Cybertelecom :: Notes: ONA

Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project

Notes: ONA

Notes > ONA These notes are not complete and there is no guarantee that they are accurate. They are presented simply as notes. Feel free to use them but as with all material on the Cybertelecom, you should consider them a beginning to your research and not an end. © Copyright Robert Cannon, Washington Internet Prject 2000-2002. All Rights Reserved. 1 ONA 1.1 Purpose ONA *
1.2 How it Works *
1.3 BSE (Basic Service Element) *
1.4 BSA (Basic Serving Arrangement) *
1.5 complementary network services CNS * 1.5.1 Examples *
1.5.2 Letters of Agency / written authorization * 1.6 Ancillary Network Service ANS *
1.7 State Tarrifs *
1.8 Require BOCs to Meet with ESPs *
1.9 Resale Restrictions *
1.10 Discrimination *
1.11 Deployment *
1.12 New Service Requests *
1.13 Provision of Billing Information *
1.14 Operational Support Systems *
1.15 Annual Filing Requirements *
1.16 AT&T *
1.17 Approved ONA Plans *

ONA

4. In Computer III, the Commission concluded that, in the longer term, with the implementation of Open Network Architecture (ONA), the BOCs should be allowed to provide integrated enhanced services without prior Commission approval of service-specific CEI plans.¹³ In a series of orders between 1988 and 1992, the Commission approved the BOC ONA plans that described the unbundled basic services each BOC proposed to provide as ONA services and the terms under which they would be offered. During 1992-1993, the Common Carrier Bureau approved lifting structural separation requirements for individual BOCs that showed they offered under tariff all of the ONA services set forth in their initial ONA plans. Thus, BOCs have not been required to file CEI plans for several years.

^13.Phase I Order at 1019-1021, paras. 113-115, and 1059-1068, paras. 201- 222.

In re US West Communications, Inc., Petition for Computer III Waiver, Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 1195 (Nov 6, 1995)

See Memorandum Opinion and Order, Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, Phase I, FCC 88-381, 4 FCCR. 1 (1988); Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 90-134, 5 FCCR. 3084 (1990); Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 90-135, 5 FCCR. 3103 (1990); and Report and Order, Computer III Remand Proceedings, FCC 90-415, 5 FCCR. 7719 (1990).

Under Computer III and our Open Network Architecture rules, the BOCs are permitted to provide enhanced services on an integrated basis through the regulated entity, subject to certain nonstructural safeguards.[15] One of the safeguards the Commission instituted in the Computer III decision requires the BOCs to obtain Commission approval of, and to comply with, a service-specific Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) plan in order to offer a new enhanced service.[16] In these CEI plans, which address nine separate parameters, the BOC must explain how it would offer to competitive ESPs, on a non-discriminatory basis, all the underlying basic services that the BOC uses to provide its own enhanced service offering.[17] 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 to participate in such markets, provided they opened their networks to competitors.[18]

[15] The Commission initially applied the Computer III and ONA rules to both AT&T and the BOCs. Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986). In subsequent orders, the Commission first modified, and then relieved, AT&T of most Computer III and ONA requirements. See, e.g., Computer III Phase I Reconsideration Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987); Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5880 (1991); Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 4562 (1995). ONA is the overall design of a carrier's basic network services to permit all users of the basic network, including the information services operations of the carrier and its competitors, to interconnect to specific basic network functions and interfaces on an unbundled and equal-access basis. The BOCs and GTE through ONA must unbundle key components, or elements, of their basic services and make them available under tariff, regardless of whether their information services operations utilize the unbundled components. Such 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.
[16] See Computer III Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1035-1042, && 147-166. The Commission initially imposed these CEI requirements on AT&T as well. In subsequent orders, the Commission first modified, and then relieved, AT&T of these requirements. The Commission has never imposed CEI requirements on GTE or any other independent LEC.
[17] Id. The nine CEI parameters involve 1) interface functionality; 2) unbundling of basic services; 3) resale; 4) technical characteristics; 5) installation, maintenance, and repair; 6) end user access; 7) CEI availability as of the 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.
[18] Id. at 963, 1039, && 2, 156.
In the Matter of Computer III Remand Proceeding: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, CC Docket No. 98-10, Report and Order, ¶ 8 (March 10, 1999).

24. As noted above, in California III, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the BOC Safeguards Order, in which the Commission reaffirmed its earlier determination to remove structural separation requirements imposed on a BOC's provision of enhanced services, based on a BOC's compliance with ONA requirements and other nonstructural safeguards. The court found that, in the BOC Safeguards Order, and in the orders implementing ONA, the Commission had "changed its requirements for, or definition of, ONA so that ONA no longer contemplates fundamental unbundling." Because, in the Ninth Circuit's view, the Commission had not adequately explained why this perceived shift did not undermine its decision to rely on the ONA safeguards to grant full structural relief, the court remanded the proceeding to the Commission.

25. In the Computer III Phase I Order, the Commission declined to adopt any specific network architecture proposals or specific unbundling requirements, but instead set forth general standards for ONA. BOCs were required to file initial ONA plans presenting a set of "unbundled basic service functions that could be commonly used in the provision of enhanced services to the extent technologically feasible." The Commission stated that, by adopting general requirements rather than mandating a particular architecture for implementing ONA, it wished to encourage development of efficient interconnection arrangements. The Commission also noted that inefficiencies might result from "unnecessarily unbundled or splintered services."

26. The Computer III Phase I Order required the BOCs to meet a defined set of unbundling criteria in order for structural separation to be lifted. In the BOC ONA Order, the Commission generally approved the "common ONA model" proposed by the BOCs. The common ONA model was based on the existing architecture of the BOC local exchange networks, and consisted of unbundled services categorized as basic service arrangements (BSAs), basic service elements (BSEs), complementary network services (CNSs), and ancillary network services (ANSs).

27. In the BOC ONA proceeding, certain commenters criticized the common ONA model. The commenters argued that the BOCs had avoided the Computer III Phase I Order unbundling requirements by failing to "disaggregate communications facilities and services on an element-by-element basis." They urged the Commission to adopt a more "fundamental" concept of unbundling in the ONA context, by requiring the BOCs to unbundle facilities such as loops, as well as switching functions, inter-office transmission, and signalling. Specifically, they claimed that BSAs could be further unbundled; e.g., trunks could be unbundled from the circuit-switched, trunk-side BSA, so that ESPs could connect their own trunks to BOC switches.

28. In the BOC ONA Order, the Commission rejected arguments that ONA, as set forth in the Computer III Phase I Order, required unbundling more "fundamental" than that set forth in the "common ONA model" proposed by the BOCs. The Commission indicated that the Computer III Phase I Order anticipated that the BOCs would unbundle network services, not facilities, and determined that the ONA services developed by the BOCs under the common ONA model were consistent with the examples of service unbundling set forth in the Computer III Phase I Order. The Ninth Circuit, however, agreed with the view that the Commission's approval of the BOC ONA plans, and subsequent lifting of structural separation, was a retreat from a "requirement" of "fundamental unbundling."

