISP can base its enhanced offering on telecommunications services that are of equal quality to those which the BOCs customers receive.  X4 ` ` Installation, Maintenance, and Repair. The BOC must provide the same time periods for installation, maintenance, and repair of the basic services and facilities included in  X|4a CEI offering as those the carrier provides to its own enhanced service operations.M'| {O='ԍId. at 1041,  161.M This provision ensures that a competitive ISP can offer its customers support services of equal quality to those which the BOCs customers receive.  X4 ` ` End User Access. The BOC must 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 carriers facilities, and provides to end users equal opportunities to obtain access to basic facilities through derived channels, whether they use" ',|(|(,,"  X4the enhanced service offerings of the carrier or of a competitive provider.M( {Oy'ԍId. at 1041,  162.M This provision ensures that a competitive ISPs customers will have the same access as the BOCs customers to special network functions offered in conjunction with information services.  Xt4 ` ` CEI Availability. The BOC must make its CEI offering available and fully operational on the date that it offers its corresponding enhanced service to the public, and provide a reasonable period of time when prospective users of the CEI offering can use the  X 4CEI facilities and services for purposes of testing their enhanced service offerings.M) Z {O 'ԍId. at 1041,  163.M This provision ensures that a nonBOC ISP is not put at a competitive disadvantage by a BOC initiating a service before the BOC makes interconnection with the BOCs network available to competitive ISPs, so that they are able to initiate a comparable service.  X^ 4 ` ` Minimization of Transport Costs. The BOC must provide competitors with  X= 4interconnection facilities that minimize transport costs.M*=  {O'ԍId. at 1042,  164.M This provision ensures that BOCs can not require competitive ISPs to purchase unnecessarily expensive methods of interconnection with the BOCs network.  X4 ` ` Availability to All Interested ISPs. The BOC is prohibited from restricting the availability of the CEI offering to any particular class of customer or enhanced service  Xm4competitor.M+m~ {O'ԍId. at 1042,  165.M This provision ensures that BOCs do not engage in anticompetitive teaming with one competitive ISP and against others.  X4 14. INU` ` We agree with nonBOC ISPs and other commenters that CEI plans provide useful information that is either not available, or not available in as much detail, from other  X4sources.,x yO' "4 ԍAirTouch Comments at 4 (CEI plans allow providers to ascertain a LEC's duties); America OnLine  x Comments at 20 (CEI plans often constitute the only notice that unaffiliated ISPs now have of BOC provision of  x information services); GSA Comments at 78 (CEI plans provide more than detailed summary; plan has detailed  xb information on functionality, costs, and schedules for service availability); ADT Security Services, Inc. (ADT) Reply  x at 2 (CEI plans are a vital source of information regarding BOC activities in the information service marketplace,  x including alarm services); GSA Reply at 45, 10 (The basic information on the nine CEI parameters would not be available to regulators, competing ESPs, or end users if CEI filings were eliminated). CAT Moreover, we conclude that the BOCs CEI plans present this information in a more usable form than is otherwise available to ISPs. The nine parameters of a CEI plan unite in a single document the disparate pieces of information that a BOC makes available to its competitors through other avenues. Such a collection of information in a single CEI plan is significantly more useful to competitive ISPs than the theoretical opportunity to glean similar information piecemeal from a BOCs voluminous tariff, ONA, and network disclosure" P ,,|(|(,,"  X4filings.-X yOy' " ԍ Thus, we disagree with U S WESTs contention that its CEI plans are superfluous because all nine CEI  x parameters are entirely satisfied by network disclosure, tariffing of ONA services, or by U S WESTs own internal processes and practices. U S WEST Comments at 2846; U S WEST Reply at 19. FAWN  FAWN DOG In addition, CEI plans describe the availability of comparable interconnection to  X4services, as distinct from the buildingblock elements of services described in ONA filings, and so provide competitive ISPs with a different and frequently more appropriate level of  X4access to the public switched network..j  yO2' "} ԍIn their CEI plans, BOCs describe how the underlying basic telecommunications services the BOC uses to  x provide its own information services are to be made available to competing ISPs. In contrast, ONA is intended to  x give competing ISPs the ability to pick and choose network service elements which are not necessarily used by  {O ' x& the BOC in providing its own information services. Bell Operating Companies Joint Petition for Waiver of  {OT ' x Computer II Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1724, 172526,  5, 11 (1995) (Interim Waiver  {O ' x Order). ONA is the overall design of a carrier's basic network services to permit all users of the basic network,  x including the information services operations of the carrier and its competitors, to interconnect to specific basic  x network functions and interfaces on an unbundled and equal access basis. Unbundling under ONA emphasizes  x the unbundling of basic services, not the substitution of underlying facilities in a carrier's network. Unbundling under  x7 section 251, in contrast, includes the physical facilities of the network, together with the features, functions, and  {O' x capabilities associated with those facilities. See Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1019,  113; Local  {O'Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15631,  258; and BOC ONA Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 41,  69. We accord these latter two reasons significant weight in the case of smaller ISPs, newly formed ISPs, or ISPs that are not aligned with a competitive LEC, because such ISPs may find gathering the relevant information from varied and lengthy BOC filings particularly burdensome, and accessing the information in a single  X 4document considerably more manageable.m/X  yO' " ԍCIS, an ISP serving 2,000 residential and business customers in Nebraska, comments that reports published  x on a web page are accessible to small ISPs. CIS Comments at 3. US WEST agrees with CIS that ONA information should be published on a web page. US WEST Reply Comments at 21. m Without access to this information, competitive ISPs would find it more difficult to obtain the basic services they need to provide competing information services.  X 415.` ` Several ISPs and their supporters also suggest that, in addition to providing nonBOC ISPs with an accessible source of information, the existence of CEI plans helps the  X; 4Commission enforce compliance with BOC interconnection obligations.0; : yO&'ԍAirTouch Comments at 24; ITAA Comments at 1720; ADT Reply at 2; CIX Reply at 7.DOG We strongly agree. We believe that competitive ISPs will themselves monitor CEI compliance vigilantly, and will call the Commissions attention to any failure by a BOC to follow through on its CEI responsibilities. Thus, the BOCs compliance with the Commissions CEI requirements can be easily monitored by the parties whom they most concern, and we can expect to be informed through the section 208 complaint process of any failure to provide either the  Xi4necessary information or the promised access.1i yO$'ԍ47 U.S.C.  208. The  208 complaint process is open to any entity or individual. Having all CEIrelated information in a single document that is easily accessible to the public will ensure the Commissions continuing ability to enforce the CEI requirements. The Commission will not hesitate to use its enforcement authority, including the Accelerated Docket or revised complaint procedures," Z1,|(|(,," to review and adjudicate allegations that a BOC is falling short of fulfilling any of its CEI  X4obligations.2 yOV' "g ԍCIX argues that CEI preapproval is preferable to an afterthefact complaint process, because a retrospective  {O' xx process rarely makes the injured parties or the competitive process whole (i.e., returns the market to a state of full  x competition). CIX Reply at 67. CIX identifies a legitimate concern, and we agree to the extent that, to be effective,  x! enforcement of BOC interconnection duties must be swift and sure. We note, however, that a preapproval process that delays or prevents the offering of new services may also cause market distortion.   X416. KANG ` ` We disagree with SBC and BellSouth that CEI and other safeguards are surrogates for competition, and because there are many competitive ISPs, such surrogates are  XQ4no longer needed.k3Qz yO| 'ЍBellSouth Comments at 24; SBC Reply at 17.k Although many ISPs compete against one another, each ISP must obtain the underlying basic services from the incumbent local exchange carrier, often still a BOC, to  X 4reach its customers.4   yO' " ԍIncumbent LEC share of U.S. local service revenues dropped to approximately 97percent for the year 1997.  {O' x FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Local Competition, December 1998, tbl.2.1 (summarizing  {OX' x 1997 actual revenues). Financial community estimates of market shares toward the end of 1998 attribute 4 percent  yO"' x to 5 percent of local market revenues to competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). Merrill Lynch & Co., United  {O' x States Telecommunications/Services, Telecom ServicesLocal: 3Q98 Preview, 18 November 1998, tbl. 11  x (estimating 4.5 percent CLEC actual revenue market share in the third calendar quarter and forecasting 5.1 percent  {O|' xQ in the fourth quarter). Accord, America OnLine Comments at 910 ( Internet and online service providers cannot  xy currently rely solely on market forces to protect against anticompetitive conduct, because ISPs remain overwhelmingly dependent on incumbent carriers such as the BOCs for local access to their customers.)  Although we observed in the Further Notice that, under the 1996 Act, the BOCs are subject to additional statutory requirements, such as the section 251 unbundling and the network information disclosure requirements, that in time should help prevent access discrimination, we cannot yet conclude that the procompetitive goals of the 1996 Act have  X 4been fully reached.EWE5  {O'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  251(c); See also Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6078,  62. Based on these circumstances, we do not believe that our progress in implementing the 1996 Act has reduced the threat of discrimination sufficiently to warrant removal of these additional safeguards at this time.  X 417. ` ` Finally, we disagree with SBCs contention that safeguards other than CEI requirements, such as ONA and section 251 unbundling requirements, are sufficient to protect against discriminatory interconnection, and that any CEI requirement to address the same concern would be the sort of redundant regulation no longer necessary in the public interest  Xi4that the Commission must eliminate.Q6it yO"'ЍSBC Comments at 2930.Q U S WEST also argues that the information available from a BOCs tariff, ONA, and network disclosure overlaps with the information available in a BOCs CEI plan, so requiring BOCs to formulate CEI plans is redundant and  X4unnecessary.F7 yO&'ԍU S WEST Reply at 19.F We find that because CEI plans help inform competitive ISPs of their service interconnection options, and because informed ISPs will contribute to our enforcement of" 7,|(|(,,w" nondiscriminatory access, continued imposition of the CEI plan requirement is not redundant. We further believe that, even if compliance with this requirement results in some overlap with other interconnection obligations, given the regulatory changes made in this order, the burden imposed on the BOCs of publicly disclosing CEI compliance is very slight in comparison to the substantial benefit of the additional safeguard.  X.418.HOG` ` Several BOCs observe that, as we acknowledged in the Further Notice, the Commission originally intended CEI plans to be an interim measure that would in due course  X4be supplanted by the Commissions ONA scheme.08 {Oc ' " ԍSBC at Comments at 29, 32; Bell Atlantic Comments at 12; and BellSouth Comments at 24. See Further  {O- 'Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6077,  61.  See Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 96465,  45.0 Two reasons cause us to reevaluate that position, and to determine that, independent of ONA, publicized CEI plans remain valuable  X4safeguards to competition at this point in time.9$ yOy ' "~ ԍAt no time has there been any suggestion that the BOCs duty to provide comparably efficient interconnection has been regarded as interim. First, the growth of the information service industry leads us to believe that many more, and more diverse, ISPs now exist than the  X^ 4Commission conceived at the inception of the ONA and CEI requirements in 1986.:^ | yO' " ԍFor example, the number of Internet service providers grew from an estimated 2,000 in 1996, to an estimated  x 6,500 by the end of 1998. A CIX survey in early 1997 confirmed that Internet service providers are primarily  x privatelyheld, small and very small businesses with revenues of less than $1 million and few employees. The  xx majority of competitive Internet access provision to nonurban areas is through these entrepreneurial companies.  x Letter from Barbara A. Dooley, Executive Director, CIX, to J. Reel, Staff Attorney, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC, Jan. 8, 1999.  The great majority of these ISPs depend on access to the BOCs public switched telephone network to reach their customers. Many of these ISPs, especially newer or smaller entities, or those not affiliated with a competitive LEC, may understandably find a BOCs CEI plan, which facilitates efficient interconnection to basic services, more useful than a voluminous ONA filing, which primarily concerns interconnection to network elements.  Xi419.` ` Second, the requirement that BOCs simply post their CEI plans on the Internet ! an unimaginable option in 1986 ! is much less burdensome than the preapproval process it replaces. By eliminating the CEI plan filing and preapproval requirements, which we discuss below, we remove that aspect of the overall CEI requirement which the BOCs have found most burdensome. Moreover, Internet posting not only relieves BOCs of the burden of delaying the introduction of services until they receive approval of their CEI plans, but also makes the plans accessible to ISPs at the click of a mouse. We find that the substantial benefit of informing nonBOC ISPs of their interconnection rights and methods of interconnection in a practical and accessible form, and thereby assisting our enforcement of those rights, significantly outweighs the muchreduced cost to the BOC of formulating and posting the plans. For these reasons, and under current market conditions, we believe that publicized CEI plans provide a valuable safeguard independent of ONA.  X4  X420. POSTING INU` ` Posting CEI plans on their publicly accessible Internet sites, linked to and searchable from the BOCs main web page, should not hamper the BOCs in their introduction" :,|(|(,," of innovative information services, because posting and service initiation may occur  X4simultaneously.%;" {OV' "} ԍThese rules will take effect 30 days after publication of this Report and Order in the Federal Register. See  xk 5 U.S.C  553(d). Although a BOCs posted CEI plans will not become effective until that date, and hence new or  x^ amended services may not commence before that date, a BOC need not wait 30 days before posting CEI plans on its Internet cite, or before notifying the Secretary and the Common Carrier Bureau of the posting. % Any CEI requirement that BOCs have been obliged to fulfill prior to initiating service, such as providing nonBOC ISPs with testing opportunities, no longer must be met before initiating service, but rather may now be met simultaneously with initiating service. The substance of notification to the Bureau may be limited to the Internet address and path to the relevant CEI plan or amended plan; the form may consist of a letter to the  X.4Secretary with a copy to the Bureau.<. yO ' "V ԍIf the BOC receives a good faith request for a CEI plan from someone who does not have Internet access, the BOC must notify that person where a paper copy of the plan is available for public inspection. We conclude that this minimally intrusive posting and notification procedure, which shall fulfill the CEI publication requirement, will preserve the useful elements of the CEI plans, while greatly reducing the burden of compliance by the  X4BOCs.X=X  yO' " ԍThe elimination of our requirement that BOCs file and obtain approval of CEI plans prior to initiating or  x altering an information service has no effect on any other state or federal requirement that BOCs may have to meet prior to initiating or altering service. X  X'  X '` ` 3. Elimination of Filing and Preapproval of CEI Plans  X9 421. ` ` Based on the record before us, we conclude that the CEI plan filing and preapproval process has significant disadvantages without commensurate advancement of our regulatory goal of ensuring fair and equal interconnection. Several BOCs confirm our tentative conclusion that filing and obtaining approval of CEI plans has caused significant  X4delay in the introduction of new information services.>*  yO' "8 ԍAmeritech Comments at 89; Bell Atlantic Comments at 12; BellSouth Comments at 26; and US WEST  {OP'Reply at 18. See Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6078,  63. Bell Atlantic argues that even when no party has opposed a CEI plan, the preapproval process has sometimes caused a substantial  Xg4interval to pass between receipt and approval of a CEI plan.P?g  yO'ԍBell Atlantic Comments at 12. P Bell Atlantic further argues that delays have not been limited to plans for new services, but have also occurred with  X!4amendments to an existing service.;@! {O!'ԍId. ; In addition, Ameritech offers evidence that the CEI preapproval process may have deterred the BOCs from introducing some new services  X4altogether. A&6  {O2%' " ԍAmeritech Comments at Attachment A, referencing James Prieger, The Effects of Regulation on the  {O%' xZ Innovation and Introduction of New Telecommunications Services, Department of Economics, University of  {O&' x California, Berkeley, and Law and Economics Consulting Group, Inc. (1998) (Prieger Study). This investigation  yO'' x analyzes the introduction of enhanced services by the BOCs from 1984 to 1997. CEI plans were required during"'@,|(|('"  {O' x^ that period except for an interim period between 1993 and 1995. Prieger Study at 23. (More precisely, the interim  x began in 1992 or 1993, depending on the BOC, and ended in 1995, when the Commission reinstated the requirement  {O"' xb that BOCs file and obtain preapproval of CEI plans in response to California III.) The Prieger Study claims to have  x found a statistically significant increase in the number of services introduced during the period between 1993 and  x& 1995 when filing and obtaining approval of CEI plans was not required prior to the offering of new enhanced  {O|' x services.  According to the Prieger Study, if the BOCs had added new services at the same rate during the period  x without the CEI plan filing requirement as they did during the period when that requirement was in effect, they  xx would have added 17 new services. Instead, the BOCs added 27 new services, or about 60% more than expected.  {O' x The Prieger Study concludes that the CEI requirement significantly hampered the introduction of new services.  {O' x Prieger Study at 79. Other commenters, however, discuss possible flaws in the Prieger Study analysis. GSA and  {Oj ' x CIX argue (1) that the Prieger Study draws too broad a conclusion while ignoring too many complex variables, and  {O4 ' xb (2) that because the Prieger Study ignores that CEI encourages nonBOC innovation, it fails to consider the positive effects of the CEI requirement on the market as a whole. CIX Reply at 9; GSA Reply at 810. Even without further reason to eliminate the CEI filing and approval process, we" A,|(|(,,w" conclude that the lag in bringing desirable services to the public makes it necessary to  X4streamline the CEI process.BB  yOT' " ԍIn addition, the delay in service introduction associated with the current approval process could distort  x competition in the information services market. Ameritech alleges that its Personal Access Service (PAS) was  x! opposed by MCI only, which added the functionality described in the CEI plan to its competing MCI One service  xt over a period of 18 months, while contesting Ameritech's plan before the Common Carrier Bureau. Eventually  {Ot' x Ameritech withdrew the plan. Ameritech Comments at 910; see also BellSouth at Comments at 24; SBC  xQ Comments at 2728; SBC Reply at 16; US West Reply at 18. Without determining whether or not the CEI process  x has been abused in this manner, we agree that delay in approving CEI plans could create a potential avenue for competitors to exploit the process to their advantage.   X422.` ` We do not find convincing the assertions of nonBOC commenters that the BOCs exaggerate their CEIrelated burden, or that the burden is in any case worth imposing,  XQ4because it contributes to a level playing field.CQ {O'ԍSee ADT Reply at 3; ATSI Reply at 1213; CIX Reply at 9; GSA Reply at 9. First, as we have explained, we find that CEIrelated delay is a substantial burden on the BOCs. We do not agree with CIX that BOCs may reasonably be expected to take CEIrelated delay into account when formulating their business plans, and that the BOCs may avoid the difficulty by proposing plans before they are  X4ready to initiate service.ADb yO'ԍCIX Reply at 9. A We find instead that the CEI approval process is too long, too unpredictable, and too subject to manipulation by other interested parties to be dismissed as a reasonable cost of doing business. NonBOC commenters also argue that the regulatory cost of CEI must be measured against the benefit of creating and maintaining a level playing  X9 4field.xE9  {O"'ԍSee ADT Reply at 34; ATSI Reply at 1213; and GSA Reply at 910.x We, too, believe it is appropriate to weigh the costs of regulatory measures against their benefits. Based on the above analysis, though, we find that the costs of delay associated" E,|(|(,,~ " with the current CEI plan filing and preapproval requirement do not provide a  X4commensurate benefit of enhanced fairness and equality among providers.)F {OV' "y ԍSee, e.g., Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 606770,  4347. ADT argues that the remedy to CEIrelated  xo delay should be to expedite the process, and suggests an accelerated public notice system, whereby an uncontested  x plan could take effect after 60 days. ADT Reply at 4. Under ADT's approach, however, ISPs could still prolong  x the CEI preapproval process by filing objections whenever they saw an advantage in doing so. In addition, ADT  x| offers no reason why delay itself, even a delay of only two months, advances our policy goals. We therefore decline to adopt ADTs proposal that we institute a public notice system for preapproving CEI plans. )   X4 23.` ` We note that some commenters question the effectiveness of CEI plans,  Xt4particularly as a replacement for structural separation or for further unbundling.GtB yOg ' "h ԍMCI Comments at 4748 (CEI worthless as substitute safeguard for structural separation); Ad Hoc Comments at 6 (CEI worthless as substitute safeguard for further unbundling). We agree that, standing alone, CEI plans would not entirely allay our concerns regarding the incentive and ability of the BOCs to derive unfair benefit from their control at this time over access to the majority of local exchange end users. We do not agree, however, that merely because a safeguard may not be entirely effective in all cases, it should not be used at all. Weighing instead the benefit that we believe some ISPs will derive from public disclosure of CEI plans, and the aid to enforcement of easily available CEI plans, against the much reduced burden that simply posting their plans imposes on the BOCs, we find the benefits of public disclosure of CEI plans clearly justify the costs.  X ' ` ` 4. CEI Plans for Telemessaging, Alarm Monitoring, and Payphone (#(# X ' Services (#`  X'` `  a. Section 260 Telemessaging and Section 275 Alarm Monitoring (#(# X'` ` Services  XD424.` ` In the Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order and the Alarm  X#4Monitoring Order, respectively, the Commission concluded that the Computer II, Computer  X4III, and ONA requirements continue to govern the BOCs provision of intraLATA  X4telemessaging servicesH^ {O,' "M ԍImplementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telemessaging, Electronic Publishing, and Alarm  {O' xQ Monitoring Services, CC Docket No. 96152, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  {O'12 FCC Rcd 5361, 5455,  221 (1997) (Telemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order). and alarm monitoring services.