WPC% 2BJ Courier3|j Xj\  P6G;XPTimes New Roman0_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2 6@%P Z3|PTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold (Bold) (TT)HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xj\  P6G;\oeXP2XvgpkMR7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XPS7nC:,4Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP&&&&&&&"8EKRa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2kUvtpa5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2   S a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2   L  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2F  a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2xTa6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2-,t3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2_ecHPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:dYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd* Xh -ԍ Id. at 78.: Thus, US West states that all carriers offering enhanced services must do so with the  X_-underlying transmission service offered pursuant to tariff.?_ X -ԍ US West Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 5 (Feb. 13, 1995) [hereinafter US West Reply Comments].  X1-rrn2.44Discussion  X -rrn'40. We conclude that AT&T provides a basic frame relay service (alone or bundled with enhanced protocol processing) that must be offered under tariff. According to the InterSpan Interface Standard, AT&T provides transport of customer data "transparently"  X -across the AT&T frame relay network.@ u X-ԍ AT&T InterSpan Frame Relay Service Interface Specification 5, Issue 1.0, April 2, 1992. IDCMA argues (and AT&T does not refute) that the vast majority of AT&T's frame relay customers terminate to, and receive from, the network frame relay data that do not require conversion to frame relay protocol. Since in these cases AT&T's frame relay service "provides a pure transmission capability in a communication's  Xb-path," without any protocol conversion, we find that this is a basic service.Ab  X"-ԍ AT&T provides similar basic packet switched services. See, e.g., AT&T Application for Authority Under Section 214 to Install Packet Switches at Specified Telephone Company  X-Locations, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 94 FCC2d 48, 5557 (1983); AT&T CEI Plan for Protocol Conversion and Storage Services with Packet Switching  X -Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 651 (1990). We again note  XK-that six Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) treat frame relay as a basic transport service.BKd X`#-ԍ See, e.g., Amendment, The Bell Atlantic Companies Offer of CEI to Providers of  XI$-Protocol Conversion Service (Mar. 13, 1995); Informational Amendment, BellSouth Plan for Comparably Efficient Interconnection for Synchronous Protocol Processing Services (Mar. 13,  X&-1995); see supra note 50. "4B0*((f"Ԍ X-rrn(41. The assertion by AT&T and other commenters that the enhanced protocol conversion capabilities associated with AT&T's InterSpan service bring it within the  X-definition of an enhanced service is beside the point. Under the Commission's Computer II  X-and ComputerIII decisions, AT&T must unbundle the basic frame relay service, regardless of whether the InterSpan offering also provides a combined, enhanced protocol conversion and  X-transport service for those customers who require it.cC X-ԍ See supra para. 13 and accompanying footnotes.c  X_-rrn)42. We also reject AT&T's contention that the contamination theory applies to its frame relay service and renders its entire InterSpan service offering an enhanced service. To date, the Commission has not applied the contamination theory to the services of AT&T or any other facilitiesbased carrier. Indeed, the Commission rejected that alternative in  X -Computer III and other proceedings.D y X--ԍ In the Computer III proceeding, the Commission considered four alternative treatments (labelled A, B, C, and D) of protocol processing. The Commission rejected alternative D, which would have applied the contamination theory to AT&T and the BOCs' provision of  X-protocol processing. Computer III Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3077, 3111 n.25, 3112 n.62.  