-- In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, CC Docket No. 98-10, FCC 98-8, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶¶ 24 -28 (January 30, 1998)

78. The Commission's ONA unbundling requirements serve both to safeguard against access discrimination and to promote competition and market efficiency in the information services industry. As described above, the Commission conditioned the permanent elimination of the Computer II structural separation requirements imposed on the BOCs upon the evolutionary implementation of ONA and other nonstructural safeguards. The ONA requirements, however, have a significance independent of whether they provide the basis for lifting structural separation. In 1990, during the course of the remand proceedings in response to California I, the Commission required the BOCs to implement ONA regardless of whether ONA provided the basis for elimination of structural separation. As discussed below, the Commission stated that "[a] major goal of ONA is to increase opportunities for ESPs to use the BOCs' regulated networks in highly efficient ways, enabling ESPs to expand their markets for their present services and develop new offerings as well, all to the benefit of consumers." It was for this reason that the Commission applied the ONA requirements to GTE in 1994.

79. ONA is the overall design of a carrier's basic network services to permit all users of the basic network, including the information services operations of the carrier and its competitors, to interconnect to specific basic network functions and interfaces on an unbundled and "equal access" basis. The BOCs and GTE through ONA must unbundle key components of their basic services and make them available under tariff, regardless of whether their information services operations utilize the unbundled components. Such 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.

4. The Computer III decision concluded that, in the longer term, with the implementation of Open Network Architecture (ONA), the BOCs should be allowed to provide integrated enhanced services without prior Commission approval of service-specific CEI plans. In orders adopted between 1988 and the end of 1992, the Commission approved a series of BOC ONA plans that described the unbundled basic services each BOC proposed to provide as ONA services, and the terms upon which they would be offered. During 1992 and 1993, the Bureau approved lifting structural separation requirements for individual BOCs that showed they had implemented all of the ONA services set forth in their ONA plans.

5. In California III, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that, although the Commission had adequately explained its decision to strengthen the protections against cross-subsidization at issue in California I, it had not justified its retreat from its initial position regarding the level of unbundling necessary for eliminating structural separation. The court concluded that the cost-benefit analysis associated with the Commission's decision to lift structural separation was flawed and must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. In response to the California III decision, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding to review the existing nonstructural safeguards against BOC access discrimination.

6. Following the California III decision, the Bureau issued an order allowing the BOCs to continue providing enhanced services and conducting market trials pursuant to CEI plans approved prior to the lifting of structural separation. The Bureau also granted waivers necessary to enable BOCs to continue providing other enhanced services and market trials, conditioned upon their filing CEI plans or market trial notifications for such services or trials within 60 days of the Bureau Interim Waiver Order. The Bureau required the BOCs to file CEI plans or market trial notifications prior to providing any new services or market trials. In addition, the Bureau Interim Waiver Order required the BOCs to continue to comply with the procedures established in approved ONA plans. For example, BOCs still must provide new ONA services that ESPs need to provide enhanced services and file federal and state tariffs for ONA services.

-- In the Matter of Ameritech's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Electronic Vaulting Service, CCBPol 97-03, Order (December 31, 1997).

"The Commission's ONA rules provide a mechanism for competitors to obtain access to network elements and facilities used in the provision of information services. See Computer III Further Remand Proceedings, 10 FCC Rcd at 8374-75, && 19-22. The ONA requirements apply to the BOCs regardless of whether they provide information services on an integrated or separated basis. See ONA Remand Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7720-21, && 11-15." -- In the Matter of Ameritech's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Electronic Vaulting Service, CCBPol 97-03, Order ¶ 7 n. 18 (December 31, 1997).

"ONA requirements continue to apply whether or not the BOCs have been relieved of structural separation requirements." -- In the Matter of Bell Operating Companies Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules, DA 95-2264, Order ¶ 26 (October 31, 1995) (footnote numbering off).

"ONA incorporates and subsumes CEI "equal access" requirements and provides for the further unbundling of network service elements not limited to those associated with specific BOC enhanced services. After the implementation of ONA, the BOCs were still required to offer network services to competing ESPs on a CEI "equal access" basis, even though they were no longer required to file a CEI plan for each service they wished to offer."

In the Matter of Bell Operating Companies Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules, DA 95-2264, Order ¶ 3 (October 31, 1995) (footnote number off)

4. . . . The Computer III decision concluded that, in the longer term, with the implementation of Open Network Architecture (ONA), the BOCs should be allowed to provide integrated enhanced services without prior Commission approval of service-specific CEI plans. In a series of orders between 1988 and the end of 1992, the Commission approved the BOC ONA plans that described the unbundled basic services each BOC proposed to provide as ONA services and the terms under which they would be offered. During 1992-1993, the Common Carrier Bureau approved lifting structural separation requirements for individual BOCs that showed they had implemented all of the ONA services set forth in their ONA plans. Thus, BOCs have not filed CEI plans for several years.

5. Following the California III decision, the Common Carrier Bureau issued an order allowing the BOCs to continue providing enhanced services and conducting market trials pursuant to CEI plans approved prior to the lifting of structural separation. The Bureau also granted waivers necessary to enable BOCs to continue providing other existing enhanced services and market trials, conditioned upon the BOCs filing CEI plans or market trial notifications, respectively, within 60 days of the Bureau Interim Remand Order. The Bureau required the BOCs to file CEI plans or market trial notifications prior to providing any new services or market trials. The Bureau declined to treat enhanced services offered in conjunction with video dialtone service differently from other enhanced services." -- In the Matter of Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies, Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to Providers of Video Dialtone-Related Enhanced Services, DA 95-1283, Order (June 9, 1995)

"On April 4, 1994, the Commission extended to GTE the regulatory framework of Open Network Architecture ("ONA") and nondiscrimination safeguards that apply to the Bell Operating Companies ("BOCs"). The Commission, inter alia, required GTE to submit an ONA plan on January 4, 1995; to file federal and state ONA tariffs on April 4, 1995; and to implement ONA requirements and nondiscrimination safeguards by July 4, 1995." -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion And Order ¶ 2 (April 3, 1995)

7. Among the nonstructural safeguards required in Computer III was ONA, which requires BOCs to unbundle elements of their networks and allow ESPs to purchase specific services that are useful for their enhanced services. ONA goes beyond the CEI requirements of the Computer III Phase I Order, which mandated that BOCs provide competitive ESPs with "equal access" interconnections to basic network services at the same tariffed rates that the BOCs themselves paid. [FN19] The Commission announced in the Phase I Order that it was prepared to lift Computer II structural separation and service-specific CEI filing requirements after the BOCs submitted ONA plans that met a defined set of criteria. [FN20] During the period from 1988 to 1992, the Commission, after requiring multiple rounds of amendments, approved BOC ONA plans that described the unbundled basic services each BOC proposed to provide as ONA services and the terms under which they would be offered. [FN21] During the two-year period from 1992 to 1993, the Common Carrier Bureau approved the lifting of structural separation for individual BOCs upon their showing that their initial ONA plans complied with the requirements of the BOC Safeguards Order, [FN22] and these decisions were later affirmed by the Commission. [FN23] Pending approval of the BOC ONA plans and removal of structural separations requirements, BOCs could provide individual enhanced services on an integrated basis only after receiving approval of service-specific CEI plans. [FN24]

In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶ 7 (February 21, 1995)

