Microsoft Word Version

******************************************************** 
                      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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************


                           Before the
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                   )
                              )    
Bell Atlantic-New York             )    
Authorization Under Section 271         )    File No. EB-00-IH-
0085 
of the Communications Act to Provide    )    Acct. No. X32080004
In-Region, InterLATA Service       )
In the State of New York           )


                             ORDER 

          Adopted: March 9, 2000        Released: March 9, 2000

By the Commission:  Commissioner Tristani dissenting and issuing 
separate statement.

     1.   The Commission has been conducting an investigation 
into potential violations by New York Telephone Company (d/b/a 
Bell Atlantic-New York) (Bell Atlantic) of section 271 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with lost 
or mishandled orders for unbundled network elements 
electronically submitted by its local service competitors.1

     2.   The Commission and Bell Atlantic have negotiated the 
terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the Commission's 
investigation.  A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto 
and is incorporated by reference.
     
     3.   We have reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree and 
evaluated the facts before us.  We believe that the public 
interest would be served by approving the Consent Decree and 
terminating the investigation.

     4.   Based on the record before us, and in the absence of 
material new evidence relating to this matter, we conclude that 
there are no substantial and material questions of fact as to 
whether Bell Atlantic possesses the basic qualifications, 
including its character qualifications, to hold or obtain any FCC 
licenses or authorizations.

     5.   The Consent Decree imposes reporting requirements on 
Bell Atlantic to measure its progress in resolving its treatment 
of electronically submitted orders.  These measurements were 
based on extensive consultation with the New York Public Service 
Commission (New York PSC).   We have worked closely with the New 
York PSC on this matter and intend to continue to work closely 
with it on Bell Atlantic-related section 271 enforcement issues.  

     6.    The performance measures we use here, and the related 
voluntary payment provisions, are a carefully tailored 
enforcement response to the specific difficulties experienced by 
Bell Atlantic in complying with a statutory checklist element 
that is a condition of its section 271 authorization to provide 
long distance service in the State of New York.2  Under the 
Consent Decree, expiration of these provisions is directly tied 
to Bell Atlantic's performance.  The Consent Decree does not 
amend Bell Atlantic's section 271 authorization, modify any of 
the conditions of that authorization, or impose any requirements 
on any other carriers or states.  The Consent Decree is for 
settlement purposes only, and does not constitute either an 
adjudication of the merits or a factual or legal finding 
regarding any compliance or noncompliance by Bell Atlantic with 
the requirements of the Communications Act, as amended.  Nor do 
the terms of the Consent Decree provide any basis for assessing 
another BOC's compliance with section 251 or section 271 of the 
Act.  In addition, nothing in the Consent Decree shall limit the 
Commission's authority to consider any complaint that may be 
filed pursuant to section 208 or section 271 of the 
Communications Act, as amended, or to take any action in response 
to such complaint.  Furthermore, if material facts change, such 
as Bell Atlantic failing to correct the problems for a sufficient 
period of time, or Bell Atlantic's performance deteriorates, the 
Commission may issue an order requiring Bell Atlantic to show 
cause as to why the Commission should not suspend or revoke Bell 
Atlantic's authority to provide long distance service.

     7.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 
4(j), and 271(d)(6) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 
154(i), 154(j), 271(d)(6), that the Consent Decree, incorporated 
by reference in and attached to this order, is hereby ADOPTED. 
     
     8.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary SHALL SIGN the 
Consent Decree on behalf of the Commission.

     9.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned 
investigation IS TERMINATED.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Magalie Roman Salas
                         Secretary
                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
New York Telephone Company       )
(d/b/a Bell Atlantic-New York)   )    File No. EB-00-IH-0085
                                )    Acct. No. X32080004
                                )
                                )
                                )
                                )


                         CONSENT DECREE

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   The Federal Communications Commission (the 
``Commission'' or the ``FCC'') and New York Telephone Company, 
doing business as Bell Atlantic New York (``Bell Atlantic,'' 
``BA-NY,'' or the ``Company'') hereby enter into this Consent 
Decree for the purpose of terminating an investigation by the 
Commission into whether Bell Atlantic violated section 271 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 271, and a 
condition of Bell Atlantic's authorization to provide long 
distance service in New York State,3 regarding Bell Atlantic's 
obligation to provide unbundled network elements to competing 
providers of local telephone service.  The investigation focused 
on Bell Atlantic's problems associated with lost or mishandled 
orders for unbundled network elements electronically submitted by 
its local service competitors.4