^ IJ  {OR!' "M ԍImplementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telemessaging, Electronic Publishing, and Alarm  {O"' xt Monitoring Services, CC Docket No. 96152, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3824, 384849,  55 (1997),  {O"' xU recons. pending (Alarm Monitoring Order); see also Enforcement of Section 275(a)(2) of the Communications Act  {O#' x of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Against Ameritech Corporation, CCBPol 96-17,  {Oz$' x Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3855 (1997), vacated and remanded sub nom. Alarm Industry  {OD%' x Communications Committee v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, No. 97-1218,  x 1997 WL 791658 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 1997). We also found that section 275 applies to the provision by the BOCs  {O&' x of both intraLATA and interLATA alarm monitoring services. Id. at 383132,  16. Section 275(a)(1), however,  x generally prevents the BOCs from engaging in the provision of alarm monitoring service until February 8, 2001. "'H,|(|('"  {O' x See 47 U.S.C.  275. Because Ameritech is the only BOC that was authorized to provide alarm monitoring services  yOZ' x as of November 30, 1995, the Commission found that Ameritech is the only BOC that qualifies for grandfathered  {O"' xV treatment under section 275(a)(2). See id.  275(a)(2); Alarm Monitoring Order, 12FCC Rcd at 3839,  33.  {O' x! Ameritech provides intraLATA alarm monitoring pursuant to an approved CEI plan, see Bell Operating Companies  {O' x Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules, 10 FCC Rcd 13758, 1376970, 7275 (Com. Car. Bur. 1995)  x (approving Ameritech's CEI plan for SecurityLink service), and interLATA alarm monitoring service pursuant to  {OH' x a waiver of the Modification of Final Judgment. See United States v. Western Electric Co., 46 F.3d 1198 (D.D.C. 1995).^ In the Further Notice, we noted"I,|(|(,," that because neither section 260 nor section 275 of the Act imposes separation requirements for the provision of intraLATA telemessaging services or alarm monitoring services, respectively, BOCs may provide those services, subject both to other restrictions in those sections, as well as the Commissions current nonstructural safeguards regime, as modified by  Xt4any proposals that we might adopt in this proceeding.fJt {O 'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 608283,  74.f  X.425. ` ` For the same reasons we lift the CEI filing and preapproval requirement for other intraLATA information services provided by the BOCs on an integrated basis, we also  X4lift the requirement for section 260 telemessaging and section 275 alarm monitoring services. We also require the BOCs to post on their Internet sites CEI plans for new or modified telemessaging or alarm monitoring services, and to notify the Bureau of the posting. As with other BOC intraLATA information services, we believe this approach minimizes a BOCs administrative burden, and eliminates regulatory delay; provides competitive ISPs with essential information; promotes the Commissions ability to monitor and enforce BOC access and interconnection obligations; and appropriately acknowledges the degree that competitive providers of telemessaging and alarm monitoring services must still depend on the basic services of the incumbent LEC ! usually a BOC ! for access to their customers. KANG   X'` `   b. Section 276 Payphone Services  Xg4  XD426.` ` In the Further Notice, we noted that section 276 directs the Commission to prescribe a set of nonstructural safeguards for BOC provision of payphone services that must include, at a minimum, nonstructural safeguards equal to those adopted in the Computer  X4InquiryIII (CC Docket No. 90623) proceeding.tKl  {O'ԍId. at 608384,  7677; 47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(C). t In implementing section 276, the Commission required the BOCs, among other things, to file CEI plans describing how they  X4would comply with various nonstructural safeguards.}L^  {OF"' " ԍImplementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the  {O#' x Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96128, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20541 at 2064041,  {O#'199200 (Payphone Order) (subsequent citations omitted). } The Bureau approved the BOCs CEI"$L,|(|(,,"  X4plans to provide payphone service on April 15, 1997. M {Oy' " ԍSee Ameritech's Plan to Provide Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Providers of Pay Telephone  x Services; Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the  {O ' x Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Order, DA 97-790 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB); Bell  x Atlantic Telephone Companies' Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for the Provision of the Basic Payphone  x Services; Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the  {Oe' x7 Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Order, DA 97-791 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB); BellSouth  x Corporation's Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Payphone Service Providers; Implementation of the  {O' x. Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket  {O' x No. 96-128, Order, DA 97-792 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB); The NYNEX Telephone Companies' Offer of Comparably  x Efficient Interconnection to Payphone Service Providers; Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and  {OS ' xD Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Order, DA 97-793 (rel.  {O ' x April 15, 1997) (CCB); Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for the Provision  x of Basic Telephone Service; Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of  {O ' xV the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Order, DA 97-794 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB);  xx Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for the Provision of Basic  x Payphone Services; Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the  {O ' xp Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Order, DA 97-795 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB); U S  x WEST's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Payphone Services; Implementation of the Pay Telephone  {O' x Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Order,  {Oe'DA 97-796 (rel. April 15, 1997) (CCB) (collectively, BOC CEI Payphone Orders). apps for review pending.  In the Further Notice, we sought comment regarding whether to relieve the BOCs from the requirement of filing amendments to their CEI plans for payphone services, and how such a step would comport with the  X4statutory requirement in section 276.cNF {O'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6084,  77.c  XS427. ` ` We now conclude that the BOCs should not be required to file or obtain approval of CEI plans for new payphone services or for amendments to their existing payphone plans. As with other applications of CEI, we find that the benefits of CEI plans may be largely preserved by instead requiring the BOCs to post on their Internet pages CEI plans for new or amended payphone services. Consistent with our application of CEI to intraLATA information services that BOCs provide on an integrated basis, we believe that, under current market conditions, such posting disseminates valuable interconnection information, and facilitates our enforcement of BOC interconnection responsibilities, at minimum cost to the BOCs.  X 428.` ` While we decline in this Order to require the BOCs to file and obtain approval of CEI plans for amendments to their payphone services, we disagree with SBCs contention  X4that CEI was excluded from the safeguards Congress referred to in section 276(b)(1)(C).GO yO:#'ԍSBC Comments at 3132.G We believe that SBC is mistaken when it states that the CEI requirement was not adopted in  Xk4the CC Docket No. 90623 phase of the Computer III proceeding, and therefore could not have been among the nonstructural safeguards Congress meant when it referred to that proceeding. In CC Docket No. 90623, CEI was discussed in tandem with ONA, and both"'hO,|(|(,,o"  X4safeguards were proposed and readopted together.P {Oy' " ԍSee Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Safeguards; and Tier 1 Local Exchange  {OC' x Company Safeguards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 174, 17980  3337 (1990)  {O ' xU (Computer III Remand Notice); Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Safeguards; and Tier  {O' x 1 Local Exchange Company Safeguards, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 7571, 759798 at  5759 (1991) (Computer  {O'III Remand Order). Accord Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20642, 202. Nor do we endorse Ameritechs contention that the Commission fully satisfied the requirements of section 276(b)(1)(C) when, among other safeguards, the Commission directed the BOCs to produce the original CEI plans  X4for payphone services.Q" {O ' "3 ЍAmeritech Comments at 11. Congress directs the Commission in section 276 to use Computer III safeguards  x to implement that section's requirement that a BOC shall not subsidize its payphone service and shall not prefer  x; or discriminate in favor of its payphone service. Congress thus assigns the Commission an ongoing responsibility with respect to these services.  We do agree, however, with Ameritechs observation that the Act  Xt4contains no language requiring that the CEI regime should remain immutable forever.JRtl  yO'ԍAmeritech Comments at 11.J In  XQ4directing the Commission to prescribe a set of safeguards that should equal those adopted in  X04Computer III, Congress declined to restrict the Commission to a fixed application of the  X4Computer III safeguards.]S  yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(C), emphasis added.] Indeed, Computer III itself looked to a developing set of  X4safeguards, so we conclude that, in referring to the Computer III proceeding, Congress  X4expected the Commissions application of CEI and ONA to evolve over time.T  {O ' "R ԍ Computer III Remand Notice, 6 FCC Rcd 179 at  33; Computer III Remand Order, 6 FCC Rcd 7598 at  59. Requiring the BOCs to post on the Internet CEI plans for new or amended payphone services is such an evolution in that it streamlines the BOCs payphoneservices CEI requirement in accordance with our mandate under biennial review, but also underscores the underlying requirement that BOCs comply with the CEI parameters.  X ' ` ` 5. IntraLATA Information Services Provided Through 272 and 274 (#(# X '` `  Affiliates    X' ` `  a. Background   XL429.APE` ` In the Further Notice, we observed that, under our current rules, a BOC may provide an intraLATA information service either on an integrated basis pursuant to an  X4approved CEI plan, or on a structurally separate basis pursuant to the Commissions Computer  X4II rules.cU {O~$'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6079,  66.c We noted that, in addition to the factors cited by the Commission in the Computer  X4III Phase I Order, the advent of the 1996 Act may affect our analysis of the relative costs and"xU,|(|(,,T"  X4benefits of structural and nonstructural safeguards.MV {Oy'ԍId. at 6076,  58. M In this context, we noted that the Acts local competition provisions should in time provide for alternate sources of access to basic services, thereby diminishing the BOCs ability to engage in anticompetitive behavior against  X4competitive ISPs.GWZ {O'ԍId. G  Xt4   XQ430. ` `  Section 272 Separate Affiliates. In the NonAccounting Safeguards Order, the Commission noted that section 272 of the Act imposes specific separate affiliate and nondiscrimination requirements on BOC provision of interLATA information services, but that  X4section 272 does not address BOC provision of intraLATA information services.zX {O 'ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2196970,  132. z We  X4concluded that, pending the conclusion of the Computer III Further Remand proceeding, BOCs may continue to provide intraLATA information services on an integrated basis, in compliance with the Commissions nonstructural safeguards ! including CEI ! established in  X` 4the Computer III and ONA proceedings.