X -rrn*43. The two orders cited by AT&T in support of applying the contamination doctrine to its services are inapposite. They do not require or even allude to application of the  X -contamination doctrine to AT&T. The footnote cited by AT&T in the Async/X.25 Waiver  X-Order contains a general definition of VANs.jE X&-ԍ AT&T cites Asynch/X.25 Waiver Order, 100 FCC2d at 1058 n.2.j Nothing in the footnote indicates that AT&T is included within the definition of a VAN. The footnote specifically defines VANs as service providers that acquire common carrier facilities from other carriers, and thus do not own facilities like AT&T. The second order cited by AT&T is a Commission order approving AT&T's amendment to its CEI plan, which provides customers with basic dialout  X-capabilities from AT&T's enhanced voice messaging service.F Xd-ԍ AT&T cites AT&T Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Enhanced Services  XM-Complex, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4839 (1991). This order, however, refutes, rather than supports AT&T's interpretation of the contamination theory. The order approves the amendment because AT&T satisfies all of the CEI requirements, ensuring interconnection  X-to the underlying basic service.;G0  X"-ԍ Id. at 4840.; If the contamination theory applied to AT&T, as it argues,  X-AT&T would not have had to satisfy any CEI requirements for the basic service."H  XS%-ԍ Nor would AT&T have filed the CEI plan for packet switching services. See AT&T  X<&-CEI Plan for Protocol Conversion and Storage Services with Packet Switching Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 651 (1990)." "dH0*(("Ԍ X-ԙrrn+44. Moreover, application of the contamination theory to a facilitiesbased carrier such  X-as AT&T would allow circumvention of the Computer II and Computer III basicenhanced  X-framework. AT&T would be able to avoid Computer II and Computer III unbundling and tariffing requirements for any basic service that it could combine with an enhanced service.  X-This is obviously an undesirable and unintended result.gI X-ԍ The Commission has stated that application of the contamination doctrine to the BOCs  X-would result in "an improper policy result." Computer III Notice, FCC 85397, para. 32 (rel.  X-Aug. 16, 1985) (citing Asynch/X.25 Waiver Order, 100 FCC2d 1057, at para. 7779).g  Xv-rrn,45. Thus, in accordance with the Commission's previous decisions, we conclude that the contamination theory does not apply to AT&T, and we do not apply it to AT&T in this  XH-order. AT&T cannot avoid its Computer II and Computer III obligations under the auspices  X1-of the contamination doctrine, which applies only to nonfacilitiesbased service providers.  X -rrn-46. AT&T is free to continue its practice of packaging CPE and enhanced protocol processing with the basic frame relay service (purchased under tariff), so long as the underlying basic service is separately offered under tariff. Thus, AT&T may maintain its flexible approach to offering frame relay services. AT&T must file a tariff, however, for basic frame relay service within 60 days of the effective date of this order. We leave the issues of existing AT&T frame relay contracts and the specifics of the required tariff to the tariffreview process.  XK-C.rrnAT&T Acts as a Common Carrier in Offering Frame Relay Service  X-rrn1.44Comments  X-rrn.47. AT&T and EMI argue that because frame relay service providers do not hold themselves out indiscriminately to provide service, their provision of this service is a contract  X-under private carriage, not a common carrier offering subject to the requirements of Title II.]JK X-ԍ AT&T Opposition at 1820; EMI Reply Comments at 79.] AT&T contends that frame relay customers have unique needs, and that a long negotiation  X-process is required to craft a custom solution for each customer.HK X@ -ԍ AT&T Opposition at 1820.H  Xe-rrn/48. Home Depot, echoing AT&T's claims, asserts that frame relay service providers  XN-devote substantial time to addressing the specific requirements of each customer.BLN X$-ԍ Home Depot Comments at 8.B Compuserve argues that it deliberately offers its frame relay service on a private carrier basis,"7^ L0*(("  X-consistent with judicial and Commission precedent.M Xy-ԍ Compuserve Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 9 (Jan. 23, 1995) [hereinafter Compuserve Comments]; Compuserve Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 3 (Feb. 13, 1995) [hereinafter Compuserve Reply Comments]. Compuserve further states that it tailors  X-its specialized offering to individual customer needs.INK X-ԍ Compuserve Comments at 11.I The Ad Hoc Users Committee suggests that frame relay services can be provided on either a common or private carriage  X-basis by different carriers.KO Xh -ԍ Ad Hoc Users Reply Comments at 10.K  X-rrn049. IDCMA and Motorola assert that AT&T is under a legal obligation to provide a  Xv-basic, wireline transport service like frame relay on a common carrier basis.cPv X-ԍ IDCMA Reply Comments at 15; Motorola Reply Comments at 12.c Motorola contends that the Commission has already rejected separation of AT&T's service offerings  XH-into common and private carriage, opting for contract carriage instead.GQH^  XW-ԍ Motorola Reply Comments at 10.G  X -rrn2.44Discussion  X -rrn150. Generally, common carrier status attaches to