II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   As a Bell Operating Company (``BOC''), Bell Atlantic is 
prohibited from providing long distance (or ``interLATA'') 
services originating in its in-region states without first 
complying with conditions designed to open its local telephone 
markets to competition under section 271.5  To obtain 
authorization to provide in-region, interLATA services in a 
particular state under section 271, a BOC must demonstrate, among 
other things, that it has fully implemented the 14-point 
``competitive checklist'' set forth in section 271 in a manner 
that is nondiscriminatory.6

     3.   On September 29, 1999, Bell Atlantic filed with the 
Commission its application to enter the interLATA market in the 
State of New York.  After analyzing the record, the Commission 
determined that Bell Atlantic had satisfied the requirements of 
section 271 and granted its application.7  Bell Atlantic began 
providing interLATA service in New York State on January 5, 2000.

     4.   As a condition of its authorization to provide long 
distance service in New York, Bell Atlantic is required to 
provide competitors nondiscriminatory, unbundled access to 
certain piece parts or ``elements'' of its network.8  
Specifically, checklist item 2 set forth in section 271 requires 
Bell Atlantic to provide nondiscriminatory access to network 
elements in accordance with the requirements of sections 
251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).9  Section 251(c)(3) requires an 
incumbent local exchange carrier (``ILEC'') to provide 
nondiscriminatory access to network elements ``on an unbundled 
basis.''10

     5.   The Commission previously determined that access to 
operations support systems (``OSS'')11 functions ``falls 
squarely'' within an ILEC's duty under section 251(c)(3).12  As 
the Commission stated in the Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order, 
the nondiscriminatory provision of OSS is an integral aspect of 
the BOC's obligation to provide access to unbundled network 
elements as required by checklist item 2.13  Moreover, the 
Commission has previously determined that ``without 
nondiscriminatory access to the BOC's OSS, a competing carrier 
`will be severely disadvantaged, if not precluded altogether, 
from fairly competing' in the local exchange market.''14   Thus, 
Bell Atlantic must provide requesting carriers nondiscriminatory 
access to OSS functions in order to comply with section 
271(c)(2)(B)(ii), and such nondiscriminatory access is a 
fundamental condition of Bell Atlantic's approval to provide long 
distance service in New York.

     6.   Bell Atlantic provides requesting carriers an 
application-to-application interface based on Electronic Data 
Interface (``EDI'') protocol for pre-ordering and ordering 
functions.15  This critical component of Bell Atlantic's OSS 
offering allows competing carriers the ability to place orders 
for service with Bell Atlantic by interfacing directly with Bell 
Atlantic's ordering system.  When Bell Atlantic receives a 
competing carrier's local service order over an EDI interface, 
Bell Atlantic is supposed to respond over the same interface with 
an acknowledgement of receipt of the order16 and either an order 
confirmation notice (stating when the requested service will be 
provisioned) or an order rejection notice.17  These electronic 
notices are important to the competing carrier because they 
provide information about, and the status of, a given order.18  
Additionally, when Bell Atlantic completes the provisioning or 
installation of the requested service, it sends two separate 
order completion notices to the competing carrier.19  Bell 
Atlantic first sends a ``work completion'' notice indicating that 
the work associated with provisioning the order has been 
completed.  Bell Atlantic then sends a ``billing completion'' 
notice indicating that the order is recorded as completed in Bell 
Atlantic's billing systems.20  The receipt of the billing 
completion notice signals that Bell Atlantic has successfully 
transferred the customer to the competing carrier, which can then 
begin billing the customer without fear of double-billing.  These 
electronic notifications are central to a finding of 
nondiscriminatory access to Bell Atlantic's OSS because they 
provide an efficient carrier information necessary to a 
meaningful opportunity to compete.21

