******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Applications of ) ) Pacific Telesis Group ) Transferor, ) ) and ) Report No. LB-96-32 ) SBC Communications, Inc. ) Transferee, ) ) For Consent to Transfer Control ) of Pacific Telesis Group and its) Subsidiaries ) ERRATUM Adopted: February 3, 1997 Released: February 3, 1997 By the Chief, Commercial Wireless Division 1. This erratum amends the Memorandum Opinion and Order in the above-captioned proceeding as follows: (a) Amend the Table of Contents on the cover page, by changing the listed paragraph numbers from 4 to 3, from 6 to 5, and from 9 to 8, respectively. The amended Table of Contents should read as follows: "A. The Applicants ... 3; B. The Applications ... 5; C. Petitioners and Commenters ... 8" (b) Amend footnotes 21 and 62 by changing "[159]." to "153." The footnotes should read as follows: "See infra  86 & n.153." (c) Amend paragraph 36 in the second, fourth, and last sentences by changing "Applicants" to "applicants". The amended paragraph (footnote references omitted) should read as follows: "Applicants counter generally that SBC's lobbying, political, regulatory, and litigation activity is not as widespread as ICG alleges, was not frivolous or in bad faith, and was often successful and therefore meritorious. Specifically, applicants respond that SBC opposed only seven of the 30 applications which had been ruled on by the Public Utility Commission of Texas as of June 3, 1996. Of those seven, that Commission upheld SBC's position, in whole or in part, in three of those instances. Concerning its lobbying efforts in opposition to ICG's joint venture with a municipal entity, applicants state that ICG neglected to disclose that the Attorney General of Texas ruled that the joint venture violated State law and that a federal district court dismissed as unfounded ICG's case against SBC and denied its reconsideration petition. Applicants respond that their conduct is a constitutionally protected exercise of SBC's right of free speech and is protected from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. SBC's negotiating posture and business practices, applicants say, are no more than vigorous competitive efforts that seek maximum business advantage within the limits of the law. Applicants also claim that statements quoted by ICG from SBC's marketing plans and employees were misinterpreted and outdated because they preceded the passage of the 1996 amendments to the Communications Act. With respect to ICG's claims about SBC's use of non-disclosure agreements in interconnection negotiations, applicants contend that its agreements contain standard terms protecting confidential business information of both parties, terms that have been agreed to by AT&T, Time Warner, and others. Finally, applicants also argue that ICG "misstates" SBC's stance on joint and through traffic. According to applicants, SBC has negotiated transit rates in its agreements without negotiating on behalf of other incumbent LECs, which have to set their own termination rates for traffic sent to them." (d) Amend footnote 113 in the first sentence by changing "[114]" to "110". The amended sentence should read as follows: "See supra n.110." (e) Amend footnote 114 by changing "[114]" to "110". The amended footnote should read as follows: "Since applicants made this observation, the petition was denied (see supra n.110) and it appears that the dispute among the parties was settled out of court." (f) Amend footnote 121 by replacing "Second Report, 12 FCC Rcd [], [ ], [ ] (1997)." with "First Report, 10 FCC Rcd 8844, 8859-8861 (1995);" and adding the following citation "Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit Flexible Service Offerings in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 8965 (1996)." The amended footnote should read as follows: "Implementation of Section 6002(B) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, First Report, 10 FCC Rcd 8844, 8859-8861 (1995); Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit Flexible Service Offerings in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 8965 (1996)." (g) Amend paragraph 91 in the first sentence by changing "Applicants" to "applicants". The amended sentence (footnote reference omitted) should read as follows: "The applicants make several procedural requests that are reasonable and unopposed. Accordingly, we grant them." FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David L. Furth Chief, Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau