Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

T.A. Resources N.V.

Download Options

Released: November 17, 2011

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-1907

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

T.A. Resources N.V.
)
IB Docket No. 10-228
)
Application for International Section 214
)
FCC File No. ITC-214-20100107-00010
Authorization and Determination that Aruba
)
Provides Effective Competitive Opportunities to
)
U.S. Carriers
)

ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION

Adopted:

November 16, 2011

Released:

November 17, 2011
By the Chief, International Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Order and Authorization, we find that a conditional grant of the application
(“Application”) filed by T.A. Resources N.V. (“TA Resources”) for section 214 authority pursuant to
section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,1 and section 63.18 of the Commission’s
rules2 will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, subject to reporting and compliance
procedures specified below. We base this finding on our conclusion that Aruba provides effective
competitive opportunities for U.S. carriers under the standards established by the Commission for entry
into the U.S. market by foreign carriers from non-World Trade Organization (“WTO”) countries.3

II.

BACKGROUND

A.

The Applicant

2.
TA Resources is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SETAR N.V. (“SETAR”), the incumbent
telecommunications provider in Aruba, which, in turn, is wholly-owned by the Government of Aruba.4
TA Resources currently holds no FCC licenses or authorizations.

B.

The Application

3.
On January 7, 2010, TA Resources filed an Application requesting global facilities-based
and resale authority to provide international facilities-based and resale services between the U.S. and


1 47 U.S.C. § 214.
2 47 C.F.R. § 63.18 (e)(1), (2).
3 See generally Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market, IB Docket
Nos. 97-142, 95-22, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97-398, 12 FCC Rcd 23891 (1997)
(Foreign Participation Order), Order on Reconsideration, FCC 00-339, 15 FCC Rcd 18158 (2000). See also
Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign-Affiliated Entities
, IB Docket 95-22, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3873
(1995) (Foreign Carrier Entry Order).
4 See Application, Attachment 2.
1

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-1907

Aruba.5 On May 12, 2010, TA Resources supplemented its Application with a request for a
determination that Aruba provides effective competitive opportunities for U.S. carriers to compete in
Aruba’s market for resold and facilities-based international telecommunications services (“May 12, 2010
Supplemental Filing”).6 TA Resources acknowledges that, as defined under the Commission’s rules, it is
affiliated with SETAR, Aruba’s incumbent local exchange carrier.7 TA Resources agrees to be classified
as a dominant carrier on the U.S.-Aruba route.8 TA Resources also recognizes that Aruba is not currently
a full WTO Member country.9
4.
The International Bureau released a Public Notice on November 10, 2010 seeking
comment on the Application and TA Resources’ request for a finding that Aruba offers effective
competitive opportunities to U.S. carriers.10 No comments were filed. The Bureau requested
supplemental information from TA Resources.11 TA Resources responded to the Bureau’s request on
December 30, 2010 (“December 30, 2010 Supplemental Filing”).12 Subsequently, the Bureau requested
additional information from TA Resources.13 TA Resources responded to the Bureau’s request on August
24, 2011 (“August 24, 2011 Supplemental Filing”).14 The application was coordinated with Executive
Branch agencies pursuant to Commission policy set out in the Foreign Participation Order.15

III.

DISCUSSION

A.

Effective Competitive Opportunities Test (ECO Test)

5.
The Commission’s rules require that for applications where the applicant is affiliated with
a foreign carrier with market power in the destination market, and the foreign country is not a WTO


5 See File No. ITC-214-20100107-00010. The application was placed on non-streamlined public notice on February
5, 2010, Public Notice, Report No. TEL-01410NS (rel. Feb. 5, 2010). No comments were filed.
6 See Supplement to Application for International Section 214 Authority, ITC-214-20100107-00010, filed May 12,
2010 (May 12, 2010 Supplemental Filing).
7 Id. at 1.
8 See Application at 1. See also 47 C.F.R. § 63.10.
9 Aruba is a member country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and in 1995 the Kingdom of the Netherlands
signed the WTO treaty on behalf of Aruba. At that time, the instrument of acceptance was not accepted by the WTO
Members because the Aruba schedule of services, but not goods, was received and annexed to the General
Agreement on Trade in Services, which made Aruba ineligible for full membership status as a WTO Member
country. See Letter of the Department of Economic Affairs, Commerce and Industry of Aruba to TA Resources
N.V., dated February 22, 2010. The letter is attached to the May 12, 2010 Supplemental Filing as Exhibit A.
10 See TA Resources N.V. Seeks FCC Determination that Aruba Provides Effective Competitive Opportunities to
U.S. Carriers and International Section 214 Authorization,
IB Docket No. 10-228, Public Notice, DA 10-2171, 25
FCC Rcd 15910 (2010).
11 See email dated November 23, 2010, from James Ball, Chief, Policy Division, International Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, to Ulises R. Pin, Counsel, T.A. Resources N.V.
12 See Response of TA Resources to supplemental Effective Competitive Opportunities Test questions, filed
December 30, 2010 (December 30, 2010 Supplemental Filing).
13 See email dated July 18, 2011, from James Ball, Chief, Policy Division, International Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, to Ulises R. Pin, Counsel, T.A. Resources N.V.
14 See email dated August 24, 2011, from Ulises R. Pin, Counsel, TA Resources N.V. to James Ball, Chief, Policy
Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (August 24, 2011 Supplemental Filing).
15 See Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23919-20, ¶¶ 61-63.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-1907

Member country, the applicant must show that there are effective competitive opportunities for U.S.
carriers in the foreign country (the “ECO Test”).16 The Commission first adopted the ECO Test in its
1995 Foreign Carrier Entry Order as a basis for considering applications for foreign carrier entry into the
U.S. market.17 At that time, the Commission decided to apply the ECO test to “all applications by
foreign-affiliated carriers to operate as U.S. international carriers to foreign points where the affiliated
foreign carrier has market power.”18 In the 1997 Foreign Participation Order, the Commission
eliminated application of the ECO Test to WTO Member countries.19 The Commission, however,
retained the ECO Test for entry by carriers that possess market power in non-WTO Member countries,
finding that circumstances that existed when it adopted the Foreign Carrier Entry Order have “not
changed sufficiently with respect to countries that are not members of the WTO.”20
6.
Under the ECO Test, an applicant must demonstrate (1) the legal ability of U.S. carriers
to enter the foreign destination market to provide facilities-based and resold international services;21 (2)
the existence of reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges, terms, and conditions for U.S. carriers to
originate and terminate international traffic in the foreign destination market;22 (3) the existence of
competitive safeguards in the foreign destination market;23 (4) the existence of an effective regulatory
framework in the foreign country to develop, implement, and enforce legal requirements, interconnection
arrangements, and other safeguards;24 and (5) other factors the Commission deems relevant to the ECO
Test demonstration.25
7.
As stated earlier, TA Resources is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SETAR, the incumbent
telecommunications provider in Aruba. As a result, for the purposes of the ECO test, we find that TA
Resources is affiliated with SETAR. SETAR, in turn, has market power in Aruba. Based on TA’s
affiliation with SETAR. we find that TA Resources is presumed to possess market power in Aruba, a non-
WTO Member country, and is therefore subject to the ECO Test.26


16 See 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.767(a)(8). Under Commission rules, two entities are
affiliated with each other if one of them, or an entity that controls one of them, directly or indirectly owns more than
25 percent of the capital stock of, or controls, the other one. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.09(e).
17 See Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3884-3888, ¶¶ 27-39.
18Id. at 3917, ¶ 116. Under Commission rules, market power is defined as the ability to affect competition
adversely in the U.S. market. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.09(f).
19 See Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23896, ¶ 9.
20 Id. at 23898, ¶ 15. The Commission stated that it had competitive concerns regarding carriers that continue to
possess the ability to exercise market power in those countries and that it serves the public interest to continue to
apply the ECO Test in the context of non-WTO Member countries.
21 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.18(k)(3)(i), (ii).
22 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(iii).
23 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(iv). Competitive safeguards include the existence of cost-allocation rules in the foreign
country to prevent cross-subsidization; timely and nondiscriminatory disclosure of technical information needed to
use, or interconnect with, carriers’ facilities; and protection of carrier and customer proprietary information.
24 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(v).
25 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(vi).
26 See List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign
Telecommunications Markets
, Public Notice, DA 99-809, rel. June 18, 1999, at 6.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-1907

B.