     7.   On February 7, 2000, the Commission's Enforcement 
Bureau began an investigation into Bell Atlantic's compliance 
with sections 251 and 271 and the condition in its long distance 
authorization that it provide competitors nondiscriminatory, 
unbundled access to network elements by issuing interrogatories 
and document requests.22  Evidence submitted by Bell Atlantic in 
this investigation suggests that Bell Atlantic's performance in 
providing order acknowledgements, confirmation and rejection 
notices, and order completion notices for UNE-Platform local 
service orders deteriorated following Bell Atlantic's entry into 
the New York long distance market.23  Data submitted by Bell 
Atlantic indicates that the problem appears most acute for 
January and early February of this year.  Specifically, Bell 
Atlantic indicates that it received trouble tickets from 
competing carriers in November 1999 regarding 33,000 orders; 
60,000 in December 1999; and more than 86,000 in January 2000.  
For the first eleven days of February 2000, Bell Atlantic reports 
receiving trouble tickets regarding another 48,000 orders.24

     8.   In February and early March 2000, Bell Atlantic 
implemented hardware and software changes, and instituted revised 
manual and electronic procedures, designed to improve performance 
in processing orders and timely sending required status 
notifiers.  Bell Atlantic takes the position that these changes 
fully address and correct the problem of lost and mishandled 
orders.  Preliminary reports indicate that these changes may be 
succeeding in improving the situation, particularly with respect 
to carriers that have migrated to an EDI system that uses new 
software developed by Bell Atlantic.  At this point, however, 
there is no record data demonstrating that any improved 
performance will be sustained over the long run.

     9.   As a matter of corporate policy, BA-NY represents that 
it is committed to providing CLECs with nondiscriminatory access 
to its OSS, allowing them to offer local service in 
``substantially the same time and manner'' as BA-NY.

III. DEFINITIONS

     10.  For purposes of this Consent Decree, the following 
definitions shall apply:

     (a)  The ``FCC''  or the  ``Commission'' means  the  Federal 
          Communications Commission  and  all of  its  divisions, 
          including the Enforcement Bureau.

     (b)  ``BA-NY'' or the ``Company'' means New York Telephone 
          Company, doing business as Bell Atlantic-New York.

     (c)  ``Parties'' means BA-NY and the FCC.

     (d)  ``Order'' or ``Adopting Order'' means an order of the 
          FCC adopting this Consent Decree without change, 
          addition, or modification.

     (e)  ``Final Order'' means an order that is no longer 
          subject to administrative or judicial reconsideration, 
          review, appeal, or stay.

     (f)  ``OSS'' or ``operating support systems'' means systems 
          used by BA-NY to perform the functions of pre-ordering, 
          ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and 
          billing as defined in the First Report and Order, 
          Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in 
          the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 F.C.C. Rcd 
          15499, ¶ 514, nn. 1244-1247.

     (g)  ``CLEC'' means a competing local exchange carrier.

     (h)  ``EDI'' or the ``EDI Interface'' means an application-
          to-application interface using electronic data 
          interchange protocol provided by BA-NY enabling CLECs 
          to obtain access to BA-NY's OSS.

     (i)  ``Week'' means a period beginning at 12:01 a.m. 
          Saturday and ending at 12:00 midnight the following 
          Friday.

     (j)  ``Aggregate Performance'' means the numerical average 
          of the reported performance for the new performance 
          measurements described in Attachment A for the relevant 
          period.

     (k)  ``Investigation'' means the data request issued by the 
          Enforcement Bureau to Bell Atlantic on February 7, 2000 
          and any informal complaints, ex partes, or other 
          information received by the Commission related to the 
          issues addressed there (excluding information received 
          in, or in connection with, any formal complaint 
          proceeding) prior to the date of the Adoption Order.

      (l) ``Effective Date'' means the date on which the 
          Commission adopts the Adopting Order.

IV.  AGREEMENT

     11.  BA-NY and the Commission agree that this Consent Decree 
does not constitute either an adjudication of the merits or a 
factual or legal finding or determination regarding any 
compliance or noncompliance by BA-NY with the requirements of the 
Communications Act, as amended, including sections 251 and 271 
thereof, arising out of any alleged actions or failures affecting 
BA-NY's interfaces and systems or the access to OSS provided by 
BA-NY to CLECs.  The Parties agree that this Consent Decree is 
for settlement purposes only and that by agreeing to this Consent 
Decree, the Company does not admit any noncompliance, violation, 
or liability associated with or arising from such alleged actions 
or failures, including any problems or failures described in the 
introductory paragraph of the data request, or in any informal 
complaints, ex partes, or other information received by the 
Commission on or before the Effective Date of this Consent 
Decree.  Indeed, BA-NY expressly denies any such noncompliance, 
violation, or liability.