15. The concept of ONA has evolved since the initial stages of the Computer III proceeding. In the Computer III Phase I Order we declined to adopt any specific network architecture proposals and instead specified certain standards that carriers' ONA plans must meet. [FN37] We required BOCs to file initial ONA plans presenting a set of "unbundled basic service functions that could be commonly used in the provision of enhanced services to the extent technologically feasible." [FN38] We stated that by adopting general requirements we wished to encourage the most efficient interconnection arrangements possible consistent with our regulatory goals. [FN39] We noted that although we wanted the BOCs to provide unbundled service elements, we were well aware of inefficiencies that might result from "unnecessarily unbundled or splintered services," [FN40] and we acknowledged that this unbundling could only occur to the degree it was "technologically feasible." In the Computer III Phase I Reconsideration Order, we discussed the fact that ONA would be an evolutionary process and that we would allow structural relief for the BOCs once they implemented the initial ONA services in their ONA plans and implemented other nonstructural safeguards. [FN41] In the BOC ONA Order that reviewed the initial BOC ONA plans for compliance with the Computer III Phase I Order requirements, the Commission generally approved the use of the "common ONA model" that described unbundled services BOCs would provide to competing ESPs. [FN42] At that time, we concluded that we would not require "the kind of fundamental unbundling that would allow ESPs to connect their own trunks or loops to BOC switching facilities." [FN43]

16. After the BOCs filed their initial ONA plans, the Commission received extensive public comment on the sufficiency of the underlying ONA model used by the BOCs. [FN44] The Commission adopted additional safeguards, and required the BOCs to amend their initial ONA plans in four rulemaking proceedings between 1988 and 1991, before deciding to lift structural separation. [FN45] At the end of this process, the Commission approved the initial BOC ONA plans.

-- In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶¶ 15-16 (February 21, 1995)

6. Computer III concluded that, in the longer term, with the implementation of Open Network Architecture (ONA), the BOCs should be permitted to provide integrated enhanced services without prior Commission approval of service- specific CEI plans. The Commission ordered the BOCs to develop ONA plans under which the BOCs would unbundle elements of their networks and offer them to competing ESPs on a nondiscriminatory basis. In the Computer III Phase I Order, the Commission stated that once those ONA plans were approved, it would fully lift the Computer II structural separation requirements.¹⁰
--Bell Operating Companies' Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1724 (Jan 11, 1995) (Interim Waiver Order)

Purpose ONA

As described in the orders approving the BOC ONA plans, ONA exists to promote a fair competitive marketplace for the provision of enhanced services. ONA incorporates and subsumes CEI "equal access" requirements, mandates further unbundling of network service elements after the lifting of structural separation, and provides for several other safeguards.

-- In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶ 17 (February 21, 1995)

In devising ONA as a precondition to removal of structural separation for the enhanced service operations of the BOCs, we sought to establish a regulatory framework that would permit the BOCs to participate efficiently in the enhanced services market while preventing anticompetitive conduct based on BOC control of underlying, local communications networks. We found that while structural separation is one way to serve the goal of preventing anticompetitive conduct, it does so at significant cost by imposing inefficient restrictions on the ways the BOCs can develop, technically configure, and offer enhanced services to the public. [FN5] We also concluded in Computer III that another major goal of ONA should be to increase opportunities for all enhanced service providers (ESPs) to use the BOCs' regulated networks in highly efficient ways so that they can both expand their markets for their present services and develop new offerings that can better serve the American public. [FN6]

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2,

Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ¶ 2 (December 22, 1988)

Properly implemented, ONA will do more than prevent the BOCs from discriminating against their competitors in the provision of basic services that BOCs provide to their own ESP affiliates. In contrast to the service-specific "nondiscrimination" emphasis reflected in the interim CEI plans, ONA is the overall design of a carrier's basic network facilities and services to permit ESPs and others to interconnect efficiently to specific basic network functions, regardless of whether the carrier's enhanced services utilize those functions. [FN17] Thus ONA should not only ensure equal treatment of ESPs: it should promote efficient use of the network, both by the BOCs themselves and by unaffiliated ESPs. [FN18] This is, of course, one of the primary goals of the Communications Act. [FN19] Thus, ONA should serve the complementary goals of broadly preventing discrimination throughout a BOC's network and actively promoting the efficient provision of enhanced services.

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2,

Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order ¶ 14 (December 22, 1988)

How it Works

"We generally approve the use of the common ONA model offered by the BOCs. That model provides ESPs access to ONA services that the BOCs call BSEs through the BOC-provided access links that the BOCs call BSAs. We do not, at this time, require the kind of fundamental unbundling that would allow ESPs to connect their own trunks or loops to BOC switching facilities." -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ¶ 8 (December 22, 1988)

As a basis for describing the unbundling of basic services proposed in their ONA plans, the BOCs, in collaboration with Bellcore, devised a "common ONA model" that represents the functional means through which an ESP would interconnect with a BOC's network. [FN108] As described in the BOCs' Report No. 4, the common ONA model is based upon the architecture of the existing BOC local distribution networks, from which unbundled BSEs and other features may be offered to the public. As noted above, the model consists essentially of BSAs, BSEs, CNSs, and ANSs. [FN109] BSAs are the fundamental tariffed switching and transport services that allow an ESP to communicate with its customers through the BOC network. Under the common ONA model, an ESP and its customers must obtain some form of BSA in order to access the network functionalities that an ESP needs to offer its specific services. Examples of BSAs include line-side and trunk-side circuit-switched service, line-side and trunk-side packet-switched service, and various grades of local private line service. -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order, ¶ 56 (December 22, 1988)

In the Computer III Phase I Order we declined to adopt any specific network architecture proposals for ONA and instead specified certain standards that carriers' ONA plans must meet. The unbundling standard for the BOCs required that: (1) the BOCs' enhanced services operations obtain unbundled network services pursuant to tariffed terms, conditions, and rates available to all ISPs; (2) BOCs provide an initial set of basic service functions that could be commonly used in the provision of information services to the extent technologically feasible; (3) ISPs participate in developing the initial set of network services; (4) BOCs select the set of network services based on the expected market demand for such elements, their utility as perceived by information service competitors, and the technical and costing feasibility of such unbundling; and (5) BOCs comply with CEI requirements in providing basic network services to affiliated and unaffiliated ISPs. In the BOC ONA Order that reviewed the initial BOC ONA plans for compliance with the Commission's requirements, the Commission generally approved the use of the "common ONA model" that described unbundled services BOCs would provide to competing ISPs. Under the common ONA model, ISPs obtain access to various unbundled ONA services, termed Basic Service Elements (BSEs), through access links described as Basic Service Arrangements (BSAs). BSEs are used by ISPs to configure their information services. Other ONA elements include Complementary Network Services (CNSs), which are optional unbundled basic service features (such as stutter dial tone) that an end user may obtain from carriers in order to obtain access to or receive information services, and Ancillary Network Services (ANSs), which are non-Title II services, such as billing and collection, that may be useful to ISPs.

