FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 319

                                
Federal Communications Commission Record

Pacific Bell Reply Comments at 60-61. See also Pacific
Bell Application for Special Permission No. 117 (Letter
from G. W. McBee, Pacific Telesis, to Secretary, FCC
(Dec. 9, 1986)(adding Local Transport to the list of elements
included in Section 6.7.4)).
ARINC argues in its supplemental pleading that several
irriers have ignored its argument with respect to minicium
monthly usage charges and those which did respond
again demonstrated their indifference to the Commission's
concerns that smaller carriers effectively pay more
per minute of use than more established large carriers as
a result of MMUCs. ARINC Supplemental Comments at
13-14 (citing MTS and WATS Market Structure, Third
Reconsideration Order, 101 FCC 2d 1222, 1232 n.40
(1985).
DISCUSSION: We agree with NYNEX that ARINC misunderstands
the purpose of MMUCs. MMUCs are designed
to ensure the recovery of unavoidable, fixed costs
of maintaining the facilities dedicated to particular customers.
See generally Annual 1985 Access Tariff Filings,
CC Docket No. 86-125, Phase II, Order Designating Issues
for Investigation, Mimeo No. 4963, released June 9, 1986,
at paras. 7-16. The nonrecurring charges in question, on
the other hand, are developed to recover the costs of
initially installing such circuits. The level of nonrecurring
charges is therefore unrelated to the level of the minimum
monthly usage charges. We consequently deny ARINC's
petition against the LECs' annual 1987 access tariff
filings insofar as it relates to minimum monthly usage
charges.
We recognize, nevertheless, that ARINC is concerned
about the reasonableness of the MMUC rates. We agree
that these rates must be cost-justified and should be
developed to recover only the unavoidable fixed costs of
maintaining dedicated facilities. This issue is currently
under consideration in our investigation in CC Docket
No. 86-125, Phase II.
SUBJECT: Multi-Jurisdictional Use of WATS Access
Lines
TARIFF SECTION: Section 7.2.3 
BellSouth; Section
7.7 
NECA.
ISSUES: TSI alleges that BellSouth does not allow for
both interstate and intrastate calls to be originated over a
single WATS access line. It notes that BellSouth apparently
believes that it is prohibited from  providing this
service. Such a view, TSI continues, is inconsistent with
Commission policy. TSI Petition at 6-7.
TSI asserts, moreover, that multi-jurisdictional usage is
necessary in order for it (1) to provide a more desirable
and cost effective service for the end user, IC and LEC;
(2) to be consistent with similar use historically provided
on switched access; and (3) to be consistent with other
BOCs that now or will soon provide multi-jurisdictional
usage. TSI further claims that there are no technical
limitations to prevent such usage. Id.
BellSouth replies that this issue does not relate to the
tariff revisions filed on October 3, 1986. BellSouth Reply
Comments at 5 n.2. NECA claims that TSI has erroneously
claimed that its proposed tariff does not allow for
multi-jurisdictional WATS access lines. It states that this
contention is incorrect and inappropriately raised here.
NECA Reply Comments at 17.

DISCUSSION: In the May 20 Order Reconsideration,5
the Commission stated that it had not found that ICs have
maintained jurisdictional purity in the past or that ICs
should be required to do so in the future. As result, the
Commission prohibits the LECs from placing unreasonable
jurisdictional restrictions on WATS access lines.
The Commission indicated, however, that it would not
foreclose the possibility that restrictions might be imposed
to implement state commission policies. It noted, for
example, that if a state prohibits the provision of some or
all intrastate services by a particular carrier, a LEC may
reasonably block such traffic even if the IC has not
requested such blocking. The Commission also confirmed
that the May 20 Order would not prevent a state from
requiring that intrastate WATS services be provided solely
over jurisdictionally dedicated access lines. May 20 Order
Reconsideration at para. 19.
The Commission also held that it would expect that any
restrictions required by the states would be clearly stated
in the LEC's tariff and adequately justified in materials
that are filed to support the tariff. Since BellSouth has
neither provided an explanation of the state policies requiring
restrictions nor clearly described such restrictions
in its tariff, we direct BellSouth to modify any provisions
to the extent they restrict the jurisdiction of WATS access
lines in a manner inconsistent with the May 20 Order
Reconsideration.
SUBJECT: LATAwide Termination Through an Access
Tandem for FGB and FGD Service
TARIFF SECTION: Section 6 
BellSouth.
ISSUES: TSI alleges that BellSouth has imposed artificial
restrictions in its tariff that preclude small ICs from
using trunk side connections to serve certain multitandem
LATAs. It asks the Commission to reject any
provision that limits FGB or FGD termination service to
those NXXs subtending a particular LATA, and to require
the LECs to allow LATAwide termination. TSI Comments
at 7-8.
TSI argues that these modifications are necessary because
(1) LATAwide termination for FGA service exists
currently; (2) access tandems are interconnected to provide
LATAwide termination of FGA and intraLATA FGC
and FGD traffic for intraLATA long distance service; (3)
small ICs are placed at a serious disadvantage in providing
service to LATAs with multiple tandems; (4) the physical
characteristics of FGA, FGB and FGD on a terminating
basis are similar and in most respects identical outside the
local calling area; and (5) facilities ordering procedures
for ICs to order for LATAwide termination already exist.
In sum, TSI argues that a failure to provide this service is
unjust and unreasonable discrimination in violation of
Section 202 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.   202.
Id.
BellSouth replies that this issue does not relate to the
tariff revisions filed on October 3, 1986. BellSouth Reply
Comments at 5 n.2.
DISCUSSION: We have reviewed the current tariff, the
proposed revisions and the pleadings. We conclude that
BellSouth is correct that its revisions do not propose to
modify the provisions as TSI alleges. Accordingly, we
deny TSI's petition as untimely under Section 1.773 of
the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.   1.773. We note,

319