     12.  In express reliance on the covenants and 
representations contained herein, the Commission agrees to 
terminate the Investigation at such time as the Commission 
releases an order adopting this Consent Decree.

     13.  The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Consent 
Decree shall constitute a final settlement between BA-NY and the 
Commission of the Investigation.  In consideration for the 
termination of this Investigation in accordance with the terms of 
this Consent Decree, BA-NY agrees to the terms, conditions, and 
procedures contained herein.

     14.  This Consent Decree applies only to orders sent and 
status notices returned using the EDI Interface.

     15.  BA-NY represents that it is committed to providing 
CLECs with nondiscriminatory access to its OSS, allowing them to 
offer local service in ``substantially the same time and manner'' 
as BA-NY.  To ensure that BA-NY is providing such 
nondiscriminatory access, BA-NY agrees to implement the 
measurement reporting system set forth in Attachment A.  For any 
week in which BA-NY's Aggregate Performance meets or exceeds 90%, 
BA-NY will have no obligation to make a voluntary payment.  If 
BA-NY's Aggregate Performance falls below 90% for two consecutive 
weeks (either the first two weeks for which BA-NY reports, or two 
consecutive weeks following a week in which BA-NY incurs no 
obligation to make a voluntary payment), BA-NY will, within three 
business days, make a voluntary payment to the United States 
Treasury of four million dollars ($4,000,000).  If BA-NY's 
Aggregate Performance continues below 90% for a third consecutive 
week, BA-NY will, within three business days, make an additional 
voluntary payment to the United States Treasury of eight million 
dollars ($8,000,000).  If BA-NY's Aggregate Performance continues 
below 90% for a fourth consecutive week, BA-NY will, within three 
business days, make an additional voluntary payment to the United 
States Treasury of twelve million dollars ($12,000,000).  With 
respect to each of these voluntary payments, instead of making 
such voluntary payment, BA-NY may choose voluntarily to suspend 
enrolling additional subscribers, and not to market or promote 
its interLATA service to customers in New York, until its 
Aggregate Performance has met or exceeded 90% for two consecutive 
weeks.  If BA-NY's Aggregate Performance on the new measurements, 
or its performance on the Additional Metric, falls below 90% for 
any week as a result of force majeure, Acts of God, strikes, 
commercially unreasonable actions by wholesale customers, or 
other causes beyond BA-NY's control, BA-NY shall have the right 
to seek the Commission's agreement that no voluntary payment will 
be due for that week and that the week's Aggregate Performance 
can be adjusted to remove the effect of such cause.

     16.  BA-NY will make a voluntary contribution to the United 
States Treasury in the amount of three million dollars 
($3,000,000) within 10 calendar days after the Commission Order 
adopting this Consent Decree becomes final.  Payment should be 
paid by check or money order drawn to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  Reference should be make on the check 
or money order to ``Acct. No. X32080004.''  Such remittances must 
be mailed to: Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, 
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, 
Illinois, 60673-7482.  

     17.  The Commission agrees that, based on the facts 
developed in its Investigation and in the absence of material new 
evidence related to this matter, it will not use the facts 
developed in the Investigation through the date of this Consent 
Decree, or the existence of this Consent Decree, to institute, on 
its own motion, any new proceedings, formal or informal, or to 
take any actions on its own motion against the Company concerning 
the matters that were the subject of the Investigation.  The 
Commission also agrees that, based on the facts developed in the 
Investigation, and in the absence of material new evidence 
related to this matter, it will not use the facts developed in 
this Investigation to institute on its own motion any proceeding, 
formal or informal, or take any action against BA-NY with respect 
to its basic qualifications, including its character 
qualifications, to be a Commission licensee or with respect to 
compliance with the Commission's rules and policies.  Consistent 
with the foregoing, nothing in this Consent Decree limits the 
Commission's authority to consider any complaint that may be 
filed pursuant to section 208 or 271 of the Communications Act, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§208, 271, and to take any action in 
response to such complaint.

