FCC late last week stood by its earlier decision that Bell compan...

Dec 4 p5) after Verizon and Qwest sought court intervention. FCC requested, and was granted, voluntary remand from U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., to reconsider 1996 order because Bells raised arguments that hadn’t been considered originally. Bell companies argued that Telecom Act’s definition of “interLATA services,” which are subject to Sec. 271 requirements, included only telecom, not information, services. FCC in order released April 27 (CC Doc. 96-149), said it still believed “interLATA services” as used in Sec. 271 “encompasses interLATA information services as well as interLATA telecommunications services.” Agency reiterated its view that interLATA information services couldn’t be provided without interLATA transmission component and thus fall within definition of prohibited services. Although Bells had argued that agency’s 1998 universal service report to Congress conflicted with that conclusion, FCC said it didn’t agree. Bells had contended that report defined telecom and information services as exclusive categories, with provider of information services “using” rather than “providing” telecom services. Agency concluded: “Although the Act is not a model of clarity in many respects, our examination of the statutory terms, structure, history and purposes all lead to the conclusion that a BOC’s bundling of interLATA transmission with an information service offering constitutes the provision of an ‘interLATA service’ in the context of Sec. 271.” Bells say they want to offer Internet access and other information services in more competitive way. Because of Sec. 271 restrictions, they or their customers have to contract with long distance companies to act as middlemen carrying portion of transmission that goes to Internet backbone node from Bell company’s server.