Analysis Under the ECO Test Criteria

1.

Legal Ability of U.S. Carriers To Enter Aruba Market

8.
In applying the ECO Test, the Commission first examines the legal, or de jure, ability of
U.S. carriers to enter the foreign destination market and provide facilities-based and resold services.27 TA
Resources maintains that, under Aruba’s Telecommunications Policy,28 U.S. carriers have the legal ability
to obtain international telecommunications services licenses for mobile telecommunications services and
international telecommunications services, provided they do so through a subsidiary organized under the
laws of Aruba.29 Licensees of international services may provide services using their own facilities or the
facilities of other international telecommunications service licensees.30 TA Resources cites three foreign
companies that have obtained a license to provide international service in Aruba, including one that is
majority owned by a U.S. firm.31
9.
We find that Aruba’s open entry policy into facilities-based and resold international
service, which allows U.S. carriers to enter the destination foreign country and provide international
services, satisfies the de jure entry criteria of the ECO Test.32 Furthermore, we note that foreign carriers
are, in fact, providing service in Aruba. Several non-Aruban carriers, including a carrier that is majority
owned by a U.S. firm, are operating on a facilities-based and resold basis in Aruba. We find that the
presence of these facilities-based carriers in the Aruban market is an indicator of open entry.
2.

Interconnection Terms and Conditions

10.
Next, we examine whether there exist reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges, terms,
and conditions for interconnection to a foreign carrier’s domestic facilities for termination and origination
of international services or the provision of the relevant resale service.33 We consider whether there are
adequate means to monitor and enforce these conditions, such as published charges and publicly available
terms and conditions for interconnection to ensure that interconnection is available on nondiscriminatory
charges, terms, and conditions.34



27 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(i),(ii). See also Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23901, ¶ 23.
28 See Policy Document Telecommunications of Aruba 2001-2005 of the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications.
TA Resources provided a translation of the policy in the Supplement, Exhibit B.
29 See May 12, 2010 Supplemental Filing at 4.
30 Id. See also International Telecommunications Policy, dated March 15, 2006. TA Resources provided a
translation of the policy in the May 12, 2010 Supplemental Filing, Attachment C.
31 See May 12, 2010 Supplemental Filing at 4-5. According to TA Resources, MIO Group, Ltd. (MIO), a pan-
Caribbean telecommunications operator, holds an international license and is 80% owned by Cartesian Capital
Group, LLC, a U.S. private equity firm based in New York. MIO is currently operating in Aruba, as is Digicel, an
international telecommunications provider. Scarlet, a wholly owned subsidiary of Belgacom (Belgium’s national
carrier) is, according to TA Resources, expected to begin operations in Aruba under the trade name “Rainbownet.”
32 See, generally, Telia North America, Inc., Application for Authority, Pursuant to Section 214 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Acquire and Operate Facilities to Provide International Services
Between the United States and Sweden,
Order, Authorization and Certificate, 13 FCC Rcd 4061 (Int’l Bur. 1997)
(Telia Order). See also Telecom New Zealand Limited, Application for Authority, Pursuant to Section 214 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Acquire and Operate Facilities to Provide International Services
Between the United States and New Zealand,
Order, Authorization and Certificate, 12 FCC Rcd 19379 (Int’l Bur.
1996) (New Zealand Order).
33 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(iii).
34 See Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3892-3893, ¶¶ 49-50.
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-1907