carriers undertaking to provide a  X -service indifferently to all potential customers.R   X-ԍ Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 19 F.3d 1475, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1994) [hereinafter  X~-Southwestern Bell] (quoting NARUC v. FCC, 533 F.2d 601, 60809 (D.C. Cir. 1976)  Xg-[hereinafter NARUC II] and NARUC v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630 (D.C. Cir.) [hereinafter NARUC  XP-I], cert. denied, 425 U.S. 992 (1976)). In contrast, private carriage is characterized by a carrier choosing its clients on an individual basis and determining in each particular case  X -whether and on what terms to serve.sS { X-ԍ Id. at 1481 (quoting NARUC II, 533 F.2d at 60809 and NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 643).  X-See also Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, Notice of Proposed  X -Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 2627, 2645 & n.195 [hereinafter Competitive Interexchange Notice].s  Xy-rrn251. In arguing that its frame relay services are provided on a private carriage basis, AT&T emphasizes the custom nature of each user's frame relay "solution." As discussed in the Background section above, customers contract for frame relay services on the basis of complex technical requirements, including various measures of switching and transmission speed. In addition, carriers currently providing the service on a nontariffed basis often bundle customer premises equipment and optional protocol conversion services with the underlying"S0*((("  X-basic service. T Xy-ԍ We note that facilitiesbased carriers will be able to continue this practice of bundling customer premises equipment with enhanced services offerings so long as the underlying basic transport service is also offered unbundled, pursuant to tariff.   X-rrn352. Complex communications technologies such as frame relay blur the line between common and private carriage. If the analysis of where to draw that line centered solely on the complexities of the technology itself, carriers could argue that virtually any technically complicated communications service"requiring customerspecific solutions"is provided through private carriage. A carrier cannot vitiate its common carrier status merely by entering  X_-into private contractual relationships with customers.RU_K X[ -ԍ Southwestern Bell, 19 F.3d at 1481.R If, however, the analysis centers on the carrier's indifference to the identity and requirements of a customer"where the carrier merely tailors the technology to those requirements"a different result is obtained. Our analysis centers not on one or the other of these considerations, but addresses both factors in  X -determining the "quasipublic character"KV  X-ԍ NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 64142.K of the service offering. That is, the extent of customization required for a particular user may indicate that a carrier is not indifferent in providing the service.  X -rrn453. For some time now, however, AT&T has provided, pursuant to tariff, other  X-complex packetswitched services on a common carrier basis.<W X-ԍ See, e.g., AT&T Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Protocol Conversion  X-and Storage Services with Packet Switching Services, 5 FCC Rcd 651 (1990) (addressing AT&T's tariffed ACCUNET Packet Service and Private Packet Network Service).< These packet services can be  Xy-provided through contract carriage pursuant to the Commission's Competitive Interexchange  Xb-Order,bXb0  XC-ԍ Competitive Interexchange Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 5899.b providing AT&T with the flexibility to negotiate custom service arrangements that meet users' particular needs. Neither AT&T nor other commenters have shown that the differences between these other existing packet services and frame relay services justify the treatment of AT&T's frame relay offering as a private carriage offering.  X-rrn554. In addition, the Frame Relay Interconnection Workshop recently released guidelines  X-for negotiating test and acceptance procedures for frame relay interconnection.Y  Xj$-ԍ Guidelines for Negotiating Test and Acceptance/Maintenance Procedures for Frame Relay Interconnection, Maintenance Subgroup, Frame Relay Interconnection Workshop, January 20, 1995. The same organization is due to release uniform procedures for ordering frame relay interconnection in"dY0*(("  X-March 1996.Z Xy-ԍ Draft, An Interim Procedure for Ordering Frame Relay Interconnection, Frame Relay Interconnection Workshop, March 1, 1996. Such standardization indicates that frame relay services are being offered to customers on an increasingly indifferent basis. Moreover, according to IDCMA, AT&T  X-supplies frame relay services to roughly 35% of the market,b[b X-ԍ IDCMA Petition at 12. AT&T does not dispute this number.b indicating that AT&T's frame relay service fits the needs of a large segment of customers. Therefore, we conclude that AT&T's basic frame relay service is a communications service offered on a common carrier basis. Accordingly, AT&T must unbundle that service and offer it pursuant to tariff.  