2. Selection Criteria

112. While obtaining industry input, each BOC began the process of analyzing the information obtained from the ESPs and of developing its initial ONA offering for inclusion in its plan. Such inclusion was in accordance with the selection criteria of the Phase I Order: expected market demand for such elements, their utility as perceived by enhanced service competitors, and the technical and costing feasibility of such unbundling. [FN211] The BOC plans describe in detail the procedures used in evaluating requests for ONA services pursuant to these criteria. We summarize such procedures in detail in Appendix C. The BOCs describe elaborate market research programs, the liberal use of well-known consultants, the use of sophisticated utility analysis and demand modeling and utility programs, and the subsequent iterative application of multiple feasibility criteria; but none offer quantitative demand or cost data. For example, some plans describe in detail their market research methodology (e.g., the use of questionaires and consultants), but do not offer either qualitative or quantitative demand data of any kind. [FN212] The plans do not provide detailed or specific cost feasibility data. [FN213] However, the plans discuss the technical feasibility of requested NCs in greater detail. -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order, ¶ 112 (December 22, 1988)

19. In Computer III, the Commission required the BOCs, through their ONA plans, to provide network services to competing ESPs based on selection criteria that reflect, among other things, the variation in BOC equipment, cost, and services requested by ESPs in the BOCs' geographic service area. According to BOC ONA reports, ESPs can now select from the over 150 ONA network services provided by one or more BOCs to fashion specific enhanced services to provide to customers. These services are available to competing ESPs through nondiscriminatory intrastate and interstate tariffs. For example, in providing a voice messaging service, US West uses thirteen separate ONA services. [FN51] US West makes all of these network services available to ESPs on a CEI "equal access" basis. BOCs report that in providing BOC enhanced services they currently use few of the Basic Service Elements (BSEs) that they offer to ESPs. [FN52]

-- In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶ 19 (February 21, 1995)

BSE (Basic Service Element)

Commission requirements mandate the "full federal tariffing" of BSAs and BSEs. For example, in the BOC ONA Order, the Commission specifically required the BOCs to offer under federal tariff all BSEs that are technically compatible with interstate access arrangements. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 14 (July 29, 1995)

"In the ONA proceedings, the Commission ordered each BOC to list all the BSEs that it uses for its own enhanced service operations." -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 21 (July 29, 1995)

Because persons who provide interstate enhanced services should have the ability to obtain BSEs and BSAs through federal tariffs, we conclude that the BOCs should offer all interstate BSEs in the federal access tariffs to the degree technically possible. -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ¶ 10 (December 22, 1988)

The Phase I Order established fundamental guidelines for the carriers to follow in establishing their versions of ONA. [FN63] That order required the BOCs to offer BSEs, which we defined as "unbundled basic service 'building blocks' ". [FN64] -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ¶ 30 (December 22, 1988)

BSEs are optional unbundled features (such as Calling Number Identification) that an ESP may require or find useful in configuring an enhanced service. -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ¶ 57 (December 22, 1988)

As noted above, the Computer III orders do not describe the various categories of unbundled basic "building blocks" that the BOCs have created in the common ONA model. Our orders spoke only in terms of unbundled services that we called BSEs. We required the BOCs to offer these services pursuant to the equal access provisions of our CEI rules because ESPs need these services to provide enhanced services. The fact that, according to our formulation of ONA, the ESPs need such services for their offerings implies that the offerings must be subject to our safeguards in order to prevent discrimination by the BOCs. The BOCs both control the availability of these services and use these services to compete in the enhanced services market. -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order ¶ 75 (December 22, 1988)

BSA (Basic Serving Arrangement)

76. Because the services the BOCs call BSAs are essential links between ESPs and the BOCs' network, as the BOCs stress in their plans, BSAs are necessary for the delivery of enhanced services and thus are the type of elemental "building blocks" that we described as "BSEs" in our Computer III orders. As such, BSAs should be subject to the regulatory treatment described in the Computer III orders for "BSEs". Indeed, in one of our orders, we used the phrase "basic service arrangements". Specifically, the Phase I Reconsideration stated that:

We also affirm the process established in the Phase I Order for reviewing amendments to ONA plans that include the introduction of new BSEs or new basic service arrangements for offering a carrier's enhanced services. [FN143]

77. However, as that text makes obvious, there is nothing that indicates that a BSA should be distinguished from a BSE for purposes of applying the Computer III safeguards. If anything, the language appears to equate the two. Despite the differing names chosen by the BOCs, both BSAs and BSEs are essential basic service building blocks of a truly open network architecture and thus both are subject to our ONA rules.

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order ¶ 76 (December 22, 1988)

complementary network services CNS

CNSs are optional unbundled basic service features (such as stutter dial tone) that an end user may obtain from a carrier in order to access or to receive an enhanced service. [FN110] -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order ¶ 57 (December 22, 1988)

Indeed, CNSs and BSEs are sometimes indistinguishable. For example, while Ameritech, Pactel and SWBT label the service "call forward busy line/don't answer" as a CNS, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX and US West all consider this same service to be a BSE. It is possible that the same feature/function could be in both categories in a BOC's plan--as a CNS when offered to an end user over an ordinary subscriber line and as a BSE when offered to an enhanced service provider with a BSA. -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FN 157 (December 22, 1988)

83. As described by the BOCs, CNSs have two principal characteristics. First, CNSs are associated with end users', rather than ESPs', access arrangements. Second, CNSs are locally tariffed, basic services that the BOCs will offer to end users whether or not such users are customers of ESPs--that is, such services give end users access to the network for a variety of applications, not merely enhanced service applications.

84. We did not direct the BOCs to create this class of basic services under ONA. However, we see no need to prohibit use of the CNS category by any BOC so long as we can be assured, as in the case of BSAs, that adequate safeguards exist to protect against potential discrimination in the delivery of CNSs to ESP customers. Indeed, it may even be of some benefit to retain a category of services that organizes network capabilities for end users and provides them a measure of flexibility in choosing such capabilities with their enhanced services. [FN155]

85. The BOCs must, of course, provide CNSs on a nondiscriminatory basis--that is, since the BOCs provide CNSs as basic services to end users, the BOCs cannot favor their own enhanced service customers in any way in the provision of CNSs. Current BOC practices regarding CNSs satisfy this requirement. Because the BOCs provide CNSs to all end users pursuant to tariff for purposes other than simply to facilitate provision of an enhanced service, the potential for any discriminatory behavior by the BOCs in offering such services is speculative. Moreover, the BOCs' standardized ordering and provisioning systems for providing basic services to end users provide still more assurance that the BOCs will not be able to discriminate against end users who purchase CNSs for use with a competing ESP's enhanced services. Thus, at this time, it is not necessary to extend further ONA requirements over such currently offered, end-user services. [FN156] There is no need to extend such requirements to CNSs not yet tariffed by the BOCs so long as the BOCs offer them on a nondiscriminatory basis like other end-user services.

