----- Forwarded by Scott Bolton/Enron Communications on 11/06/00 04:35 PM 
-----

	KBRESSIE@harriswiltshire.com
	11/01/00 03:11 PM
		 
		 To: Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
		 cc: dlassere@enron.com, Tracy Cooper/Enron Communications@Enron 
Communications
		 Subject: Follow-up on regulation of mixed-use facilities



Scott,

Donald and I just spoke about the mixed-use facilities analysis employed by
the FCC, and I just wanted to follow up with you (as I'm sure Donald will do
as well, if in fact the two of you haven't already spoken as I've been
drafting), now that I have the contextual background from Donald.  I think
the three of us are all of the same opinion that the sale of a private line
between LA and San Jose is an intrastate service under part I of the
analysis that I forwarded, as the transmission is explicitly defined as an
offering between two points in one state, and does not form part of an
integrated interstate offering.  (Enron's customer may use that capacity to
provide an end-to-end transmission between LA and Portland, meaning that the
customer is offering an interstate service to its own customers, but that
doesn't affect the jurisdictional classification of Enron's offering, which
is based on what Enron sells to its customer.)  The state PUCs typically
take an aggressive approach in intrastate regulation, and the FCC would not
have a strong argument that this was an interstate service (as there is no
uncertainty about the end points of the transmission or traffic, and there
is no argument that the private line service is an enhanced/information
service).  Enron will be hard-pressed to say that it had no idea the service
was intrastate when it specifically sells capacity on an intrastate route
with identified end points in a single state.

Please let me know if you have further questions, or need any of the
documents noted in my previous communication.

All the best,

Kent