********************************************************    
                         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 the Matter of                )
                                )  
Local Competition and Broadband Reporting     )     CC Docket No. 99-301
                                )



                 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING


   Adopted:  October 7, 1999            Released:  October 22, 1999

Comment Date:  [Thirty days after publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [Forty-five days after publication in the Federal Register]

By the Commission:

                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                      Paragraph

I.   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

II.  BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

III. LOCAL COMPETITION AND BROADBAND REPORTING . . . . . . . . 13

     A.   Types of Entities That Must Report . . . . . . . . . 23

     B.   Frequency of Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

     C.   Exempting Smaller Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

     D.   Definition of Reporting Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

     E.   Data to be Reported. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
          
          1.   Voice Grade Lines in Service to End Users by LECs51

          2.   Voice Grade Lines and Collocation Arrangements of LECs55
          
          3.   High Capacity Lines in Service to End Users by LECs57

          4.   Internet-Provided Telephony Services. . . . . . 61

          5.   Broadband Lines in Service to Consumers . . . . 65

          6.   Voice Grade Mobile Telephony Service Subscribers73

     F.   Confidentiality of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

     G.   Electronic Filing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

     H.   Survey Modification and Termination. . . . . . . . . 82

IV.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

     A.   Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis . . . . . . 84

     B.   Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. . . . . 89

     C.   Ex Parte Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

     D.   Comment Filing Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

V.   ORDERING CLAUSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Attachment A:  Local Competition and Broadband Deployment Reporting

Attachment B:  Proposed Rules

Attachment C:  Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

               Attachment D:  Commenters in CC Docket No. 91-141, CCB-IAD File No. 98-102                                
                       I.  INTRODUCTION 

     1.   In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we propose rules to collect basic
information about two important aspects of communications:  the status of local telephone service
competition and the deployment of "advanced telecommunications capability."  We require this
information for two reasons, both of which result from obligations imposed by the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
     
     2.   First, we need timely and reliable information about the pace and extent of
developing local competition in different geographic areas -- including rural areas -- in order to
evaluate the effectiveness of actions this Commission and the states are taking to promote local
competition, actions mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Moreover, in section
706 of the 1996 Act, Congress instructed us to assess the availability of advanced
telecommunications capability -- so-called broadband services such as high-speed internet access. 
We submitted our first report on broadband capability and deployment to Congress this past
February, at which time we announced our intention to issue similar reports each calendar year. 
Simply put, we cannot accurately assess the development of local service competition and
broadband deployment without timely and reliable information.  We note, however, that the
information collection proposed here would not be the only data that we would use to inform our
next annual section 706 report.  We also plan to issue a Notice of Inquiry, as we did last year, to
seek comment from interested parties on the state of broadband capability and deployment.
     

     3.   Second, we require timely and reliable information about developing local
competition and broadband deployment in order to avoid "one size fits all" regulation of
incumbent local carriers and others, and, specifically, in order to reduce regulation wherever we
can pursuant to new sections 10 and 11 of the Act.  Section 10(b) requires the Commission to
"consider whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation will promote
competitive market conditions, including the extent to which such forbearance will enhance
competition among providers of telecommunications services."  Section 11 requires the
Commission to undertake regular reviews of our existing regulations with a view towards their
elimination.  In relevant part, section 11 directs the Commission to "determine whether any . . .
regulation is no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic
competition between providers of such service."  Gathering data about the development of local
competition and broadband deployment will help ensure that we can properly evaluate the nature
and impact of our existing regulation and, where appropriate, reduce or eliminate regulation. 

     4.   Nonetheless, we are mindful of the need to limit, as much as possible, the burdens
imposed by information collection and thus, we have constrained this effort to specifically
targeted information.  Although we think that additional information could prove useful to our
tasks, we do not propose to ask carriers for information about, for example, investments, rates,
revenues, earnings, traffic volumes, or other aspects of their operations.  Instead, we propose to
restrict collected information to that which is most essential to tracking the development of local
competition and the deployment of broadband service to American consumers.  To ensure that
filing burdens on industry will remain minimal, moreover, we seek comment on how to ensure
that the information collection program does not outlive its usefulness. 
     
     5.   We also believe that a single information collection program, appropriately
designed to answer questions about both local competition and broadband deployment, will be
less burdensome than two separate (and perhaps overlapping) programs. Indeed, it is our hope
that the data collection form proposed here and included as Attachment A could replace or
eliminate many similar, although not identical, reporting requirements currently imposed by the
states. 
           
     6.   Throughout this Notice, we seek comment on all the tentative conclusions we
reach and on any other aspects of the proposed collection program that commenters wish to bring
to our attention.

                        II.  BACKGROUND

     7.   The 1996 Act imposed specific obligations on telecommunications carriers,
particularly local exchange carriers (LECs), which are primarily designed to open
telecommunications markets -- including local service markets -- to competitive entry, to promote
universal service, and to lessen the need for government regulation of telecommunications.  To
achieve these overall goals, the statute directed us to adopt regulations to implement specific
statutory requirements, including regulations governing the provision of interconnection of
incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) facilities with new local exchange service
competitors, and the competitive entry of Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) into previously
prohibited interexchange and other services markets.  Central to these directives are new section
251, governing incumbent LEC provision of interconnection, unbundled network elements, and
resold services to competitors, and new section 271, which provides a means whereby the BOCs
may submit qualifying applications to enter certain interexchange, interLATA service markets. 
In short, although the 1996 Act did not confer on us jurisdiction to regulate local exchange
service, it did task us with important roles in opening up all telecommunications markets  --
including local exchange markets -- to competition. 
     8.   Moreover, in section 706(b) of the 1996 Act, Congress directed us to monitor the
pace of deployment of broadband services to all Americans including, in particular, elementary
and secondary schools and classrooms.  Congress also instructed us, if we find that deployment
is not "reasonable and timely," to take immediate action to lower barriers to investment and to
promote competition.  In our Advanced Telecommunications Report, we concluded that
deployment of broadband to most residential consumers appeared timely and reasonable at the
present time.  We cautioned, however, that broadband deployment was in its initial stages and we
proposed to monitor the future pace of broadband deployment and make regular reports about its
progress and any necessary future regulatory undertakings on our part.  Given the broad
mandate of section 706, we have particular concerns about the deployment of broadband in rural
areas.
     
     9.   Given these statutory mandates, and notwithstanding the importance of gathering
timely and reliable information about the development of local competition and broadband
deployment, we have not, heretofore, imposed mandatory data reporting requirements. Over the
past two years we have, however, undertaken several initiatives to enhance our general
understanding of the evolving nature of local competition.  

     10.  First, we held an en banc hearing about the status of local competition in early
1998.  Subsequently, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) requested that nine large incumbent
LECs complete, on a voluntary basis, a short survey about the status of local competition as of
December 31, 1997.  That survey, which the Bureau refined over the past year (and eventually
expanded so as to include more incumbents and a small number of competitive LECs), provided
the framework for a Bureau-issued Public Notice as well as this Notice.  Finally, after reviewing
the results of the voluntary surveys and surveying other publicly available information, the Bureau
published a staff report, Local Competition, this past December.

     11.  As participating carriers and Commission staff gained experience with the
voluntary local competition survey, that survey evolved so as to focus primarily on the number
and types of lines provided by incumbent LECs and by competitive LECs.  Most recently, we
have also taken initial steps to formalize the collection of data about broadband deployment. 
Following release of the Advanced Telecommunications Report, the Bureau revised the voluntary
local competition survey to include questions about the number of broadband lines or channels in
service to residential customers, and the technologies used to deliver those services.  In March
1999, the Bureau invited a limited number of incumbent LECs and competitive LECs to
participate in this revised voluntary survey by providing data on local competition and on
broadband services provided to residential customers as of December 31, 1998.  

     12.  We have retained the basic format of the most recent voluntary survey for the
collection program under consideration here, although we tentatively conclude, as explained in
detail below, that a voluntary program cannot produce the comprehensive sets of data we require. 
The data collection form that we propose, which is set out in the form that appears in Attachment
A, differs from the voluntary surveys in two key respects.  First, we tentatively conclude, as
explained more fully below, that because certain mobile wireless services have the potential to
compete with local exchange services provided by incumbent LECs and competitive LECs, we
must include data about the availability of such services if we are to accurately assess the evolving
status of local competition.  Second, we tentatively conclude, again as discussed below, that it is
appropriate to collect data on broadband deployment to business customers, as well as to
residential customers.  The form in Attachment A, which we propose to apply to a large class of
telecommunications carriers and other entities, therefore provides the framework for discussion in
the remainder of this Notice.

        III.  LOCAL COMPETITION AND BROADBAND REPORTING

     13.  We tentatively conclude, based on experience gained in the course of five
voluntary surveys, and taking into consideration arguments made in response to the Bureau's
Local Competition Public Notice and the conclusions we reached in the Advanced
Telecommunications Report, that we should require certain carriers and other entities, identified
herein, to report information about local competition and broadband deployment in at least the
level of detail that is specified in the form that appears in Attachment A, in accordance with the
Proposed Rules set out in Attachment B.  Regulatory policies that are based on incomplete
information are less effective than regulation based on an informed evaluation of what is actually
happening in markets. Moreover, regulation based on incomplete data about market conditions
and trends can, in certain cases, create costs that end up exceeding benefits.  Although the
voluntary data collection program that has been in place for the past year yielded some helpful
information, in our experience, only a comprehensively imposed, mandatory data collection effort
will provide us with a set of data of uniform quality and reliability.

     14.  In this regard, we take note of a recent resolution of the Board of Directors of the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC Board) that it "supports
federal efforts to collect consistent data on local competition and broadband deployment on a
state-by-state basis."  The NARUC Board observed, and we agree, that reliable information is
required if state and federal regulators are to fashion policies to carry out Congress's directive to
encourage local telephone competition and the widespread deployment of broadband services. 
The NARUC Board also observed that "the Federal Communication Commission's current,
voluntary data collection efforts do not elicit complete and fully comparable data on local
competition and broadband deployment."  
     
     15.  We note the suggestion by some commenters in the Bureau's Public Notice
proceeding that, in lieu of creating a federal program, the Commission should rely on state data
collection efforts and other, publicly available information.  Again, we think that, in this regard,
the resolution adopted by the NARUC Board is telling about the need for a comprehensive
federal program. We recognize that various states have implemented local competition reporting
requirements and that these state programs tend to ask for information similar to that we seek
here.  These state programs, however, are not uniform and differ sufficiently so that carriers
serving different states may need to keep multiple sets of records in order to meet similar, but not
identical, reporting requirements.