86. Although different BOCs variously classify some services or functionalities as BSEs or CNSs, [FN157] we conclude that, the BOCs' service classifications should not have different practical consequences for federal tariffing purposes. As discussed below, [FN158] we require the BOCs to provide BSEs within our interstate access tariff framework. We conclude here that such unbundled BSEs should include all basic services that satisfy our three "BSE selection" criteria regardless of whether the BOCs now classify such services as BSEs or CNSs. [FN159] We refer to such services as "interstate BSEs." Thus, if an ESP takes an interstate access arrangement (e.g., a feature group) for access to a BOC's network, any interstate BSEs that are technically compatible with that access arrangement must be unbundled in its federal tariff. [FN160] Accordingly, for federal tariffing purposes, there is no separate service category of CNSs (a result that is consistent with the definition of CNSs in the common model as state-tariffed services.) [FN161]

87. Finally, parties object to SWBT's proposal to permit ESPs to purchase CNSs for their customers only if the ESPs obtain written authorization from those customers, claim that this gives SWBT an unfair marketing advantage. Although SWBT gives technical reasons for this arrangement, it is not evident how the written authorization SWBT would require, by itself, would prevent such technical problems. [FN162] Moreover, SWBT is not entirely clear whether it intends to exempt its enhanced service affiliate from obtaining its customers' written authorization to purchase CNSs for them. SWBT does not explain why its affiliate should be so exempted, if this is what it intends. [FN163] We also note that it is not clear from the record that all the BOCs that offer CNSs would require the authorization from ESPs that SWBT proposes, raising the question of whether the authorization is absolutely necessary. For example, Pactel and Ameritech both offer CNSs without mentioning the need for such authorization. Indeed, Pactel apparently intends to permit ESPs to obtain certain CNS-type services on a bulk-purchase basis so that ESPs can incorporate these features in their offerings to the public. In addition, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, and US West all offer BSEs, without a similar authorization requirement, that appear to be the equivalent of certain CNSs that SWBT proposes to offer.

88. We will not rule on this issue at this time. While this issue has been raised principally with respect to SWBT, in light of the somewhat ambiguous state of the record, we direct all the BOCs to amend their plans by May 19, 1989, to explain in fuller detail any proposed "authorization" requirements in connection with ESPs' purchase of CNSs to be provisioned on their customers' lines and to state whether their own affiliates will be exempted from such a requirement. [FN164] If any BOC intends to apply a different standard to its own affiliate in this regard, it should explain in detail why such different treatment is necessary. [FN165]

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order (December 22, 1988)

Examples

Many of these CNSs are in the nature of "Custom Calling" services, such as call waiting and call forwarding; variations of such services, such as call forwarding on busy or no answer; and other optional features, such as hunting. -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order ¶ 280 (December 22, 1988)

Letters of Agency / written authorization

23. In the BOC ONA Order, the Commission required carriers to explain whether they would impose "authorization" requirements before permitting ESPs to order CNSs for their customers and if so, whether the carrier's affiliates would be exempted from such authorization requirements. The Commission subsequently concluded that requiring a blanket letter of agency is discriminatory and impermissible, if a LEC only imposes the requirement on unaffiliated ESPs. The Commission found, however, that a LEC may require an ESP to obtain a blanket letter of agency if it imposes the requirement on both affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs.

24. GTE states that it "will not require a Letter of Agency for ESPs to order CNSs on behalf of their clients. The ESP, GTE-affiliated or non-affiliated, will be responsible for payment of all rates and charges associated with the services ordered." [FN53] GTE further asserts that in the event that an ESP's customer claims that the ESP was not authorized to order a CNS, the ESP, whether GTE-affiliated or not, will be held responsible for payment. Our

primary concern is whether a carrier applies different authorization requirements upon affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs. GTE represents that it will treat affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs in the same manner regarding purchases of CNSs on behalf of customers. Accordingly, we approve this aspect of GTE's ONA Plan.

-- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 23 (July 29, 1995).

A. Authorization for ESP Purchases of CNSs for End Users

56. In the BOC Amendment Order, we found that the blanket letter of agency requirement was unnecessary and, as imposed by several BOCs to apply only to non-affiliated ESPs, was a discriminatory burden. [FN99] We required BellSouth, SWBT, and US West to modify their plans to delete any blanket letter of agency requirements for ESPs that order CNSs on behalf of their customers.

57. BellSouth proposes to modify its plan by expanding the use of the blanket agency letter requirement to apply to BellSouth's enhanced service affiliates. SWBT and US West each propose to delete their blanket letter of agency requirement. [FN100] Although we have previously found the blanket agency letter requirement unnecessary, since BellSouth proposes to apply the requirement to its own ESP as well as non-affiliated ESPs, we no longer find its procedures discriminatory. Therefore, we approve the modifications.

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of ONA Plans, Phase 1, CC Docket No 88-2, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd. 7646, 70 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 90, 1991 WL 638511 (Dec 19, 1990).

A. Authorization for ESP Ordering of CNSs for End Users

20. In its initial ONA plan, SWBT stated that it would permit ESPs to order CNSs for their customers only if the ESPs obtain written authorization from those customers. [FN29] The BOC ONA Order concluded that there was insufficient information in the ONA plans regarding the need for a requirement that ESPs obtain written authorization prior to ordering CNSs on behalf of their customers. Accordingly, the BOC ONA Order directed all the BOCs to amend their plans to explain in more detail any proposed "authorization"' requirements in connection with ESP orders for CNSs to be provisioned on the lines of ESP customers. The Commission also asked the BOCs to state whether they proposed to apply prior authorization requirements to their affiliated enhanced service operations, and required that any BOC intending to apply a different standard to its own affiliate provide detailed justification for such treatment. [FN30]

21. The BOCs' amendments reflect different approaches to this issue. Bell Atlantic states that it has no plans to impose authorization requirements on either affiliated or non-affiliated ESPs that arrange for CNSs on behalf of their customers. [FN31] In contrast, Ameritech, NYNEX, and Pactel state that they plan to require prior authorization both for affiliated and nonaffiliated ESPs that arrange for CNSs on behalf of their customers. [FN32] The other three BOCs propose requiring unaffiliated ESPs to submit a "blanket agency agreement"' or "blanket letter of agency"' in order to purchase CNSs for their customers, without imposing any such requirement on their affiliates. Such letters would state that the ESP agrees to be liable for any charges for which it cannot produce written authorization to act as the customer's agent. The BOCs assert that these letters are necessary to assign liability in the event of a billing dispute. [FN33]

22. AICC, MCI, and Tymnet urge rejection of the allegedly "one- sided"' ordering procedures of BellSouth, SWBT, and US West. They argue that uniform, nondiscriminatory procedures must be established for all ESPs, including the BOCs' enhanced service operations, to use in obtaining customer authorization and ordering CNSs on the customer's behalf. [FN34]

23. We find no justification for the "blanket letter of agency"' requirement. The underlying issue when an ESP orders CNSs for a customer is which party will be held liable for the cost of the CNS service in the event that a customer later refuses to pay for that service. BOCs express legitimate concern that procedures must be implemented to allow them to assign liability in such cases. If an ESP is able to produce written customer authorization for the purchase of CNSs in the event of a billing dispute, then the customer, rather than the ESP, should be held liable for any disputed charges. However, if an ESP -- affiliated or unaffiliated -- elects not to obtain written authorization when ordering CNSs on the behalf of customers, the ESP must assume responsibility for all CNS charges in the event a customer denies authorizing the service order. This procedure is a reasonable means of ensuring that billing disputes are resolved quickly and efficiently, and allows both BOC-affiliated and unaffiliated ESPs an equal opportunity to protect themselves against liability in the event of a billing dispute with a customer. A "blanket letter of agency,"' on the other hand, is not dispositive on the issue of liability in a specific dispute, and imposes a discriminatory burden on non-affiliated ESPs. Accordingly, we reject "blanket letter of agency"' proposals and require BellSouth, SWBT, and US West to amend their plans by July 15, 1990, to delete any "blanket letter of agency"' requirements for ESPs that order CNSs on behalf of their customers. We approve the other BOC plans on this subject because the

other BOC plans propose to apply the same requirement to both BOC affiliates and non-affiliated ESPs. [FN35]

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of ONA Plans, Phase 1, CC Docket 88-2, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd. 3103, 67 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1050, 1990 WL 604436 (May 8, 1990)

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 1, 65 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1193, 1988 WL 486859 (December 22, 1988)

Ancillary Network Service ANS

"While GTE proposes to offer only one ANS, "detailed billing service," we do not require GTE to offer additional ANSs. ANSs are competitive, deregulated services that are not

subject to regulation under Title II. ESPs can obtain ANSs from sources other than the local exchange carriers. Thus, while the Commission has ancillary authority under Title I to require the provision of a particular ANS, there is no reason for us to exercise that authority here." -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 12 (July 29, 1995).