11.
According to TA Resources, international licensees, including U.S. carriers seeking to
originate and terminate international telecommunications service in Aruba, or to provide resale services,
are subject to the State Decree of June 5, 2003 (“Interconnection Decree”) 35 issued by the Governor of
Aruba, with the advice of the Minister of General Affairs. The Interconnection Decree provides that (1)
interconnection is mandatory for all telecommunications service providers in Aruba, (2) interconnection
and access to networks (including SETAR’s network) is an issue of major importance, (3) interconnection
rates shall be equal for equal services, (4) rates shall be set in proportion to costs, and (5) parties are free
to reach an interconnection agreement.36 Further, under the Interconnection Decree, if an agreement
between the parties cannot be reached, the Government of Aruba will intervene to resolve the dispute
after the Directorate of Telecommunications Affairs has given advice.37
12.
We find that Aruba’s Interconnection Decree allows U.S. carriers the opportunity to
obtain interconnection on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms for the provision of international
facilities-based and resale services. This finding is premised upon TA Resources’ affiliate, SETAR,
promptly providing reasonable and nondiscriminatory interconnection to their facilities in Aruba for U.S.
carriers for the origination and termination of international services. We will therefore condition grant of
the application on SETAR promptly providing reasonable and nondiscriminatory interconnection.
13.
We note that an order adopted previously by the International Bureau found that the legal
and regulatory framework of Sweden satisfied the interconnection element of the ECO Test.38 In that
case, Sweden’s Telecom Act required that interconnection services be provided at rates that are “fair and
reasonable in relation to cost.”39 We note that Sweden’s legal and regulatory framework that we
previously found satisfied the ECO Test is similar to Aruba’s current legal and regulatory framework, and
further note that the Aruba Interconnection Decree, like Sweden’s Telecom Act, makes it clear that rates
shall be in reasonable proportion to costs.40 Therefore, based upon the terms of the Interconnection
Decree, we find that Aruba affords U.S. carriers sufficient opportunity to obtain interconnection on
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms for the provision of international facilities-based services.
3.

Competitive Safeguards

14.
The third factor we examine in our ECO Test analysis is whether safeguards exist in the
foreign destination market to protect against anticompetitive practices. Specifically, the safeguards the
Commission considers important include (1) the existence of cost-allocation rules in the foreign country
to prevent cross-subsidization;41 (2) timely and nondiscriminatory disclosure of technical information
needed to use, or interconnect with, carriers’ facilities;42 and (3) protection of carrier and customer
proprietary information.43


35 See May 12, 2010 Supplemental Filing at 5, Exhibit D. Exhibit D to the May 12, 2010 Supplemental Filing
contains a translation of the “Interconnection Decree.”
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 See Telia Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 4068, ¶ 20. This action was taken under the 1995 Foreign Carrier Entry Order,
which applied the ECO Test to all countries.
39 Id.
40 See Interconnection Decree at 2.
41 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(iv)(A).
42 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(iv)(B).
43 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(iv)(C).
5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-1907

15.
TA Resources claims that the laws of Aruba contain safeguards against anticompetitive
behavior, including cost allocation rules to prevent cross-subsidization.44 TA Resources asserts that under
Aruba’s Telecommunications Policy and Interconnection Decree, interconnection rates must be cost-
based, and cost models shall be relatively simple to review both by competitors and by Aruban
authorities.45 While we see no specific provision in Aruba’s Telecommunications Policy and
Interconnection Decree that interconnection rates must be cost-based, the Interconnection Decree requires
that rates shall be in “reasonable proportion” to the costs, and establishes criteria for setting rates in
relation to cost.46 Furthermore, the Interconnection Decree allows Aruban authorities and competitors to
evaluate the “reasonable proportion” between rates and costs, and explicitly requires that the cost models
for rates shall be relatively simple to review. Furthermore, the Interconnection Decree states that this
review shall not result in the government and telecommunications companies incurring major expenses.47
16.
Despite lacking an explicit requirement that rates be cost-based, we find that Aruba’s
Interconnection Decree meets the standards set out by the Commission to protect against anticompetitive
practices. Importantly, we note that there are no complaints on the record submitted by any party,
including competitors or prospective competitors to TA Resources concerning unfair competition or
discriminatory rates, even though Aruba does not appear to have a fully developed cost-allocation model.
Additionally, while we believe cost-allocation rules are important, we do not find the absence of such
rules to preclude an affirmative ECO finding.48
17.
Further, we also find that Aruba has adopted the two other safeguards the Commission
considers important in protecting against anticompetitive behavior. First, TA Resources states that
SETAR’s interconnection agreements with each competitive carrier contain the technical information
necessary to interconnect with SETAR and that SETAR’s interconnection agreements strictly prohibit the
use of customer information for any purpose other than network maintenance or troubleshooting.49 It
states that the technical information necessary for interconnection is contained in a comprehensive annex
to the agreement with each competitor.50 Second, TA Resources states that the “licenses of SETAR
provide that it is obligated it to comply with the laws applicable in Aruba in regards to protection of inter
alia
personal customer information and that SETAR, as far as needed for such protection, has to take
measures to that effect.”51 We find no evidence in the record of SETAR denying its competitors technical
information or failing to protect carrier and customer proprietary information. As a result, we are
satisfied that safeguards exist in Aruba to protect against anticompetitive practices.
4.