     16.  We think that a properly designed federal program can complement state efforts
and end up reducing the reporting burdens imposed, overall, on carriers.  We have directed our
staff to work closely with state staffs to develop a system of tracking local competition and
broadband deployment information that will eliminate as much duplication as possible.  Ideally,
using one data base, a carrier serving multiple states will be able to comply with our filing
requirements and those of the individual states it serves. 

     17.  It is also our experience that other publicly available information sources present
less than complete pictures of actual conditions and trends in developing local service markets and
in the deployment of broadband.  Much publicly available analysis is based on company reports to
shareholders and to other regulatory agencies.  But these sources are problematical.  For example,
companies may rely on a variety of different -- and inconsistent -- measures in reporting
information such as the number and capacity of lines in service.  Among LECs, some may report
information, such as the share of total access lines provided solely over their own facilities, in
greater detail than other companies report.  Moreover, financial and investment analysts tend to
collect more complete information about publicly traded companies than about privately held
companies, and may choose to analyze closely only a subset of companies.  
 
     18.  It has been our experience that voluntary surveys are not a fully satisfactory source
of provider data.  The Bureau's five voluntary surveys conducted to date have yielded much useful
information about evolving patterns of local competition, but participation has been spotty. 
Incumbent and competitive LEC survey respondents have not provided comprehensive
information in all cases and some of the firms invited to participate have been unwilling to provide
any information at all.  In other cases, participating firms have responded only to some of the
surveys.  Furthermore, even carriers that have participated actively in the voluntary surveys have
informed us informally that they are not interested in participating in voluntary efforts in the long
run without the required participation of a more comprehensive set of providers.  Finally, the
mere fact that participation has been voluntary may have encouraged participants to treat data
collection as a provisional and unsystematic effort that does not require carrier reporting systems
that can produce accurate and consistent results.

     19.  Comprehensive data about broadband deployment as solicited in the survey that
appears in Attachment A would also aid our efforts in implementing section 706 of the 1996 Act. 
We ask commenters to identify, with particularity, any alternative sources that will both yield us
the information we need and be less burdensome on reporting entities.  
     
     20.  For all these reasons, we tentatively conclude that only a mandatory and systematic
collection of local competition and broadband deployment information will provide the
comprehensive set of reliable data we require to carry out our statutory mandates.  We
emphasize, however, that we invite comment on this conclusion and our analysis. 

     21.  We also tentatively conclude that only a program of data collection as
comprehensive as that embodied in the survey in Attachment A will produce meaningful data
sufficient to allow us to accurately gauge the future development of local competition and
broadband deployment throughout the United States.  While we fully intend to supplement the
data we propose to collect with non-duplicative data from state and other public sources, we
tentatively conclude that the data gathering survey set out in Attachment A provides a necessary
framework for accurately analyzing the future development of local competition and broadband
deployment.  We invite comment on this conclusion, particularly on whether the approach taken
will yield data that will enable us to adequately gauge developments in all geographic areas,
including rural areas.

     22.  We now proceed to consider individual elements -- and associated issues -- of the
data collection program set out in the attached survey.  
     
A.   Types of Entities That Must Report 
     
          23.  In this section we discuss the types of entities that should be required to report
data describing the extent and intensity of local competition and the extent of broadband services
deployment.  We discuss requirements with respect to local competition data first.  

     24.  Our objective is to collect sufficient information about the evolving status of local
competition to achieve the regulatory flexibility, pro-competition, and universal service objectives
of the 1996 Act, while imposing on carriers the fewest burdens consistent with our need for the
information.  We believe that the local competition information we propose to collect is less
extensive than the information some carriers make publicly available on their own initiative and,
we believe, is not overly burdensome.  By requiring all reporting carriers to provide information
that is based on the same definitions and assumptions, moreover, we will assure that the
information is comparable across reporting companies and consistently meaningful.

     25.  Based on our determination that we need comprehensive data about developing
local services competition, we tentatively conclude that large and medium incumbent LECs --  as
well as their wireline and fixed wireless telephony competitors, and also their mobile wireless
telephony potential competitors -- should complete the survey.  We tentatively conclude, as
discussed below, that we should require carriers with 50,000 or more local access lines or
channels (of any capacity) nationwide, or 50,000 or more subscribers nationwide to file
information pursuant to this program.  Thus, we make specific provision to exempt most smaller
carriers from the requirement to report local competition data.  We seek comment, however, as to
whether we should lower the proposed threshold for the reporting requirement in order to obtain
data regarding developments in rural areas and, if so, whether there is a less burdensome means of
collecting such data from smaller carriers.  We also tentatively conclude that each reporting
carrier should, at a minimum, provide the required information for each state in which the carrier
provides local exchange or exchange access service, or mobile wireless telephony service,
throughout the reporting period.

     26.  We tentatively conclude that we should receive local competition data from
competitive LECs as well as from incumbent LECs because our experience with the voluntary
surveys shows that we cannot get a reasonably accurate picture of the status of local competition
only from incumbent-provided information.  For example, to the extent that a competing local
telephone service provider supplies service to customers using only its own facilities, its customer
lines would not be included in reports of incumbent LECs.  We believe, moreover, that
comprehensive information about lines provided solely over competitive LEC facilities is not
available from any public source.
       
     27.  Moreover, consistent with our need for comprehensive local competition
information, we tentatively conclude that the obligation to complete the survey should not depend
on the type of technology that an incumbent LEC or a competitive LEC uses to provide local
service.  We tentatively conclude, therefore, that the requirement to report data on local
competition should apply to all LECs meeting a defined threshold for reporting regardless of
whether the LEC utilizes wireline or wireless technologies to provide local service.  Thus, for
example, competitive LECs, duly authorized as such by the appropriate state authorities, which
utilize fixed wireless technology will be required to complete the survey if they otherwise qualify. 
Similarly, duly authorized competitive LECs which provide local exchange service over a hybrid
fiber-coax platform will be required to complete the survey if they otherwise qualify.     

     28.  Further, because certain mobile wireless services have the potential to become
significant substitutes for local exchange services offered by incumbent LECs or competitive
LECs, we also believe it necessary to monitor the development of these services to a limited
extent.  Mobile wireless services include both terrestrial commercial mobile radio services
(CMRS) and satellite telephone services.  Broadly speaking, CMRS can be divided into twomajor categories:  mobile telephony and mobile non-telephony services.  The mobile telephony
market generally includes facilities-based providers of cellular, broadband personal
communications service (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR) services that offer real-time,
two-way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network utilizing
an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish
seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls, as well as resellers of these services.  We have previously
concluded in another context that these providers have the potential to compete directly with
traditional providers of wireline telephony services.  We note also that we have found that
typical broadband PCS and cellular telephony services meet the statutory definition of telephone
exchange service.  We recognize, however, that in the specific context of a section 271
application, both Congress and the Commission have articulated standards that restrict the
consideration of mobile wireless services when determining the presence of a facilities-based
competitor.  We nevertheless believe that, because of their practical potential as a substitute for
wireline service, it would be valuable to obtain data on the deployment of mobile wireless
services.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
  

     29.  In addition to terrestrial CMRS providers, providers using satellite technology can
also offer mobile telephony services.  Satellite services, particularly Geo-stationary L-band mobile
satellite services and Big Low Earth Orbit systems, may in the future become significant providers
of mobile telephony services in the United States. 
     
     30.  Given the potential for mobile wireless services to substitute for wireline local
telephony, we tentatively conclude that we should require providers of mobile wireless telephony
services in the categories described above that serve 50,000 or more subscribers nationwide to
report the limited information on number of subscribers that is requested in the survey.  So long
as we receive this information on, at a minimum, a state-specific basis, we believe we will be able
to develop an accurate sense of the developing potential of mobile telephony to substitute for
wireline local service.  At the same time, we consider that the limited amount of information
sought from mobile service providers will impose the smallest burden on such carriers consistent
with our need to have access to necessary information.

     31.  Turning to a consideration of requirements to report data on the extent of
broadband services deployment, we tentatively conclude that, given our broad statutory mandate
to evaluate the deployment of broadband services, regardless of the transmission media or
technology employed, the survey should include questions about the deployment of what we
term "full broadband" services.  We also tentatively conclude, as discussed below, that any
entity that provides at least 1,000 full broadband service lines (or wireless channels), or has at
least 1,000 full broadband subscribers, should be required to complete all relevant parts of the
survey, regardless of whether that entity meets the criterion for reporting local competition data
(i.e., at least 50,000 nationwide local access lines or telephony subscribers) discussed above.  We
recognize, however, that entities may provide services with bandwidth that exceeds voice grade
but is less than 200 kilobits per second (Kbps).  We seek comment on the extent to which the
Commission should consider services deployed in this range of bandwidth in assessing the
progress of broadband deployment.  We also seek comment on the extent to which, in assessing
the progress of broadband deployment, the Commission should consider the bandwidth necessary
to accommodate specific services. 

     32.  Actual or potential providers of broadband services may include:  LECs
(incumbent and competitive, both resale and facilities-based, regardless of the technology used),
cable television companies, utilities, MMDS/MDS/"wireless cable" carriers, mobile wireless
carriers (both terrestrial and satellite-based), fixed wireless providers, and others.  We believe
that only by casting our net wide enough to include all such entities can we discern progress, or
the lack of it, in meeting the goals stated in the Advanced Telecommunications Report:  a
competitive broadband market with many providers, many competing technologies bringing
broadband to consumers, and new technologies increasing the capacity of the consumer's
broadband service and, in turn, creating demand among consumers for new applications.  We note
that these goals were articulated in terms of residential consumers in the Advanced
Telecommunications Report.  As a result, we could limit our collection of broadband data to
broadband lines provided to residential consumers.  We believe, however, that we should cast our
net wider and gather data about all broadband deployment, in other words, broadband deployment
to both residential and business customers.  Although we concluded in the Advanced
Telecommunications Report that broadband deployment to business customers has been
"reasonable and timely," only a complete set of data will allow us to analyze broadband
deployment for all market segments.  We seek comment on this analysis and our tentative
conclusions.  