ANSs are other services that the BOCs say fall outside of the ONA construct, but which may be useful to ESPs. ANSs could include enhanced services offered by the carrier, such as protocol conversion, or other deregulated, non-common-carrier services, such as billing and collection. Furthermore, some BOCs include a number of regulated, basic services in this category. -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order ¶ 57 (December 22, 1988)

105. Although the BOCs identify "ancillary" or "other" services as a distinct category of network services, the category's boundaries appear amorphous and subject to wide interpretation. Some BOCs, like SWBT, state that ancillary services may include all detariffed and unregulated offerings, while others merely state that ancillary services are "outside the ONA framework". Thus, in the various plans, this category includes a mix of basic services, such as derived local channels, digital private lines, and inband signaling, and unregulated services, such as protocol processing. We note that the conditions under which the BOCs state that they will offer these services also varies. Some, like Ameritech, say that they will offer such services on a nondiscriminatory basis, while others expressly reserve the right to provide themselves unregulated ancillary services on terms and conditions that may differ from those offered to others.

106. We do not object to the BOCs' use of the ANS or "other service" category for unregulated services, since it may be useful for ONA purposes to distinguish between such services and the basic, regulated, common carrier services the BOCs provide to ESPs and others. However, we do not see any value in including the latter type of services in the ancillary category. The other three categories of the common ONA model appear to capture all the differentiation of basic services that is relevant in an ONA context. These three categories have some analytic content and meaningful "eligibility" criteria. ANSs as applied to regulated service have neither. Thus, to minimize confusion about the definition or significance of this category, we require that all regulated services now classified in the "ancillary" or "other service" category be reclassified as either BSEs, BSAs, or CNSs. Accordingly, each BOC must amend its plan by May 19, 1989, so that only those services that are presently unregulated remain in this category.

107. We do not attach further requirements to this service category at this time. Only unregulated services will remain in this category after the plan amendments. We believe that sufficient competition for such services exists to allow market forces to respond to discriminatory practices by providers of these services. However, should problems arise, we will reconsider our regulatory treatment of this category pursuant to our ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Act. [FN200] By allowing ANSs to be offered without unnecessary regulation during the initial implementation of ONA, we seek to enhance competition while at the same time giving providers flexibility in structuring and pricing their offerings.

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order (December 22, 1988)

State Tarrifs

The Commission also must review state ONA tariffing proposals "to ensure only that they do not undermine fundamental ONA objectives...." The Commission has required the BOCs to

include in their ONA plans a description of proposed state tariff structures and sample state tariffs. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 16 (July 29, 1995)

Require BOCs to Meet with ESPs

"As importantly, we required the BOCs to meet with the enhanced service industry to determine industry needs for unbundled ONA services." -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order, ¶ 18 (December 22, 1988)

Resale Restrictions

The Commission has found that resale restrictions on ESPs that are different from or in addition to those generally applicable to other subscribers may be improper. Nonetheless, it has found that resale restrictions in interstate tariffs that do not apply only to ESPs pose little anticompetitive danger to the enhanced services marketplace. The Commission accordingly has concluded that resale restrictions that apply only to Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) comply with ONA requirements. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 16 (July 29, 1995) <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1995/da951468.txt>

We, of course, have a strong federal policy against resale restrictions, which are a type of use restriction. All ONA services offered in interstate tariffs will be available for resale by any customer. The Phase I Reconsideration requires BOCs to justify such restrictions for their intrastate ONA services in order to assure us that any such restrictions do not violate our antidiscrimination principles for ONA. [FN773] We believe that preexisting, intrastate resale restrictions imposed on the general body of subscribers (i.e., restrictions that do not specifically apply to ESPs) pose little anticompetitive danger to the enhanced services marketplace. Thus, we find that the preexisting, generally applicable resale restrictions described in US West's plan are permissable. It is unclear whether Pactel plans to impose resale restrictions on ESPs in addition to or different from those generally applicable to other subscribers, and we require Pactel to clarify its intentions in its amendments of May 19, 1989.

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order, ¶ 325 (December 22, 1988)

Discrimination

The Commission requires carriers to state explicitly in their ONA plans that they will offer their BSAs and BSEs in compliance with the Computer III nondiscrimination and equal

access safeguards. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 25 (July 29, 1995) <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1995/da951468.txt>

Deployment

Carriers are required to provide specific dates for the deployment of initial ONA services throughout the geographic area served. They must also provide projections, for the upcoming three years, of the percent of lines that will be capable of supporting each initial ONA service, both on a system-wide basis, and for each geographic market area in which it is deploying ONA services. In the GTE ONA Order, the Commission specifically required GTE to file deployment figures for "each of the three future years for each ONA service, showing the percentage of access lines served in GTE's entire territory and by market area for all proposed interstate and intrastate ONA services, including BSAs, BSEs, CNSs, and ANSs." -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 27 (July 29, 1995) <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1995/da951468.txt>

New Service Requests

81. The BOCs and GTE are also subject to the ONA amendment requirement. Under this requirement, if a subject carrier itself seeks to offer an information service that uses a new BSE or otherwise uses different configurations of underlying basic services than those included in its approved ONA plan, the carrier must amend its ONA plan at least ninety days before it proposes to offer that information service. The Commission must approve the amendment before the subject carrier can use the new basic service for its own information services.

82. In addition to the ONA services that BOCs and GTE currently provide, there are mechanisms to help ISPs obtain the new ONA services they require to provide information services. As described below, when an ISP identifies a new network functionality that it wants to use to provide an information service, it can request the service directly from the BOC or GTE through a 120-day process specified in our rules, or it can request that the Network Interconnection Interoperability Forum (NIIF) sponsored by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) consider the technical feasibility of the service.

83. Under the Commission's 120-day request process, an ISP that requests a new ONA basic service from the BOC or GTE must receive a response within 120 days regarding whether the BOC or GTE will provide the service. The BOC or GTE must give specific reasons if it will not offer the service. The BOC or GTE's evaluation of the ISP request is to be based on the ONA selection criteria set forth in the original Phase I Order: (1) market area demand; (2) utility to ISPs as perceived by the ISPs themselves; (3) feasibility of offering the service based on its cost; and (4) technical feasibility of offering the service. If an ISP objects to the BOC or GTE's response, it may seek redress from the Commission by filing a petition for declaratory ruling.

