********************************************************    
                                       NOTICE
  ********************************************************
                              
              This document was converted from
             WordPerfect 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.
                              
*****************************************************************
                                                   Separate Statement
                             of
                     Commissioner Ness
                              
  Re:  Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange marketplace; and
  Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
  
  This Second Order on Reconsideration ensures that consumers will have
  information they need to make informed choices about the services they choose in a
  competitive marketplace.  
  
  The long distance marketplace is substantially competitive.  As a result of this
  competition, many consumers are calling more and paying less.  This is good.  
  
  But there have been two major problems that have limited the benefits consumers
  have enjoyed.  One is the filed rate doctrine, under which a tariff deposited in some
  obscure corner of this agency is deemed to trump whatever arrangement the consumer
  makes directly with the carrier.  The second is the confusing array of rate schedules and
  calling plans and surcharges that interexchange carriers have established.    
  
  The Commission has sought to attack the first problem, the filed rate doctrine, by
  preventing nondominant carriers from filing tariffs.  When the courts rebuffed our initial
  efforts, we sought and obtained explicit forbearance authority from the Congress.  I hope
  this order will clear the way for the court to lift its stay of the complete detariffing regime,
  so that carriers are compelled to honor the terms of the deals they strike with their
  customers, and no longer can circumvent them by invoking the entirely fictional
  "approval"of this agency for a tariff that no one has ever read, much less approved.
  
  The Commission is attacking the second problem, public information about the
  terms of offerings, through today's order (and through a forthcoming "truth-in-billing"
  item).  Carriers will now be required to provide reliable information upon reasonable
  request to consumers and to consumer advocates.  They will also make the same
  information available on the their Websites, if they have them (all major carriers do).   The
  result is likely to be a more informed buying decision on the part of consumers, and fewer
  unpleasant surprises when the bill arrives.
  
       In an earlier phase of this proceeding, I voted with all of my colleagues to establish
  the public disclosure requirement, and I later dissented when three of my colleagues voted
  to eliminate this requirement.  In the second decision, the Commission was wrestling with
  a perceived conflict between maintaining a public disclosure requirement, on the one hand,
  and invoking concern about the dangers of "tacit price collusion" as a reason for requiring
  detariffing, on the other.  I acknowledged that conflict but resolved it differently, because
  for me there was ample justification for complete detariffing independent of the price
  collusion rationale.  
  
  Frankly, I don't really think it is all that likely that the absence of tariffs   or of a
  public disclosure requirement   will keep AT&T from finding out about MCI's "Five Cent
  Sundays."  Indeed, common sense tells me that carriers are likely to be able to learn the
  terms of their major competitors' offerings, regardless of tariffs or public disclosure
  requirements.  The question is whether consumers will have the information they need to
  make informed decisions.  Today's ruling ensures that they will.
  
  I also want to note that the public disclosure requirement was initially established
  at the specific request of Senators Stevens and Inouye, who felt it was useful to ensure
  that interexchange carriers honor their rate averaging and rate integration obligations
  under Section 254(g) of the Communications Act.  Although today's order will be good
  for consumers throughout the country, I believe the citizens of Alaska and Hawaii will
  particularly benefit from the action we are taking today.