XH- IV. AT&T'S PETITION ă  X -rrn655. AT&T requests in its petition that if the Commission finds that AT&T's frame relay service is a basic service subject to tariff, we declare that this ruling is equally applicable to the frame relay services offered by all other IXCs, including MCI, Sprint, and Wiltel. AT&T argues that because other IXCs offer frame relay services based on the same protocol standards as AT&T uses, these other IXC services should be governed by our decision  X -regarding InterSpan.<\  Xk-ԍ AT&T Petition at 3.< Further, AT&T contends that, in accordance with the Supreme Court's  X-decision in MCI v. AT&T,D] X-ԍ 114 S. Ct. 2223 (1994). In MCI v. AT&T, the Supreme Court struck down the Commission's forbearance policy for nondominant carriers, holding that the Commission's authority to "modify" the Act's requirements did not permit it to relieve carriers of their tariffing obligation. D the tariff filing requirements of section203 of the Act apply to  Xy-such other IXCs when they offer basic services.2^y0  XZ-ԍ Id.2  XK-A.rrnComments  X-rrn756. NYNEX concurs with AT&T's request and urges the Commission to apply its  X-determination regarding frame relay services to all carriers, not just IXCs.s_  X"-ԍ NYNEX Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling 2 (Jan. 23, 1995).s Similarly, Southwestern Bell contends that a Commission decision requiring only certain carriers to provide frame relay under tariff would give other carriers a competitive advantage, and would  X-be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.n` X'-ԍ Southwestern Bell Comments at 2; see 5 U.S.C.  500576.n"C`0*(("Ԍ X-ԙrrn857. Compuserve argues that even if the Commission finds that AT&T's frame relay service is a basic service, Compuserve's services (and those of other similarly situated VANs)  X-are enhanced under the contamination theory.Ba XK-ԍ Compuserve Comments at 4.B Compuserve and EMI contend that the theory applies to their frame relay services because protocol processing is typically performed as an  X-integral part of those services.Qby X-ԍ Id. at 6; EMI Reply Comments at 7.Q Compuserve estimates that 90% of its customers are provided  X-protocol conversions to frame relay format.2c* Xh -ԍ Id.2 Finally, Compuserve urges the Commission not to refine the contamination theory in this proceeding because many VANs are not  X_-participating.Jd_ X -ԍ Compuserve Reply Comments at 45.J  X1-rrn958. As noted above, US West contends that the contamination theory is a flawed  X -vehicle for dealing with the issues raised in the IDCMA petition.?e  XW-ԍ US West Comments at 4.? Thus, US West states that all carriers offering enhanced services must do so with the underlying transmission  X -service offered pursuant to tariff.kf =  X-ԍ US West Reply comments at 5. See supra para. 39.k  X -B.rrnDiscussion  X-rrn:59. The requirements established in the Computer II proceeding are clear: rrn[T]hose carriers that own common carrier transmission facilities and provide enhanced services, but are not subject to the separate subsidiary requirement, must acquire transmission capacity pursuant to the same prices, terms, and conditions reflected in their tariffs when their own facilities are utilized. Other offerors of enhanced services would likewise be able to use such a carrier's facilities under the  X-same terms and conditions.Wg  X!-ԍ Computer II, 77 FCC2d at 475, para. 231.Wf!r Thus, having applied Commission Rules and found that frame relay service is a basic service,  X-we conclude that, pursuant to the Computer II decision, all facilitiesbased common carriers providing enhanced services in conjunction with basic frame relay service must file tariffs for the underlying frame relay service and acquire that tariffed service in the same manner as resale carriers. This requirement applies independently of any additional requirements (such"e g0*((O"  X-as CEI) under the Computer III proceedings._h Xy-ԍ Competitive Interexchange Order at 19, para. 40._  X-rrn;60. Some commenters argue that VANs must also file tariffs for basic frame relay services they take from facilitiesbased carriers in order to provide value added enhanced  X-services. In the Computer III decision the Commission concluded that VANs were not required to file tariffs. Those parties commenting on the regulatory treatment of VANs in essence seek a reconsideration of the Commission's earlier decision. This issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding, and we decline to revisit that decision in this proceeding.  