84. Additionally, ISPs can ask the NIIF for technical assistance in developing and requesting new network services. Upon request, the NIIF will establish a task force composed of representatives from different industry sectors to evaluate the technical feasibility of the service, and through a consensus process, make recommendations on how the service can be implemented. ISPs can then take the information to a specific BOC or GTE and request the service under the 120-day process using the NIIF result to show that the request is technically feasible.

In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, CC Docket No. 98-10, FCC 98-8, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶¶ 81-84 (January 30, 1998).

In the Phase I Order, the Commission required the BOCs to specify procedures by which ESPs could request and receive new ONA services in an expeditious manner. The Commission subsequently required BOCs to specify that within 120 days after receiving a completed, written request for a new ONA capability, it would provide a response indicating whether it will provide that capability and, if so, when it will make the requested capability available, approximately how much it will charge for the service if actual demand meets estimates provided by the requesting ESP, and what, if any, technical problems it anticipates. The BOC must respond definitively to specific requests for new ONA services, and base its decision about whether to provide the service on four factors: "market demand, utility as perceived by the ESPs, costing, and technical feasibility." In addition, the Commission required the BOCs to describe the criteria for determining what constitutes a complete request for a new ONA service. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 27 (July 29, 1995) <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1995/da951468.txt>

20. In addition to the ONA services that BOCs currently provide, there are ONA mechanisms to help ESPs obtain new ONA services they require to provide enhanced services. When an ESP identifies a new BSE that would be useful to it for providing an enhanced service, it can (1) request the service directly from a BOC through a 120-day process our rules established, or (2) it can request that the Information Industry Liaison Committee (IILC) consider the technical feasibility of the service.

21. Under the 120-day service request process, an ESP may request a new ONA basic service and must receive a response from the BOC within 120 days regarding whether the BOC will provide the service. [FN53] The BOC must give specific reasons if it will not offer the service. The BOC evaluation is to be based on the ONA selection criteria set forth in the original Computer III Phase I Order: (1) market area demand; (2) utility to ESPs as perceived by the ESPs themselves; (3) costing feasibility; and (4) technical feasibility. [FN54] If an ESP finds the BOC response unsatisfactory, it may seek redress from the Commission by filing a petition for declaratory ruling. [FN55] To date, we have not received any such petitions.

22. ESPs can also ask the IILC for technical assistance in developing and requesting new network services. [FN56] Upon request from an ESP or carrier for a new unbundled network capability, the IILC establishes a task force composed of BOC, ESP, interexchange carrier (IXC), and customer premises equipment (CPE) manufacturer representatives to analyze and make recommendations on how the service might be provided. The task force evaluates the technical feasibility of the service and through a consensus process makes recommendations on how the service may be implemented. ESPs can then take the information to a specific BOC and request the service under the 120-day process. The IILC has been operating since 1988 and has reviewed a number of such requests, leading to a number of new BOC services. [FN57]

In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶¶ 20-22 (February 21, 1995)

25. In the Computer III Phase I Order and the BOC ONA Amendment Order, the Commission developed the ONA amendment process as an additional safeguard against access discrimination following the lifting of structural separation. Under this requirement, if a BOC itself seeks to offer an enhanced service that uses a new BSE or otherwise uses different arrangements for underlying basic services than those included in its approved ONA plan, the BOC must amend its ONA plan at least ninety days before it proposes to offer that enhanced service. [FN61] The BOC must obtain approval of the amendment before it can use the new basic service for its own enhanced services. [FN62]

26. The ONA amendment requirement provides a continuing opportunity after structural relief for the Commission and the public to identify potential access discrimination by the BOCs. For new ONA services that a BOC uses to provide enhanced services, the ONA amendment process enables the Commission and the public to identify discrimination before the services are approved. The ninety-day window gives competing ESPs notice so that they have an opportunity to develop new offerings on a competitive basis, and allows the Commission--and the public--to review the proposed amendment. [FN63] The amendment process also provides an opportunity to monitor BOC compliance with CEI safeguards, as the BOCs must demonstrate that each new BSE is available on a nondiscriminatory basis to competing ESPs. In these ways, the ONA amendment requirement is intended to make it more difficult for BOCs to engage in access discrimination.

In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶¶ 25-26 (February 21, 1995)

365. The Phase I Order required the BOCs to specify procedures in their plans that will permit ESPs to request and receive new ONA services. [FN897] While we did not specify procedures the BOCs should follow, our requirement that BOCs describe those procedures followed a detailed explanation of the process that we envisioned for the development of initial ONA services. We stated that we expected the carriers to make such decisions with participation from the rest of the enhanced service industry because ESP input would be essential for network planning. We therefore urged the BOCs to meet with ESPs in industry standards organizations or other forums, and to explain in their plans the procedures and industry participation that they use in developing ONA services. [FN898]

366. The Phase I Reconsideration stated that the implementation of initial BSEs is only a first step in ONA development. We required each BOC to include in its ONA plan a schedule for the phased introduction of further ONA capabilities after implementation of the initial set of ONA services. [FN899] We acknowledged in the Phase I Further Reconsideration that, in the case of certain ONA services, a BOC might be able to demonstrate that market demand is sufficiently unpredictable that its deployment should not be planned more than two or three years in advance. [FN900] However, we emphasized that we did not mean to imply that two or three years would be a sufficient and acceptable planning horizon for all types of ONA services or even for any one type of ONA service. We said BOCs must justify such scheduling limitations in their ONA plans. [FN901] After noting that the BOCs typically have well-defined schedules for switch replacements and facilities deployment that may extend as long as 10 years into the future, we concluded that these planning schedules may provide clear guidance for evaluating the feasibility of ONA deployment for a relatively long scheduling period. [FN902]

In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order (December 22, 1988)

390. The Phase I Order required the BOCs to specify procedures in their ONA plans that permit other enhanced service providers to request and receive new ONA services from BOC basic service operations in an expeditious manner. [FN961]

396. While we are generally satisfied with the preparations that the BOCs have made for dealing with specific requests for new ONA services, [FN978] one essential commitment is missing from six of the plans. We require that the BOCs answer such requests definitively within a reasonable period of time with an explanation of the grounds for such decisions, based on the same factors that we established for selection of initial ONA services--market demand, utility as perceived by ESPs, and costing and technical feasibility. If an ESP then believes that a BOC is providing the "wrong" answers, it has a basis for then pursuing further discussions with the BOC, or if necessary, seeking redress from this Commission. The 120-day response period proposed by Ameritech appears to be reasonable for these purposes.

