FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 34

Federal Communications Commission Record

plementing an end user charge plan either to suffer a
serious revenue shortfall or to abandon its plan. Therefore,
we reject this request by MCI.
43. We turn next to the request that we adopt a guideline
requiring that all interim NTS plans provide for the
resale of originating access. In 1980, this Commission
concluded that "tariff restrictions of any kind on the
resale and sharing of domestic public switched network
services are . . . unlawful."68 Our commitment to this
policy
and our confidence in the ability of resale
opportunities to serve as an effective market check on the
pricing of telecommunications services
remains undiminished.
Based upon the present record, however, it is
not obvious that all interim NTS plans, particularly those
conforming to the direct end user charge model, are
capable of being resold. Dominant carrier rate structures
that pose barriers to resale
barriers that result from the
nature of the plan rather than from particular tariff
restrictions
are a cause for concern. Therefore, LECs
proposing interim plans in which access cannot be resold
bear the burden of demonstrating that their plan is in the
public interest.
44. We find merit, however, in certain of the petitioners'
requests. We noted previously, for example, that a
LEC seeking NTS cost recovery flexibility on the basis of
a bypass rationale must demonstrate the nature and extent
of uneconomic bypass in its study areas.69 Furthermore,
equitable considerations dictate that the terms of any LEC
interim NTS plan must be applied to the LECs own
interstate services, such as corridor service. We also clarify
two aspects of the guidelines for IXC capacity charge
plans. First, only special access lines used to provide
services designated as close substitutes for MTS70 are to be
included in determining IXC capacity charges. Second,
IXC capacity charges, which recover the originating CCL
revenue requirement, must be calculated on the basis of
originating IXC capacity.7
45. Finally, we address requests that two additional
requirements be imposed on LECs proposing interim
NTS plans conforming to the direct end user charge
model. The first proposed requirement is that such plans
provide for multiple IXC billing, whereby end users
could designate each IXC they use as their ordering and
billing agent for calls made through that IXC. The second
proposed requirement is that IXCs be given time to adjust
their billing systems and rate schedules before such plans
become effective.
46. We conclude that both of these requirements are
reasonable and will mitigate potential customer confusion
and competitive distortions that could result from implementation
of a direct end user charge plan. First, we
are not persuaded by NYNEX's argument that multiple
IXC billing is impossible. NYNEX claims that revenues
associated with individual minutes cannot be identified
because the tapered rate structure in a direct end user
charge plan applies to a customer's aggregated minutes of
use. This assertion is at odds with NYNEX's claim that it
is possible under a direct end user charge plan to provide
end users with detailed billing information on a callby-call
basis, including the name of the IXC used to place
the call and the date, time, duration, and called number.
47. Second, we are persuaded that implementation of a
direct end user billing plan could potentially force IXCs
to make substantial changes in their rates and billing
systems in order to accomodate the operations of the
plan.72 MCI asserts that it might need up to a full year for

this purpose. While a delay of this magnitude could defeat
the purpose of an interim NTS plan, some delay between
Commission action on an end user charge waiver request
and the effective date of an implementing tariff will be
necessary to enable IXCs to adjust. We will not establish a
particular period of time for such purposes in this order,
because the amount of time necessary to make the proper
adjustments is likely to differ depending on the specifics
of individual interim NTS proposals. We conclude only
that IXCs should be provided a reasonable period of time
to make such accomodations. Future waiver requests and
related filings will need to address this issue.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
48. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the petitions
for reconsideration of the Guidelines Order filed by Pacific
Bell and by the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator
of General Services are DENIED.
49. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the petitions for
reconsideration of the Guidelines Order filed by the Ad
Hoc Telecommunications User Committee, MCI Communications
Corporation, and the Central Committee on
Telecommunications of the American Petroleum Institute
and the Utilities Telecommunications Council are, in
accordance with the discussion supra, GRANTED IN
PART and are otherwise DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William J. Tricarico
Secretary
APPENDIX A
Parties filing pleadings concerning the Pacific Bell Petition
for reconsideration:
Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad
Hoc)
Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)
American Telephone and Telegraph Company
(AT