DA 96-69 Federal Communic~tions Commission Record 11 FCC Red No. 5 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 CC Docket No. 95-155 In the Matter of Toll Free Service Access Codes REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: January 25, 1996; Released: January 25, 1996 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND III. DISCUSSION A. Vanity Numbers B. Reservation of Toll Free Numbers 1. Reservation Process 2. Initial Reservation of 888 C. Tariffs D. Directory Assistance V. CONCLUSION VI. ORDERING CLAUSES Paragraph No. l 4 6 6 15 15 24 41 55 58 59 Appendix A: List of Parties Filing Comments I. INTRODUCTION 1. On January 24, 1996. the Commission issued an Order1 that delegated authority to the Chief of the Com­ mon Carrier Bureau ("Bureau") to resolve the issues raised in this docket 2 that are essential to the industry opening the 888 toll free service access code ("SAC") on schedule. Toll free service using the 888 SAC is currently scheduled to begin on March I, 1996. In order to ensure that the industry is prepared to begin transmitting toll free calls 1 Toll Free Service Access Codes, Order, CC Docket No. 95-155, FCC No. 96-18, (adopted January 24, 1996). 2 Toll Free Service Access Codes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 95-155, FCC No. IJ5-419 (adopted October 4, 1995) ("NPRlW'). 3 DSM! is a subsidiary of Bellcore. which. in turn, is wholly owned by the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies ("RBOCs"). DSMI subcontracts management of the Number Administration Service Center ("NASC"), which provides user support for the Service Management System ("SMS") database, to Lockheed IMS. Database hardware is provided under contract by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT"). DSMI administers the SMS, which is a computer system that enables "RespOrgs" to enter and to amend easily the data about toll free numbers within their control. The SMS then shares this in­ formation with regional local exchange carrier ("LEC") databases referred to as service control points ("SCPs"). The 2496 using the 888 code on March 1, subscribers must be al­ lowed to begin reserving numbers in the 888 code in advance of this date. 2. In this Report and Order, the Bureau agrees with the SMS/800 Number Administration Committee ("SNAC") that Responsible Organizations ("RespOrgs") should poll their 800 subscribers to determine which numbers sub· scribers may want replicated in 888. We expect that RespOrgs will continue this polling process, but only with respect to commercial subscribers. We direct Database Management Services, Inc. ("DSMI")3 to set aside those 888 numbers identified by t.he RespOrgs as a result of this polling process bl placing these "vanity numbers"4 in "un­ available" status until the Commission resolves whether these numbers ultimately should be afforded any perma­ nent special right or protection. We also conclude that the entire "888-555" NXX should be designated "unavailable" until the Commission resolves those issues that will permit competitive toll free directory assistance services. 3. With vanity numbers and "888-555" numbers set aside. we conclude that the remaining 888 numbers should be available on a first come, first served basis subject to the limitations set forth in this Report and Order. RespOrgs may begin reserving 888 numbers for their subscribers at 12:01 a.m. on February 10, 1996. A conservation plan for 888 numbers is necessary to protect the toll free database system from an overload that could possibly cause a tem­ porary shutdown of the reservation process. We also con­ clude that a limited conservation plan is necessary for 800 numbers until 888 has been successfully and ubiquitously deployed. Further, we conclude that, for tariffing purposes, 888 service should be treated like 800 service and that the associated investment and expenses of carriers regulated by price caps should not be given exogenous cost treatment. Additional issues addressed in the NPRM in this docket will be resolved in a subsequent decision .. II. BACKGROUND 4. In October 1995, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding to ensure that in the future, toll free numbers are allocated on a fair. ec.iuitable, and orderly basis.6 Generally, the NPRM sought comment on proposals to: ( 1) promote the efficient use of toll free numbers; (2) foster the fair and equitable reservation and distribut.ion of toll free numbers; (3) smooth the transition period preced- entire system is referred to as the SMS database. There are ten regional 800 SCP databases in the United States independently owned by Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, GTE, NYNEX. Pacific Telesis, SBC Communications, Southern New England· Telephone Company ("SNET"), Sprint (Local). and U S West. 4 For purposes of this Report and Order, we are using the term "vanity number" to describe a number that a subscriber re­ quests be made unavailable during the initial 888 reservation reriod. A number that is designated as "unavailable" in the SMS database is not available for assignment to any toll free sub­ scriber. See Industry Guidelines for 800 Number Administration, § 2.4.9 (June 8, 1995)("/ndustry Guidelines"). 6 See supra n.2. 11 FCC Red No. 5 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 96-69 ing introduction of a new toll free code; (4) guard against warehousing of toll free numbers; and (5) determine how toll free vanity numbers should be treated.7 5. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on the definition of vanity numbers and whether to permit hold­ ers of these toll free numbers a right of first refusal for corresponding numbers in the 888 code.8 The Commission also sought comment on how the reservation process for new toll free codes should unfold,9 the mechanics of in­ troducing new toll free SACs,10 and the tariff rules and procedures to govern the new toll free service offerings.1 1 Comment was also solicited on whether 800 Directory Assistance ("DA") and 888 DA should be combined into interchangeable toll free DA service, and whether such a service should be open to competition. 12 This Report and Order addresses only these issues that are essential to the opening of the 888 toll free code on March 1, 1996. III. DISCUSSION A. VANITY NUMBERS 1. Background 6. In the NPRM, the Commission defined a vanity num­ ber as "a telephone number for which the letters associated with the number's digits on a telephone handset spell a name or word of value to the number holder." 1l The NPRM broadened the definition of vanity numbers for the purpose of this proceeding to include any numbers in which the holders have a particular interest, be it eco­ nomic, commercial or otherwise.14 7. The NPRM also sought comment on the potential number of corresponding vanity numbers that might be reserved in 888 and subsequent toll free codes if the Com­ mission concluded that subscribers should be able to pre­ vent other_s from gaining access to numbers in newly opened codes used for toll free dialing if the last seven digits of those numbers were the same as the last seven digits of the 800 numbers assigned to those subscribers. 15 The Commission asked commenters to identify the total quantity. of existing vanity numbers or a method for ascertaining how many numbers are or should be regarded 7 We discuss the issues posed by vanity numbers more fully in Section JII. 8 A right of first refusal would permit the holder of an 800 number to have a superior right vis-a-vis all other interested . parties to receive the equivalent 888 number. See NPRM at ~ara. 41. Id. at para. 23. 