397. Accordingly, we require each BOC, as a precondition to approval of its ONA plan, to amend its plan to provide that, within 120 days after receiving any complete, written request for a new ONA capability, it will provide a response that indicates whether it will provide that capability and, if so, when it will make the requested capability available, approximately how much it will charge for the service if actual demand meets estimates provided by the requesting ESP, and what, if any, technical problems it anticipates. [FN979] We further require each BOC to describe in detail the criteria that it will use in determining when an ESP inquiry constitutes a complete request for a new ONA service. [FN980]

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order ¶¶ 390, 396-97 (December 22, 1988)

Provision of Billing Information

91. In the BOC ONA Order, the Commission stated that it would not require BOCs to offer billing and collection services to ESPs, because those services are incidental to communications and need not be tariffed. The Commission nevertheless required BOCs to describe any services they plan to offer that would provide ESPs with information that is useful for "bill preparation such as the calling number, billing address or duration of a call." GTE also must comply with these requirements. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 91 (July 29, 1995)

108. A number of parties request that billing services be offered under the ONA requirements. Of course, the billing and collection service performed by the BOCs for IXCs has been deregulated. Specifically, in the Detariffing Order, [FN201] pursuant to our Title I jurisdiction over activities incidental to communications, we determined that sufficient competition existed in the provision of these services, at least as pertains to the LEC provision of these services for interexchange carriers, to end our regulation of them on January 1, 1987. [FN202] We required the LECs to continue to offer the recording function [FN203] to IXCs under reasonable terms and upon reasonable request through 1989 or until equal access conversion has been completed, whichever is later. [FN204]

109. Although our Title I authority over the BOCs' billing and collection activities is clear, since such activities are incidental to communications, we decline at this time to mandate that the BOCs offer these pursuant to the ONA requirements. The parties recognize that we have largely deregulated these competitive services, and we see no need to reregulate them. However, we do require that the BOCs clarify their plans in regard to these services by describing any service that they will offer that would provide ESPs with information that is useful for bill preparation such as the calling number, billing address, or duration of a call. As we have noted, Pactel states in a CEI context that it could provide "underlying information", which enhanced service providers need to prepare their own bills, as a basic service. [FN205] This is a promising development that may address at least some of the commenters' concerns. [FN206] We require Pactel to explain in detail by May 19, 1989, its plans, if any, to offer such information, and we request the IILC to consider means of providing such information. [FN207]

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order, ¶¶ 108-09 (December 22, 1988)

Operational Support Systems

The Commission requires BOCs to specify the Operations Support Systems (OSS) they are able to offer ESPs now or in the near term, and to discuss their ability to offer such services in the future. In the BOC ONA Recon. Order, the Commission determined that continuing development of OSS services is important to the kinds of services ESPs can provide, and defined certain OSS services as ONA services. The Commission recognized that permitting ESPs only indirect access to OSS functions, while allowing affiliates direct access, could result in an uneven playing field. To ensure comparably efficient access, the Commission required a BOC to provide the same access to OSS services to its affiliated enhanced service operations that the BOC provides to unaffiliated ESPs. The Commission expressly extended this requirement to GTE. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 93 (July 29, 1995)

110. Parties also request that the BOCs offer access to OSSs. As with billing and collection, we do not require that the BOCs provide this service under ONA at this time, but we direct the BOCs to amend their plans by May 19, 1989, to specify the OSSs they are capable of offering to ESPs in the near term, and to discuss their ability to offer such services in the future. [FN208] Recognizing that technical, security, and network control issues associated with OSS may need to be resolved before customers can access the BOCs' internal systems, we also direct the BOCs to address, through the IILC, the most feasible method for the BOCs to provide access to OSSs for ESPs in a manner that is both consistent with these concerns and responsive to ESP needs.

-- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, Memorandum Opinion And Order, ¶ 110 (December 22, 1988)

Annual Filing Requirements

103. The BOCs and GTE are required to file annual ONA reports that include information on: 1) annual projected deployment schedules for ONA service, by type of service (BSA, BSE, CNS), in terms of percentage of access lines served system-wide and by market area; 2) disposition of new ONA service requests from ISPs; 3) disposition of ONA service requests that have previously been designated for further evaluation; 4) disposition of ONA service requests that were previously deemed technically infeasible; 5) information on Signaling System 7 (SS7), Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), and Intelligent Network (IN) projected development in terms of percentage of access lines served system-wide and on a market area basis; 6) new ONA services available through SS7, ISDN, and IN; 7) progress in the IILC (now NIIF) on continuing activities implementing service-specific and long-term uniformity issues; 8) progress in providing billing information including Billing Name and Address (BNA), line-side Calling Number Identification (CNI), or possible CNI alternatives, and call detail services to ISPs; 9) progress in developing and implementing Operation Support Systems (OSS) services and ESP access to those services; 10) progress on the uniform provision of OSS services; and 11) a list of BSEs used in the provision of BOC/GTE's own enhanced services. In addition, the BOCs are required to report annually on the unbundling of new technologies arising from their own initiative, in response to requests by ISPs, or resulting from requirements imposed by the Commission.

108. In addition to the annual ONA reports discussed above, the BOCs and GTE are required to file semi-annual ONA reports. These semi-annual reports include: (1) a consolidated nationwide matrix of ONA services and state and federal ONA tariffs; (2) computer disks and printouts of data regarding state and federal tariffs; (3) a printed copy and a diskette copy of the ONA Services User Guide; (4) updated information on 118 categories of network capabilities requested by ISPs and how such requests were addressed, with details and matrices; and 5) updated information on BOC responses to the requests and matrices.

Pursuant to the Commission's ONA requirements, carriers are obligated to file certain annual and semi-annual reports regarding their ONA service offerings. Those ongoing filing requirements are set forth in the BOC ONA Further Amendment Recon. Order, Appendix B. The GTE ONA Order made clear that GTE is subject to all those reporting requirements. -- In the Matter of Application of Open Network Architecture and Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, CC Docket No. 92-256, Memorandum Opinion and Order, ¶ 32 (July 29, 1995) <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1995/da951468.txt>

27. The 1991 BOC ONA Further Amendment Order required the BOCs to file annual and semi-annual ONA reports. [FN64] By enabling ESPs and the Commission to monitor implementation of ONA by the BOCs, these reports are designed to serve as a further safeguard against access discrimination. These filings report: (1) projected deployment schedules for existing ONA services; (2) new ONA service requests from ESPs and ONA service requests that were previously deemed technically infeasible; (3) information on SS7, ISDN, and IN projected deployment; (4) new ONA services available through SS7, ISDN, and IN; (5) progress on the implementation of service-specific and long-term uniformity issues; (6) billing information and Operation Support Systems (OSS) services; (7) and a list of BSEs used for the BOCs' own enhanced services. The Commission also required the BOCs to report semi-annually those ONA services tariffed in state and federal jurisdictions. The semi-annual reporting requirements include: the filing of a matrix of BOC ONA services and state and federal tariffs; data regarding state and federal tariffs; and the ONA Services User Guide that provides information on ONA services.

-- In The Matter Of Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision Of Enhanced Services, CC Docket No. 95-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ¶ 27 (February 21, 1995)

AT&T

We revised the CEI/ONA requirements applicable to AT & T so that AT & T is not required to implement the type of general unbundling required in the Phase I Order for the BOCs' ONA plans, but may instead rely on service-specific CEI plans for its enhanced service offering. [FN24] -- In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Network Architecture Plans, CC Docket No. 88-2, Phase I, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ¶ 19 (December 22, 1988)

Approved ONA Plans

"During the period from 1988 to 1992, the Commission approved the BOCs' ONA plans, which described the basic services that the BOCs would provide to unaffiliated and affiliated ESPs and the terms on which these services would be provided. During the two-year period from 1992 to 1993, the Bureau approved the lifting of structural separation for individual BOCs upon their showing that their initial ONA plans complied with the requirements of the BOC Safeguards Order, and these decisions were later affirmed by the Commission."