     18.  The Company waives any and all rights it may have to 
seek administrative or judicial reconsideration, review, appeal 
or stay, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of 
this Consent Decree and the Order adopting this Consent Decree, 
provided the Order adopts the Consent Decree without change, 
addition, or modification.

     19.  The Company's decision to enter into this Consent 
Decree is expressly contingent upon issuance of an Order that is 
consistent with this Consent Decree, and which adopts the Consent 
Decree without change, addition, or modification.

     20.  In the event that this Consent Decree is rendered 
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, it shall become 
null and void and may not be used in any manner in any legal 
proceeding.

     21.  If the Commission, or the United States on behalf of 
the Commission, brings a judicial action to enforce the terms of 
the Adopting Order, neither BA-NY nor the Commission will contest 
the validity of the Consent Decree or Adopting Order, and the 
Company will waive any statutory right to a trial de novo. 

     22.  Any violation of the Consent Decree or the Adopting 
Order will constitute a separate violation of a Commission order, 
entitling the Commission to exercise any rights and remedies 
attendant to the enforcement of a Commission order.

     23.  The Parties agree that this Consent Decree will 
terminate if BA-NY meets either paragraph A. or B., below:

          A.   If BA-NY's Aggregate Performance for the new 
     measurements set out in Attachment A meets or exceeds 95% 
     for each week for a consecutive four-week period with no 
     individual measurement falling below 90% for any week, and, 
     in addition, BA-NY's performance on the first Additional 
     Metric described on Attachment A (% Confirmation Timeliness 
     - Total LSRs) also meets or exceeds 90% for each week for 
     the four-week period, and, in addition, BA-NY's performance 
     on the second Additional Metric described on Attachment A (% 
     Resubmission Rejection) also meets or exceeds 95% for each 
     week for the four-week period, then BA-NY's obligations 
     under this Consent Decree shall terminate.

          B.   If BA-NY's performance for each new individual 
     measurement set out in Attachment A meets or exceeds 90% for 
     each week for twelve consecutive weeks, and, in addition, 
     BA-NY's average performance on the first Additional Metric 
     described in Attachment A (% Confirmation Timeliness - Total 
     LSRs) meets or exceeds 90% for each week for the twelve-week 
     period, and, in addition, BA-NY's performance on the second 
     Additional Metric described on Attachment A (% Resubmission 
     Rejection) also meets or exceeds 95% for each week for the 
     twelve-week period, then BA-NY's obligations under this 
     Consent Decree shall terminate.

     24.  The Parties also agree that if any provision of the 
Consent Decree conflicts with any subsequent rule or order 
adopted by the Commission (except an order specifically intended 
to revise the terms of this Consent Decree to which BA-NY does 
not consent) that provision will be superseded by such Commission 
rule or order.

     25.  This Consent Decree may be signed in counterparts.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION



By:  __________________________________
     Magalie Roman Salas
     Secretary


BA-NY




By:  ___________________________________
     Edward D. Young, III


                          ATTACHMENT A


     BA-NY will implement three new performance measurements - 
Percent Missing Notice Trouble Ticket PONs Closed within Three 
Business Days; Percent Order Confirmations/Rejects Sent within 
Three Business Days; and Percent Service Order Processor (SOP) to 
Bill Completion within Three Business Days - which are defined 
below.  BA-NY will report its performance with respect to these 
measurements to the Commission weekly, supported by a sworn 
statement by a corporate officer.  BA-NY will begin collecting 
information for the new measurements on the Saturday following 
the Effective Date of the Consent Decree.  BA-NY will also report 
its performance with respect to two Additional Metrics - Percent 
Confirmation Timeliness-Total LSRs and Percent Resubmission 
Rejection - both of which are defined in Attachment A.  BA-NY 
also will begin collecting data for these Additional Metrics as 
defined on the Saturday following the Effective Date of the 
Consent Decree.  Because the measurements reflect performance 
that may occur up to three business days following the last day 
of the week reported on, the Reporting Period for a week will 
close the following Wednesday.  Each report will be provided no 
later than 3:00 p.m. of the third business day following the 
close of the Reporting Period.  Such reports shall be posted on 
BA-NY's website.