Aruba’s Regulatory Framework

18.
The fourth factor reviewed under the ECO Test analysis is whether there is an effective
regulatory framework in the foreign country to develop, implement and enforce legal requirements,


44 See May 12, 2010 Supplemental Filing at 5-6. TA Resources also asserts that, under the International
Telecommunications Policy, international traffic must be routed through at least two independent routes and that
Aruban licensees must ensure that users have the ability to select their international telecommunications carrier.
45 Id. at 6.
46 See Interconnection Decree at 2.
47 Id. at 3.
48 See Telecom New Zealand Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 19392, ¶ 27.
49 See December 30, 2010 Supplemental Filing at 3.
50 Id.
51 See August 24, 2011 Supplemental Filing, Response to Question 2.
6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-1907

interconnection arrangements, and other competitive safeguards.52 In examining the regulatory
framework in the destination country, the Commission’s focus is on “whether there is separation between
the foreign regulator and the operator of international facilities-based services, and whether there are fair
and transparent regulatory procedures in the destination market.”53
19.
According to TA Resources, the Aruban government has begun a “number of initiatives,
all designed to establish an effective and liberalized regulatory regime.”54 First, TA Resources states that
Aruban law currently “contemplates policies and regulations on open licensing, interconnection
requirements, safeguards against anticompetitive conduct, and consumer protection.”55 Second, it asserts
that a “new package of telecommunications legislation, including further liberalization of the market and
the creation of a new and more independent telecommunications regulator is currently contemplated by
the Government of Aruba and is expected to be discussed in the Parliament of Aruba in the near future.”56
Third, it claims that Aruba’s current telecommunications regulator, Directie Telecommunicatie Zaken
(“DTZ”) has been actively involved in regulating the market.57 For example, TA Resources states that
DTZ has taken an “important role in ruling on interconnection between Digicel as a newcomer to the
market and the incumbent SETAR as the incumbent.”58 Finally, according to TA Resources, the Aruban
government has “legal authority to issue and enforce orders, make determinations and impose fines and
forfeitures in the event of anticompetitive behavior.”59
20.
While it appears that the Government of Aruba is currently in transition with regard to
telecommunications regulation, we are aware that the regulator, DTZ, might not be sufficiently separated
from the Aruban government, which owns SETAR, to independently assert power and exert regulatory
authority over Aruba’s developing competition in its telecommunications market. We see no references
in Aruba’s Telecommunications Policies or Interconnection Decree to DTZ or to any powers conferred on
DTZ by the Aruban Government. We note that DTZ was, to some extent, involved in an interconnection
dispute between SETAR and Digicel. It is also clear that SETAR, the incumbent dominant carrier in
Aruba, is required under the Interconnection Decree to interconnect with other carriers. Although DTZ
lacks authority to resolve interconnection disputes, parties may request intervention from the Minister of
General Affairs before going to the courts. Further, we find no evidence in the record that other
competing telecommunications providers in Aruba have complained about Aruba’s regulatory
framework.
21.
The Commission has noted that the ECO Test does not require a regulatory regime
exactly patterned on that which exists in the United States.60 We conclude that on balance there is
sufficient regulatory oversight to protect and promote competition in the Aruba telecommunications
market as evidenced by the expanding list of competitors in the Aruban international telecommunications
market and the absence of any complaints documented in the record of this proceeding. We will,


52 See 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(v).
53 See Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3894, ¶ 54.
54 See May 12, 2010 Supplemental Filing at 7.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 See Telia Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 4075, ¶ 38; see also Telecom New Zealand Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 19394, ¶ 33.
7

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-1907

however, condition grant of the TA Resources authorization on revisiting our findings here should
competitive problems arise on the U.S.-Aruba international route and, if necessary, impose appropriate
conditions pursuant to the Commission’s rules.61

5.