10 Id. at paras. 24-25. 11 Id. at para. 56. 12 Id. at para. 48. 11 ·Id. at para. 35. Examples of vanity numbers given in the NPRM include "1-800-THECARD" and "l-800-FLOWERS." Id. 14 Id. Numbers included in this category consist of toll free numbers dedicated for emergency recall situations or consumer inquiries. Id. For example, companies producing over-the­ counter medications often include a customer service number on the packaging. 15 Id. at para. 40. .16 Id. 17 Ameritech Comments at 30. See. also AT&T Comments at . 27 (numbers that are advertised, widely known and accepted by as vanity numbers. The Commission sought this informa­ t~on, first, so that it could assess the viability of granting a nght of first refusal to current holders of 800 vanity num­ bers for the equivalent 888 numbers and, second, to as­ certain the impact such a right of first refusal would have on competition. 16 2. Comments a. Definition of Vanity Numbers 8. Various commenters suggest diff~ring definitions for vanity numbers. Ameritech, for example, suggests six possi­ ble categories of vanity numbers: (1) numbers correspond­ ing to letters spelling a subscriber's product (e.g., "1-800-FLOWERS"); (2) numbers corresponding to letters spelling a subscriber's name (e.g., "1-800-HOLIDAY"); (3) numbers that begin with "4" or "2" and end with a prod­ uct or subscriber's name (e.g., "1-800-4-TRAVEL"); (4) numbers for which the last four digits spell a product or subscriber's name; (5) numbers that are easily remembered; and (6) numbers that have been heavily marketed.17 The 800 Users Coalition asserts that product information num­ bers or reservation numbers for hotels and airlines that generate large volumes of traffic, should also be included within the definition of vanity numbers. 18 SWBT contends that a logical extension of the definition would include every emergency and hot line number. 19 LDDS Worldcom ("LDDS") asserts that the definition should be broadened beyond mnemonic terms to recognize that the di§its them­ selves may be of value to the toll free subscriber.2 9. AT&T maintains that RespOrgs should determine which of their 800 numbers qualify as vanity numbers,21 while LDDS asserts that toll free subscribers should define the ultimate value of their numbers.22 AirTouch Paging ("AirTouch") declares that there is no fair means of deter­ mining what constitutes a vanity number,23 while Personal Communications Industry Association ("PCIA") states that the Commission definition is overly broad and "precludes meaningful comment."24 As part of its proposed plan for 888 network implementation, the SNAC defines a process that allows RespOrgs to contact their current 800 subscrib­ ers to see which numbers those subscribers might want replicated in 888.25 The criteria used to determine which the public, and called by customers); Americas Carrier Tele­ communications Association ("ACTA") Comments at 17 (num­ bers that can be translated into a word or name). 18 800 Users Coalition Comments at 14. 19 SWBT Comments at 16 . 20 LDDS Comments at 13. 21 AT&T Comments at 27. 22 LDDS Comments at 13. 23 AirTouch Comments at 14, n.30. See also GTE Comments . at 10, n.16 (concerned that a significant amount of numbers may be taken out of circulation if the definition of vanity numbers is too amorphous). 2497 24 PCIA Comments at 10-12. 25 SNAC Comments at 13-14. The SNAC is one of six industry committees included within the Ordering and Billing Forum ("OBF"). OBF "provides a forum for customers and providers in the communications industry to identify. discuss and resolve national issues which affect ordering, billing. provisioning and exchange of information about access service and related in­ dustry matters." Id. at 2. The SNAC is responsible for identify­ ing, developing, and implementing the resolution of issues involving the support of the SMS database. Id. DA 96-69 Federal Communications Commission Record 11 FCC Red No. 5 subscribers would be contacted is left to the discretion of each RespOrg. Once the subscriber base is identified, each RespOrg would be required to compile a computer tape containing requested numbers. The tapes would then be sent to DSMI who, after conducting certain verification procedures, would mark these numbers for the "unavail­ able" status. The pollin~ process was scheduled for comple­ tion in mid-December.2 10. Commenters addressing the question of how many existing 800 numbers would be classified as vanity numbers arrive at widely varied estimates of the potential pool. SNAC, for example, conducted a survey indicating that 24% of existing 800 numbers were identified as vanity numbers. SNAC's survey also indicated that that same per­ centage of subscribers would want to replicate their num­ bers in 888.27 TLDP Communications, Inc. ("TLDP"), con­ sidering as vanity numbers only those that translate into names or words, estimates the quantity at between 10% and 20%, using a "brief mathematical analysis."28 The 800 Us­ ers Coalition used data collected from coalition members, holding approximately 14,000 800 numbers, and from the AT&T Toll Free Directory, containing 180,000 published 800 numbers, to arrive at its 5% to 6% figure.29 The 800 Users Coalition also noted that high volume numbers face the same problems as vanity numbers and consequently should . be afforded the same protections as vanity numbers.10 Ameritech contends that it is virtually impos­ sible to. estimate the scope of vanity numbers because the definition is so broad and subjective.31 ll. In a letter dated January 18, 1996, DSMI informed the bureau that RespOrgs had requested to have approxi­ mately 310,000 888 numbers protected, thus providing ad­ ditional evidence of the large number of 800 numbers that would be classified as vanity numbers.32 3. Discussion 12. Defining vanity numbers is a daunting undertaking. Some numbers are valued for their mnemonic equivalent, whjle other numbers are valued for, among o~her things, the fact that their digits are easily memorized. This Report and Order will address only those issues essential to assuring the 888 SAC can be opened to the general public on March 1, 1996. We propose, therefore, to assure interim protection for all equivalent 888 numbers designated by current 800 subscribers by setting those 888 numbers aside during the initial 888 reservation period. We find that the only numbers ineligible for such treatment are 888 num­ bers equivalent to personal or residential 800 numbers. We 26 Id. at 13-14. 27 SNAC Comments at 16, Appendix B. See also Sprint Comments at 18 (citing SNAC survey); NYNEX Comments at 7 ~estimating the number at 25%). 8 TLDP Comments at 2-3. See also Telecompute Comments at 4 (no more than 25% of all seven digit numbers "spell" any­ thing). . 29 800 Users Coalition co·mmentsat 15-17. lO Id. 11 Ameritech Comments at 30. See also LDDS Comments at 13 (impossible at this time to estimate the quantity of vanity numbers); Bell Atlantic Comments at 7 (no way of knowing the quantity of vanity numbers currently in use because Bell Atlan­ tic does not know how its customers are using their numbers). 12 See Letter from Michael J. Wade, President, DSMI to Kath­ leen B. Levitz, Deputy Bureau Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC, dated January 18, 1996. 2498 find that, in contrast to other 800 subscribers, personal subscribers have no commercial interest in their 800 num­ bers that competitors might seek to undermine.11 The de­ termination as to whether a subscriber is a residential or commercial subscriber shall be determined by the terms of the 800 tariff under which a subscriber is taking service. Consequently, only commercial users have any potential right of protection. 13. Based on DSMI's January 18th letter,14 we estimate that approximately 310,000 numbers will eligible to be set aside during the initial 888 reservation period. We note, however, that this estimate may grow in light of the actions taken below where we request that RespOrgs continue to identify their 800 subscribers that may wish to have their numbers replicated in 888. As discussed inore fully below, we will defer, subject to one modification, to that polling process to identify those numbers that shall be set aside. 14. At this time we do not decide whether these numbers ultimately should be afforded any permanent special pro­ tection or right. We arrive at this conclusion because in light of our decision to have all 888 numbers correspond­ ing to vanity numbers classified as unavailable, a decision about permanent protection is not essential to the opening of the 888 code. We note, however, that postponing the decision will minimize consumer confusion during the initial transition to the 888 service access code. That is, by affording special rights at this time, consumers may wrongly assume that all 800 and 888 numbers are inter­ changeable.15 Such a result may seriously undermine the public awareness and education efforts now underway to inform consumers of the new 888 toll free code.16 Defer­ ring the decision on special rights will permit the Commis­ sion to consider fully the consequences of a final decision on the fair, equitable, and orderly allocation of toll free nurnbers, as well as the economic ramifications of that decision to the current 800 subscribers seeking replication in 888. We anticipate that the Commission will resolve the vanity number issue and will identify what set of numbers, if any, is to receive permanent protection, as well as the scope of that protection, within the year. 33 . We anticipate that 800 service providers will act promptly in resolving and/or correcting billing errors experienced by per­ sonal 800 users after the deployment of 888. 34 See supra n.32. 35 See NYNEX Comments at 7-8; United States Telephone Association ("USTA") Comments at 4-6; U S West Comments at 18-24. 36 In the NPRM, the Commission noted that both the Commis­ sion and the telecommunications industry have begun educa­ tional initiatives in an effort to assure that the public is fully informed of toll free 888. NPRM at para. 4Q. The NPRM sought comment on whether further efforts are necessary to improve public awareness of the introduction of 888. Id. This issue will be addressed in a subsequent Order. 11 FCC Red No. 5 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 96-69 B. RESERVATION OF TOLL FREE NUMBERS 1. Reservation Process a. Background 15. The NPRM noted that under existing Industry Guide­ lines toll free numbers are reserved on a first come, first serv~d basis. The Guidelines permit each RespOrg to re­ serve up to 1000 numbers or 15% of its total quantity of working toll free numbers, whichever" is greater, at any given time.37 The NPRM noted that certain large RespOrgs use a mechanized generic interface ("MGI"), which pro­ vides a direct interface between a Resp Org's computer operations system and the SMS database and permits the RespOrg to reserve mass quantities of toll free numbers rapidly.'.'f8 The NPRM noted that some RespOrgs' use of MGis may place smaller, less technologically sophisticated RespOrgs at a competitive disadvantage because they do not have the capacity to reserve numbers in rapid order. The advantage enjoyed by users of MGI lies particularly in their ability to obtain highly desirable vanity numbers.39 Specifically, the NPRM sought comment on a number of issues concerning the toll free reservation process: ( 1) whether use of an MGI should be permitted; (2) whether existing reservation guidelines should be amended; (3) whether existing reservation guidelines should be codified; (4) whether there should be mandatory dispute resolution if two parties request the same number; (5) whether there should be a lottery in the event dispute resolution failed; and (6) whether there should be different reservation pro­ cedures for codes in high demand.40 b. Comments (1) Amending Existing Reservation Guidelines 16. The majority of commenters support the existing first come, first served toll free reservation process.41 MCI, for example, asserts that the first come, first served concept is consistently applied to numbering resources, both toll free and beyond.4 AT&T maintains that the first come, first 37 NPRM at para. 23. 38 Id. at n.57. 39 Id. at para. 23. 40 Id. 41 See, e.g., Ameritech Commen1s at 15; Allnet Communica­ tion Services, Inc. Comments at 6: GTE Comments at 8. 42 MCI Comments at 11. 43 AT&T Comments at 13. 44 LDDS Comments at 7. 4s Sprint Comments at 8, n.4. Sprint also maintains.that the first come, first served reservation procedure has been accepted by both the Commission and the courts (citing Wold _Commu­ nications, Inc. v. FCC, 735 F.2d 1465, 1469-70 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Spanish International Network, Inc. v. RCA American Commu­ nications, Inc., 78 FCC 2d 1451, 1465-66 ( 1980)). 46 SNET Comments at 5, 10-11. 47. Id. 48 Scherers Comments at 10. See also Qwest Communications Corporation ("Qwest'') Comments at 5 (supporting first come, first served policy as long as a RespOrg's "fi_rst. ~ite" at numb:rs is limited in some reasonable way, such as limiting the quantity of numbers that can be drawn from the database in a given period or requiring an affirmative reques9; Pagi~g Network, Inc. ("PageNet") Comments at 9-10 (supporting special and tem­ porary measures when 888 code is first opened that would rank 2499 served policy is "firmly grounded in established procedures that are simple, efficient, and inexpensive to administer." 43 LDDS contends that first come, first served is the most equitable and least complicated way to apportion toll free numbers, and best matches demand with supply.44 Sprint asserts that first come, first served is a straightforward and long-established allocation method that is well understood by both RespOrgs and subscribers.45 17. Several commenters generally support the first come, first served reservation policy, with some refinements. SNET, for example, advocates a "60 second lock out pe­ riod" during which a RespOrg could reserve a number without any other RespOrgs intervening.46 Under the cur­ rent framework, SNET asserts that the system sometimes freezes and a RespOrg cannot reserve a number in the 60 second interval. SNET contends that such a system favors RespOrgs able to log on to the SMS database directly and to use mechanized interfaces over manual access methods.47 Scherers Communications Group, Inc. ("Scherers") supports imposing limits on the volume of numbers a RespOrg can reserve during any 15 minute period because such a system would allow even the small­ est RespOrg equal access· to vanity numbers and would provide the database with adequate time to respond.48 Unite! Communications, Inc. ("Unite!") advocates a first come, first served policy, as long as all RespOrgs have equivalent ca.pacity and equivalent priority to t~e reserva­ tion system.4 Joseph Page supports one exception to the first come, first served policy, for holders of 800 numbers