     The data that will be reported for each of the measurements 
will be collected, as defined below,  for events that occur 
during the week being reported.  For example, with respect to the 
new Percent Missing Notice Trouble Ticket PONs Closed within 
Three Business Days measurement, for the Reporting Period 
beginning March 18, BA-NY will collect data for PONs on Trouble 
Tickets submitted during the week beginning March 18, and will 
report the percentage of those trouble tickets closed within 
three business days.  For the first two weeks for which BA-NY 
provides reports, BA-NY will measure all of the EDI Interface 
platforms used by CLECs to submit orders.  After the first two 
weeks, BA-NY will measure and report only with respect to the EDI 
Interface platform using the new NetLink software.


 % Missing Notifier Trouble Ticket PONS Cleared within 3 Bus. Days
Definition:    The percent of EDI missing notifier trouble ticket 
              PONS cleared within 3 business days from the day of 
              receipt of the trouble ticket.  The elapsed time 
              begins with receipt at the Bell Atlantic Systems 
              Support Help Desk of a trouble ticket for EDI missing 
              notifiers (i.e., order acknowledgement, order 
              confirmation, order rejection, work completion, and 
              billing completion notices) with the PONS in questions 
              enumerated with the appropriate identification.  The 
              ticket is considered cleared when Bell Atlantic has 
              either requested the CLEC to resubmit the PON or 
              communicated the current status of the PON and 
              provided the delayed status notifier to the CLEC. 
              Tickets received after 5 PM and trouble ticket 
              clearances sent after 5PM will be considered effective 
              on the following business day.  Performance shall be 
              counted for the week in which the trouble ticket was 
              received.

               
Exclusions:    ·  The PONs shall be considered to be timely cleared if 
                 Bell Atlantic provides the status notifier after 3 
                 business days at the request of the CLEC or because 
                 of CLEC system capacity or availability.
              ·  Out of sequence notifiers.  This type of ticket 
                 indicates that the CLEC has received one or more 
                 notifiers for a PON but not in the sequence 
                 expected.
              Numerator                       Denominator
Number of EDI missing notifier     Total number of EDI missing 
trouble ticket PONS in             notifier trouble ticket PONS 
denominator cleared within 3       submitted within the calendar 
business days after receipt.       week.


              % Order  Confirmations/Rejects Sent  Within 3  Business 
              Days
Definition:    The percent of orders confirmed or rejected by Bell 
              Atlantic within 3 business days of receipt as a 
              percent of total LSRs received.  
              Note:  This is a measure of completeness not 
              timeliness.  Order confirmation/reject timeliness 
              standards are 95% within a range of 2 hours to 3 
              business days - depending on order type.
              Source: Master PON File 
Exclusions:    ·  Cancelled Orders
              ·  LSRs that were Supplemented prior to confirmation or 
                 rejection.
              ·  Front end rejects (negative 997's) that would not be 
                 eligible for confirmation or rejection.
              Numerator                       Denominator
Total LSR Confirmations plus       Total LSRs received during the 
Rejections sent within 3 business  calendar week.
days of LSR submission.



          % SOP to Bill Completion Within 3 Business Days
Definition:    The percent of orders provisioning complete in SOP 
              that have BCN notices within 3 business days.  Source 
              DCAS PON Master File.  The start time is when physical 
              completion of the order has been entered into SOP.  
              The end time is when the billing completion notice is 
              time-stamped in DCAS.
Exclusions:    ·  Complex resale orders.
              Numerator                       Denominator
Total number orders in             Number of SOP Completed Orders 
denominator for which billing      during the calendar week.
completion notices are time-
stamped in DCAS within 3 business 
days of SOP completion.


               % Confirmation Timeliness - Total LSRs
Definition:    The percent of all Confirmed LSRs that are confirmed 
              within standards established in the NY Carrier to 
              Carrier Guidelines.  This represents the weighted 
              average of all 12 LSRC measurements reported for 
              Resale and UNE under the Carrier to Carrier Guidelines 
              in effect on March 8, 2000.
Exclusions:    ·  Same as Carrier to Carrier Guidelines
              Numerator                       Denominator
Total Orders confirmed within      Total confirmed orders (includes 
established standard (standard     all order types for resale and 
varies by order type).             UNE).