X -i% V. Conclusion ă  X -rrn<61. We conclude that frame relay service is a basic service, and that AT&T must tariff this basic frame relay service whether or not it is provided in conjunction with enhanced protocol conversion. Thus, we grant IDCMA's petition to the extent discussed herein and require AT&T to unbundle and file with the Commission a tariff for basic frame relay service within 60 days of the effective date of this order. We also grant AT&T's petition to the extent that we require all other facilitiesbased common carriers to tariff their basic frame relay service.  X-*  VI. Ordering Clauses ă rrn=62. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 5(d) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.  554, and Section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.4, that the petition for declaratory ruling filed by the Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc. IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein.  X|-rrn>63. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 5(d) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.  554, and Section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.4, that the petition for declaratory ruling by American Telephone and Telegraph Company IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein. " yh0*(("  X-rrn?64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AT&T and all other facilitiesbased common carriers providing basic frame relay service file a tariff, in accordance with Commission  X-Rules, for frame relay service within 60 days of the effective date of this order. rrn44  z z FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION rrn44  z z @ rrn44  z z Kathleen M.H. Wallman rrn44  z z Chief, Common Carrier Bureau " h0*((N "  X-APPENDIX: RECORD OF DA 941411  X- Petitions IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling DA 941411 (Nov. 28, 1994). AT&T Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Dec. 5, 1994).  XH- Comments/Oppositions AT&T Opposition to IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Jan. 23, 1995) . EMI Opposition to IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Jan. 23, 1995). US West Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Jan. 23, 1995). NYNEX Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Jan. 23, 1995). Southwestern Bell Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Jan. 23, 1995). Compuserve Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Jan. 23, 1995). Comdisco Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 16, 1995). PPG Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 9, 1995). National Semiconductor Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 10, 1995). Welch Allyn Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 10, 1995). AMP Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 9, 1995). Bemis Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 8, 1995). Textron Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 9, 1995). Home Depot Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 15, 1995). United Technologies Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 15, 1995).  XQ%- Reply Comments BT North America Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 13,"#'h0*((%" 1995). IDCMA Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 13, 1995). US West Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 13, 1995). Motorola Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 13, 1995). EMI Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 13, 1995). Compuserve Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 13, 1995). AT&T Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 13, 1995). Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Reply Comments on IDCMA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 13, 1995).  Xy- Motions/Supplemental Comments IDCMA Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Comments/Supplemental Comments (June 13, 1995). Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Supplemental Comments (June 28, 1995). AT&T Opposition to IDCMA's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Comments (June 28, 1995). EMI Opposition to IDCMA's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Comments (June 28, 1995). IDCMA Reply to AT&T Opposition to IDCMA's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Comments (July 10, 1995). BT North America Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Comments/Supplemental Comments (July 12, 1995).  X - Ex Parte BT North America Ex Parte (Aug. 28, 1995). IDCMA Ex Parte (Sept. 6, 1995). BT North America Ex Parte (Sept. 22, 1995). BT North America Ex Parte (October 10, 1995).