Additional Public Interest Factors

22.
The additional factors that the Commission considers relevant to section 214 public
interest analyses include: the general significance of the proposed entry to the promotion of competition
in the U.S. communications market; any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade
concerns raised by the Executive Branch; and the presence of cost-based accounting rates.62
23.
There is no evidence on the record that the entry of TA Resources into the U.S. market
will adversely affect the U.S. communications market and, in fact, we expect that the addition of a new
competitor will enhance competition in U.S. international telecommunications services markets. We have
coordinated the Application with the Executive Branch which has not raised any national security, law
enforcement, foreign policy, trade or other concerns about the Application. Finally, although we have not
evaluated whether settlement rates on the U.S.-Aruba route are cost-based, the average U.S. settlement
payment on the U.S.-Aruba route is $0.128 per minute,63 which is below the Commission’s benchmark of
$0.15 that applies on the U.S.-Aruba route.64

IV.

CONCLUSION

24.
Upon review of the TA Resources Application for section 214 authority pursuant to
section 63.18 of the Commission’s rules and section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and TA Resources’ request that Aruba provides effective competitive opportunities for U.S.
carriers, we find that Aruba offers effective competitive opportunities to U.S. carriers and we conclude
that grant of the Application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, subject to certain
conditions and reporting and compliance procedures specified below.

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

25.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 201, 202, 210, 211,
and 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j), 201, 202, 210, 211,
and 214, and sections 0.51, 0.261, 43.51, 43.61, 43.82, 63.18, 63.21, 63.22 and 63.23, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.51,
0.261, 43.51, 43.61, 43.82, 63.18, 63.21, 63.22 and 63.23, the Application filed by T.A. Resources N.V.
for section 214 authority IS GRANTED to the extent specified in this Order and Authorization.
26.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that T.A. Resources N.V.’s request for an affirmative
finding that Aruba provides effective competitive opportunities for U.S. carriers on the U.S.-Aruba route,
IS GRANTED, subject to a revisitation of this finding and potential imposition of appropriate conditions
on this authorization, following prior notice to T.A. Resources, N.V., and opportunity for comment
should anticompetitive problems arise on the U.S.-Aruba international route.
27.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of this grant, T.A. Resources N.V.’s
affiliate, SETAR N.V., must promptly provide reasonable and nondiscriminatory interconnection to their
facilities in Aruba for U.S. carriers for the origination and termination of international services.


6147 C.F.R. 63.21(g).
62 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(k)(3)(vi). See also Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3897, ¶ 62.
63 FCC’s 2009 Section 43.61 International Telecommunications Data, Table A1, available at
http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/.
64 See generally In the Matter of International Settlement Rates, IB Docket No. 96-261, Report and Order, FCC 97-
280, 12 FCC Rcd 19806 (1997) (Benchmarks Order).
8

Federal Communications Commission

DA 11-1907

28.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that T.A. Resources N.V. shall be regulated as dominant on
the U.S.-Aruba route pursuant to section 63.10 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.10, and shall
comply with the requirements of section 63.10(c), 47 C.F.R. § 63.10(c).
29.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that T.A. Resources N.V. shall comply with sections 43.51,
43.61, and 43.82 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 43.51, 43.61, and 43.82.
30.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order and Authorization SHALL BE EFFECTIVE
upon release. Petitions for reconsideration under section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §
1.106, or applications for review under section 1.115 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, may
be filed within thirty days of the date of public notice of this order.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mindel De La Torre
Chief, International Bureau
9

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.