                  % Resubmission Rejection Metric
Definition:    The percent of PONs resubmitted at Bell Atlantic's 
              request which are not rejected by Bell Atlantic's 
              ordering systems and interfaces as being duplicative 
              of PONs already in Bell Atlantic's systems.
Exclusions:    ·  None
              Numerator                       Denominator
Total PONs resubmitted at Bell     Total PONs resubmitted at Bell 
Atlantic's request during          Atlantic's request during the 
calendar week that are not         calendar week.
rejected by Bell Atlantic's 
systems as duplicative of PONs 
already in Bell Atlantic's 
systems.



                                                March 9, 2000


                           Dissent of
                  Commissioner Gloria Tristani

Re:  Bell Atlantic New York Authorization Under Section 271 of 
     the Communications
     Act to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in the State of 
     New York. 


     I dissent from today's consent decree with Bell Atlantic.  I 
believe the more appropriate response would have been to direct 
Bell Atlantic to show cause why the Commission should not suspend 
its authorization to provide long distance service to new 
customers in New York due to its apparent failure to provide 
nondiscriminatory, unbundled access to network elements.  

     Evidence from the Enforcement Bureau's investigation in 
February clearly suggests that Bell Atlantic's performance in 
providing order acknowledgements, confirmation and rejection 
notices, and order completion notices for UNE-Platform local 
services deteriorated following Bell Atlantic's entry into the 
long distance market.  I believe the Commission should have 
placed the burden on Bell Atlantic at that time to demonstrate 
that it had not ceased to meet a fundamental requirement of its 
approval to provide long distance service in New York.  In 
granting that approval, we explicitly stated that with respect to 
the types of notifications at issue here, if there was evidence 
of ``a systemic problem occurring for a significant number of 
orders . . . it would warrant a finding of noncompliance.''  Such 
a finding would, in turn, justify suspension of Bell Atlantic's 
marketing authority.
      
     Bell Atlantic's alleged failures have the potential to 
impede significantly the development of competition in New York.  
I urge Bell Atlantic to remedy these problems, and I expect that 
today's consent decree will ensure improved performance on a 
going-forward basis. 

_________________________

1    See Letter from David H. Solomon, Chief, Enforcement Bureau 
to Edward D. Young, III, Sr. Vice President-Regulatory, Bell 
Atlantic Network Services, Inc. dated February 7, 2000.

2    47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). 

3    Application by Bell Atlantic New York for Authorization 
Under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In-Region, 
InterLATA Service in the State of New York, CC Docket No. 99-295, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 99-404, (December 22, 1999) 
(Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order), appeal pending sub nom. AT&T 
Corp. v. FCC (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 27, 1999) (No. 99-1538).

4    See Letter from David H. Solomon, Chief, Enforcement Bureau 
to Edward D. Young, III, Sr. Vice President-Regulatory, Bell 
Atlantic Network Services, Inc. dated February 7, 2000 (``Feb. 7 
Solomon Letter'' or ``data request'').  For purposes of this 
Consent Decree, a ``lost'' order is a competitor's order that 
Bell Atlantic is unable to locate in its internal systems and 
subsequently directs the competitor to resubmit the order.  A 
``mishandled'' order is a competitor's order that Bell Atlantic 
has received but failed timely to send one or more required 
notices to the competitor regarding the status of the order.

5    See 47 U.S.C. § 271; U S WEST Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 
177 F.3d 1058, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 2000 WL 
220276 (U.S. Feb. 28, 2000) (No. 99-869).

6    47 U.S.C. §§ 271(d)(3)(A)(i), (ii) (requiring full 
implementation of the competitive checklist); 271(d)(3)(B) 
(requiring that implementation be carried out in accord with 
section 272, including section 272(c) nondiscrimination 
requirements).  The additional requirements for section 271 
authorization are discussed in the Bell Atlantic New York 271 
Order at  ¶¶ 17-20.  In order to meet the nondiscrimination 
standard of section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii), the Commission has held 
that a carrier must provide the function at issue to its 
competitors in substantially the same time and manner as it 
provides that function to its retail operations.  If there is no 
retail analogue, however, as in these circumstances, the carrier 
must demonstrate that it provides access to such function 
``sufficient to allow an efficient competitor a meaningful 
opportunity to compete.''  See Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order 
at ¶¶ 86, 160, and 187.

7    Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at  ¶ 454.

8    See Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at ¶ 44; 47 U.S.C. § 
271(c)(2)(B)(ii).

9    47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii).

10   47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3).

11   OSS encompasses a variety of systems, databases, and 
personnel used by an ILEC to provide service to its customers. 
See Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at ¶ 83.

12   Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at ¶ 84 (citing Application 
of BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and 
BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. for Provision of In-Region, 
InterLATA Services In Louisiana, CC Docket No. 98-121, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 20599, at 20653-54 (1998); 
Application of BellSouth Corporation, et al., Pursuant to Section 
271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, To Provide In-
Region, InterLATA Services In South Carolina, CC Docket No. 97-
208, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 539, at 586 (1997); 
and Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, To Provide In-Region, 
InterLATA Services In Michigan, CC Docket No. 97-137, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 20543, at 20628 (1997) (Ameritech 
Michigan Order)).

13   Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at  ¶ 81.

14   Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at  ¶ 83.

15   Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at ¶ 159.

16   See Letter from Edward D. Young, III, Sr. Vice President-
Regulatory, Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. to David H. 
Solomon, Chief, Enforcement Bureau dated February 14, 2000, at 2.  
Bell Atlantic has requested confidential treatment of some of the 
information contained in its submission pursuant to sections 
0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission's rules and, on February 17, 
2000, submitted a redacted version of the letter and attachments.  
47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457, 0.459.  This Consent Decree cites to and 
relies on only the non-confidential portions of Bell Atlantic's 
submission from its February 17, 2000 letter.  See Letter from 
Dee May, Director, Federal Regulatory, Bell Atlantic to David H. 
Solomon, Chief, Enforcement Bureau dated February 17, 2000 (Bell 
Atlantic Response to Interrogatories and Document Requests).

17   Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at ¶ 159.

18   Id.

19   Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at ¶ 187.

20   Id.

21   Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at ¶¶ 160, 187. In Bell 
Atlantic's response to Interrogatory 4, it explains that Bell 
Atlantic does not provide acknowledgements, confirmation notices, 
rejection notices, work completion notices or billing completion 
notices to Bell Atlantic's own local retail service customers or 
service representatives who take orders from its local retail 
service customers.  Thus, Bell Atlantic has no retail analogue 
for this OSS function.  In the absence of a retail analogue, the 
standard is whether Bell Atlantic provides competitors access to 
this function ``sufficient to allow an efficient competitor a 
meaningful opportunity to compete.''  Id.; see also Bell Atlantic 
New York 271 Order at ¶¶ 160, 187.

22   See Feb. 7 Solomon Letter.

23   ``UNE-Platform'' is a combination of network elements 
(unbundled loop, switching, and shared transport) that provides 
competitors with the ability to package and market services in 
ways that differ from the BOC's existing service offerings.  See 
Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at ¶ 230; Ameritech Michigan 
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 20543, at 20628; see also Local Competition 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 
96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 99-238, at ¶¶ 272-74 (rel. Nov. 5, 
1999).  Competing carriers are using UNE-Platform as the primary 
vehicle to provide competitive local service to residential and 
small business consumers in New York State.

24   See Attachment 2 at Bell Atlantic Response to 
Interrogatories and Document Requests.  In addition, Bell 
Atlantic submitted updated data on February 23, 2000 indicating 
that it received trouble tickets regarding an additional 28,133 
orders between February 12-19, 2000.  See Attachment 2A to Letter 
from Edward D. Young, III, Sr. Vice President-Regulatory, Bell 
Atlantic Network Services, Inc. to David H. Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau dated February 23, 2000.  Bell Atlantic 
submitted still further information indicating that it received 
trouble tickets regarding an additional 18,454 orders between 
February 20-23, 2000.  See Attachment 2A to Letter from Leslie A. 
Vial, Regulatory Counsel, Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. to 
Bradford M. Berry, Deputy Bureau Chief, Enforcement Bureau dated 
February 25, 2000; see also Letter from David  H. Solomon, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, to Edward D. Young, III, Sr. Vice President-
Regulatory, Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. dated February 
22, 2000.