     33.  We note the broad range of the types of entities which, under this approach, will
need to determine whether they are required to report broadband data, and we tentatively
conclude that most of these entities will find that they have a relatively easy time making that
determination because they do not now provide broadband services to customers and may not do
so for some time to come.  Nevertheless, we ask whether there is some less intrusive and
burdensome way to track the deployment of broadband services consistent with the mandate of
section 706.  We specifically invite comment about the scope of entities from which we propose
to collect data.

     34.  Some broadband facilities and services may not be "telecommunications" within
the precise terms of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, but may as a practical matter
be competitive with broadband telecommunications.  One such service is broadband provided
over cable television systems.  We do not decide whether cable-based broadband is
"telecommunications," but we include it within the scope of our questions because it competes
directly with services that are telecommunications.

B.   Frequency of Reports

     35.  Regarding local competition data, a majority of parties who commented upon this
issue in the Bureau's Local Competition Public Notice proceeding concluded that the information
required by the survey should be reported each calendar year quarter.  Our own experience with
the voluntary surveys tends to indicate that annual or semiannual reporting may be inadequate for
tracking with specificity the development of local competition.  We disagree with those
commenters who supported more frequent reporting by incumbent LECs than by new entrants. 
We ask commenters in this proceeding to address whether quarterly, semi-annual, or annual
reporting would best serve the goals of this data collection program.  
                   
     36.  We also believe that broadband services data will be most useful for our purposes
if it is consistently obtained from all reporting entities. We therefore seek comment on whether
broadband services also should be reported quarterly, semi-annually, or annually.  
     
C.   Exempting Smaller Entities
          
     37.  As noted above, we want to explore whether we can totally exempt some carriers
from reporting without materially affecting our ability to effectively assess the development of
local competition.  As also discussed in this section, however, we need to consider exemption
criteria separately as applied to broadband service providers because section 706 requires us to
monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of the technology or transmission media
employed, and we anticipate that some broadband service providers will not provide telephone
service.

     38.  Based on our experience with the voluntary surveys, we tentatively conclude that
we can exempt any incumbent or competitive LEC with fewer than 50,000 nationwide local
access lines (of any capacity) from our proposed reporting requirements unless, as discussed
below, that carrier provides 1,000 or more "full broadband" lines to customers nationwide. 
Although the number of companies reporting will change over time, our preliminary estimate is
that, if this exemption were adopted, fewer than 50 of the nation's (incumbent plus competitive)
LECs would remain subject to our proposed reporting requirements.  Additional reasons for
considering this reporting threshold include:  our expectation that almost all of the reporting
companies will have substantial resources; the threshold was suggested by certain commenters in
the Bureau's Local Competition Public Notice proceeding, such as individual rural LECs and
NTCA, that have direct experience with the costs of reporting burdens imposed on small carriers;
and, as discussed below, this particular threshold is one element of the definition of rural
telephone company in the 1996 Act, a status that may qualify a company for exemption from
interconnection duties set out in section 251 of the 1996 Act.  

     39.  We observe that mobile telephony providers typically do not report numbers of
access lines per se but instead report number of subscribers, and we tentatively conclude that we
may use number of nationwide subscribers in place of number of access lines in exempting mobile
wireless telephony providers from the reporting requirement.  Because mobile wireless telephony
services are, as yet, potential substitutes for wireline telephony services in the marketplace, we
require relatively little information from mobile wireless service providers at this time.  We do
require information about the potential presence of such carriers in the market, however, and we
simply ask for the number of customers to which they provide service in each state, and possibly
in smaller geographic areas, in which they provide service.  Mobile telephony providers do not
report subscribership data to the Commission, and we therefore do not know the precise number
of mobile telephony providers with at least 50,000 subscribers.  Based on data available to us at
present, we estimate that between 40 and 70 mobile telephony providers, including the mobile
telephony affiliates or operating divisions of LECs, will be required to report data on their mobile
telephony operations.

     40.  With respect to cable companies providing local exchange telephony services, we
seek comment about the appropriate threshold for complying with our proposed reporting
requirement.  We expect that such cable companies typically must obtain specific authorization
from state public utility commissions before offering such service.  Thus, such companies would
in principle be included in our estimate of the number of (competitive plus incumbent) LECs that
would remain subject to our proposed reporting requirements if the reporting threshold is 50,000
local access lines.  While at least some cable companies that provide local telephony service
compile and report numbers of telephone lines or circuits provided, we note that cable
companies typically describe their cable television service reach in terms of number of actual
subscribers.  In light of this practice, we seek comment whether the threshold for these companies
should be described in terms of actual telephony subscribers, e.g., more than 50,000 telephony
subscribers.  Moreover, while we believe it possible that many cable companies offering local
exchange services may not reach the trigger of 50,000 access lines or subscribers, it may
nevertheless be desirable to obtain information from those companies, given the wide deployment
of their infrastructure.  Thus, we seek comment on whether some other measure, such as the
number of homes passed by cable telephony services, would be a more desirable threshold for
reporting actual lines or subscribers served by cable companies.
       
     41.  With respect specifically to broadband service, and irrespective of the criteria for
reporting local competition data discussed above, we note that Congress has directed us to track
the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans, including those in
rural areas.  Thus, we tentatively conclude that we should establish a more comprehensive (albeit
more burdensome) reporting requirement for providers of broadband services to ensure that we
do not miss broadband developments by smaller entities, for example, in rural areas.  We
tentatively conclude, in particular, that any firm that provides "full broadband" service (which we
define here as information carrying capacity over 200 Kbps capacity in each direction,
simultaneously) to at least 1,000 customers nationwide should be required to complete the
survey.  We note that what we term "full broadband" for purposes of this Notice accords with
the definition of advanced telecommunications capability that we adopted in the Advanced
Telecommunications Report.  However, as discussed above, entities may provide services with
bandwidth that exceeds voice grade but is less than 200 Kbps.  As noted above, we seek comment
on the extent to which the Commission should consider services deployed in this range of
bandwidth in assessing the progress of broadband deployment.  We also seek comment on the
extent to which, in assessing the progress of broadband deployment, the Commission should
consider the bandwidth necessary to accommodate specific services.  Finally, we seek comment
on whether, in the alternative, we should use the asymmetric services that we term "one-way
broadband" provided to customers as the criterion for determining which providers should
complete the survey.  We ask for comments on our overall data collection approach as applied
to broadband service providers in particular.   
       
     42.  With respect to our proposed 50,000 nationwide access line reporting criterion for
LECs, we note that the 1996 Act provides some guidance about alternative ways in which small
LECs might be identified, although the term "small LEC" is not defined there.  In particular, a
number of alternatives for identifying a "rural telephone company" are set out.  One of these
defines a rural telephone company as providing fewer than 50,000 access lines.  We believe this
definition has certain advantages in the context of reporting data on local competition.  The
definition is relatively precise, and therefore relatively easy to interpret, and it does not
incorporate the regulatory terminology of "study area," which, strictly speaking, applies to service
areas of incumbent LECs.  A number of commenters in the Local Competition Public Notice
support an exemption of some sort from reporting data on local competition; comments received
from groups and associations of smaller incumbent LECs, in particular, suggest 50,000 access
lines as the appropriate criterion for exempting carriers from a requirement to report data on local
competition.  By contrast, the 1996 Act provides no guidance about defining a small provider of
broadband services.  
         
     43.  Based on the exemptions we propose, the following entities would be required to
file the survey:  (1) any carrier (including, collectively, all majority owned or commonly controlled
affiliates) with at least 50,000 nationwide incumbent LEC access lines in service will complete a
separate survey to report data for the incumbent LEC operations, including the broadband
services of those operations; (2) any carrier (including, collectively, all majority owned or
commonly controlled affiliates) with at least 50,000 nationwide competitive LEC access lines in
service will complete a separate survey to report data for the competitive LEC operations,
including the broadband services of those operations; (3) any carrier (including, collectively, all
majority owned, commonly controlled, or commonly operated affiliates) with at least 50,000
nationwide mobile telephony subscribers will complete a separate survey to report data for the
mobile telephony operations, including the broadband services of those operations; and (4) any
other entity (including, collectively, all majority owned or commonly controlled affiliates of that
entity) that has at least 1,000 full broadband subscribers nationwide will complete a survey to
report data on broadband services, at which time the entity also will complete any other parts of
the survey that pertain to its operations.  

     44.  Although we intend to limit the burdens on reporting entities as much as possible,
we also recognize that we must examine information from enough providers to avoid overlooking
significant competitive and technological developments and trends.  We seek comment, therefore,
on whether limiting local competition data gathering to entities with 50,000 or more local access
lines in service will enable us to accurately measure the scope and extent of progress in local
competition.  Likewise, we seek comment on whether limiting broadband data gathering to
entities with 1,000 or more "full broadband" lines in service will enable us to accurately measure
the scope and extent of progress in broadband deployment. 
          
     45.  Finally, we seek comment on whether, to reduce reporting burdens even further,
we should allow an incumbent LEC of any size to file a brief letter in lieu of reporting local
competition and broadband deployment data for states where that incumbent faces no local
service competition and if it provides a de minimis number of broadband lines.  In such cases, we
could require an attesting officer to state (1) that the incumbent does not face competition for
voice grade local service from any competitive LEC within the designated state, or from any
carrier offering mobile telephony service that is being used by customers as the full equivalent of
local exchange service; and, (2) that the incumbent LEC does not provide full broadband lines to
1,000 or more customers on a nationwide basis.  We tentatively conclude that such an approach
would reduce reporting burdens imposed on carriers without compromising our ability to get
necessary information.   
     
D.   Definition of Reporting Area

     46.  For information to be useful, it must be reported on a geographically coherent and
consistent basis by all entities submitting data.  Although many geographic classification systems
are employed by the telecommunications industry for regulatory compliance purposes, no single
system applies to all providers of local exchange or exchange access service, and some geographic
classifications predictably will become irrelevant over time.  Of course, new local service
competitors need not design their business plans around any of the geographic classification
systems that are traditional in the industry, although they must comply with requirements
legitimately imposed by state regulatory authorities.  Providers of terrestrial mobile wireless
telephony services have received licenses to serve markets defined, variously, as Major Trading
Areas, Basic Trading Areas, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Rural Service Areas, and Economic
Areas.  

     47.  The situation with respect to broadband services is even more complex.  Providers
of broadband services may include, for example, cable television companies, utilities,
MMDS/MDS/"wireless cable" carriers, and satellite-based wireless carriers, with service
territories that need not fit within the "exchanges" and "study areas" of the incumbent LEC
industry.  

     48.  Regardless of these variances, all carriers will maintain state-by-state data for a
variety of tax, regulatory, and other purposes.  Thus, we believe that compiling local competition
and broadband deployment information by state will not be administratively difficult for any
reporting company, particularly in comparison with compiling information for smaller geographic
areas on a consistent basis.  We therefore tentatively conclude that we should, at a minimum,
require data to be reported by state, as specified in the form that appears in Attachment A to this
Notice.  We ask for comment on this tentative conclusion.
 
     49.  We recognize, however, that collecting information about competitive activity and
broadband services deployment in smaller geographic areas might yield sharper pictures of the
extent and intensity of these developments.  At the same time, we recognize that companies may
regard such information as confidential, and we seek comment on whether a requirement that they
disclose such information is appropriate to the extent such confidentiality concerns exist.  We
therefore seek comment on whether the data specified in Attachment A should be collected, from
some or all reporting entities, at some more narrowly defined geographic area, such as the level of
zones established by the state utility commissions for use in setting rates for interconnection and
access to unbundled elements, the wire center level, or a level based on Zip Codes.  For
example, parties should address the extent to which, and the precise methods by which, other
sources of information, such as data extracted from numbering resources databases, number
portability databases, or E-911 databases, might, at this time, provide us with more detailed
information about local competition and broadband deployment on a comprehensive basis.     
     

E.   Data to be Reported

     50.  In this section, we discuss the specific data items set out in Attachment A.  We
believe that reliable information about these items will reveal the pattern and speed of
development of local competition and broadband services as they evolve.  We invite comment
on whether answers to the survey questions are necessary and sufficient to describe and
understand the state of local competition and deployment of broadband services in diverse areas
of the nation.  
          
     1.   Voice Grade Lines in Service to End Users by LECs
     
     51.  Section I of the survey collects information about:  (1) the number of voice grade
and equivalent wireline or fixed wireless lines/channels in service that connect residential and,
separately, non-residential end users to the public switched telephone network (for convenience,
"voice grade lines"); and (2) the extent to which LECs use their own facilities, and the facilities or
services of other LECs, in providing these lines.  Providers of mobile telephony services
(including mobile telephony affiliates of LECs) would not report data in Section I, but would
instead report data on number of subscribers to voice grade mobile telephony service in Section
VI.
      
     52.  In Section I.A., a reporting LEC (incumbent or competitive) would break down its
total number of voice grade lines into three categories:  (1) switched lines that terminate at the
premises of residential end users; (2) switched lines that terminate at the premises of non-
residential end users (including business, government, education, shared tenant system,
institutional and pay telephone customers); and (3) special access lines that terminate at the
premises of end users and over which switched service is provided.  The reporting LEC would
report voice grade lines in service to all end users with whom the reporting carrier has a business
relationship directly, or through a non-carrier sales or billing agent.  To avoid double-counting
of total LEC lines in service to end users, each reporting LEC would also distinguish between
voice grade lines that it provides to end users over its own facilities, and voice grade lines that it
provides to end users over lines that it has leased from another communications carrier.  

     53.  In Section I.B., a reporting LEC would report the number of voice grade lines it
provides to other communications carriers, who in turn provide voice grade switched service to
end users.  The total number of such lines in service would be broken down into three categories: 
(1) switched lines that terminate at the premises of residential end users; (2) switched lines that
terminate at the premises of non-residential end users (including business, government, education,
shared tenant system, institutional and pay telephone customers); and (3) unbundled network
element (UNE) loops or special access lines that terminate at the premises of end users and over
which switched service is provided.  In the case of services provided to other carriers for resale to
end users, the reporting carrier will in most cases know whether the line connects to a residential
or to a non-residential end user.  A reporting LEC would separately report the number of lines
that it provides, over its own facilities, as UNE loops, under total service resale arrangements,
and under other resale arrangements.  To avoid double-counting of total LEC lines provided as
UNE loops or under resale arrangements, each reporting LEC would also report the total number
of lines that it leases from another reporting communications carrier and, in turn, provides under
UNE, total service resale, or other resale arrangements.

     54.  We believe that requiring LECs to report information about voice grade lines in
the detail set out in Attachment A is necessary to obtain a reasonably complete picture of evolving
local competition.  For example, competitive LEC responses to the questions in Section I.A. will
demonstrate the degree to which competitive LECs rely on resold incumbent LEC services
(nationwide, in any specific state, and, potentially, in areas smaller than a state) in providing
voice grade switched service to residential and to non-residential customers.  These data also will
demonstrate the extent to which competitive LECs rely on UNE loops in providing service to end
users.  The accuracy and reliability of data will be enhanced, moreover, by the ability to compare
data reported by incumbent LECs and by competitive LECs, and we may thereby avoid double-
counting end-user lines in assessing competitive market presence. 

     2.   Voice Grade Lines and Collocation Arrangements of LECs

     55.  Section II of the survey collects information about numbers of voice grade lines
served from LEC switching centers in which local service competitors have operational
collocation arrangements.  A reporting LEC would break down into two categories its reported
total voice grade lines in service to end users over owned facilities:  (1) lines served from
switching centers in which at least one competing communications carrier has an operational
collocation arrangement for switched local exchange services; and (2) lines served from switching
centers in which no competing carrier has such an operational collocation arrangement.  Within
each of these two categories, a reporting carrier would separately report total residential switched
lines, total non-residential switched lines, and total special access lines and UNE loops.  

     56.  We tentatively conclude that the questions in Section II of the survey are
appropriate because we believe that local competition will be facilitated, particularly competition
for residential customers, if competing LECs can locate their equipment in the switching center
that most directly serves the customer the carrier seeks to serve.  Incumbent LECs must provide
for physical collocation of equipment that is necessary for a competitor to interconnect with or
obtain access to the unbundled network elements of the incumbent LEC, and for virtual
collocation in circumstances when physical collocation is not practical.  Competitive LECs may
choose, now or in the future, to provide collocation arrangements, e.g., to other competitive
LECs.  

     3.   High Capacity Lines in Service to End Users by LECs
     
     57.  Section III of the survey collects information from LECs about the number of high
capacity lines or channels in service connecting end users to the public switched network (for
convenience, "high-capacity lines").  Section III also requests information about the total
capacity of these lines/channels.  Our interest in high capacity lines stems from the Commission's
need to monitor the development of competition in all kinds of local telecommunications serving
both residential and business customers.  

     58.  We tentatively conclude that we should define a high-capacity line, for purposes of
local competition data collection, as a line with information carrying capability (in technical terms,
bandwidth or data rate) to the customer's premises of 200 Kbps in at least one direction, and at
least 48 Kbps (i.e., voice grade) in the other direction.  This definition of a high-capacity line has
two attractive features.  First, it fits naturally into a continuum of information carrying capability
that begins with a voice grade line and increases to, and beyond, 200 Kbps in both directions --
the service-provider-to-consumer direction (downstream) and the consumer-to-service-provider
direction (upstream) simultaneously -- which is the definition of  broadband capability that we
adopted in the Advanced Telecommunications Report.  Second, this definition of a high-capacity
line encompasses a range of potential communications services that may prove to be significant in
the marketplace in the near term, but that do not fit the definition of broadband services adopted
in the Advanced Telecommunications Report because they are slower than 200 Kbps in one
direction, possibly the upstream direction from consumer to provider.  
          
     59.  We tentatively conclude that we should require LECs to report, in Section III of
the survey, the total number, and the total capacity, of two general categories of high-capacity
lines:  (1) lines at DS1/DS3 bandwidths, and (2) other high-capacity lines.  Lines at DS1/DS3
bandwidths are proven incumbent LEC service offerings, and we believe it is important for us to
monitor, to the limited extent we propose in this Notice, the presence of competitive LECs and
other types of competitors in that part of the local services market.  

     60.  We also tentatively conclude that we should require LECs to break down total
high-capacity lines, and also the total capacity of those lines, in a manner that will provide a
limited amount of information on types of customers served, and by what arrangements they are
served:  (1) end users served by lines the carrier owns; (2) end users served by lines the carrier
leases from another communications carrier; and (3) lines in service to end users that the reporting
carrier provides to other communications carriers.  We believe that this limited information will
shed highly useful light on competitive interactions in the market for high-capacity services,
including the extent to which carriers use other carriers' facilities and services to serve end-user
customers.
     
     4.   Internet-Provided Telephony Services
     
     61.  The Commission does not regulate internet services, but recognizes that Internet
Protocol (IP) telephony may become an important substitute for circuit-switched telephony.  As
a result, when evaluating the development of local competition, we believe it is necessary to
include the development of IP-telephony service.  However, while the proposed survey
instructions direct reporting entities to report lines that may be used in connection with IP-
telephony service, as discussed below, the survey questions do not identify the use of IP-
telephony per se.  We seek comment whether we should undertake a more specific determination
of the extent to which the internet is being used to provide telephony services and how we should
do so.

     62.  Survey instructions direct LECs to report lines in service that connect directly to
an end user at one end and, at the other end, connect to a carrier switch or to a network that
carries voice calls to the public switched telephone network.  For purposes of this Notice, "public
switched telephone network" includes the traditional circuit-switched telephone network as well
as all alternatives to the wireline infrastructure, regardless of switching technology.  The
distinguishing characteristic is that only those networks that enable a telephone service subscriber
to place a voice call to any other telephone service subscriber are included.  Thus, for example,
the number of lines reported by a LEC would not depend on whether that LEC has deployed
packet-switching technology into some, or all, of its serving wire centers.  Similarly, the LEC
would report a line if it connects an end user to the network of another entity that offers
telephone service to the general public, regardless of the switching technology deployed in the
network of that entity.  

     63.  Reported numbers of lines in service to end users therefore would include (but
would not separately identify) lines serving residences in which computer hobbyists, for example,
have installed software that enables voice calls to be placed over the public internet.  The reported
number of lines also would include any unbundled LEC loops that the LEC provides to another
communications carrier in connection with the second carrier's offering of an IP-telephony service
to the general public.  By contrast, to the extent that a corporation uses a dedicated network to
carry IP-based voice calls, the lines that comprise the dedicated corporate network would not
be counted in the survey.

     64.  We note that numbers of lines in service to end users, reported in Sections I - III of
the survey, also would not include lines (or, more precisely, added functionality of lines) that
connect end users to internet service providers (ISPs) but which the reporting carrier provides to
the ISP rather than to the end user.  Examples of such arrangements are the recently announced
agreements under which America Online will lease, from Bell Atlantic and SBC Communications,
Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) capacity that America Online will incorporate into a premium
(higher-speed) option for its internet service.  In these circumstances, however, the LEC that
provides DSL capacity to the ISP would continue to report the voice grade line that it provides to
the end user.  Also, if the DSL capacity that is provided to the ISP meets the definition of
broadband that we propose to adopt for purposes of the survey (i.e., supporting either one way or
two way communication, at bandwidthgreater than 200 Kbps), and the line connects to a customer, then, as outlined in the next
section of this Notice, the ISP would report the line in Section IV and possibly Section V of the
survey.  We invite comment on this particular means of collecting data about DSL, and
potentially other, high-capacity communications services with internet-related uses. 
     
     5.   Broadband Lines in Service to Consumers
               
     65.  Sections IV and V of the survey collect information about the number of
broadband lines in service to consumers.  Section IV collects information about broadband lines in
service to all customers, and Section V collects information about broadband lines in service to
residential customers.  We tentatively conclude that we should, in each of these sections,
require reporting entities to provide information about two categories of broadband lines that we
define for purposes of this Notice:  (1) "full broadband" lines, with information carrying
capacity in excess of 200 Kbps in both directions simultaneously; and (2) asymmetric "one-way
broadband" lines, with information carrying capacity in excess of 200 Kbps in one direction but
not both.  Our interest in broadband services generally stems from section 706 of the 1996 Act,
which directs us to determine regularly whether full broadband services (to use the term we have
adopted for the specific purposes of this Notice) are being deployed in a reasonable and timely
fashion to all Americans.  Our interest in what we are calling one-way broadband services stems
from our need to collect data that will reveal the use of services with over 200 Kbps bandwidth in
the downstream direction, but less than 200 Kbps bandwidth in the upstream direction.  Service
with these speeds would accommodate the needs of customers who make only small transmission
upstream (e.g., 'please send me the movie Saving Private Ryan'), but who receive large
transmissions downstream (e.g., the full-length color movie with movie theater clarity).  That is,
we intend,  by including questions about one-way broadband services in Sections IV and V of the
survey, to track the development of services such as DirecPC, which may become popular in
the future although they are not "full broadband" services. 

     66.  We also tentatively conclude that we should require reporting entities to provide
information, separately, about the number of full broadband lines in service to residential
consumers with speed in excess of 1.544 Mbps (DS1) in both directions simultaneously, and the
number of one-way broadband lines in service to residential consumers with speed in excess of
1.544 Mbps in the "fast" direction only.  In future years, the appropriate definition of broadband
service may change as technology improves and consumer demand grows for more features and
functions from residential broadband service.  We intend these questions to detect the evolution of
supply and demand for such future generations of broadband. 
     
     67.  We ask for comment whether questions about these specifications of speeds will
achieve our goal, which is to gather facts about both supply and demand that will enable us to
decide whether broadband services are reaching all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. 
Should we be asking about other speeds of transmission in the limited number of questions we can
ask without unduly burdening providers?
     
     68.  We tentatively conclude that we should require reporting companies to report
separately, in Sections IV and V, numbers of lines in service to consumers that the company
provides over its own facilities, and of lines in service to consumers that the company provides
over resold facilities of another company.  
     
     69.  We also tentatively conclude that we should require reporting companies to break
down, in Sections IV and V, numbers of lines in service to consumers according to the technology
used in the "local loop" at its point of termination at the consumer's premises:  copper-based
DS1/DS3; xDSL; coaxial (including fiber-fed coaxial); optical carrier (SONET); electrical power
line; satellite fixed service; satellite mobile service; fixed terrestrial wireless service; mobile
terrestrial wireless service; and other.
     
     70.  Many companies other than wireline LECs will provide the information requested
in Sections IV and V.  The reporting companies will be any of the following types of companies
who provide services to customers at any of the speeds specified in these sections:  LECs
(incumbent and competitive (resale and facilities-based, regardless of technology used)), cable
television companies, utilities, MMDS/MDS/"wireless cable" carriers, mobile wireless carriers
(both terrestrial and satellite-based), and others.  We tentatively conclude that all such
companies with more than 1,000 full broadband lines in service (or 50,000 telephone lines to all
customers, or 50,000 telephony subscribers) will complete Sections IV and V of the survey (and
other relevant sections of the survey.)  Only by casting our net this wide can we discern
progress, or lack of it, towards many of the goals of section 706 of the 1996 Act.  We have asked
whether there is some less intrusive and burdensome way to track our achievement of these
goals.  We also ask for comment about whether the technologies that these companies will use
to provide broadband to consumers fit the terms of the questions in Sections IV and V.  For
example, is it clear what, in each broadband technology, is the "line" that is the basic subject of
the questions?  

     71.  We tentatively conclude that each reporting company will, at a minimum, supply
data on a state-by-state basis.  We note, however, that rural and low-income areas are areas
that some observers believe will not receive full broadband service through the operation of a
competitive market.  The Advanced Telecommunications Report promised to monitor the pace of
deployment of full broadband services in these areas.  Information collected on a state-by-state
basis, for example, may enable us to conclude that broadband is being deployed in a reasonable
and timely manner in New Mexico as a whole.  It will not permit us, however, to find whether all
such deployment is in Albuquerque while rural New Mexico is suffering from a "bandwidth
famine."  We seek comment, therefore, on how best to track the deployment of full broadband
service in rural or low-income areas, and on whether it might be appropriate to require responding
companies to supply information that would indicate the number of customers they have in
smaller geographic areas within a state.  We ask whether there is a way to make such a
determination reliably and with less burden on the reporting entities particularly since these
entities may include small rural LECs.  Further, we ask whether we can make a reliable
determination without requiring reporting companies to disclose business information that they
may regard as confidential.  We also seek comment on whether it might be appropriate to
permit broadband entities that serve fewer than 2,000 subscribers nationwide to report on
nationwide, rather than a statewide, basis.  

     72.  We also request more general comment on our proposed questions about
broadband services.  Are there other means that will both yield us the information we need for the
many purposes stated above and be less burdensome on the answering entities?  Will the trade
press and providers' web pages, for example, enable us to track the deployment of broadband in
rural areas with enough reliability to enable us to conclude whether rural deployment is reasonable
and timely?  Would the burden of answering the questions in Sections IV and V be less than the
burden on the reporting companies of filing comments and reply comments as they did in the
proceeding, CC Docket No. 98-146, that led up to the Advanced Telecommunications Report? 

     6.   Voice Grade Mobile Telephony Service Subscribers
     
     73.       We tentatively conclude that systematic data on the number of subscribers to voice
grade mobile telephony services, when combined with publicly available information on mobile
telephony rates, will provide a valuable insight into the extent that those mobile services are a
competitive constraint on other providers in local exchange markets.  We invite comment on this
conclusion.  We also tentatively conclude that subscriber counts should be provided separately for
(i) cellular and (ii) PCS and other mobile telephony.  We invite comment on the reporting burden
imposed by requiring these two separate categories.  Additionally, we invite comment on the
extent to which distinguishing these two categories will further our objectives as described in this
Notice.  Finally, while we tentatively conclude that subscriber counts should be based on billing
record addresses, we recognize that the billing address may differ from the geographic area or
areas in which the mobile telephony service is principally used.  Therefore, we seek comment on
whether subscriber counts based on other data such as, for example, assigned telephone numbers
would be more accurate without imposing substantially greater burdens on reporting entities.      
     

F.   Confidentiality of Data

     74.  We think it extremely important that all local competition and broadband
information collected pursuant to the proposed survey be made available to the public.  Public
availability will assist Commission staff in interpreting and utilizing such data, and it will facilitate
Commission publication of data and analysis in Commission reports.  Moreover, public scrutiny of
the surveyed information will promote a general awareness and public discussion of how local
competition is developing and how readily broadband services are being deployed.  This kind of
public awareness and discussion will promote the development of efficient markets by educating
consumers and investors.  It will also provide a desirable adjunct to the Commission's own expert
analysis and will help ensure the quality of that analysis.  For all these reasons, we tentatively
conclude that all information submitted pursuant to this information collection program should be
publicly released.
     
     75.  We anticipate opposition to this tentative conclusion from some parties who may
assert that some of the submitted information is sensitive or otherwise protectible.  We point out
that we do not propose to collect carrier information that is often asserted to be sensitive.  Thus,
for example, we do not propose to collect rate or revenue information from participating carriers. 
We seek comment on this analysis and, to the extent that parties disagree with our tentative
conclusions, we invite commenters to provide a detailed explanation of how disclosure of the
proposed data collection would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the filers. 
Further, where parties believe that legitimately protectible information would be collected under
our proposal, we ask commenters to suggest whether it would be possible to refine the proposal
to reduce concerns about confidentiality while preserving the usefulness of the data collected.  For
example, to what extent would changing the size of the geographic reporting areas alter our
analysis of competitive sensitivity of the data collected?  

     76.  Notwithstanding our belief that submitted information will not ordinarily raise
legitimate protection issues, we cannot prevent parties submitting data from asserting
confidentiality or other claims and seeking protection from public release.  We, of course, expect
such parties to follow Commission rules and guidelines when seeking protection pursuant,
primarily, to relevant sections of the Freedom of Information Act.  In any event, we note that
the Commission may, for good cause shown, release even otherwise protectible information if
such release is determined to be in the public interest.  We tentatively conclude that any party that
files information pursuant to the proposed survey and who seeks to prevent public release of
portions of such information should submit both complete and redacted, public file versions of
data.  Pending Commission disposition of the related request for protective treatment, only the
redacted version would be publicly released.  We seek comment on our tentative conclusions and
related analysis.

G.   Electronic Filing

     77.  If Commission staff is to efficiently analyze and manipulate submitted data, we
must receive the data in some electronically readable format.  At a minimum, therefore, we
tentatively conclude that, consistent with the practices adopted for the Common Carrier Bureau's
voluntary local competition survey, the completed surveys must be submitted in the form of
electronic spreadsheets in Excel format.  The spreadsheets that constitute the survey will be
posted at a unique location within the Bureau's section of the Commission's internet site, from
which they can be downloaded.