\Y` ~ {O'ԍId. at 2196971,  132134. \ In the Further Notice, however, we tentatively concluded that the BOCs should not have to file CEI plans for any information services they offer through section 272 separate affiliates, notwithstanding that section 272s requirements  X 4are not identical to the Commissions Computer II requirements.)Z  {O' "l ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6080,  68. We noted, however, that other applicable Computer III and  {O'ONA safeguards, as amended or modified by this proceeding, would continue to apply. Id.) We predicted that, after a BOC receives authority to provide interLATA services through a section 272 affiliate, the BOC might want to provide a seamless information service to customers that would combine both the inter and intraLATA components, and we expressed concern that requiring the BOC to receive approval under a CEI plan for the intraLATA component of such services could  XL4needlessly delay the provision of integrated services to consumers.L[Ll  {Oi'ԍId. at 6080,  69.L We also reasoned that  X)4our concern regarding access discrimination would be sufficiently addressed by requirements  X4set forth in section 272 and the Commissions orders implementing that section.\  {O' "} ԍId.  See, e.g., NonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2197696,  14691 (structural separation  x requirements), 2199722017,  194236 (nondiscrimination safeguards), 2203647,  27292 (joint marketing  {OG!' x restrictions); Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Accounting Safeguards Under the  {O"' xp Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 at 1761718, 16770 (accounting  {O"'requirements) (1996) (Accounting Safeguards Order).   X4   X431. ` `  Section 274 Electronic Publishing. In the Telemessaging and Electronic  X4Publishing Order, the Commission concluded that our Computer II, Computer III, and ONA requirements continue to govern the BOCs provision of intraLATA electronic publishing"~\,|(|(,,5"  X4services.] {Oy' "I ԍTelemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 5446,  200. We also found that section  x 274, which establishes specific structural separation and nondiscrimination requirements for BOC provision of  {O ' x. electronic publishing, applies to the provision of both intraLATA and interLATA electronic publishing. Id. at 5383,  x<  50. BOCs that wish to provide interLATA electronic publishing, however, must first obtain section 271  {O'authorization to do so. See 47 U.S.C.  271; NonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcdat 2190809,  3.  The Commission further found that the record was insufficient to determine whether BOC provision of electronic publishing through a section 274 separate affiliate  X4satisfied all the relevant requirements of Computer II, so that the BOC should not have to file  X4a CEI plan for those services.;^~ {O 'ԍId. ; The Commission noted that the issue, as well as other issues  Xv4raised regarding the revision or elimination of the Computer III and ONA requirements,  XU4would be considered in the Computer III Further Remand proceeding._U {O 'ԍTelemessaging and Electronic Publishing Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 5446,  200.  X432.` ` In the Further Notice, we tentatively concluded that, just as BOCs should not be required to file CEI plans for intraLATA information services they provide through a section 272 affiliate, so too the requirement should be lifted for electronic publishing services  X4or other information services that BOCs provide through a section 274 affiliate.-` {O' "/ ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6082,  72. We noted, however, that all other applicable Computer III and  {O'ONA safeguards, as amended or modified by this proceeding, would continue to apply. Id. - Two reasons led us to that tentative conclusion. First, we suggested that the section 274 separation and nondiscrimination requirements, and the Commissions rules implementing those  XA 4requirements, sufficiently addressed our concerns regarding access discrimination.LaA  {O'ԍId. at 6082,  73.L Second, given that Congress set forth detailed rules in section 274 for the specific provision of electronic publishing services, we questioned whether it would be reasonable to continue to require the BOCs to file, and the Commission to approve, CEI plans before initiating or  X4altering such services.;b  {O'ԍId. ;  Xo'` `  b. Discussion   X)4 33.` ` In this Order, we adopt our tentative conclusion that BOCs should not be required either to file or to obtain preapproval of CEI plans for information services that are offered through section 272 or section 274 separate affiliates. The reasons that persuade us to eliminate the CEI filing and approval process in the context of intraLATA information services that a BOC offers on an integrated basis ! reduction of administrative burden and elimination of delay ! apply with at least equal force to the intraLATA services that a BOC chooses to offer through a section 272 or section 274 separate affiliate. Indeed, we agree with commenters that the requirements Congress set forth in sections 272 and 274  X4substantially reduce our concern regarding access discrimination, so there is even less reason""b,|(|(,," to delay the introduction of an intraLATA information service pending our review of a CEI  X4plan.c {OV' "' ԍSBC Comments at 3233; BellSouth Comments at 2526; See 47 U.S.C.  272(c)!(e) and 47 U.S.C.  274(b). That the preapproval process might also delay the introduction of combined intra and interLATA integrated information services is a further reason to eliminate the requirement. Such delay would frustrate our goal of enabling consumers to take advantage of  Xt4innovative information services.Odt" {OG'ԍSee  5, supra.O  X.4!34. ` ` Moreover, Congress has instructed us to repeal or modify any regulation we  X 4determine to be no longer necessary in the public interest.|e  {Op 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  161(a)(2); Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6046,  6.| That Congress itself has addressed in sections 272 and 274 concerns over discriminatory interconnection and misallocation of funds makes preAct regulation by the Commission targeted to the same concerns the object of our special scrutiny. Because we believe that structural separation protects against discriminatory interconnection better than do nonstructural safeguards such as CEI, we see no reason at this time to impose on the BOCs even the relatively light burden of posting CEI plans on the Internet for intraLATA information services they provide through a separate subsidiary. Accordingly, we will no longer require the BOCs to formulate CEI plans before initiating or altering any intraLATA information service offered through a 272 or 274 affiliate. We rely, however, on the continuing vigilance of the ISP industry to inform us if BOCs appear to be using their control over network elements to the disadvantage of non-BOC entities. If credible evidence of favoritism toward an affiliate emerges, we could consider at that time whether there would be a benefit to requiring BOCs to disclose publicly on the Internet CEI plans for services provided by such affiliates.   X' ` ` Q6. Pending CEI Matters  X' ` `  a. Background q  Xr4"35.` ` In the Further Notice, we sought comment on whether, if we adopted ourQ tentative conclusion to eliminate the CEI plan filing requirement for the BOCs, we should also dismiss as moot all pending CEI matters, including approval of pending CEI plans, pending CEI plan amendments, and requests for CEI plan waivers, on the condition that the  X4BOCs must comply with any new or modified rules that we might establish.fF yO!'ԍPending CEIrelated matters to be dismissed as moot are listed in Appendices C and D. We received  X4general support for this approach from several BOCs.g yOL$' " ԍBell Atlantic Comments at 13; BellSouth Comments at 22, n.48, SBC Comments at 30, n.72; US WEST Comments at 26. WorldCom, however, objects". g,|(|(,,+" strenuously to the dismissal of a pending challenge by one of its subsidiaries to two particular  X4CEI plans involving Internet access.[ hH yOV' " ԍWorldCom Comments at 810; WorldCom Reply at 5. On June 6, 1996, the Bureau released an order  {O' x7 approving a CEI plan filed by Bell Atlantic for the provision of Internet Access Service. Bell Atlantic Telephone  {O' x Companies Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Providers of Internet Access Services, Order, 11 FCC  {O' x} Rcd 6919 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996) (Bell Atlantic Internet Access CEI Plan Order). MFS, now a subsidiary of  {O|' xH WorldCom, had filed comments opposing Bell Atlantic's plan, arguing, inter alia, that Bell Atlantic's Internet access  x service offering is an interLATA service that Bell Atlantic may only provide through a section 272 affiliate after  {O' x obtaining section 271 authorization from the Commission.  See Bell Atlantic Internet Access CEI Plan Order at 48  {O' x (citing MFS Comments at 8) (filed April 12, 1996). Following release of the Bell Atlantic CEI Plan Order, MFS  {O ' x filed a petition for reconsideration of that Order. Petition for Reconsideration of MFS Communications Company,  xx Inc., (filed July 3, 1996). At about the same time, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) filed a CEI plan  {O4 ' x for Internet Support Services. See Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on SWBT's Comparably Efficient  x Interconnection Plan for Internet Support Services, CC Docket Nos. 85-229, 90-623 and 95-20, Public Notice, DA  x 96-1031 (rel. June 26, 1996). On July 25, 1996, MFS filed with the Commission a petition seeking to consolidate  {O ' x proceedings related to the Bell Atlantic CEI Plan Order reconsideration and the SWBT Internet support CEI plan  {OX' x^ with the NonAccounting Safeguards Proceeding, on the grounds that the three proceedings raise similar novel,  yO"' x policy, factual, and legal arguments. Petition to Consolidate Proceedings by MFS Communications Company, Inc.  {O' x (filed July 25, 1996). The Commission believed that the NonAccounting Safeguards Order was not the appropriate  x forum for considering whether the various specific Internet services provided by the BOCs are interLATA  x; information services because such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis, and decided instead that  x the lawfulness of the specific Internet services provided by Bell Atlantic and SWBT would be more appropriately  x| analyzed in the context of the separate CEI plan proceedings, consistent with the rules and policies enunciated in the  {O'NonAccounting Safeguards Order. NonAccounting Safeguards Order at 2196668,  125127.[  X't` `  b. Discussion   XQ4#36.` ` We now believe that the Commissions section 208 enforcement process is far tbetter suited than the CEI plan preapproval process to addressing the complex and highly factspecific issues that arise in certain CEI plans. In certain instances these issues fall  X4outside the scope of the nine CEI parameters./iZ {Oq' x3 ԍ See, Bell Atlantic Amendment to CEI Plan for Internet Access Service, CCBPol 9609, 11 FCC Rcd 6919  x3 (1996), recon. pending, amendment filed 5/5/97; Southwestern Bell Telephone Company CEI Plan for Internet Support Services./ The section 208 formal complaint process is set up to conduct the factfinding, arbitration, and adjudication necessary to resolve CEI X4related disputes. Moreover, through use of the Commissions Accelerated Docketj\ {OM ' "Z ԍSubject to the requirements for admission into that process. See Implementation of the Telecommunications  x Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against  {O!'Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 96238, Second Report & Order, FCC 98-154 (rel. July 14, 1998). or revised complaint procedures, parties would have swifter resolution and closure of their CEIrelated disputes. For these reasons, we are confident that all parties, BOCs and nonBOCs,  X9 4will be better served by the information and enforcementbased system we adopt today,Tk9  {O&'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  208(b)(1).T and we encourage parties to file complaints with the Commission when they have reason to" k,|(|(,,~ " believe that a BOC is not strictly adhering to its posted CEI plan. Accordingly, we dismiss all pending requests for approval of CEI plans and CEI plan amendments.  X4$37.