to provide a free listing, changed its available menu of classified headings, engaged in different marketing efforts to sell business listings, excluded businesses listings from nearby communities such as Fort Laud-erdale, excluded listings of national businesses, or permitted different arrangements between the available classified headings and business listings. Donnelley is correct to assert that the holding in Feist precludes this court from concluding that BAPCO satisfied the originality requirement based on the mere alphabetizing of business listings and classified headings, or based on the mere coordination of the name, address, and telephone number of a particular business into one complete business listing. See Feist, 499 U.S. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 1297, 113 L.Ed.2d at - 380-81 (<HOLDING>). Donnelley is also correct to assert that the
holding that names towns and telephone numbers of utilitys subscribers are not entitled to copyright protection holding that a telephone companys white pages lack the requisite originality for copyright protection where the telephone company merely published basic subscriber information  name town and telephone number  and arranged it alphabetically based on surnames holding that telephone users have no expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers because they voluntarily expose such information to the service provider holding that a customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers which were conveyed to the telephone company holding that local telephone calls are inadequate to satisfy jurisdictional requisite of interstate commerce