     78.  As a mechanism for submitting data, we tentatively propose a simple filing system
in which the completed surveys (in the form of electronic spreadsheets in Excel format) must be
filed with the Commission over the internet.  In particular, we tentatively propose to establish a
Commission e-mail address to which entities that are required to report local competition and/or
broadband deployment data will send their completed surveys as attachments to an e-mail
message.  We seek comment on the appropriateness of e-mail as a transmission mechanism for
filing completed surveys and the use of spreadsheets as the filing basis. 

     79.  We seek comment about operational and other issues related to implementation of
such an e-mail/spreadsheet-based electronic filing system.  We note that there may be particular
issues relating to the submission of data for which confidential treatment is sought.  We seek
particular comment on ways a survey filing system that uses the internet to transmit information
can protect legitimately protectible information, while reiterating our general intention, discussed
above, to routinely treat submitted information as publicly available.

     80.  We also seek comment on alternative electronic filing systems.  For example, the
electronic filing procedures adopted for the FCC Annual Cable Industry Price Survey allow filers
to complete (and submit on diskette) the survey using stand-alone software, developed by
Commission staff, that incorporates some data consistency checks and minimizes opportunities for
inadvertent data entry error.  An alternative system could offer certain advantages to both filers
and the Commission.  It could remove the need for filers to transfer data to paper or to stand-
alone electronic spreadsheets, could retain some information from period to period and perform
various types of checks for data consistency, and/or could permit automatic data loading into a
Commission data system.  On the other hand, we note that the information collection program
proposed in this Notice is designed to impose minimally necessary burdens on reporting entities
and, as discussed below, will not be permanent.  Electronic filing systems more sophisticated
than a simple internet-based system could impose various costs -- including costs associated with
employing data systems contractors to develop associated systems software -- that could exceed
the benefits users would otherwise achieve.  Therefore, we seek comment on whether more
sophisticated electronic filing systems would be appropriate for the limited program set out in this
Notice, and we ask commenters specifically to consider the costs and benefits associated with
specific proposals.  We tentatively conclude that we should not adopt an electronic filing system
where associated costs exceed benefits.     
     
     81.  We remain committed to making electronic filings and other electronic applications
accessible to persons with disabilities to the fullest extent possible.  We note that electronic filing
is subject to program accessibility requirements of Section 1.850 of our rules.  In addition,
Congress has revised the requirements for access by persons with disabilities to federal
information technology programs in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.  We recognize
that, in some instances, it may be difficult for persons with disabilities to access components of the
proposed electronic filing.  In particular, the accessibility of forms and certain types of electronic
files raises complex technical issues.  We will continue to work on these issues and fully expect
that with advances in technology, we will be able to enhance the accessibility to persons with
disabilities.

H.   Survey Modification and Termination

     82.  We expect the local services and broadband services markets will become
increasingly dynamic as competition develops.  Therefore, it may be necessary to make changes to
the form, content, or reporting obligations of this information collection to ensure its continuing
value, while minimizing filing burdens on respondents.  

     83.  The purpose of this undertaking is to assist the Commission in evaluating the
development of local competition and broadband deployment during a critical transition period. 
This information collection program does not seek to impose a "permanent" regulatory burden on
carriers and others.  Therefore, we seek comment on how best to ensure that this program
terminates once local competition and broadband deployment emerge from this transition period. 
Would it be best to sunset the program after five years?  Would a review process, perhaps every
three years, be a better tool for ensuring the program does not outlive it usefulness?     

                     IV.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A.   Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

     84.  This Notice contains either a proposed or modified information collection.  As part
of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public to take this
opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this Notice, pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13.  Public and agency comments are due at
the same time as other comments on this Notice.  Comments should address: (a) whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission's burden estimates;  (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.

     85.  We estimate that the proposed local competition and broadband information
collection will create a burden of 30 hours for the first state for which a completed survey is filed
in a particular reporting period, 10 hours for the second state for which a response is filed, and 4
hours per state for each additional state for which a survey response is filed.  In those cases in
which a reporting carrier provides responses for geographic regions smaller than a state, we
estimate that each such sub-state response will create an additional burden of 4 hours.  These
burden estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information.  

     86.  We expect burdens would be somewhat higher in the initial reporting periods,
while respondents familiarize themselves with the survey and set up appropriate internal
procedures for assembling data and completing the survey.  We also expect burdens to be
somewhat less than our estimates in the case of competitive LECs pursuing a pure resale strategy,
because questions about owned facilities would not apply to such carriers.  Similarly, we expect
burdens to be lower than our estimates in the case of mobile service providers, who would
complete Section VI of the survey in lieu of completing Sections I - III.  

     87.  We invite all interested parties to estimate the burden of preparing and submitting
the survey that appears in Attachment A of this Notice.  The survey that appears in Attachment A
is substantially similar to the Bureau's recent voluntary surveys.  It differs from the voluntary
survey by the deletion of questions about minutes of use, by the addition of questions about
broadband lines in service to all customers, and by the addition of a new section (Section VI)
requesting information about the number of subscribers to mobile wireless telephony services.
      
     88.  The overall burden per year of local competition and broadband information
collection will depend on the number of items in the information collection, on the number of
entities that report for at least one state in each reporting period, and on the average number of
states for which reports are made.  It is a purpose of this Notice to take comments on these
determinants of the overall burden per year.  

B.   Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

     89.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Notice.  The IRFA is set forth as
Attachment C.  Written public comments are requested with respect to the IRFA.  These
comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the rest of
this Notice and they must have a separate and distinct heading, designating the comments as
responses to the IRFA.  The Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, will send a
copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
                 
C.   Ex Parte Presentations

     90.  This proceeding will be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding subject to
the "permit-but-disclose" requirements under section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, as
revised.  Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section
1.1206.
     
D.   Comment Filing Procedures
     
     91.  General.  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on before [thirty days after
publication in the Federal Register], and reply comments on or before [forty-five days after
publication in the Federal Register].  Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.

     92.  Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the internet
to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>.  Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission
must be filed.  If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding,
however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the caption.  In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number.  Parties may also submit an electronic comment by internet e-mail.  To get
filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and
should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form <your e-mail address>." 
A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

     93.  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each
filing.  If participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an
original plus nine copies must be filed.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in
the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.  All filings by paper must be sent to the Commission's Secretary: 
Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
St, SW, Washington, DC 20554.  One copy of each written filing, as well as a copy of the filing
on a diskette, must be sent to the following persons at Federal Communications Commission, 445
12th St, SW, Washington, DC 20554:  Ms. Terry Conway, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry
Analysis Division; Mr. Andrew Wise, Cable Services Bureau, Policy and Rules Division, Federal
Communications Commission; Mr. Jerome Stanshine, Office of Engineering and Technology; and
Mr. Walter Strack, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.    

     94.  The required diskette copies of submissions should be on 3.5 inch diskettes
formatted in an IBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows or compatible
software.  Each diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in "read
only" mode.  The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (CC
Docket No. 99-301), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the
name of the electronic file on the diskette.  The label should also include the following phrase
"Disk Copy - Not an Original."  Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings,
preferably in a single electronic file.  

     95.  In addition, parties who choose to file by paper must send diskette copies to the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th St, NW,
Washington, DC 20036.  Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445
12th St, SW, Washington, DC.

     96.  As noted above, this Notice contains either a proposed or modified information
collection.  Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information
collections are due [thirty days after publication in the Federal Register].  Written comments must
be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified
information collections on or before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.  In
addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information
collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications
Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC  20554, or via the Internet to
jboley@fcc.gov and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, DC  20503 or via the Internet to VHuth@omb.eop.gov.
     
                      V.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     97.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1-5, 10, 11, 201-205,
215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C.  151-155, 160, 161, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, and 403, and
pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.  157 nt, this
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, with all attachments, is hereby ADOPTED.

     98.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs,
Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RULEMAKING, including the regulatory flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981).


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Magalie Roman Salas
                         Secretary 
                          ATTACHMENT A

      LOCAL COMPETITION AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT REPORTING
                 ATTACHMENT B - Proposed Rules

          AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

                 PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

1.   The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:

     AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 79  et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154,(j), 155, 225, and
303(r).

2.   Subpart U of the Part 1 is created to read as follows:

Subpart U -- Implementation of Section 706 of the Telecommunications
 Act of 1996; Commission Collection of Advanced Telecommunications
                    Capability Deployment Data

 1.6000  Purpose

The purpose of this Part is to set out the terms by which certain commercial and government-
controlled entities report data to the Commission concerning the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability, defined pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  157nt as "high-speed, switched,
broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-
quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology," and the
deployment of services that are competitive with advanced telecommunications capability.

 1.6001 Scope and Content of Filed Reports

(a)  All commercial and government-controlled entities, including but not limited to
communications common carriers and their affiliates, cable television companies, Multichannel
Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS/MDS) "wireless cable" carriers, public utilities and
others, which have full broadband lines or wireless channels in service to 1,000 or more
customers nationwide, shall file reports with the Commission containing information about the
provision of such capability.  For purposes of this Subpart, "full broadband lines or wireless
channels" are defined as lines or wireless channels with information carrying capability in
excess of 200 Kbps in both directions simultaneously.

(b)  Each report shall contain, in a format determined by the Commission, broadband
deployment information, including lines or wireless channels with information carrying
capability in excess of 200 Kbps in both directions simultaneously and in one direction only; and
lines or wireless channels with information carrying capability in excess of 1.544 Mbps in both
directions simultaneously and in one direction only.

(c)  Each report pursuant to this section shall be filed in duplicate, and the original shall be
signed by the responsible official to whom correspondence related thereto should be addressed.

 1.6002 Frequency of Reports

Commercial and government-controlled entities subject to the provisions of  1.6001 shall file
reports [quarterly, on a calendar year basis. Commercial and government-controlled entities
becoming subject to the provisions of  1.6001 for the first time within a calendar year shall file
data for the next quarter following eligibility and quarterly thereafter.] 


                            * * * * *

           PART 20 -- COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

1.   The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

     AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless otherwise noted.

2.   Subsection 20.15(b) of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:

 20.15   Requirements under Title II of the Communications Act

(b) Commercial mobile radio service providers are not required to:

     (1)  File with the Commission copies of contracts entered into with other carriers or
comply with other reporting requirements, or with  1.781 - 1.814 and 43.21 of this chapter;
except that commercial radio service providers that offer mobile telephony (for purposes of this
subpart, "mobile telephony" is defined as real-time, two-way switched voice service that is
interconnected with the public switched network utilizing an in-network switching facility that
enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless handoff of subscriber calls)
shall file reports pursuant to  43.11 of this chapter.


                            * * * * *

            PART 43 - REPORTS OF COMMUNICATION COMMON
                 CARRIERS AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES

Part 43 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows:

1.   The authority citation for Part 43 continues to read as follows:

     AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C.  154; Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104,
secs. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) as amended unless otherwise noted.  47 U.S.C. 211,
219, 220 as amended.

2.   Section 43.01 of the Commission's rules is amended to read as follows:

 43.01   Applicability

(a)  * * *

(b)  Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, carriers becoming subject to
the provisions of the several sections of this part for the first time, shall, within thirty (30) days of
becoming subject, file the required data as set forth in the various sections of this part.

(c)  * * *

(d)  Communication common carriers subject to the provisions of  43.11 shall file data
[quarterly, on a calendar year basis. Communication common carriers becoming subject to the
provisions of  43.11 for the first time within a calendar year shall file data for the next quarter
following eligibility and quarterly thereafter.] 

3.   Section 43.11 of the Commission's rules is added to read as follows:

 43.11   Reports of Local Exchange Competition Data

(a)  All communication common carriers and their affiliates providing local exchange
service, or commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers offering mobile telephony (as
defined in section 20.15(b)(1) of this chapter), shall file [quarterly] reports with the Commission
containing information about the provision of such services.  Carriers with fewer than 50,000
local access lines nationwide and CMRS providers with fewer than 50,000 subscribers
nationwide are exempt from the requirements of this section, unless the carrier provides full
broadband lines (as defined in section 1.6001(a) of this chapter) to 1,000 or more customers.

(b)  Each such report shall contain, in a format determined by the Commission, the
following:

     (1) For communication common carriers and their affiliates providing telephone
exchange service or exchange access defined pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  153(26), information
concerning voice grade lines in service to end users and other communication common carriers,
high capacity lines in service to end users and other communication common carriers, and
collocation arrangements.

     (2) For commercial mobile radio service providers of mobile telephony services, defined
pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  20.15(b)(1), information concerning voice grade mobile telephony
service subscribers.

(c)  Each report pursuant to this section shall be filed in duplicate, and the original shall be
signed by the responsible official to whom correspondence related thereto should be addressed.
                           ATTACHMENT C

           INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS

     1.   As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has
prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of any possible significant
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice.  Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on this Notice, which are set out in  91 of
the Notice.  The Commission will send a copy of this Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  In addition, this Notice and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

I.   Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action:

     2.   The Commission has initiated this proceeding to determine whether it should
require certain providers of communications services to report a limited amount of information
about the development of local telephone competition and the deployment of broadband services
as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  The 1996 Act -- in particular, sections 251
and 271 -- tasked this Commission and the states with important roles in opening up local
telephone markets to competition.  The Commission needs timely and reliable information about
the pace and extent of developing competition in different geographic markets in order to evaluate
the effectiveness of the actions this Commission and the states are taking to promote local
telephone competition.  Moreover, the Commission tentatively concluded that gathering
broadband deployment information is critical given that section 706 of the 1996 Act requires the
Commission to issue periodic reports on the state of broadband deployment.

II.  Legal Basis:

     3.   The legal basis for the action as proposed for this rulemaking is contained in
sections 1-5, 10, 11, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151-155, 160, 161, 201-205, 215, 218-
220, 251-271, 303(r), 332 and 403, and pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, 47 U.S.C.  157 nt.

III.      Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Action May Apply:

     4.   The Commission tentatively concludes that local exchange carriers and providers
of mobile telephony services that serve 50,000 or more subscribers, and any entity that provides at
least 1,000 full broadband lines, should comply with the proposed reporting requirement.  Based
on data available to it at present, the Commission estimates that fewer than 50 of the nation's
largest local exchange carriers and between 40 and 70 mobile telephony providers would be
required to comply with the proposed requirement.  Nevertheless, and out of an abundance of
caution, we set out below a detailed description of the types of entities that could possibly be
required to comply with the proposed reporting requirement and we detail our understanding of
the number of small entities within each of these categories.

     5.   To estimate the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed
rules, we first consider the statutory definition of "small entity" under the RFA.  The RFA
generally defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the term "small business," "small
organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."  In addition, the term "small business" has
the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, unless the
Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.  Under
the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that:  (1) is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).  The SBA has defined a small business
for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications)
and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they
have no more than 1,500 employees.  We first discuss the number of small telephone companies
falling within these SIC categories, then attempt to refine further those estimates to correspond
with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our rules.

     6.   The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of common
carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the numbers of commercial wireless entities,
appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report, derived from
filings made in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).  According to
data in the most recent report, there are 3,604 interstate carriers.  These carriers include, inter
alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers,
competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of
telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.  

     7.   We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis.  As noted
above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business
size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and
"is not dominant in its field of operation."  The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for
RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any
such dominance is not "national" in scope.  We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in
this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

     8.   Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected.  The United States Bureau of
the Census ("the Census Bureau") reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms
engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year.  This number
contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers,
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers,
operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and
resellers.  It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as
small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not "independently owned and
operated."  For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having
more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business.  It seems
reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity
telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules
proposed in the Notice.

     9.   Wireline Carriers and Service Providers.  SBA has developed a definition of small
entities for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies.  The
Census Bureau reports that, there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least
one year at the end of 1992.  According to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company
other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons.  All but 26
of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have
fewer than 1,000 employees.  Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500
employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small
entities or small incumbent LECs.  Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision
the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business
concerns under SBA's definition.  Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 2,295 small
entity telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies that may be
affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice.

     10.  Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers,
Operator Service Providers, and Resellers.  Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a
definition of small local exchange carriers (LECs), interexchange carriers (IXCs), competitive
access providers (CAPs), operator service providers (OSPs), or resellers.  The closest applicable
definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies
other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.  The most reliable source of information
regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data
that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). 
According to our most recent data, there are 1,410 LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, 32 OSPs, and
351 resellers.  Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned
and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under
SBA's definition.  Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,410 small entity LECs or
small incumbent LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, 32 OSPs, and 351 resellers that may be affected by
the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice.

     11.  Wireless (Radiotelephone) Carriers.  SBA has developed a definition of small
entities for radiotelephone (wireless) companies.  The Census Bureau reports that there were 
1,176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.  According to SBA's
definition, a small business radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500
persons.  The Census Bureau also reported that 1,164 of those radiotelephone companies had
fewer than 1,000 employees.  Thus, even if all of the remaining 12 companies had more than
1,500 employees, there would still be 1,164 radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small
entities if they are independently owned are operated.  Although it seems certain that some of
these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate
with greater precision the number of radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would
qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition.  Consequently, we estimate that there
are fewer than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the decisions
and rules proposed in the Notice.

     12.  Cellular, PCS, SMR and Other Mobile Service Providers.  In an effort to further
refine our calculation of the number of radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the rules
adopted herein, we consider the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS for the
subcategories Wireless Telephony (which includes Cellular, PCS, and SMR) and Other Mobile
Service Providers.  We will utilize the closest applicable definition under SBA rules -- which, for
both categories, is for telephone companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies,
however, to the extent that the Commission has adopted definitions for small entities providing
PCS and SMR services, we discuss those definitions below.  According to our most recent TRS
data, 732 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of Wireless Telephony
services and 23 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of Other Mobile
Services.  Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and
operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater
precision the number of Wireless Telephony Providers and Other Mobile Service Providers,
except as described below, that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. 
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 732 small entity Wireless Telephony
Providers and fewer than 23 small entity Other Mobile Service Providers that might be affected by
the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice.

     13.  Broadband PCS Licensees.  The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. 
The Commission defined "small entity" for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross
revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years.  For Block F, an
additional classification for "very small business" was added, and is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the
preceding three calendar years.  These regulations defining "small entity" in the context of
broadband PCS auctions have been  approved by SBA.   No small businesses within the SBA-
approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B.  There were 90 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions.  A total of 93 small and very small
business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.  However,
licenses for Blocks C through F have not been awarded fully, therefore there are few, if any, small
businesses currently providing PCS services.  Based on this information, we estimate that the
number of small broadband PCS licenses will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93
qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small PCS providers as defined by
SBA and the Commissioner's auction rules.

     14.  SMR Licensees.  Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  90.814(b)(1), the Commission has
defined "small entity" in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses as a
firm that had average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million in the three previous calendar
years.  The definition of a "small entity" in the context of 800 MHz SMR has been approved by
the SBA, and approval for the 900 MHz SMR definition has been sought.  The proposed rules
may apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic
area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations.  We do not know how
many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended
implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of less
than $15 million.  Consequently, we estimate, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the extended
implementation authorizations may be held by small entities, some of which may be affected by
the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice.

     15.  The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 900
MHz SMR band.  There were 60 winning bidders who qualified as small entities in the 900 MHz
auction.  Based on this information, we estimate that the number of geographic area SMR
licensees that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice includes these 60
small entities.  No auctions have been held for 800 MHz geographic area SMR licenses. 
Therefore, no small entities currently hold these licenses.  A total of 525 licenses will be awarded
for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction.  The Commission,
however, has not yet determined how many licenses will be awarded for the lower 230 channels in
the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction.  There is no basis, moreover, on which to estimate
how many small entities will win these licenses.  Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies
have fewer than 1,000 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number of prospective 800
MHz licensees can be made, we estimate, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the licenses may
be awarded to small entities, some of which may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed
in the Notice.

     16.  220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase I Licensees.  The 220 MHz service has both
Phase I and Phase II licenses.  There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and
four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band.  The Commission
has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHZ
Phase I licensees.  To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, we apply
the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone Communications companies. 
According to the Bureau of the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such
firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.  Therefore, if this general ratio
continues to 1999 in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such
licensees are small businesses under the SBA's definition, some of which may be affected by the
decisions and rules proposed in the Notice.

     17.  220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase II Licensees.  The Phase II 220 MHz service is a
new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions.  In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order we
adopted criteria for defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment
payments.  We have defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding
three years.  Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million
for the preceding three years.  An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15,
1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.  908 licenses were auctioned in 3 different-sized
geographic areas:  three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group Licenses, and
875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses.  Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold.  Companies
claiming small business status won: one of the Nationwide licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses,
and 54% of the EA licenses.  As of October 7, 1999, the Commission had granted 681 of the
Phase II 220 MHz licenses won at a first auction and an additional 221 Phase II licenses won at a
second auction.