` ` We also dismiss without prejudice any pending petitions for reconsideration or applications for review of orders approving CEI plans. In discontinuing the CEI preapproval process, it is not our intention to delay resolution of issues that have arisen outside the CEI parameters, such as the issues related to Internet service that are associated with the Bell Atlantic and SWBT CEI plans. We believe, rather, that these complicated, fact-specific issues may be more appropriately and more quickly resolved in the enforcement setting than in the context of a CEI plan. Accordingly, parties affected by such ancillary issues may file section  X4208 formal complaints with the Commission.elZ {O ' " ԍWe note that, although the rules and requirements we promulgate in this Report and Order will not take  yO ' x effect until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, parties need not wait 30 days after such publication to file a section 208 complaint.e Should they file such a complaint, those parties with previously pending challenges to CEI plans may, as appropriate, rely on their already existing record, rather than developing a factual record through the procedures  X9 4normally applicable to formal complaints.#m9  yO' " ԍIn the limited instance of previously filed petitions seeking the reconsideration of CEI plans, we may depart  {O'from our normal formal complaint requirements. See 47 U.S.C.  4(j); 47 C.F.R.  1.3. #  X 40 III. NETWORK INFORMATION DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS  X' A. BACKGROUND   Xg4%38. CPNI ` ` In the Further Notice, we addressed the Commissions network information 0disclosure rules. These rules seek to prevent anticompetitive behavior by ensuring that ISPs and others have timely access to information affecting interconnection to the BOCs, AT&Ts,  X4and other carriers networks.onD {O'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 610311, at  117123.o Prior to the 1996 Act, the rules established in the  X4Commissions Computer II and Computer III proceedings governed the disclosure of network  X4information.ox  {OC' " ԍThe Computer II network information disclosure rules are set forth in section 64.702(d)(2) of the  {O ' x Commission's rules and in certain the Computer II decisions. See 47 C.F.R.  64.702(d)(2); see, e.g., Computer II  {O' xg Final Decision, 77 FCC 2d 384 at 480,  246; Computer II Reconsideration Order, 84 FCC 2d 50 at 8283, 95;  {O ' x and Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Section  {Ok!' x 64.702(d)(2) of the Commission's Rules and the Policies of the Second Computer Inquiry, ENF825, Report and  {O5"' x Order, FCC 83182, 93 FCC 2d 1226 (1983) (Computer II Disclosure Order). The Computer III network information  {O"' x disclosure rules are set forth in the Computer III Phase I Order and Computer III Phase II Order and other Computer  {O#' x III orders. See, e.g., Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d 958 at 10801086,  246255; Computer III Phase  {O$' x II Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 at 30863093,  102140. GTE was made subject to the Computer III network  {O]%' x} information disclosure rules in the ONA proceeding. See Application of Open Network Architecture and  {O'&' x^ Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92256, Report and Order, FCC 9458, 9 FCC  {O&'Rcd 4922, 49474948,  5053 (1994) (GTE ONA Order). Section 251(c)(5) of the Act requires incumbent LECs to provide reasonable"o,|(|(,," public notice of changes in the information necessary for the transmission and routing of services using that local exchange carriers facilities or networks, as well as of any other  X4changes that would affect the interoperability of those facilities or networks.zp yO3'ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(c)(5). An incumbent LEC is defined in section 251(h).z In the Local  X4Competition Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted network information  Xx4disclosure requirements to implement section 251(c)(5).q^xX {O' " ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  51.32551.335; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the  {OK' x Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 9698, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and  {O 'Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19392 (1996) (Local Competition Second Report and Order). Although we discussed our existing network information disclosure requirements in conjunction with the requirements of  X24section 251(c)(5) in the Local Competition Second Report and Order, we did not address in  X4that proceeding whether our Computer II and Computer III network information disclosure requirements should continue to apply independent of our section 251(c)(5) network  X4information disclosure requirements.r~ {O' "/ ԍSee, e.g., Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19472, 19476, 19486, 19490, 19491,  173 n.383, 183 n.403, 205, 214, 216 n.486. In the Further Notice, we sought comment on the extent to which the Commission should retain the network information disclosure rules  X 4established in the Computer II and Computer III proceedings in light of the disclosure  Xh 4requirements stemming from section 251(c)(5) of the 1996 Act.hsh  {O'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 610405, at  118. h We first provide a brief review of the three disclosure regimes.  X 4 ` ` 1. Computer II Network Disclosure Rules  X4&39.` ` The Computer II network information disclosure rules consist of two requirements: one, termed the separate subsidiary rule, that depends on the existence of a  Xv4Computer II separate subsidiary;Wtvj  {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  64.702(d)(2).W and another, termed the all carrier rule, that applies to all carriers owning basic transmission facilities, independent of whether the carrier has a  X24separate subsidiary.Bu2  {O' " ԍThe Commission initially imposed both these requirements on AT&T and GTE in the Computer II Final  {O' x Decision, but lifted the requirements from GTE in the Computer II Reconsideration Order. Computer II  {Os ' x Reconsideration Order, 84 FCC 2d at 7273,  66. The Commission imposed the all carrier disclosure requirement  {O=!' xD in the Computer II Reconsideration Order, 84 FCC 2d at 8283,  95. After divestiture, the Commission extended  xD the separate subsidiary disclosure requirement to the BOCs insofar as they are providing information services in  {O"' x accordance with the structural separation requirements of ComputerII.  See Policy and Rules Concerning the  xU Furnishing of Customer Premises Equipment, Enhanced Services and Cellular Communications Equipment by the  {Oa$' x Bell Operating Companies, CC Docket 83115, Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d 1117 (1984) (BOC Separation Order),  {O+%' xQ affd sub nom. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 740F.2d 465 (7th Cir. 1984), affd on reconsideration, FCC 84 {O%' xh 252, 49 Fed. Reg. 26056 (1984) (BOC Separation Reconsideration), affd sub nom. North American Telecommunications Association v. FCC, 772 F.2d 1282 (7thCir. 1985). B The separate subsidiary network disclosure requirement obligates the BOCs to disclose at a minimum,...any network information which is necessary to enable"lu,|(|(,," all [information] service . . . vendors to gain access to and utilize and to interact effectively with [the BOCs] network services or capabilities, to the same extent that [the BOCs  X4Computer II separate affiliate] is able to use and interact with those network services or  X4capabilities.v| {O' "E ԍComputer II Disclosure Order, 93 FCC 2d at 123738,  3436. This requirement includes information  x concerning network design, technical standards, interfaces, or generally, the manner in which interconnected . . .  yO' x enhanced services will interoperate with [any of the BOCs'] network. The information required includes, but is not  x limited to, (a) circuit quality (transmission speeds, error rates, bandwidths, equalization characteristics, attenuation,  x transmission delays, quantization effects, nonlinearities etc.); (b) performance specifications for switched systems  x@ (connection times, queuing delays, blocking probabilities, etc.); and (c) network protocols (message formats,  {O 'requirements for synchronizing bits, error detection and correction procedures, signalling procedures, etc.). Id.  In addition to technical information, the information required includes marketing information, such as commitments of the carrier with respect to the timing of  XS4introduction, pricing, and geographic availability of new network services or capabilities.LwS  {O 'ԍId. at 1238,  37.L  X04The other component of the Computer II network disclosure rules, the all carrier rule, encompasses all information relating to network design . . . which would affect either intercarrier interconnection or the manner in which customer premises equipment is attached  X4to the interstate network. . . .x {O' "4 ԍ47 C.F.R.  64.702; Computer II Reconsideration Order, 84 FCC 2d at 8283,  95; see Computer II  {O' x Disclosure Order, 93FCC 2d at 1228, 1238,  6, 38.  For both the separate subsidiary disclosure rule and the all {O' xx carrier rule, the Further Notice discusses the events triggering the public notice requirement, the timing of public  {Ov' x notice, and the methods by which public notice should be provided. Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 610507, at  119.   X 4'40. ` ` In the Further Notice, we tentatively concluded that both Computer II network  Xb 4disclosure requirements should continue to apply ! specifically, that the separate affiliate  X? 4disclosure rule should continue to apply to BOCs that operate a Computer II subsidiary, and that the all carrier rule should continue to apply to all carriers owning basic transmission  X 4facilities.ny V  {O'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 6111, at  122123. n We reasoned that the Computer II separate subsidiary disclosure rule should  X 4continue to apply to the BOCs because the rule encompasses some information, such as marketing information, which falls outside the scope of section 251(c)(5), and because the  X4rule requires disclosure under a more stringent timetable than that required under section 251(c)(5). We based our tentative conclusion that the all carrier rule should be retained on two factors: first, that the rule requires carriers to disclose network changes that affect CPE, whereas our section 251(c)(5) rules require carriers to disclose only information that affects competitive service providers; and second, that the rule applies to all carriers, whereas section  X4251(c)(5) applies only to incumbent LECs.;z {O~$'ԍId. ; "zz,|(|(,,:"Ԍ X4 ` ` 2. Computer III Network Disclosure  X4 (41.` ` The Computer III network information disclosure rules initially were imposed  X4on AT&T and the BOCs in the Phase I Order and Phase II Order.{ {O' "R ԍSee Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986); Computer III Phase II Order, 2FCCRcd3072 (1987). The Commission later  Xy4extended the Computer III network information disclosure rules and other nondiscrimination  XX4safeguards to GTE in the GTE ONA Order.`|X" {O+ 'ԍSee GTE ONA Order, 9 FCC Rcd 4922 (1994).` Under Computer III, the scope of network  X74information that carriers must disclose is adopted from, and identical to, the Computer II  X4requirements. }& {O{ ' " ԍSee Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1085,  253 n.298. Other Computer III requirements differ  {OE ' xQ from the Computer II requirements. The events triggering the Computer III public notice requirement, the timing  {O' x of public notice, and the methods by which public notice should be provided are recounted in the Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 61076109,  120.  Specifically, at the make/buy point, AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE must  X4disclose that a network change or network service is under development.~ {OF' " ԍUnder Computer II, the make/buy point is when the BOC or an affiliate decides, in reliance on previously  xk undisclosed information, to produce itself or to procure from a nonaffiliated company any product, whether it be  {O' x; hardware or software, the design of which either affects the network interface or relies on the network interface.  See  {O' x^ Computer II Disclosure Order, 93 FCC 2d at 1245,  60. The definitions of the term used in the Computer III rules  {Ol' x* and the rules stemming from the 1996 were adapted from, and closely resemble, the Computer II definition of the  {O6'term. See Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1084,  253; 47 C.F.R. 51. 331(b).  The notice itself need not contain the full range of relevant network information, but it must describe the proposed network service with sufficient detail to convey what the new service is and what its  X 4capabilities are.: $ {O_'ԍId.: The notice must also indicate that the carrier will supply, subject to a nondisclosure agreement, any ISP with the technical information required for the development  XD 4of compatible information services.:D  {O'ԍId.: Once an entity has entered into a nondisclosure  X! 4agreement, AT&T, the BOCs, or GTE must provide the full range of relevant information.! H {O' "R ԍThe full range of network information that must be disclosed is defined in the Computer II Disclosure  {O'Order, 93 FCC 2d at 12361238,  3138.  X 4)42. 251C5 ` ` In the Further Notice, we tentatively concluded that the network information disclosure rules for incumbent LECs that the Commission established pursuant to section  X4251(c)(5) should supersede the disclosure rules established in Computer III.d {O$'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6111,  122.d We explained that, in our view, the 1996 Act disclosure rules for incumbent LECs are as comprehensive, if"v6,|(|(,,D"  X4not more so, than the Computer III disclosure rules.. {Oy' " ԍId.; See Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19486,  205 ( The disclosure obligations imposed by section 251(c)(5) are broader than those adopted in the Computer III proceeding.).. We invited parties who disagreed to  X4explain why, in light of the section 251(c)(5) rules, all or some aspects of the Computer III disclosure rules might still be needed.  X'  Xx'` ` 3. Section 251(c)(5) Network Disclosure Rules  X24*43. AMK2 ` ` The Commission promulgated the rules implementing the section 251(c)(5)  X4network disclosure requirements in the Local Competition Second Report and Order." {O 'ԍLocal Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1946819508,  165260 (Part IV). The section 251(c)(5) network disclosure requirements apply to all incumbent LECs, as the term is  X4defined in section 251(h) of the Act.Q {O0'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  251(h).Q  Under the Commissions regulations, incumbent LECs are required to disclose, at a minimum, complete information about network design, technical  X 4standards and planned changes to the network. F {O~' " ԍLocal Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19479,  188. Public notice of planned  x! network changes, at a minimum, consists of: (1) the carriers name and address; (2) the name and telephone number  x of a contact person who can supply additional information regarding the planned changes; (3) the implementation  x date of the planned changes; (4) the location (s) at which the changes will occur; (5) a description of the type of  x changes planned (including, but not limited to, references to technical specifications, protocols, and standards  x regarding transmission, signalling, routing, and facility assignment as well as references to technical standards that  x would be applicable to any new technologies or equipment, or that may otherwise affect interconnection); and (6)  {O' x a description of the reasonably foreseeable impact of the planned changes. 47 C.F.R.  51.327; Local Competition  {O'Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19479,  188.  The requirements are triggered when an incumbent LEC makes a decision to implement a network change that affects competing service providers performance or ability to provide service; or otherwise affects the ability of the incumbent LECs and a competing service providers facilities or network to connect, to  X 4exchange information, or to use the information exchanged.  {O' "l ԍLocal Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19476,  182; see also 47 C.F.R. 51.325.  yO' x Examples of network changes that would trigger the section 251(c)(5) public disclosure obligations include, but are  x not limited to: changes that affect (1) transmission; (2)signalling standards; (3) call routing; (4) network  x configuration; (5) logical elements; (6) electronic interfaces; (7) data elements; and (8) transactions that support ordering, provisioning, maintenance, and billing.  The timing requirements for public notice under section 251(c)(5) were adopted, with modifications, from the timing  X4requirements for public notice under the Computer III regime. {O4#'ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.331; Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19491,  216. Incumbent LECs must  X4disclose planned network changes at the make/buy point,` {O%'ԍSee Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19491,  216 n.486. but at least twelve months before",|(|(,,&"  X4implementation of the change. {Oy'ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.331(a); Local Competition Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1949091,  214215. If the planned changes can be implemented within six months of the make/buy point, then the public notice may be provided less than six months before implementation, so long as additional requirements set forth in section 51.333 of the Commissions rules are met. An incumbent LEC may fulfill its network disclosure obligations by filing a public notice with the Commission, or by providing public notice through industry fora or publications, or on the incumbent LECs own publicly  X.4accessible Internet sites.}\.Z yO9 ' " ԍIf an incumbent LEC chooses either of the latter two methods, it must also file a certification with the  {O ' xD Commission that such public notice was given . 47 C.F.R.  51.329(a)(2); Local Competition Second Report and  {O 'Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19483,  198. }  X' B. DISCUSSION   X4+44.` ` As we discuss in detail below, we adopt our tentative conclusion that the  X 4network disclosure rules adopted pursuant to section 251(c)(5) supersede the Computer III  X^ 4disclosure rules. In addition, we remove the Computer II network disclosure rules that affect  X= 4BOCs providing information services through a Computer II separate subsidiary. Finally, we  X 4eliminate the Computer II all carrier rule, but we preserve in our section 51 rules the requirement that incumbent LECs must disclose network changes that could affect the manner in which CPE is attached to the interstate network.  X4 ` ` 1. Computer III Network Disclosure Rules  XM4,45.` ` We conclude that we should eliminate the Computer III network disclosure rules. Among commenters that addressed the issue, our tentative decision to retire the  X 4Computer III rules elicited unanimous support. Commenters agreed with our analysis that the network disclosure rules established pursuant to section 251(c)(5) generally duplicate or  X4exceed the rules established under Computer III.n ~ {O' " ԍAT&T Comments at 17 (The 251(c) regulations are broader and more detailed than the Computer III rules);  xU Bell Atlantic Comments at 23 (The network disclosure rules promulgated pursuant to 251(c)(5) are broader and apply  x^ to all LECs, so the ONA network disclosure obligations should be discarded); GTE Comments at 22 (Because the  {ON' xo Computer III rules duplicate or exceed the section 251 rules, the Computer III rules should be eliminated); Intermedia  xD Reply at 5 (Section 251(c)(5) requires incumbent LECs to disclose a wide array of technical and other information  xb needed by competitive LECs and others, so the earlier rules are redundant); ITAA Comments at 18 (The Commission  {O ' x; should eliminate the Computer III disclosure rules in favor of the more comprehensive rules established pursuant to  x section 251(c)(5)); US WEST Comments at 48 (The Commission is right in saying that the new rules for incumbent  {O:"' xZ LECs are as extensive, if not more so, than the Computer III rules). We note that the Computer III disclosure  {O#' x7 requirements exceed those of section 251(c)(5) rules only in that the Computer III rules also apply to AT&T, but  {O#' x we reserve our discussion of interexchange carrier network disclosure for our discussion of the Computer II allcarrier  {O$'rule, at  4446, infra.  We agree with commenters who noted  X4that the section  251(c)(5) rules apply not only to the BOCs and GTE, but to all other incumbent LECs as well, and that the triggering event for section 251s disclosure obligation",|(|(,,"  X4already includes the make/buy point applicable under Computer III.]X yOy' "l ԍAT&T Comments at 17; GTE Comments at 22. In addition, US WEST remarks that the new rules allow  x BOCs to use a short term disclosure process in those instances where they have the ability to deploy a new interface on an expedited basis. US WEST Comments at 48.] Accordingly, we agree  X4with commenters that the section 251(c)(5) rules have rendered the Computer III network disclosure rules redundant.  Xx4 w` ` 2. Computer II Network Disclosure Rules  XV4  X34-46.` ` As stated above, in the Further Notice we identified two Computer II wrequirements that exceed the rules adopted pursuant to section 251(c)(5), the separate  X4subsidiary rule and the all carrier rule.d {O 'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 6111, at  123.d We address the separate subsidiary rule first.z {O' "y ԍThe separate subsidiary disclosure rule requires, inter alia, disclosure of marketing information which  x includes information which relates to commitments of the [BOC] with respect to the timing of introduction, pricing,  {O' x and geographic availability of new network services or capabilities. Computer II Disclosure Order, 93 FCC 2d at  {Ov' x 1238,  37. Disclosure under the Computer II separate affiliate network disclosure requirement must be made to  xb information service competitors at the same time such information is directly disclosed to the BOC's separate affiliate  x. or, in the case of BOC disclosures to third parties for the benefit of the BOC's separate affiliate, disclosure must take  x place at a make/buy point that is more strict than the make/buy point which governs disclosure under section  {O' x  251(c)(5). Computer II Final Decision, 77 FCC 2d at 480,  246; Computer II Disclosure Order, 93FCC 2d at 1245,  60; 47 C.F.R.  51.331.   X4  X'` `  a. The Separate Subsidiary Rule  X 4  Xc 4.47.` ` In the Further Notice, we recognized that some BOCs may be providing certain  XB 4intraLATA information services through a Computer II subsidiary, rather than on an  X! 4integrated basis under the Commissions Computer III rules. We noted that the Computer II separate subsidiary disclosure rule required disclosure under a more stringent timetable than the section 251(c)(5) rules, and encompassed certain information not required by the section  X4251(c)(5) rules, and on that basis we tentatively concluded that the Computer II separate  X4subsidiary disclosure rule should continue to apply in such cases.dR  {O'ԍFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 6111, at  123.d ITAA agreed with our  Xv4reasoning.Kv yO !'ԍITAA Comments at 18.K Other commenters, however, question the continuing utility of any disclosure  XS4rules other than the requirements that stem from the 1996 Act.,"St {Ox#' " ԍSee generally, AT&T Comments at 1619 (Network disclosure rules established under section 251(c) should  x be found to supersede the Commission's prior network disclosure rules, because section 251(c)(5) is broader and more  xD detailed than the previous rules); Intermedia Reply at 4 (Under biennial review, the Commission should find that  yO%'its rules implementing section 251(c)(5) supersede existing network disclosure rules). , Based on the record before  X04us and after careful reevaluation, we conclude that maintaining the Computer II separate subsidiary network information disclosure rules is no longer necessary. As we explained"^,|(|(,," above when we discussed CEI requirements for BOCs providing intraLATA information services through separate section 272 and 274 affiliates, we believe that the protection from discriminatory interconnection afforded by structural separation generally exceeds that  X4provided by nonstructural safeguards alone. It follows that a BOC that uses a Computer II separate affiliate should not be subject to more stringent network disclosure obligations than a  XS4BOC that offers such services on an integrated basis under the Commissions Computer III rules. Moreover, Congress has instructed us to repeal or modify any regulation we determine  X4to be no longer necessary in the public interest.| {O'ԍ47 U.S.C.  161(a)(2); Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 6046,  6.