protected by federal trademark law. Such 800 holders would automatically receive the equivalent 888 number.50 (2) Codifying Reservation Guidelines 18. Most commenters addressing this issue support codi­ fication of the industry's reservation guidelines.3 51 Sprint, for example, supports codification because the g~ideli~es would then be mandatory rather than voluntary. Sprint recommends that any Commission rules cite directly back to the Industry Guidelines s3 to provide the industry with flexibility to revise the rules to address changing circum­ stances. Sprint supports subjecting any such industry revi- all RespOrgs in numerical order and would permi~ ea~h RespOrg to reserve a limited quantity of numbers dunng Its reservation time); MFS Communications Company, Inc. ("MFS") Reply ~Comments at 5-6 (supporting a circuit breaker or cap on the total quantity of numbers any RespOrg may consume within a given period of time); Eastern Tel Long Distance Service, Inc. ("Eastern Tel") Reply Comments at 2-3 f the SNAC plan, modified, however, by allowing additional time for RespOrgs to contact those commercial 800 subscribers they have not already polled. We encourage RespOrgs to honor all replication requests submitted to them by their commercial 800 subscribers. Under the modified SNAC plan we now adopt, all RespOrgs will have the ability to continue to poll their 800 commercial sub­ scribers for one week to identify those commercial sub­ scribers 'IVith an interest in obtaining the 888 numbers with the iden :ical last seven digits as their assigned 800 num­ bers. 38. Grice the RespOrgs have identified this "protected" set of numbers, they are responsible for sending the list of these numbers to DSMI no later than 11:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, February 1, 1996. Each list should identify requests from commercial subscribers who were either con­ tacted b:1 the RespOrg or who have contacted their RespOrg independently of the RespOrg's polling efforts. DSMI will then have one week to process the information in each RespOrg's list and place these 888 numbers in "unavailable" status l3l by 11 :59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, February 8, 1996. This will allow DSMI sufficient time before it accepts reservation for 888 numbers to assign the equivalent 888 numbers to the "unavailable" status in the SMS. Once DSMI has concluded this process and has also marked all numbers in the "888-555 NXX" "unavail­ able,"132 early reservation of 888 numbers can begin at 12:01 A.1\1. Eastern Standard Time, February 10, 1996. We agree with the commenting parties that identifying these numbers and permitting early reservation is essential to avoiding the risk that the database, and the links between the database and the regional SCPs, will be unable to accommodate not only the demand for 888 numbers, but also the continuing needs of subscribers with 800 numbers. Finally, we agree with AT&T that a "first come, first served" n'servation policy will best serve the public be­ cause it i! simple, efficient, and less expensive to admin­ ister than any other reservation scheme. We subject the first come first served policy only to the conservation plan discussed helow. 133 ienced in 1994, better reflects the dynamic nature of the toll free marke1, while still furthering our goal of conserving 800 numbers ur.til 888 is deployed. 130 This foctor was determined by calculating the increase of 73,000 as compared to 29,000 (i.e., 73,000 29,000). 131 These riumbers should be held under the NASC RespOrg ID used pre {iously. 132 See infta para. 57. 133 We note, however, that carriers are still expected to comply with the Industry Guidelines that have not been modified by any of the Burnau's actions. For example. unt,il the Commission rules other"ise, the cap on the quantity of toll free numbers that a carri1~r can reserve at any one time remains 15% of its total quanti1y of its total quantity of working numbers, or 1000 numbers, whichever is greater. See Industry Guidelines at § 2.2.5. 11 FCC Red No. 5 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 96-69 3) Initial Conservation of 888 39. For the same reasons we have directed DSMI to permit reservation of 888 numbers in advance of the first date the network will support calls to each number, we conclude that the public interest would be served by adopt­ ing an 888 conservation plan. We intend this 888 conserva­ tion plan to achieve two goals: (1) to prevent the SMS from potential "system overload" created by increased RespOrg activity; and (2) to discourage a rush to reserve 888 num­ bers like the one that occurred when RespOrgs were first permitted to reserve the 800-555 pool of numbers in 1994.134 We find that we must set the weekly allocation of numbers at a level that balances the needs of the RespOrgs, the technical limitations of the SMS, and the capacity of the data links between the SMS and the regional SCPs. A weekly allocation of 120,000 888 numbers appears to strike the appropriate balance. We expect this generous allocation of 888 numbers, in addition to the 800 numbers in the weeks preceding March 1, 1996, will offer RespOrfs' a reasonable opportunity to meet their subscriber needs.1 s 40. For the reasons set forth in Wallman Letter III, 136 we will set each RespOrg's share of the weekly allocation of 120,000 888 numbers on the same basis as its 800 alloca­ tion is calculated. Thus, to calculate each RespOrg's share of the weekly allocation plan, each should multiply their August allocation by a factor of 4.0.137 Six thousand 888 numbers will available for distribution to Canadian RespOrgs. Each RespOrg will be permitted to receive a minimum of 200 888 numbers per week. The Network Services Division will send DSMI a letter setting forth each RespOrg's maximum weekly allocation for 888 numbers. We will monitor number reservation and SMS database performance, and will reevaluate the continued need for this conservation plan after the March 1, 1996 deploymnet of the 888 code. We urge all RespOrgs to be sensitive to how their increased activity could affect SMS performance. The Bureau will modify this 888 conservatiqn plan if toll free service experiences any decrease in service quality, whether in the .processing of subscriberrecords or on the data links between the SMS and the regional SCPs. The Bureau will also carefully monitor and investigate any complaints from RespOrgs, SCP owners, or consumers. 134 That is, when 800-555 numbers became available for res­ ervation a single RespOrg reserved 90% or the numbers within the first ten minutes or availability. See SNET Expedited Peti­ tion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay, Report and Order, DA 95-2141 (adopted October 6, 1995). i 3s In June 1995, 113,000 800 numbers were reserved from the · SMS database in one week. The industry labelled this high activity .as rea.ction to the imminent exhaust or 800 numbers. 136 See supra n.93. 137 This factor was calculated by developing the ratio between 120,000 and 29,000 (i.e., 120,000 29,000). 138 NPRM at para. 56. · 139 Id . . 140 Provision of Access for 800 Service, Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Red 907 (1993) ("800 Database Rate Structure Order"), recon., CC Docket No. 86-10, FCC No. 95-487 (adopted December 4, 1995). _ t41 The Commission defines. a "restructured service" .as the rearrangement of an existing service. Carriers can restructure a service by changing an existing method of charging for or provisioning the service, or by changing a term or condition in, adding language to, or adding, consolidating, or elimina1ing rate C. TARIFFS 1. Background 41. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on tariffing issues related to the introduction of 888. The Commission anticipated that the majority of tariffing issues would be related to LECs' database access tariffs. Specifi­ cally, the Commission tentatively concluded that 888 ser­ vice and subsequent toll free codes would be functionally equivalent to 800 .services and should be treated accord­ ingly. The Commission, therefore, sought comment on its tentative conclusion that existing Part 69 provisions for 800 service would also cover 888 service and the LECs would not need to obtain a waiver of Part 69 to open 888 toll free service. 138 Comment was also sought on any interim ar­ rangements that a LEC might offer to its toll free database access customers during the period in which preparations for opening the 888 code for general use neared comple­ .tion. Further, the Commission sought ·comment on the conclusion that any revisions to existing database access tariffs should be filed on not less than 45 days' notice.139 2. Filing Procedures a. Background 42. For purposes of addressing the tariffing issues raised in the NPRM, we must consider the Commission's action in.the 800 Rate Structure Order. 140 In that Order, the Com­ mission determined that LECs must price basic 800 database services on a per-query basis and that LECs sub­ ject to price cap regulation must treat basic 800 database service as a "restructured service." 141 The Commission found that a per-query charge for 800 database service was appropriate because database queries are a distinct part of the set up of an 800 call and a per-query charge best reflects the costs of providing access to the 800 database. 142 The Commission determined that 800 database service should be classified as a restructured service rather than a "new service" 143 because basic 800 database service replaced the NXX system 144 and did not add to the range of options already available to customers. 14s 2505 elements appearing in the existing service's tariff. When a ser­ vice has been restructured, the previous version or that service no longer exists. Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Domi­ nant Carriers, Second Report and Order, 5 FCC Red 6786, 6824-6825 (1990) ("LEC Price Cap Order"). 142 Id. at 6788. 143 The LEC Price Cap Order states that "as long as the pre-existing service is still offered, and the range or alternatives available to consumers is increased, we will classify the service as new." 5 FCC Red at 6824. 144 Prior to the implementation of the SMS database. carriers routed 800 traffic using the "NXX system" and did not allow subscribers to toll free service to switch carriers without chang­ ing their toll free number. NPRM at para. -t, n.8. A toll free number such as "800-NXX-XXXX" consists of three parts: ( 1) a three digit numbering plan area ("NPA") or area code ("800"); (2) a three digit central office code ("NXX"); and (3) a four digit line number ("XXXX"). Id. at para. 3, n.5. The NXX system assigned blocks of 10,000 numbers to a particular interexchange carrier ("IXC") based on the NXX code in the dialed number. Id. at para. 4, n.8. 145 800 Database Rate Structure Order, B FCC Red at 911. DA 96-69 Federal Communic~tions Commission Record 11 FCC Red No. 5 b. Comments 43. The commenters unanimously support the Commis­ sion's tentative conclusion that 888 toll free service is functionally equivalent to 800 toll free service and that Part 69 waivers are not required. 146 Bell Atlantic states that because 888 is not a nevf'service, it will not be filing an incremental cost study or any new rate elements. The tariff, Bell Atlantic notes, will offer 888 access under the same terms, conditions, and rates as existing toll free access service.147 Most LECs, however, argue that the Commission must act promptly so that tariffs are filed on. not less than 45 days' notice. SWBT notes that the LECs' 800 tafiffs were filed 32 months ago, and the Commission has yet to com­ plete its investigation of their lawfulness.148 SNET argues that it is premature to determine that 888 costs be treated in accordance with procedures established for 800 service because the Commission has not yet concluded its inves­ . ligation of the LECs initial 800 database tariffs. 149 · c. Discussion 44. We conclude that toll free service using 888 numbers is functionally ·equivalent to toll free service using 800 numbers and does not require LECs to obtain waivers of Part 69 of the Commission's rules to offer toll free service using the 888 code. The addition of 888 as a toll free SAC simply increases the universe of numbers.,j;lvailable for toli free service; it does not add to the range <:ff options already 0 available to customers (i.e., is not a "new" service). 1Sfl Therefore, we do not require LECs to obtain waivers of Part 69 to file 888 database access tariffs. 45. LECs will be required to make the necessary revi­ sions to their current 800 database tariffs to reflect that a code other than the 800 SAC will be used for toll free service. We order the LECs to file the tariffs expanding toll free service using the applicable tariff filing provisions. These tariffs must be filed no later than February l, 1996 with an effective date of March l, 1996. Carriers that are unable to meet the required notice period will be permitted to request special permission under Section 61.151 of the Commission's rules 151 to file on shorter notice only if they can document the reason for their inability to meet the prescribed notice period.152 146 See, e,g., Ameritech Comments at 43: Pacific Comments at 18; NYNEX Comments at 11; SNET Comments at 15-16; NYNEX Reply Comments at 6. 147 Bell Atlantic Comments at 11-12. 148 SWBT Comments at 21. 149 SNET Comments at 15-16. ISO LEC Price' Cap Order, 5 FCC Red at 6824. tst 47 C.F.R. § 61.151. This section prescribes the procedures to be followed by a carrier applying for a waiver of Part 61. 152 We note that several LECs have already filed revisions for implementing the 888 code on 45 days' notice, effective March 1, 1996. Any revisions to these filings will also require special rs:rmission. 53 This decision was reached under Section 61.44(c)(5) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. § 61.44(c)(5), pursuant to which the Commis­ sion may grant exogenous cost treatment for "other extraor- 2506 3. Exogenous Costs a. Background 46. In the 800 Rate Structure Order, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate to allow the LECs to treat as exogenous the costs incurred specifically for the implementation and operation of 800 database services. 153 The Commission, however, did not extend exogenous cost treatment to those costs that were not reasonable and that were not specifically incurred for the implementation and operation of the 800 database system, such as core SS7 costs. The Commission anticipated that exogenous treat­ ment would be accorded to those costs associated with: Service Control Points ("SCPs"), the Service Management System ("SMS"), and the links between SCPs and the SMS, as well as between Signal Transfer Points ("STPs") and SCPs, to the extent such costs were directly attributable to 800 database service.154 The Commission reached this de­ cision because of, what the Commission called, "highly unusual circumstances" that stemmed from our finding that provision of 800 service through a database should be mandated because making 800 numbers po·rtable served the public interest. 155 Specifically, the Commission determined that it had effectively required the implementation of 800 database service and dictated the terms, conditions, and schedule for implementing it. Under these circumstances, the Commission concluded that reasonable costs specific to implementation of basic 800 database service were outside the carrier's control and were, therefore, treated as exoge­ nous under price cap regulation. 156 47. In the LEC Price Cap Order,'57 we decided that, in most circumstances, "extraordinary" costs would not be treated as exogenous because such treatment would reduce a carrier's need to be efficient and innovative. 158 In the Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, 15~ we reaffirmed this conclusion and found that the ability to cope with unforeseen events is at least in part a function of a carrier's managerial decisions, and that permitting exogenous treatment for such unforeseen events removes the incentive to operate more efficiently. 160 The Commission, therefore, concluded that extraordinary costs would continue to be treated endogenously in most cases. 161 The Commission, however, did not foreclose the possibility that costs associated with the provision of ser­ vices required by the Commission, such as occurred when the Commission required that toll free numbers be made portable through the use of an 800 database, may be treat­ ed as exogenous in the future. 162 dinary exogenous cost changes as the Commission shall permit or require." In their tariffs, LECs were required to make a detailed showing of the costs incurred specifically for the im­ plementation of basic 800 database service and were also re­ quired to justify the reasonableness of those costs. 800 Database Rate Structure Order, 8 FCC Red at 911. IS4 Id. 155 Id. IS6 Id. 157 LEC Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Red 6786. IS8 Id. isg Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, First Report and Order, 10 FCC Red 896 I. 909.t ( 1995). 160 Id. 161 Id. 162 Id. at 9094, n.575. 11 FCC Red No. 5 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 96-69 b. Comments 48. The LECs generally argue that the costs of imple­ menting 888 should be treated as exogenous because it is consistent with the treatment given the costs associated with implementation of the 800 database. 163 NYNEX states that to the extent that existing price cap rules are revised as . part of ongoing proceedings, the Commission should en­ sure that there remains some mechanism for recovery of these costs under price caps. 164 NYNEX argues that in­ cremental exogenous costs should be allowed for imple­ menting 888. It asserts that implementation of 888 has not been a trivial exercise. Further, NYNEX asserts that growth in toll free numbers in working status has far exceeded the growth in the number of toll free calls and, thus, the number of queries to the toll free database. 165 BellSouth agrees that 888 is functionally equivalent to 800 and thus, the costs of implementing 888 should be treated as exoge­ nous to the extent certain 800 database costs receive such treatment. BellSouth states that it will develop rates by identifying and annualizing these exogenous costs. BellSouth asserts that it will determine how much its pro­ posed toll free database access rates will increase by fore­ casting the number of toll free database queries applicable to the study period and then computing the ratio of exoge­ nous costs over forecasted database queries or exogenous costs per forecasted database query. Using this ratio and increasing it by an appropriate overhead loading. BellSouth plans to produce a basic toll free service rate increment that will then be added to the existing toll free query rate. 166 U S West, using its projected costs of implementing 888 and extrapolating based on U S West's percentage of the total access lines and switches in the entire LEC in­ dustry, estimates that the LEC industry as a whole has spent between $170 to $250 million to implement 888.1 67 Pacific argues that tandem upgrades and SSP costs -- as well as all other costs associated with the mandated deploy­ ment of toll free service -- should be considered exogenous costs because the Commission has determined that certain costs incurred by the LECs caused by administrative, legis­ lative, or judicial requirements beyond their control should result in an adjustment to their price caps. 168 c. Discussion 49. We conclude that the costs associated with the im­ plementation of 888 should not be treated as exogenous costs. The 800 Rate Structure Order found that 800 database services were restructured services. Exogenous cost treat­ ment for those costs specific to 800 database services was granted because of what the Commission termed "highly unusual circumstances." Specifically, the Commission mandated that toll free service providers make use of a toll free database so that toll free numbers would be made portable. The Commission, therefore, allowed LECs to in­ crease their query rates so that the costs of establishing the 800 toll free database were included as a component in query rates. In the case of 888, network upgrades have been required as a result of the rapid increase in the .demand and use of toll free services and are thus attrib- 163 See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 19. 164 NYNEX Reply Comments at 6-7. 165 See, e.g, NYNEX Comments at 1 I. 166 BellSouth Comments at 19-20. 2507 utable to the need for increased network capacity caused by increased usage. While the exhaustion of the supply of 800 numbers may be a special event, the Price Cap Order indicates that this alone does not justify exogenous cost treatment. Allowing an additional increase to these per­ query charges, as suggested by BellSouth, would thus, in essence, constitute return to rate of return regulation, which price cap regulation has supplanted for many of the larger carriers. We do, however, note that those carriers currently regulated under rate of return regulation will be allowed to recover their costs incurred as a result of the introduction of 888 as a toll free SAC. 50. The LECs' principle argument for exogenous cost treatment is that implementation of 888 has been costly and that these costs are beyond their control because the Commission mandated the deployment of toll free service. The Commission has, however, concluded that costs be­ yond a carrier's control will generally not be treated as exogenous. As discussed above, the addition of the 888 SAC to the universe of toll free numbers is the result of the rapid growth in the demand for toll free numbers and is not directly attributable to the Commission's directive that carriers restructure toll free services by making toll free numbers portable. 