******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: ) CC Docket No. 95-20 Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced ) Services ) ) 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Review of ) CC Docket No. 98-10 Computer III and ONA Safeguards ) and Requirements ) ORDER Adopted: December 9, 1999 Released: December 17, 1999 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. The Commission has before it a petition for reconsideration, filed on April 26, 1999, by the Commercial Internet eXchange Association (CIX). CIX seeks reconsideration of a March 24, 1999, Order by the Commission in the above-captioned dockets. On July 12, 1999, Bell Atlantic and SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) filed oppositions to the CIX petition for reconsideration. Both CIX and BellSouth Corporation replied to those oppositions on July 27, 1999. 2. In the Computer III Remand Order, the Commission addressed, inter alia, the requirement that Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) file service-specific Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) plans for information services that are offered on an integrated basis through the regulated entity and obtain approval of those plans prior to initiating or altering their intraLATA information services. The Commission concluded in that order that although the BOCs must continue to comply with their CEI obligations, they should no longer be required to file or obtain pre-approval of CEI plans and plan amendments before initiating or altering their intraLATA information services. Instead, we required the BOCs to "post on their publicly accessible Internet page, linked to and searchable from the BOC's main Internet page, their CEI plan for any new or altered intraLATA information service offering, and to notify the Common Carrier Bureau upon such posting." 3. In its petition for reconsideration, CIX seeks clarification or reconsideration of two aspects of the Computer III Remand Order. CIX first asks that the Commission establish that incumbent LECs must disclose in advance and via their Internet websites the planned deployment of digital subscriber line access multiplexers (DSLAMs) on a wire-center basis, and provide adequate prior notice on the status of line conditioning for a given customer or group of customers. Information on the deployment of broadband telecommunications, CIX continues, should be available to all competing information services providers (ISPs), and should not be used as a means to favor the incumbent's affiliated ISP. CIX also asks that the Commission clarify that the BOCs are obligated to post a complete copy of all their CEI plans both existing and new plans and plan amendments -- on their websites, so that all ISPs have ready information available concerning interconnection with the BOC's "last mile" network. II. DISCUSSION 4. The Commission has reviewed the initial request made by CIX in its petition that we clarify our network information disclosure rules to require incumbent local exchange carriers to provide information regarding DSLAMs and line conditioning to ISPs. CIX essentially asks the Commission to clarify that section 251(c)(5) of the Communications Act and the rules implementing that section require disclosure of such information. Under the network disclosure rules in section 251 (c) (5), ISPs will have access to the same information from incumbent local exchange carriers that they received under the Computer II and Computer III rules that were eliminated in the Computer III Remand Order. The question of whether to expand the network disclosure rules as CIX requests was not raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 95-20, the Computer III Further Remand Proceeding. Accordingly, we do not adopt additional requirements in this reconsideration. 5. Nevertheless, we note that, under section 251(c)(5) and the Commission's regulations, incumbent LECs are required to disclose at a minimum "complete information about network design, technical standards and planned changes to the network." In addition, we reemphasize that, if a carrier fails to disclose network information that enables other entities to interconnect to the carrier's telecommunications facilities and services in a just and reasonable manner, such action would violate section 201 of the Act. In addition, the BOCs are still subject to our Computer III rules, which require that they provide Internet service providers with nondiscriminatory access to their telecommunications services. 6. CIX next requests that the Commission clarify or, if necessary, reconsider that the BOCs are obligated to post on their websites a complete copy of all their CEI plans -- rather than merely a copy of "new or altered" plans. We grant this request. In the Computer III Remand Order, the Commission gave a number of reasons why CEI plans for new or altered intraLATA information services should be made available on the BOCs' Internet pages. We noted, for example, that CEI plans provide useful information that is either not available, or not available in as much detail, from other sources, and that CEI plans present this information in a more usable form than is otherwise available to ISPs. We further noted that the existence of CEI plans helps the Commission enforce compliance with BOC interconnection obligations. We conclude that the same reasons we gave for requiring CEI plans for new or altered services to be posted on the Internet are equally applicable to the BOCs' current CEI plans. As CIX notes in its petition, it is important for all current CEI plans to be available on the BOCs' websites, including those previously approved and still effective plans. Otherwise, it would be difficult for the ISPs to get information regarding plans filed with the Commission under the prior CEI regime. Moreover, we do not believe that requiring the BOCs to post all their effective plans and effective plan amendments both old and new is unduly burdensome, especially given the benefit of having all these plans available in one, easily accessible location. Accordingly, we require that the BOCs post all their existing and new CEI plans and plan amendments on their Internet websites and notify the Common Carrier Bureau at the time of the posting. III. ORDERING CLAUSE 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration and clarification filed by the Commercial Internet eXchange Association IS GRANTED IN PART and IS DENIED IN PART, to the extent discussed above. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary