- 1 -
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

________________________________________
        ) 
In The Matter of      )
        )
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE     ) CC Docket No. 96-115
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996: )
        )
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS' )
USE OF CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY  )
NETWORK AND OTHER CUSTOMER )
INFORMATION     )
_______________________________________)



RESPONSES OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESELLERS ASSOCIATION

  The Telecommunications Resellers Association ("TRA"), through undersigned 
counsel and pursuant to Section 1.415 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
1.1415, hereby responds to selected questions posed by the Common Carrier 
Bureau ("Bureau") in Public Notice, DA 97-385 (released February 20, 1997), 
issued in the captioned docket ("Notice").  The inquiries presented by the 
Bureau in the Notice all involve the interplay between Section 222 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 ("Communications Act"),      47 U.S.C. § 222. as 
amended by Section 702 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"),      
Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, § 151 (1996). on the one hand, and Sections 
272 and 274 of the Act, as amended by Section 151 of the 1996 Act, on the other 
hand.      47 U.S.C. §§ 272, 274.  Consistent with its focus in earlier-filed 
comments and reply comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, FCC 96-221 (released May 17, 1996) (the "NPRM") in this rulemaking 
proceeding,      Comments of the Telecommunications Resellers Association filed 
in CC Docket No. 96-115 on June 11, 1996; Reply Comments of the 
Telecommunications Resellers Association filed in CC Docket No. 96-115 on June 
26, 1996  TRA will here address only the Bureau's questions involving the 
interrelationship between the protections of carrier and customer proprietary 
network information ("CPNI") embodied in Section 222 and the structural, 
transactional, nondiscrimination and other safeguards imposed by Section 272 on 
Bell Operating Company ("BOC") provision of "in-region," interLATA 
telecommunications and information services.
  The pertinent Bureau questions and TRA's responses thereto are set forth 
below:


 1. Does the requirement in section 272(c)(1) that a BOC may not discriminate 
between its section 272 "affiliate and any other entity in the provision or 
procurement of . . . services . . . and information . . ." mean that a BOC may 
use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI for or on behalf of that affiliate only 
if the CPNI is made available to other entities?  If not, what obligation does 
the nondiscrimination requirement of section 272(c)(1) impose on a BOC with 
respect to the use, disclosure, or permission of access to CPNI? 

  TRA agrees with the Commission that "Congress sought to address both privacy 
and competitive concerns by enacting Section 222."      NPRM, FCC 96-221 at ¶ 
15.  As the Joint Explanatory Statement notes, "new section 222 strives to 
balance both competitive and consumer privacy interests with respect to 
CPNI."      S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 205 (1996) ("Joint 
Explanatory Statement").  TRA submits that the answer to Question No. 1 
produced by a meaningful balancing of competitive and consumer privacy concerns 
depends in large part on the meaning attributed to Section 222(c)(1)'s 
reference to "the approval of the customer."  If "the approval of the customer" 
is deemed to mean the customer's affirmative written consent, consumer privacy 
concerns dictate that use and disclosure of, and access to, CPNI should be 
limited to the entity that has secured such affirmative written consent.  If, 
on the other hand, "the approval of the customer" is deemed to mean oral 
consent or "opt-out," or other more relaxed, approval, than competitive 
concerns require that a BOC must share with other entities such CPNI as is 
used, disclosed to or accessed by its Section 272 affiliate.
  In the former circumstance, the customer has made an affirmative decision to 
permit focused disclosure of its CPNI; in the latter circumstance, the customer 
has indicated that it has no particular interest in the confidentiality of its 
CPNI.  In the former circumstance, the BOC has persuaded the customer that it 
is in the customer's best interest to permit the BOC to share the customer's 
CPNI with the BOC's Section 272 affiliate; in the latter circumstance, the BOC 
is simply better positioned to take advantage of CPNI as to which the customer 
has exhibited no confidentiality concerns.  When a customer makes an implicit 
judgment to permit only limited disclosure of its CPNI, that decision should be 
honored.  When the customer essentially makes no judgment with respect to the 
confidentiality of its CPNI, a BOC should not derive any greater benefit from 
that lack of concern than its competitors.     

 2. If a telecommunications carrier may disclose a customer's CPNI to a third 
party only pursuant to the customer's "affirmative written request" under 
section 222(c)(2), does the nondiscrimination requirement of section 272(c)(1) 
mandate that a BOC's section 272 affiliate be treated as a third party for 
which the BOC must have a customer's affirmative written request before 
disclosing CPNI to that affiliate?

  Yes!  Under Section 222(c)(1), a telecommunications carrier may use, disclose 
or permit access to CPNI received or obtained from a customer only in the 
provision of the service as to which that CPNI relates (as well as certain 
other services ancillary thereto).  A BOC, accordingly, may not disclose a 
customer's CPNI to a Section 272 affiliate engaged in a service other than the 
service from which the CPNI was derived without the customer's affirmative 
written consent.  Certainly, a BOC could not disclose a customer's CPNI to an 
unaffiliated interexchange carrier ("IXC").  And, if the BOC may not 
discriminate between its Section 272 affiliate and that unaffiliated IXC in the 
provision of services and information under Section 272(c)(1), it cannot share 
a customer's CPNI with its Section 272 affiliate in the absence of the 
customer's affirmative written consent.
  To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with both the 1996 Act's 
nondiscrimination and customer privacy safeguards.  Under Section 222(c)(1), a 
customer has a reasonable expectation that its CPNI will not be used to provide 
or market any service other than the service from which that information was 
derived.  Under Section 272(c)(1), a competitor has a reasonable expectation 
that a BOC will not discriminate against it in favor of the BOC's Section 272 
affiliate.  If a BOC could disclose CPNI to a Section 272 affiliate without 
obtaining the customer's affirmative written consent and without sharing that 
same information with competitors, both of these expectations would prove 
groundless.

  Accordingly, it goes without saying that a BOC must secure the affirmative 
written consent of a customer before sharing that customer's CPNI with its 
Section 272 affiliate.  As noted above, however, if a customer's affirmative 
written consent is required before CPNI can be disclosed, Section 272(c)(1), in 
TRA's view, would not require a BOC to share with competitors CPNI as to which 
a customer had made the decision in that instance to allow only the BOC to 
use.   

  3. If a telecommunications carrier may disclose a customer's CPNI to a third 
party only pursuant to the customer's "affirmative written request" under 
section 222(c)(2), must carriers, including interexchange carriers and 
independent local exchange carriers (LECs), treat their affiliates and other 
intra-company operating units (such as those that originate interexchange 
telecommunications services in areas where the carriers provide telephone 
exchange service and exchange access) as third parties for which customers' 
affirmative written requests must be secured before CPNI can be disclosed?  
Must the answer to this question be the same as the answer to question 2.

  TRA submits that given that its response to Question No. 2, above, is 
predicated equally on the independent mandates of Sections 222(c)(1) and 
272(c)(1), that answer applies with equal force to all telecommunications 
carriers, including IXCs, independent local exchange carriers ("IndLECs") and 
competitive local exchange carriers ("CLECs").  As noted above, if a customer 
is required to indicate in writing its authorization to disclose its CPNI, 
customer privacy concerns dictate that that information should be shared only 
with the specific subject of the authorization.  The sole distinctions between 
TRA's answer to Bureau Question Nos. 2 and 3 is that an affiliate of a 
telecommunications carrier other than a BOC would be able to share a customer's 
CPNI with an affiliate or another intra-company operating unit if such 
affiliate or operating unit was involved in the provision of the service from 
which the CPNI was derived, whereas a BOC could not share such information with 
a Section 272 affiliate.  The distinction arises out of the applicability of 
Section 222(c)(1) to all telecommunications carriers and the applicability of 
Section 272(c)(1) only to BOCs.    

  4. If sections 222(c)(1) and 222(c)(2) require customer approval, but not an 
affirmative written request, before a carrier may use, disclose, or permit 
access to CPNI, must a BOC disclose CPNI to unaffiliated entities under the 
same standard for customer approval as is permitted in connection with its 
section 272 affiliate?  If, for example, a BOC may disclose CPNI to its section 
272 affiliate pursuant to a customer's oral approval or a customer's failure to 
request non-disclosure after receiving notice of an intent to disclose (i.e., 
opt-out approval), is the BOC required to disclose CPNI to unaffiliated 
entities upon the customer's approval pursuant to the same method?

   Yes!  Section 272(c)(1) makes crystal clear that a BOC may not discriminate 
between a Section 272 affiliate and any other entity in the provision of 
information or services.  Application by a BOC of one CPNI disclosure standard 
to a Section 272 affiliate and a different CPNI disclosure standard to a 
competitor would constitute blatant discrimination.  As the Commission has 
noted, "the prohibition against discrimination in section 272(c)(1) means, at a 
minimum, that BOCs must treat all other entities in the same manner as they 
treat their section 272 affiliates, and must provide and procure goods, 
services, facilities, and information to and from these other entities under 
the same terms, conditions, and rates."      Implementation of the 
Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 
1934, CC Docket No. 96-149, FCC 96-489, ¶ 198 (released December 24, 1996), 
pet. for rev. pending sub nom. Bell Atlantic Tel. Cos. v. FCC, Case No. 97-1067 
(D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 1997), recon. pending ("Non-Accounting Safeguards Order").  
 If a competitor is held to a stricter CPNI disclosure standard than a BOC 
Section 272 affiliate, there is no equality of treatment.

  5. If sections 222(c)(1) and 222(c)(2) require customer approval, but not an 
affirmative written request, before a carrier may use, disclose, or permit 
access to CPNI, must each carrier, including interexchange carriers and 
independent LECs, disclose CPNI to unaffiliated entities under the same 
standard for customer approval as is permitted in connection with their 
affiliates and other intra-company operating units?

  Telecommunications carriers other than BOCs are not bound by the 
non-discrimination requirements of Section 272(c)(1).  While all 
telecommunications carriers are subject to the non-discrimination requirements 
of Section 202(a),      47 U.S.C. § 218. use, disclosure and access to CPNI are 
not common carrier services to which Section 202(a) applies.  Accordingly, 
telecommunications carriers other than BOCs are not required to disclose a 
customer's CPNI to unaffiliated entities under the same standard for customer 
approval applied in connection with their affiliates and other intra-company 
operating units. 

  6. Must a BOC that solicits customer approval, whether oral, written, or 
opt-out, on behalf of its section 272 affiliate also offer to solicit that 
approval on behalf of unaffiliated entities?  That is, must the BOC offer an 
"approval solicitation service" to unaffiliated entities when it provides such 
a service for its section 272 affiliate?  If so, what specific steps, if any, 
must a BOC take to ensure that any solicitation it makes to obtain customer 
approval does not favor its section 272 affiliate over unaffiliated entities?  
If the customer approves disclosure to both the BOC's section 272 affiliate and 
unaffiliated entities, must a BOC provide the customer's CPNI to the 
unaffiliated entities on the same rates, terms, and conditions (including 
service intervals) as it provides the CPNI to its section 272 affiliate?

  Section 272(c)(1) "extends to any good, service, facility, or information 
that a BOC provides to its section 272 affiliate."      Non-Accounting 
Safeguards Order, FCC 96-489 at ¶ 218.  The Commission expressly rejected any 
number of proposals to narrow this broad application, including efforts to 
restrict Section 272(c)(1)'s non-discrimination requirements to 
"telecommunications-related," or even "common carrier-related," goods, 
services, facilities and information.      Id. at ¶ 217.  And the Commission 
emphasized this view by stating its intention in enforcing the 
non-discrimination requirement of Section 272(c)(1) to construe "broadly" the 
terms good, service, facility and information, to "prevent BOCs from 
discriminating unlawfully in favor of their section 272 affiliates."      Id. 
at ¶ 216.  As to "information" in particular, the Commission found "no 
limitation in the statutory language on the type of information that is subject 
to the section 272(c)(1) nondiscrimination requirement;" indeed, the Commission 
expressly concluded that CPNI is included among the information to which the 
section 272(c)(1) nondiscrimination requirement applies."      Id. at ¶ 222. 

  Given the breadth of Section 272(c)(1)'s non-discrimination requirements, TRA 
submits that in the event a BOC solicits customer approvals of CPNI disclosures 
on behalf of a Section 272 affiliate, it is incumbent upon that BOC to offer a 
like "approval solicitation service" to other telecommunications carriers.  
Failure to do so would constitute blatant (and unlawful) discrimination.  
Ensuring that any such "approval solicitation service" does not favor the BOC's 
Section 272 affiliate raises the same questions the Commission confronted in 
addressing the obligation of all incumbent local exchange carriers ("ILECs") to 
provide non-discriminatory provision of operations support services.  There, 
the Commission held that the operations support services an ILEC must provide 
to CLECs must be "at least equal in quality to that provided by the incumbent 
LEC to itself or to any subsidiary, affiliate, or any other party to which the 
carrier directly provides the service, such as end users."      Implementation 
of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC 
Docket No. 96-98, FCC 96-325, ¶ 970 (released August 8, 1996), pet. for rev. 
pending sub nom. Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, Case No. 96-3321 (8th Cir. Sept. 
5, 1996), recon. FCC 96-394 (Sept. 27, 1996), further recon. FCC 96-476 (Dec. 
13, 1996) ("Local Competition First Report and Order").
  While this standard is necessarily nebulous, it suggests certain practical 
elements.  Thus, a requirement that "approval solicitation services" be at 
least equal in quality to those provided to a BOC Section 272 affiliate would 
by necessity require a comparable script, like incentives for the soliciting 
personnel, identical personnel requirements and training and so forth.  
Certainly, the incentives to favor the BOC Section 272 affiliate would be 
strong, but performance criteria and reporting requirements would go a long way 
in blunting these incentives.  Thus, if a BOC was achieving a success rate of 
95 percent for its Section 272 affiliate and 45 percent for others, warning 
bells would sound.  

  Finally, it restates the obvious to assert that in order to satisfy Section 
272(c)(1), any such "approval solicitation service" and associated access to 
CPNI must be made available to competitors on terms and conditions and at rates 
equal to those offered to a BOC's Section 272 affiliate.
                 

  7. If under sections 222(c)(1), 222(c)(2), and 272(c)(1), a BOC must not 
discriminate between its section 272 affiliate and non-affiliates with regard 
to the use, disclosure, or the permission to access to CPNI, what is the 
meaning of section 272(g)(3), which exempts the activities described in 
sections 272(g)(1) and 272(g)(2) from the nondiscrimination obligations of 
section 272(c)(1)?  What specific obligations with respect to the use, 
disclosure, and permission to access to CPNI do sections 222(c)(1) and 
222(c)(2) impose on a BOC that is engaged in the activities described in 
sections 272(g)(1) and 272(g)(2)?

  Bureau Question No. 7, in TRA's view, attaches an unduly expensive meaning to 
the terms "marketing" and "sales."  While the Commission has concluded that 
"activities such as customer inquiries, sales functions, and ordering appear to 
involve only the marketing and sale of a section 272 affiliates services," the 
scope of marketing and sales is not unlimited.      Non-Accounting Safeguards 
Order, FCC 96-489 at ¶ 296.  Providing for use, disclosure and/or access to 
CPNI may impact the success of a marketing effort, but it is not part of that 
undertaking.  Likewise, solicitation of customer approval of CPNI disclosure 
may be a preliminary exercise in preparing a marketing campaign, but it is an 
independent activity.  As the Commission has found, such preparatory 
undertakings as "planning, design, and development of a section 272 affiliate's 
offerings" do not constitute sales and marketing.      Id.  Accordingly, the 
section 272(g)(3) exemption of the marketing and sales activities described in 
sections 272(g)(1) and 272(g)(2) from the nondiscrimination obligations of 
section 272(c)(1) has no pertinence to CPNI disclosure.  

  8. To what extent is soliciting customer approval to the use, disclosure, or 
permit access to CPNI an activity described in section 272(g)?  To the extent 
that a party claims that CPNI is essential for a BOC or a section 272 affiliate 
to engage in any of the activities described in section 272(g), please describe 
in detail the basis for that position.  To the extent that a party claims that 
CPNI is not essential for a BOC or a section 272 affiliate to engage in those 
activities, please describe in detail the basis for that position.   

  As discussed in response to Bureau Question No. 7, TRA does not believe that 
soliciting customer approval of the use and/or disclosure of CPNI is an 
activity encompassed within the scope of Section 272(g); like strategic 
planning, such undertakings may facilitate marketing success, but are not part 
of the sales activity.  The inquiry as to whether or not CPNI is essential to 
marketing and sales, therefore, misses the mark.  Can a sale be closed without 
access to a customer's CPNI?  Of course!  Is access to a customer's CPNI 
helpful in making a sale?  Without question?  But neither concept is relevant 
to the scope of the Section 272(g)(3) exemption from Section 272(c)(1)'s 
non-discrimination requirements.  Section 272(g)(3) exempts "marketing and sale 
of services;" it does not exempt all activities which may impact upon marketing 
and sales activities.  A good product, excellent customer service, network 
reliability and the like all facilitate successful marketing and sales, but 
none are exempt from Section 272(c)(1)'s non-discrimination requirements 
because such an approach would have the exception subsume the rule.

 

  9. Does the phrase "information concerning [a BOC's] provision of exchange 
access" in section 272(e)(2) include CPNI as defined in section 222(f)(1)?  
Does the phrase "services . . . concerning [a BOC's] provision of exchange 
access" in section 272(e)(2) include CPNI-related approval solicitation 
services?  If such information or services are included, what must a BOC do to 
comply with the requirement in section 272(e)(2) that a BOC "shall not provide 
any . . . services . . . or information concerning its provision of exchange 
access to [its affiliate] unless such services . . . or information are made 
available to other providers of interLATA services in that market on the same 
terms and conditions"?

  Section 272(e)(2), by its terms, applies to all facilities, services and 
information involved in the provision of exchange access.  As such, Section 
272(e)(2) applies to CPNI derived from the provision of exchange access 
services and to "approval solicitation services" associated with such CPNI.  As 
acknowledged by the Commission, however, the protections embodied in Section 
272(e)(2) tend to reinforce other safeguards, such as those set forth in 
Section 272(c)(1).      Id. at ¶ 251.  Accordingly, while Section 272(e)(2) 
applies to BOC treatment of CPNI, compliance with the requirements of Section 
272(e)(2) is assured if the BOC satisfies its obligations under Section 
272(c)(1).   

   10. Does a BOC's seeking of customer approval to use, disclose, or permit 
access to CPNI for or on behalf of its section 272 affiliate constitute a 
"transaction" under section 272(b)(5)?  If so, what steps, if any, must a BOC 
and its section 272 affiliate take to comply with the requirements of section 
272(b)(5) for purposes of CPNI?

  Yes.  Any action undertaken by a BOC on behalf of a Section 272 affiliate 
constitutes a "transaction" under Section 272(b)(5).  Accordingly, all 
requirements applicable to such transactions generally are applicable to 
activities engaged in by BOCs on behalf of their Section 272 affiliates to 
secure customer approval of use and disclosure of or access to CPNI.  The 
Commission has defined the term "transaction" broadly, concluding for example 
that "the sharing of in-house services by a BOC and its section 272 affiliate 
constitutes a 'transaction' within the meaning of section 272(b)(5)."      
Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:  Accounting Safeguards 
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-150, FCC 96-490, ¶ 
182 (released December 24, 1996), recon. pending ("Accounting Safeguards 
Order").   Because activities engaged in by BOCs to secure for their Section 
272 affiliates customer approval of use and disclosure of or access to CPNI are 
transactions, they are subject to the Commission's affiliate transaction rules, 
as amended and set forth in the Commission's Accounting Safeguards Order at 
Section IV(B)(1)(b), and must be reduced to writing and made available for 
public inspection in accordance with Section 272(b)(5).  

CONCLUSION
  
  By reason of the foregoing, the Telecommunications Resellers Association 
urges the Commission to adopt rules and policies in this docket consistent with 
the above responses.
 

      Respectfully submitted,

      TELECOMMUNICATIONS
      RESELLERS ASSOCIATION





 By: ________/s/_______________________

       Charles C. Hunter
       Catherine M. Hannan
       HUNTER & MOW, P.C.
       1620 I Street, N.W.
       Suite 701
       Washington, D.C.  20006
       (202) 293-2500

March 17, 1997     Its Attorneys
     




     Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

        
 ) 
In The Matter of )
 )
Implementation of the  ) CC Docket No. 96-115
Telecommunications Act of 1996: )
 )
Telecommunications Carriers' Use )
of Customer Proprietary Network )
and Other Customer Information )
 )
Implementation of the Non-Accounting ) CC Docket No. 96-149
Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the )
Communications Act of 1934, as Amended )
 ) 



______________________________________________________________________________

REPLY COMMENTS OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESELLERS ASSOCIATION
______________________________________________________________________________


     TELECOMMUNICATIONS
     RESELLERS ASSOCIATION

      Charles C. Hunter   
  Catherine M. Hannan  
 HUNTER COMMUNICATIONS LAW GROUP
      1620 I Street, N.W.
      Suite 701
      Washington, D.C.  20006
      (202) 293-2500

April 14, 1998    Its Attorneys

Telecommunications Resellers Association
April 14, 1998
Page  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  Page

SUMMARY  ii

I. INTRODUCTION 2

II. ARGUMENT 4

A. Adoption of Safeguards Adequate to Prevent Abuse of 
 Carrier Confidential Data by Network Service Providers
  is Critically Important to Resale Carriers, Particularly
          Smaller Resale Carriers 4

B. TRA Endorses MCI's and Sprint's Definitional 
     Recommendations 11

III. CONCLUSION 13

SUMMARY

  TRA responds herein to recommendations made by other parties regarding 
safeguards necessary to protect "the competitively-sensitive information of 
other carriers, including resellers and information service providers, from 
network providers that gain access to such information through their provision 
of wholesale services."  TRA strongly disagrees with the local exchange carrier 
("LEC") commenters' contention that no implementing regulations are necessary 
to safeguard resale carrier confidential data, that statutory prohibitions 
against abuse of such data in combination with market forces will ensure 
network service provider compliance with Sections 222(a) and 222(b). .  TRA's 
resale carrier members were long victimized by abuse of their confidential data 
by network service providers in the interexchange market; history will soon 
repeat itself in the local market because, as TRA pointed out in its comments, 
abuse of resale carrier confidential data tends to increase proportionately 
with the market share of the network service provider, and indeed, has already 
begun..    
  TRA and its resale members fought hard to have the Section 222(a) and 222(b) 
safeguards incorporated into the Telecommunications Act.  TRA urges the 
Commission in the strongest possible terms not to negate these critical 
safeguards by failing to adopt adequate implementing regulations.  Access 
restrictions, accompanied by strict liability and serious penalties, are 
absolutely essential to fulfill the clear Congressional mandate.  








Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

        
 ) 
In The Matter of )
 )
Implementation of the  ) CC Docket No. 96-115
Telecommunications Act of 1996: )
 )
Telecommunications Carriers' Use )
of Customer Proprietary Network )
and Other Customer Information )
 )
Implementation of the Non-Accounting ) CC Docket No. 96-149
Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the )
Communications Act of 1934, as Amended )
 ) 



REPLY COMMENTS OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESELLERS ASSOCIATION

  The Telecommunications Resellers Association ("TRA"), through undersigned 
counsel and pursuant to Section 1.415 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
1.415, hereby replies to selected comments of other parties submitted in 
response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-27, released by 
the Commission in the captioned docket on February 26, 1996 (the "Notice").  
Specifically, TRA will respond herein to recommendations made by other parties 
regarding safeguards necessary to protect "the competitively-sensitive 
information of other carriers, including resellers and information service 
providers, from network providers that gain access to such information through 
their provision of wholesale services."  Notice, FCC 98-27 at ¶ 206.   

I.

INTRODUCTION

  In its comments, TRA pointed out that Sections 222(a) and 222(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 ("Communications Act"),  47 U.S.C. §§ 222(a), 
222(b). as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Telecommunications 
Act"),  Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, § 702 (1996).  contain the express 
prohibitions long sought by resale carriers against abuse by network service 
providers of the competitively-sensitive data resale carriers are compelled to 
disclose in order to obtain network services.  As TRA explained, unlike most 
competitors which jealously guard the identity of their customers, treating 
such information as trade secrets, a resale carrier must voluntarily disclose 
to its network service provider not only the names, addresses and service 
locations, but such key marketing data as contact points, for all its 
subscribers.  Moreover, simply by virtue of its provision of network services 
to the resale carrier, a network service provider has direct access to such 
additional data as subscriber service requirements, traffic levels and usage 
patterns.  Accordingly, a resale carrier's network service provider is in a 
position to inflict severe damage on the resale carrier's business if it 
appropriates and uses in its marketing and sales efforts 
competitively-sensitive information received from the resale carrier. 
  Accordingly, TRA urged the Commission to promulgate regulations implementing 
Sections 222(a) and 222(b) that ensure that a network service provider's retail 
sales and marketing personnel are not privy to, and do not have access to 
databases containing, information regarding the subscribers of the network 
service provider's resale carrier customers.  Achieving this goal, TRA 
emphasized, would require not only effective access restrictions, but 
incentives significant enough to motivate strict carrier compliance.  To 
accomplish these twin ends, TRA urged the Commission to take three critical 
steps:   First, network service providers should be required to "wall-off" 
resale carrier confidential data from retail sales and marketing personnel.  
Second, network service providers must be held to a strict liability standard 
for abuse of resale carrier confidential data by their employees or agents.  
And third, the Commission must rigorously enforce the mandates of Sections 
222(a) and 222(b) by imposing heavy monetary sanctions for abuse of resale 
carrier confidential data.
  The bulk of the commenting parties argue that no implementing regulations are 
necessary to safeguard resale carrier confidential data, that statutory 
prohibitions against abuse of such data in combination with market forces will 
ensure network service provider compliance with Sections 222(a) and 222(b).  
TRA strongly disagrees.  TRA's resale carrier members were long  victimized by 
abuse of their confidential data by network service providers in the 
interexchange market; history will soon repeat itself in the local market 
because, as TRA pointed out in its comments, abuse of resale carrier 
confidential data tends to increase proportionately with the market share of 
the network service provider.  
  TRA and its resale members fought hard to have the Section 222(a) and 222(b) 
safeguards incorporated into the Telecommunications Act.  TRA urges the 
Commission in the strongest possible terms not to negate these critical 
s