169 · 51. Noting that the average number of queries per toll free number has decreased, the LECs appear to argue that ·because RespOrgs and other carriers reserve the majority of toll free numbers and, thus, control to whom toll free numbers are assigned, the decrease in average number of queries per number is beyond LEC control. The Commis­ sion has stated that the burden to justify exogenous cost treatment lies with the carrier being regulated under price caps. Even if the LECs could establish that the decrease in query rates is beyond their control, which they fail to do, the fact that this lay beyond their control would not, by itself, justify exogenous cost treatment. As we have noted, the Commission has found that permitting exogenous cost treatment for unforeseen events removes the carriers' in­ centive to operate more efficiently and that the ability to cope with such events is at least in part a function of carriers' managerial decisions. The Commission, therefore, concluded that we should continue to treat costs that are beyond carriers' control endogenously in most cases.17° 52. The LECs have failed to show why we should depart from this general rule and treat the addition of the 888 SAC to the universe of toll free numbers as an "extraor­ dinary" event for which they should be allowed to treat its costs as exogenous. We, therefore, conclude that costs asso­ ciated with the implementation of 888 will not be treated as exogenous for carriers regulated by price caps. 4. Interim Arrangements a. Comments 53. Ameritech and NYNEX assert that they plan initially to route all 888 traffic through access tandems using an advanced intelligent network ("AIN") design. Ameritech 167 U S West Reply Comments at 8. 168 Pacific Reply Comments at 9 (citing LEC Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Red at 6807). 169 Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, IO FCC Red at 9094. n.575. 110 Id. DA 96-69 Federal Communications Commission Record 11 FCC Red No. 5 and NYNEX are currently upgrading their network to have AIN capabilities at the access tandems and plan to add this capacity at their end offices on'.ce their access tandems are equipped with this capacity. When a toll free call is routed through an access tandem, however, the IXC is charged for using both the access tandem and the end office. The use of access tandems to process interstate toll free dialing calls would, therefore, increase an IXC's access charges. Ameritech and NYNEX argue that they should be allowed the flexibility to charge end-office rates to IXCs that cur­ rently have access from end-offices connected directly to the SCP for 800 service. Ameritech and NYNEX propose that they issue credits to these IXCs equal to the additional charge they incur for routing all 888 calls through an access tandem because these IXCs would have chosen to and could have., routed these calls from the LECs' end offices directly to the SCP if this option were made avail­ ?ble by the LECs. NYNEX argues that the issuing of credits is necessary to reduce the economic impact that such net­ work upgrades might have on its toll free service-provider customers.171 Scherers states that its tariffs are not depen~ dent upon a dedicated toll free code and will be the same for 888 as 800 and that LECs should be asked to retain the same rates for toll free service, regardless of the number assigned.172 b. Discussion 54 .. We agree that the issuing of credits for tandem ·charges so that the cost of toll free access equals what the IXC would be charged if direct routing from the end office 'were available for 888 is reasonable because it reduces the economic effect the LECs' network upgrades will ·impose on their 888 access customers. As_ noted by the commenters, access from an end office directly connected to the 888 SCP is considered to be more efficient for those ~ustomers already receiving access to the 800 SCPs directly from that end office than access through the tandem. The LECs' plans to offer credits to their access customers forced to route 888 traffic through the LECs' access tandems gives these LECs the incentive to make direct access from the end office available as quickly as possible. We consider these arrangements to be temporary and will subject these interim arrangements to periodic review. We also require that these LECs offer their credit plan to any access cus­ tomer that obtains access from the end office connected directly to the SCP for 800 toll free service if that customer must use the LECs' interim access tandem arrangement for 888 service because the LECs have not completed their network upgrades. 171 NYNEX Comments at 7 and l 1; Ameritech Comments at 44. 172 Scherers Comments at 21; TRA Comments at 22. 173 See Provision of Acces for 800 Service, 4 FCC Red 2824 (1989) ("800 Order"), recon., 6 FCC Red 5421 (1991) ("800 Reconsideration Order"), further recon., 8 FCC Red 1038 ( 1993). 17 .t See NPRM at para. 46, n.90. 2508 D. DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE 1. Background 55. In 1989, the Commission concluded that 800 Direc­ tory Assistance ("DA") should be open to competition.173 On May 8, 1995, SNET filed a petition for declaratory ruling asking the Commission to require AT&T to enter into reciprocal compensation arrangements with other car­ riers that wish to offer 800 DA. In the NPRM, the Com­ mission determined that, while SNET's petition is related to this proceeding, it would defer consideration of the • . f74 petition. The NPRM sought comment on a proposal to combine 800 DA, 888 DA, and subsequent toll free DA codes into an interchangeable toll free DA service. With such an interchangebale toll free DA service, callers would be able to dial either "1-800-555-1212" or "1-888-555-1212" and obtain DA for all toll free numbers. Specifically, commenters were asked to address the economic reason­ ableness and technical feasibility of combining the provi­ sion of toll free DA. Commenters were also asked to address a proposal to not assign "888-555-1212," until toll free DA issues, such as SNET's petition, had been resolved. 175 2. Comments 56. Commenters addressing this issue generally support the Commission's proposal to open toll free DA to com­ petition and a~ree that "888-555-1212" should be used for toll free DA. 1 There was also wide support for withhold­ ing the assignment of "888-555-1212" until all issues re­ lated to toll free DA have been resolved. 177 Airtouch notes that there is strong support for opening toll free DA ser­ vice to competition, but that the suggestions on how this should be implemented lack the detail necessary for the Commission to make an informed decision on how to proceed. AirTouch, therefore, suggests that the Commission refrain from promulgating rules affecting the market struc­ ture for toll free DA until a more concrete plan can be developed. 178 BellSouth suggests that additional study is required to identify any technological constraints that might prevent the implementation of a combined offering of toll free DA envisioned by the Commission.1 79 AirTouch argues that AT &T's manatfement of the 800 DA service should be eliminated,18 while Allnet argues that "888-555-1212" should be auctioned to someone other than AT&T.ISi 3. Discussion 57. Many commenters assert that the comments address­ ing how competition in the market for toll free DA should be implemented lack the detail necessary for the Commis­ sion to make an informed decision on this matter at this time. We agree. Moreover, it is not essential thatwe resolve this issue now in order to enable toll free service using 888 175 NPRM at para. 48. 176 See, e.g., Pacific Comments at 15: BellSouth Comments at rJi Telco Planning, Inc. ("Telco Planning") Comments at 6. See, e.g., SNET Comments at 12-14; NYNEX Comments at lO. 178 AirTouch Reply Comments at 12. 179 BellSouth Comments at 21. 180 AirTouch Comments at 18. 181 All net Comments 'at 10. 11 FCC Red No. 5 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 96-69 numbers to become available. Consequently, this Report and Order refrains from addressing the steps the Commis­ sion could take to foster a competitive market for toll free DA service. The Commission will address this issue in a subsequent decision. We also agree with the commenters who recommend that "888-555-1212" be set aside until issues related to a competitive toll free DA are resolved. We note, however, that more than one number in the 888 SAC could be used for toll free DA in a competitive market; "555" NXXs are generally associated with DA and information services. Therefore, we order DSMI to place all "888-555-XXXX" numbers in unavailable status so no RespOrg can reserve these numbers until the Commission has reached a decision on the issues raised in the NPRM related to the development of a competitive toll free DA service. IV. CONCLUSION 58. This Report and Order addresses only those issues essential to the scheduled March 1, 1996 deployment' of the 888 SAC. First, we provide interim protection for all equivalent 888 numbers designated by current commercial 800 subscribers by setting those numbers aside during the initial 888 reservation period. At this time, we do not decide whether these numbers ultimately should be af­ forded any permanent special right or protection. Second, we conclude that the current first come, first served res­ ervation policy should apply to 888 numbers, subject to the limitations set forth in this Report and Order. Third, we conclude that the current 800 number conservation plan, subject to the modifications set forth in this Report and Order, should be continued for a limited period of time. Fourth, we determine that reservations for 888 numbers, other than those numbers designated for. interim protection by existing 800 subscribers, shall begin at 12:01 A.M. East­ ern Standard Time, February 10, 1996. Fifth, we adopt an 888 conservation plan to both prevent an SMS database overload and discourage a "gold rush" approach to 888 number reservations. Finally, we conclude that, for tariffing purposes, 888 service should be treated like 800 service and that the associated investment and expenses of carriers regulated by price caps should not be given exoge­ nous cost treatment. Additional issues addressed by the NPRM in this docket will be resolved in a subsequent decision. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 59. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority contained in Sections 1, 4, 5, and 201-205 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 155, and 201-205, Section 0.20l(d) of the Com­ mission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.20l(d), this Report and Order is hereby ADOPTED. 60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 554(d) and 47 C.F.R. § l.103(a), this Report and Order shall take effect upon adoption. 182 182 Preventing shutdown of the toll free reservation process and ensuring that toll free numbers remain available to the public constitute good cause for making this Report and Order effective upon adoption. 2509 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Regina M. Keeney Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Appendix A List of Commenters 1.800. BALLOON 1-800-FLOWERS 800 Users Coalition Aeronautical Radio, Inc. ("ARINC") AirTouch Paging ("AirTouch") Allnet Communication Services, Inc. ("Allnet") Ameritech American Car Rental Association ("ACRA") American Petroleum Institute ("API'') American Telegram Corporation ("ATC") Americas Carrier Telecommunications Association ("ACTA") AT&T Corporation ("AT&T") AVIS Rent A Car System, Inc. ("Avis") Bass Pro Shops ("Bass Pro") Bass Tickets, Inc. ("Bass Tickets") Bell Atl.antic Telephone Companies ("Bell Atlantic") BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ("BellSouth") Cable & Wireless, Inc. ("CWI") Charter Medical Corporation ("Charter Medical") Communications Managers Association ("CMA") Communications Venture Services, Inc. ("CVS") Competitive Telecommunications Association ("CompTel") Crestar Bank ("Crestar") DeFabio, Joel ("Joel Defabio") Del Webb Corporation ("Del Webb") Direct Marketing Association ("OMA") Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Inc. ("Enterprise") General Services Administration ("GSA") GTE Service Corporation ("GTE") INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. ("IFG") LCI, International ("LCI") LDDS WorldCom ("LDDS") DA 96-69 Federal Communications Commission Record 11 FCC Red No. 5 MCI Telecommunications Corporation ("MCI") MFS Communications Company, Inc. ("MFS") National Telephone Cooperative Association ("NTCA") NEXTLINK, Inc. ("NEXTLINK") Network Telephone Services, Inc. ("NTS") NIMA, International ("NIMA") Nissan Rosenthal ("Nissan") NYNEX Telephone Companies ("NYNEX") Olson, Mark D. ("Mark Olson") Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small Telephone Companies ("OPASTCO") Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell ("Pacific") Page, Joseph Edward ("Joseph Page") Paging Network, Inc. ("PageNet") Personal Communications Industry Association ("PCI.A") Promoline, Inc. ("Promoline") Puerto Rico Telephone Company ("PRTC") Qwest Communications Corporation ("Qwest") Scherers Communications Group, Inc. ("Scherers") Service Management System/800 Number Adminis­ tration Committee of the Ordering and Billing Fo­ rum ("SNAC") Service Merchandise Company, Inc. ("Service Merchandise") Southern New England . Telephone Company ("SNET")· Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT") Sprint Corporation ("Sprint") Telecommunications Resellers Association ("TRA") Telecompute Corporation ("Telecompute") Telemation International, Inc. ("Telemation") Telephone Express Telco Planning, Inc. ("Telco Planning") Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc. ("Time Warner") TLDP Communications, Inc. ("TLDP") Vanity International World Savings and Loan Association ("World Sav­ ings") Weather Channel, Inc. ("Weather Channel") Wise Telecommunications ("Wise") United States Telephone Association ("USTA") Unite! Communications, Inc. ("Unitel") U S West Communications, Inc. ("U S West") 2510 List of Reply Commenters 1-800-'FLOWERS American Automobile Association ("AAA") AirTouch Paging and Arch Communications Group ("AirTouch") Ameritech AT&T Corporation ("AT&T") Austin, John ("John Austin") Bass Pro Shops ("Bass Pro") BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ("BellSouth") British Airways Pie ("British Airways") Cable & Wireless, Inc. ("CWI") Communications Venture Services, Inc. ("CVS") Competitive · Telecommunications Association ("CompTel") ·Dial 800, L.P. ("Dial 800") Eastern Tel Long Distance Service, Inc. ("Eastern Tel") Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Inc. ("Enterprise") General Communication, Inc. ("GCI") General Services Administration ("GSA") GTE Service Corporation ("GTE") Interactive CallBrand ("CallBrand") LDDS WorldCom ("LDDS") MCI Telecommunications Corporation ("MCI") MFS Communications Company ("MFS") National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA") New York Clearing House Association ("New York Clearing House") NYNEX Telephone Companies ("NYNEX") Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell ("Pacific") Paging Network, Inc. ("PageNet") Personal Communications Industry Association ("PCIA") Promoline, Inc. ("Promoline") Qwest Communications Corporation ("Qwest") Scherers Communications Group, Inc. ("Scherers") Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT") Sprint Corporation ("Sprint") Telecommunications Resellers Association ("TRA") TLDP Communications, Inc. ("TLDP") United States Telephone Association ("USTA") U S West Communications, Inc. ("U S West") Vanity International Weather Channel, Inc. ("Weather Channel")