| Because we find that it is no longer  X4necessary to retain the separate subsidiary disclosure rule, we remove it.7$Z yO ' "p ԍWe effect the removal of the separate subsidiary rule by aligning our Part 64 disclosure requirements with  x those set forth in  51.325335 of our rules, so that, as a practical matter, the network disclosure rules for BOCs  {O ' x offering services through a Computer II separate subsidiary are now identical to those of a BOC offering such  {OQ 'services on an integrated basis, and of incumbent LECs generally.  See Appendix B.7  X4  X'` `   b. The All Carrier Rule   X` 4/48. ` ` The other two instances where the Computer II requirements exceed the rules  X? 4adopted pursuant to section 251(c)(5) concern the all carrier rule.? F yO6' " ԍALLCARRIERFirst, the all carrier rule requires disclosure not only by incumbent LECs, but also by all facilitiesbased  yO' xQ carriers, and second, the all carrier rule extends carriers disclosure obligations to CPE. 47 C.F.R  51.325(a) and  x^ 64.702(d)(2) ( all information relating to network design . . . which would affect either intercarrier interconnection  {O' x or the manner in which customer premises equipment is attached to the interstate network . . . .). See also Further  {OX'Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 6111, at  123. We first consider the element of the rule that requires disclosure by all facilitiesbased carriers. We conclude that disclosure of network information by carriers other than incumbent LECs is no longer necessary in the public interest as a result of meaningful competition between  X4providers....J  yO^'ԍ47 U.S.C.  161(A)(2).J We agree with AT&T that, because no single carrier now dominates the interexchange market, no interexchange carrier (IXC) has the incentive or the ability to gain  Xm4an unfair advantage by withholding network information from ISPs.m  yO' " ԍAT&T Comments at 1920; AT&T Reply at 10. The Commission has determined that the interexchange  x3 telecommunications market is substantially competitive, and that AT&T lacks individual market power in the  {O8 ' x interstate, domestic, and interexchange telecommunications market. See, e.g., Policy and Rules Concerning the  {O!' x Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, CC Docket No.9661, Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20730, 20741 {O!' x 43,  2122 (1996) (Tariff Forbearance Order), stay granted, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, No. 961459  {O"' xx (D.C. Cir. filed Feb. 13, 1997); Motion of AT&T to be Reclassified as a NonDominant Carrier, Order, 11 FCC Rcd  {O`#' x* 3271, 32783279, 3288, 3347  9, 26, 140141 (1995) (AT&T Nondominance Order);   Competition in the Interstate  {O*$' x Interexchange Marketplace, CC Docket No. 90132, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5880, 5887,  36 (1991) (First  {O$'Interexchange Competition Order).  We also find that no new entrants into the local exchange market possess individual market power. Because IXCs and competitive LECs currently lack individual market power, they also lack the incentive to create incompatible network interfaces for existing services in order to leverage that power" h,|(|(,,"  X4into upstream or downstream markets.1 yOy' " ԍThis holds for all services for which there are significant network externalities. Katz and Shapiro, Network  yOA'Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility, American Economic Review, vol. 75, pp. 424440, 1985.1 As Intermedia observes, any attempt by an IXC to withhold necessary network information from ISPs would likely result not in unfair advantage,  X4but in a lost sale.G  yO'ԍIntermedia Reply at 5.G  Xt4049. ` ` Commenters disagreeing with this view do not articulate a compelling reason why regulation is necessary to spur carriers, other than incumbent LECs, to disclose network information. These commenters assert that the all carrier rule provides for disclosure of important network information in situations not covered by the [section 251] disclosure  X4requirements . . .F yOI 'ԍITAA Comments at 18. F and is therefore needed to prevent potential anticompetitive conduct.W@ yO'ԍ America OnLine Comments at 20. W Bell Atlantic maintains that without the all carrier rule, nonILEC carriers would not need to disclose their network interfaces, so other carriers would not have the basic interface  X 4information they need to interconnect.J  yO'ԍBell Atlantic Reply at 9.J We find that these comments fail to take into account the normal economic forces of the markets in which IXCs and competitive LECs operate, which pressure them to adopt compatible interfaces. We agree instead with America  X 4OnLine that ISPs remain overwhelmingly dependent on incumbent carriers such as the BOCs for local access to their customers [and that while] it is expected that in a vigorously competitive market competitors will seek to capture market share by any and all means, it is  X4critical to bear in mind that only the incumbent local exchange carriers . . . have bottleneck  X4access to essential network components.Z`  {O' "" ԍAmerica OnLine Comments at 910, emphasis added. See also Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 6103, at  116  x ( [T]he level of competition in the interexchange services market is an effective check on AT&T's ability to discriminate in the quality of network services provided to competing ISPs.).  XF4150.STREAMLINE2AFFIDAVIT` ` We conclude that, in contrast to the incumbent LECs, the IXCs and competitive LECs are not likely to gain the individual market power that would allow them profitably to withhold information necessary for interconnection to their networks in order to  X4increase market power in upstream or downstream markets.@  yO"' "l ԍWe note that competitive LECs may develop new services and features for which there is no standard  xt industry interface. In such circumstances the competitive LECs may be disinclined to share the new interface  x specifications with competitors. Allowing competitive LECs to withhold such information is not without potential  x drawbacks, in as much as innovations may spread more slowly, and certain new services may, for a time, be less  xI competitive. We find, however, that the benefit of an increased incentive to innovate gained by allowing  x nondominant carriers to not disclose such network changes outweighs these potential costs. In contrast, the  x incumbent LECs, which possess market power because of their historic monopoly control over local exchange  x facilities, may be able to leverage their control over those facilities into market power over new or existing services"',|(|('" if they are allowed to modify network interfaces without disclosing those changes to competitors.  Thus, we find that regulatory"!X,|(|(,,]" intervention to ensure network information disclosure is no longer needed for all carriers, but only for incumbent LECs, whose duty to disclose network changes that will affect other service providers is already defined by the section 251(c)(5) network disclosure rules. This conclusion comports with our statutory obligation to eliminate regulations that are no longer  Xt4necessary due to meaningful economic competition among providers.KtX yO}'ԍ47 U.S.C.  161(a)(2). K  X.4251.NONDISCRIM` ` Although we relieve IXCs and competitive LECs from the specific, routine  X 4network information disclosure obligations previously required under the all carrier rule, we emphasize that the Communications Act imposes certain nondiscrimination requirements on all common carriers providing interstate communication services. Among them, section 201 provides that all common carriers have a duty to establish physical connections with other  X 4carriers, and to furnish telecommunications services upon reasonable request therefor.  {O'ԍ47 U.S.C.  201(a). See NonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 22004.  X\ 4Applying this provision in the NonAccounting Safeguards Order, the Commission concluded that a BOC would violate section 201 of the Act if it purposely delayed the implementation of an innovative service by denying a competitors reasonable request for interstate exchange  X 4access until its own affiliate was ready to provide competing service.: z {O 'ԍId.: Similarly, we conclude in this proceeding that, if a carrier fails to disclose network information that enables other entities to interconnect to the carriers basic telecommunications facilities and services  X4in a just and reasonable manner, such action would violate section 201 of the Act.:  {OI'ԍId.: Moreover, all common carriers remain subject to the nondiscrimination requirements in  XF4section 202 of the Act.DF yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  202.D The Commission will not hesitate to use its enforcement authority, including the Accelerated Docket process, to determine whether any carriers network  X4information disclosure practices are unjust or unreasonable..  {O' " ԍSee Accelerated Docket Order, CC Docket No. 96238, Second Report & Order, FCC 98154 (rel. July 14, 1998) (setting out the requirements for admission to the accelerated docket process).  W4  X4 352.` ` We further conclude that the Computer II network information disclosure rules that extend disclosure requirements to CPE should be retained, but that their application  Xv4should be limited to incumbent LECs only.\v  {O$' " ԍ47 C.F.R  64.702(d)(2). In the Further Notice, we tentatively concluded that requiring disclosure of  {Oy%' x. network information relating to CPE is an important instance of the Computer II rules covering circumstances which the section 251(c)(5) rules do not. No commenter specifically addressed this tentative conclusion.  The primary purpose of network information disclosure in this context is not to protect intercarrier interconnection, but rather to give"S",|(|(,," competitive manufacturers of CPE adequate advance notice when a carrier intends to alter its network in a way that may affect the manner in which CPE is attached to the network. Our concern has been that to the extent that a company with control over underlying transmission facilities also manufactures CPE, that company may have the incentive and ability to leverage its control of those facilities to favor its affiliates CPE over that of competitive  XQ4manufacturers.Q {O'ԍComputer II Disclosure Order, 93 FCC 2d at 1236,  3132. We note that section 201 interconnection and section 202 nondiscrimination  X.4obligations also apply in the context of CPE._.Z {O9 'ԍSee supra  NONDISCRIM51. _ We conclude that failure to disclose network changes that affect CPE could give incumbent LECs a significant head start in providing fully compatible equipment, and could thereby adversely affect competition in the CPE market.  X4453.` ` Although we find it necessary to retain a network information disclosure requirement that extends incumbent LECs disclosure obligations to CPE, we see no point in subjecting incumbent LECs to two separate sets of network information disclosure rules, each  X9 4with its own timing, triggering, and notice requirements.9  {O' "< ԍThe Computer II network information disclosure rules are set forth in the Computer II proceeding, and in  {O' x" section 64.702(d)(2) of the Commission's rules. See Computer II Final Decision, 77 FCC 2d at 480,  246;  {Oj' x7 Computer II Reconsideration Order, 84 FCC 2d at 8283, 95; and the Computer II Disclosure Order, 93 FCC 2d  yO4' x  at 1228, 1238  6, 3738; 47 C.F.R.  64.702(d)(2). The disclosure rules adopted pursuant to the 1996 Act are codified at 47 C.F.R.  51.325335.  Instead, we simplify our disclosure requirements to the extent feasible. We therefore remove from our rules the  X 4Computer II all carrier requirement, and instead extend the disclosure requirements in section 51.325(a) of our rules to require incumbent LECs to provide public notice of any network changes that will affect the manner in which CPE is attached to the network. By amending section 51.325(a) of our rules to include a CPE disclosure requirement, we continue to require  Xi4incumbent LECs to disclose that information.i yO' " ԍSee Appendix B ! Rules. We also note that BOC manufacturing operations continue to be subject to 47 U.S.C.  273.  X#' SIV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ă  X4X (#  X'X A.` ` Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis (#   X4554.` ` The decision herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. First, the Commission no longer requires BOCs to file their Comparably Efficient Interconnection plans with the Commission, and to obtain pre-approval of CEI plans and amendments before initiating or altering an intraLATA information service. Instead, the Commission henceforth will require BOCs to (1) post CEI plans on the Internet, and (2) notify the Commission of the posting. These requirements are subject to OMB approval, and the Commission will solicit OMB review and approval as required by the PRA. "# ,|(|(,,"Ԍ X4655.` ` In addition, the Commission no longer requires IXCs and competitive LECs to disclose information to third parties regarding changes to their networks, as formerly required under section 64.702. Further, the Commission amends section 51.325 to require incumbent LECs to provide third parties with advance notice when a carrier intends to alter its network in a way that may affect the manner in which customer premises equipment is attached to the network. Although the incumbent LECs have long been subject to this requirement under section 64.702, and thus the potential paperwork burden will neither increase, decrease, nor change in any way, moving that rule from section 64.702 to 51.325 is nonetheless considered a modification according to OMB's procedures. This is because section 64.702 predates both the PRA and third party disclosures being subject to the PRA. For that reason, the Commission never accounted for the burden placed on incumbent LECs to comply with that requirement. These requirements, therefore, are subject to OMB approval, and the Commission will solicit OMB review and approval as required by the PRA.  X ' B.` ` Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification   X 4756.` ` The final certification pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C.  605, is contained in Appendix E.  X4   Xi' 6%tV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X#4857.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in tsections 1, 2, 4, 11, 201205, 208, 251, 260, and 271276, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154, 161, 201205, 208, 251, 260, and 271276, that the policies, rules, and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED, and that Parts 51 and 64 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 51 and 64, are AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B hereto.  X.4958. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  553(d), the rules, requirements, and amendments set forth herein shall take effect 30 days after the publication of this REPORT AND ORDER in the Federal Register, except for the amendments to Parts 51 and 64 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 51 and 64, as set forth in Appendix B hereto, which, pursuant to 44 U.S.C.  3507(c), shall take effect 70 days after the publication of this REPORT AND ORDER in the Federal Register.  X94:59.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4, and 201204, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154, and 201204, the pending requests for approval of CEI plans and CEI plan amendments listed in Appendix C of this REPORT AND ORDER are DISMISSED.  X"4;60.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4, and 201204, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154, and 201204, the pending petitions for reconsideration or applications for review of orders approving CEI plans listed in Appendix D of this REPORT AND ORDER are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. "&$,|(|(,,&"Ԍ X4<61.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissions Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this REPORT AND ORDER,  X4including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCSecretary  X9 4 "9 %,|(|(,,9 "  X'#H Appendix A ! Commenters Đ\ Comments Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad Hoc) AirTouch Paging (Air Touch) America Online, Inc. (America Online) Ameritech AT&T Corp. (AT&T) Bell Atlantic BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) Community Internet Systems, Inc. (CIS) GTE Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) MCI Telecommunication Corporation (MCI) SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) U S WEST, Inc. (U S WEST) WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) Replies ADT Security Services, Inc. (ADT) Reply Association of TeleServices International (ATSI) Reply AT&T Reply Bell Atlantic Reply Commercial Internet Exchange Association (CIX) Reply GSA Reply Intermedia Communications, Inc. (Intermedia) Reply  X4SBC Reply  U S WEST Reply WorldCom Reply "Z&,|(|(,,Z"  X'( Appendix B ! Final Rules Đ\  X4 Part 51 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  XQ4  PART 51 INTERCONNECTION ă  X 41.The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 15, 7, 20105, 20709, 218, 22527, 25154, 271, 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 15155, 157, 20105, 20709, 218, 22527, 25154, 271, 332, unless otherwise noted.  XS 42.Sections 51.325(a) is amended by revising paragraphs (1) and (2) and adding a new paragraph (3):  X'  51.325 Notice of network changes; Public notice requirement. ***** (1) Will affect a competing service provider's performance or ability to provide service; (2) Will affect the incumbent LEC's interoperability with other service providers; or (3) Will affect the manner in which customer premises equipment is attached to the interstate network.  X4] PART 64 MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS  X4 3.The authority for Part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. secs 201, 218, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted.  X+#44.In the title for Part 64, Subpart G and  64.702 paragraph (b), remove the words "Communications Common Carriers" and add, in their place, the words "Bell Operating Companies.""&',|(|(,,F%"Ԍ X45.In  64.702 paragraph (c), remove the words "Communications Common Carrier" and add, in their place, the words "Bell Operating Company."  X46.Section 64.702 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:  XH'  64.702 Furnishing of enhanced services and customerpremises equipment.  X 4 ***** (d) *** (2) *** Such information shall be disclosed in compliance with the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 51.32535. "b(,|(|(,,"  X4\ Appendix C ă  X4  Pending Requests for Approval of  Xv'Y%CEI Plans or Amendments ă  X 41.Ameritech CEI Plan for Enhanced Services. DA 95553. Plan filed March 13, 1995. ` ` (#`  X42.Bell Atlantic Amendment to CEI Plan for Internet Access Service. CCBPol 9609. XAmendment filed May 5, 1997.(#  X43.Southwestern Bell Telephone Company CEI Plan for Internet Support Services. XCCBPol 9705. Plan filed May 22, 1997.(#  X|44.US West CEI Plan for Alarm Monitoring. CCBPol 9802. Plan filed April 24, 1998.  X 45.BellSouth CEI Plan for Alarm Monitoring. CCBPol 9803. Plan filed June 12, 1998. " ),|(|(,,H"  X4\ Appendix D ă  X4  Pending Petitions for Reconsideration or  Xv'D Applications for Review of Orders Approving CEI Plans ă  X 41.XReconsideration of Bell Atlantic Internet Access CEI Plan. CCBPol 969. Petition for Reconsideration filed July 3, 1996.(#  Xb42.XApplications for Review of Payphone CEI Orders. CC Docket No. 9628. Applications for Review filed May 5, 1997.(#"4*,|(|(,,x"  X4\ Appendix E  X'   FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION   X4\= 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 1 1(1)(a)(i) 1) a)1.` ` This regulatory flexibility certification supplements our prior certifications and  X4analyses in this proceeding. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)sZD {O' " #X\  P6G;/P#эThe RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement  xx Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Title II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).s requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for noticeandcomment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic  XH4impact on a substantial number of small entities."mHD yO '#X\  P6G;/P#э5 U.S.C.  605(b).m The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and  X 4"small governmental jurisdiction."n zD {OE'#X\  P6G;/P#эId.  601(6).n In addition, the term "small business" has the same  X 4meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act. D {O' "< #]\  PC/P#эId.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632). A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small  X 4Business Administration (SBA). f D yO'#X\  P6G;/P#эSmall Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632. The SBA defines small businesses under the category "Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone," to be those employing no more than  X41,500 persons. D yO7'#X\  P6G;/P#э13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 4813.  Xb42.` ` The Commission, in the previous Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  XM4(Further Notice) in this proceeding,{ZM D yO' " #X\  P6G;/P#эBell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review ! Review of  {OL ' x Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 9810, 13 FCC Rcd 6040 (1998).{ stated in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification  X84that the Further Notice pertained to Bell Operating Companies (BOCs), each of which is an affiliate of a Regional Holding Company (RHC), as well as to GTE and AT&T. Because each BOC is dominant in its field of operations and all of the BOCs as well as GTE and AT&T have more than 1,500 employees, we previously certified that the proposed action  X4would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.D {O7''#X\  P6G;/P#эFurther Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 611617,   136137. "+:,|(|(,,{" No commenter addressed this previous certification. Subsequently, however, it has become clear that the changes to the Commissions network information disclosure requirements will  X4also affect IXCs and competitive LECs, because the present Report and Order removes the network information disclosure requirements from interexchange carriers (IXCs) and  X4competitive local exchange carriers (LECs).x yO' "p #X\  P6G;/P#э Formerly, all carriers owning basic transmission facilities were required to disclose all information relating  x to network design which would affect either intercarrier interconnection or the manner in which customer premises  x equipment is attached to the interstate network. 47 C.F.R.  64.702. Because IXCs and competitive LECs currently  x lack individual market power, they also lack the incentive to create incompatible network interfaces for existing  x services in order to leverage that power into upstream or downstream markets. Normal economic forces of the  x markets in which IXCs and competitive LECs operate pressure them to adopt compatible interfaces, so application of network disclosure regulations to these entities is no longer needed.  At present, because these additional carriers are relieved of any burden associated with the requirements, we continue to foresee no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore so certify regarding the rules adopted. In addition, this removal of regulation produces no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirement.  X 4` ` 3. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including a copy of this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business  X 4Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.}  {O'#X\  P6G;/P#эSee 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).} In addition, the Report and Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business  X 4Administration. Finally, the Report and Order (or summary thereof) and certification will be  X 4published in the Federal Register.r  {O'#X\  P6G;/P#эSee id. 605(b).r " ,, , * *,,' "  X'Statement of Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth Đ  X4XRe:X` ` Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services `  X4XX` ` 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements ` I support adoption of this Report and Order wherein, pursuant to the Commission's duty under Section 11(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sect. 161(b), we have repealed or modified regulations that we have determined to be no longer necessary in the public interest. The regulations at issue here were chosen for repeal or modification as part of the Commission's 1998 Biennial Review, which was conducted  X 4pursuant to Section 11(a) of the Act, Id. at Sect. 161(a).  X 4However, as thoroughly described in my Report on Implementation of Section 11 by  X4the Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 21, 1998), which can be found on the FCC's WWW site at , I believe that the 1998 Section 11(a) review was not as thorough as it should have been. I look forward to working with the chairman and other commissioners on the 2000 Biennial Review, planning for which should begin in mid-1999. c* * * * * * *\