     18.  Paging.  The Commission has adopted a two-tier definition of small businesses in
the context of auctioning licenses in the Common Carrier Paging and exclusive Private Carrier
Paging services.  A small business is defined as either (1) an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of
not more than $3 million, or (2) an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not more than $15 million. 
The SBA approved this definition for paging services on December 12, 1999.  At present, there
are approximately 24,000 Private Paging licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. 
According to the most recent Carrier Locator data, 137 carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of either paging or messaging services, which are placed together in the data. 
We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that meet this two-tiered definition,
and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of paging carriers
that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition.  Consequently, we
estimate that there are fewer than 137 small paging carriers that may be affected by the decisions
and rules proposed in the Notice.

     19.  Narrowband PCS.   The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional
licenses for narrowband PCS.  There are 11 nationwide and 30 regional licensees for narrowband
PCS.  The Commission does not have sufficient information to determine whether any of these
licensees are small businesses within the SBA-approved definition for radiotelephone companies. 
At present, there have been no auctions held for the major trading area (MTA) and basic trading
area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses.  The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licenses
and 2,958 BTA licenses will be awarded by auction.  Such auctions have not yet been scheduled,
however.  Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have no more than 1,500 employees and
that no reliable estimate of the number of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can
be made, we assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small
entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

     20.  Rural Radiotelephone Service.  The Commission has not adopted a definition of
small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service.  A significant subset of the Rural
Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS).  We will use
the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more
than 1,500 persons.  There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone
Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA's
definition.

     21.  Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.  The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.  Accordingly, we
will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no
more than 1,500 persons.  There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition. 

     22.  Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR).   PLMR systems serve an essential role in a
range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities.  These radios are
used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories.  The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to PLMR licensees due to the vast
array of PLMR users.  For the purpose of determining whether a licensee is a small business as
defined by the SBA, each licensee would need to be evaluated within its own business area.  The
Commission is unable at this time to estimate the number of, if any, small businesses that could be
impacted by the proposed rules.  However, the Commission's 1994 Annual Report on PLMRs
indicates that at the end of fiscal year 1994 there were 1,087,267 licensees operating 12,481,989
transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz.  Because any entity engaged in a commercial
activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, the proposed rules in this context could potentially
impact every small business in the United States.  We note, however, that because the vast
majority of these licensees are end-users, not providers of telephony or broadband services, they
would not be directly affected by the rules proposed in this Notice.

     23.  Fixed Microwave Services.  Microwave services include common carrier,
private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services.  At present, there are
approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees in the microwave services.   The
Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services.  For
purposes of this IRFA, we will utilize the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies
-- i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons.  We estimate, for this purpose, that all of the
Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition for radiotelephone companies.

     24.  Offshore Radiotelephone Service.  This service operates on several UHF TV
broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states
bordering the Gulf of Mexico.  At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. 
We are unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small entities
under the SBA's definition for radiotelephone communications.

     25.  Wireless Communications Services.  This service can be used for fixed, mobile,
radio location and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses.  The Commission defined "small
business" for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a "very small business" as an
entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years.  The
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service.  In the auction, there were
seven winning bidders that qualified as very small business entities, and one that qualified as a
small business entity.  We conclude that the number of geographic area WCS licensees that may
be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice includes these eight entities.  

     26.  Satellite Services.  The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to satellite service licensees.  Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is
generally the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications Services, Not
Elsewhere Classified (NEC).  This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one with
$11.0 million or less in annual receipts.  According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of
848 communications services providers, NEC, in operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had annual
receipts of less than $9.999 million.  The Census report does not provide more precise data.

     27.  In addition to the estimates provided above, we consider certain additional entities
that may be affected by the data collection from broadband service providers.  Because section
706 requires us to monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of technology or transmission
media employed, we anticipate that some broadband service providers will not provide telephone
service.  Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may provide broadband
services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others.

     28.  Cable services or systems: The SBA has developed a definition of small entities
for cable and other pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11
million or less in revenue annually.  This definition includes cable systems operators, closed
circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems,
satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services.  According to the Census
Bureau data from 1992, there were 1,788 total cable and other pay television services and 1,423
had less than $11 million in revenue.

     29.  The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable system operator
for the purposes of rate regulation.  Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable company" is one
serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.  Based on our most recent information, we
estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable system operators at the
end of 1995.  Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000
subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined
with other cable operators.  Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small
entity cable system operators.

     30.  The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable system
operator, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate
fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or
entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000."  The Commission
has determined that there are 66,000,000 subscribers in the United States.  Therefore, we found
that an operator serving fewer than 660,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its
annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not
exceed $250 million in the aggregate.  Based on available data, we find that the number of cable
operators serving 660,000 subscribers or less totals 1,450.   We do not request nor do we
collect information concerning whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose
gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators
under the definition in the Communications Act.  It should be further noted that recent industry
estimates project that there will be a total of 66,000,000 subscribers, and we have based our fee
revenue estimates on that figure.

     31.  Multipoint Distribution Systems (MDS):  The Commission has defined "small
entity" for the auction of MDS as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross
annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding three calendar years.  This
definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA.  The
Commission completed its MDS auction in March 1996 for authorizations in 493 basic trading
areas (BTAs).  Of 67 winning bidders, 61 qualified as small entities.  

     32.  MDS is also heavily encumbered with licensees of stations authorized prior to the
auction.  The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for pay television services, which
includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts.  This definition
includes multipoint distribution systems, and thus applies to MDS licensees and wireless cable
operators which did not participate in the MDS auction.  Information available to us indicates that
there are 832 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $11
million annually.  Therefore, for purposes of this IRFA, we find there are approximately 892 small
MDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules, some which may be
affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice.

     33.  Electric Services (SIC 4911):  The SBA has developed a definition for small
electric utility firms.  The Census Bureau reports that a total of 1379 electric utilities were in
operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.  According to SBA, a small electric utility is an
entity whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992.  The Census Bureau
reports that 447 of the 1379 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.

     34.  Electric and Other Services Combined (SIC 4931):  The SBA has classified this
entity as a utility whose business is less than 95% electric in combination with some other type of
service.  The Census Bureau reports that a total of 135 such firms were in operation for at least
one year at the end of 1992.  The SBA's definition of a small electric and other services combined
utility is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992.  The Census
Bureau reported that 45 of the 135 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.

     35.  Combination Utilities, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC 4939):  The SBA defines
this utility as providing a combination of electric, gas, and other services which are not otherwise
classified.  The Census Bureau reports that a total of 79 such utilities were in operation for at
least one year at the end of 1992.  According to SBA's definition, a small combination utility is a
firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992.  The Census Bureau
reported that 63 of the 79 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.

IV.  Description of Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements:

     36.  The very focus of this proceeding is whether the Commission should require
certain providers of communications services to report a limited amount of information about the
development of local telephone competition and the deployment of broadband services.  The
Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission should undertake such a data collection and
that local exchange carriers and providers of mobile telephony services that serve 50,000 or more
subscribers, and any entity that provides at least 1,000 full broadband lines, should report
specifically targeted information.  The Notice sets out in detail, and seeks comment on, the
Commission's tentative conclusions about the types of carriers that should report, exempting
smaller carriers, frequency of reports, data to be reported, and methods (such as electronic
filing) of reporting.  In particular, the Commission has tentatively concluded that given the
comprehensive data to be obtained from large and medium-size carriers, it can exempt most small
carriers from completing the survey without materially affecting its ability to assess the
development of local competition and the deployment of broadband services.  

V.   Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered:

     37.  The Commission makes specific provision to exempt most smaller carriers from
the proposed requirement to report local telephone competition data.  The Commission tentatively
concludes that carriers with fewer than 50,000 nationwide local access lines (or mobile telephony
subscribers, in the case of mobile telephony providers) should be exempted from the proposed
reporting requirement.  Based on this exemption, the Commission estimates that fewer than 50
of the nation's largest service providers would remain subject to the proposed requirement.  The
Commission provides a detailed explanation for this proposed exemption and seeks comment on
the 50,000 local access line threshold in the Notice.

     38.  With respect to broadband service, and irrespective of the criteria for reporting
local competition data, the Commission tentatively concludes that firms that provide full
broadband services to at least 1,000 customers should report.  The Commission tentatively
concludes that this more comprehensive reporting requirement is necessary to monitor broadband
developments by smaller carriers, for example, in rural areas.  The Commission seeks comment on
this proposed threshold and invites commenters to suggest alternative thresholds.  

     39.  Among significant alternatives, the Commission considers whether it might rely on
publicly available data or voluntary surveys, in lieu of a mandatory data collection program.  The
Commission tentatively concludes other publicly available information sources present less than
complete pictures of actual conditions and trends in developing local service markets and in the
deployment of broadband.  Further, the Commission considers the need for, and size of, its
proposed exemptions for small entities.  The Commission tentatively concludes that the
proposed thresholds will allow it exempt most small carriers from completing the survey without
materially affecting its ability to assess the development of local competition and the deployment
of broadband services.

VI.  Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule:
     
     40.  None.ATTACHMENT D - Commenters in CC Docket No. 91-141, CCB-IAD File No. 98-102

Comments:
Allegiance Telecom, Inc.
Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)
Ameritech
AT&T Corp.
Bell Atlantic
BellSouth
General Services Administration (GSA)
GTE
GVNW Inc./Management (GVNW)
KMC Telecom, Inc.
MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI)
MediaOne Group, Inc. (MediaOne)
National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA)
Rural ILECs (Lexcom Telephone Company, United Telephone Association, Clear Lake
          Independent Telephone Company, Ventura Telephone Company, and Webster-Calhoun
     Cooperative Telephone Association)
SBC Communications Inc. (SBC)
Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET)
Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA)
Teleport Communications Group Inc. (TCG)
United States Telephone Association (USTA)
U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST)

Reply Comments:
Allegiance Telecom, Inc.
Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)
Ameritech
AT&T Corp.
Bell Atlantic
BellSouth
General Services Administration (GSA)
KMC Telecom, Inc.
MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI)
National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA)
SBC Communications Inc. (SBC)
Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA)
United States Telephone Association (USTA)
U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST)