FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 317

                                
Federal Communications Commission Record

would yield an increase of 15 percent in MUCs. IdJune 9
Designation Order, that exchange-by-exchange calculations
would be a large and costly undertaking and would require
the collection of measured service usage, measured
minutes and total minutes of use for each of over 1300
NYNEX exchanges. Even then, it continues, the LECs
would still be unable to measure FGA lines with sufficient
detail to determine the actual originating end office,
i.e.. a call to a FGA line can originate in any other
exchange in the local.calling area. It concludes, therefore,
that local exchange-based MUC would still not reflect
actual local exchange usage. NYNEX Reply Comments at
Vol. II, pp. 71-73.
Instead, NYNEX has proposed to calculate MUCs by
dividing total message unit revenue by total exchange
minutes. This equation is then adjusted by a FGA distribution
factor to ensure that the MUC is not understated
due to the availability of LMS. The factor is the
ratio of the percentage of LMS exchanges to the percentage
of FGA lines originating in LMS exchanges. NYNEX
states that its proposal for a single statewide MUC results
in a total MUC that corresponds exactly with the amount
claimed by Teleconnect in its example to be the correct
total MUC due carriers. Consequently, it claims that its
method is reasonable and correct. Id.
DISCUSSION: In the September 16 Waiver Order, we
stated that we would "grant a conditional waiver of Section
69.107(h) of the Commission's Rules to allow US
West and any other exchange carrier to file a [Technical
Review Package] TRP in which message unit credits are
calculated on other than an exchange-by-exchange basis."
September 16 Waiver Order at para. 20. We added that our
analysis of the methodology proposed therein would focus
on assuring that the methodology used does not understate
the credit. US West has not complied with these
instructions, however, and has failed to submit a TRP
justifying or explaining the methodology it employs. Nor
did it justify its methodology when it filed its direct case
on July 9, 1986, in our investigation of the annual 1985
access tariff filings initiated by the June 9 Designation
Order. Accordingly, US West is in violation of the Commission's
rules so as to justify a forfeiture under Section
203(e) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.   203(e).
We shall issue a decision shortly regarding this matter.
SUBJECT: Maintenance: Billing for Travel Time and
Minimum Period
TARIFF SECTION: Section 13.3.1(C) 
BellSouth.
TARIFF SUMMARY:
The Maintenance of Service charge applies for the
period of time from when Telephone Company personnel
are dispatched to when the work is completed. When
more than one employee is dispatched the sum of the
time is used to determine the number of 30-minute
increments to be billed. Only one initial increment is to
be billed per request. A request resulting in the dispatch
of a Telephone Company employee at a time not consecutive
with the employee's scheduled work period is subject
to a minimum charge of three hours.
BellSouth   13.3.1(C).

ISSUES: US Sprint observes that BellSouth proposes to
start the "time clock" for calculating maintenance charges
beginning with the dispatch of personnel to a particular
assignment and to stop the clock when the work is
completed. Since travel time varies from job to job and by
hour of day (and is outside the customer's control). US
Sprint argues, customers would not know at the time they
placed an order for service what the total charges would
be for the call. Customers would also be unable to verify
the travel time. US Sprint Petition at 45-46.
US Sprint also objects to BellSouth's proposal to establish
a minimum 3-hour charge if a service request results
in a dispatch not "consecutive" with an employee's work
period. US Sprint states that if the intent of BellSouth is
to apply additional charges for emergency situations, then
the tariff should so indicate. US Sprint disagrees, however,
that the 3-hour minimum charge is cost justified. It
also claims that a 3-hour charge unrelated to travel time
is inconsistent with BellSouth's desire to include specific
job to job travel time within its maintenance price schedule.
US Sprint recommends that the time it takes to get
from one customer to another customer premise should
be built into general rates, as is the general commercial
practice. Id.
BellSouth replies that it has not changed the tariff as
US Sprint suggests; both the current and proposed tariffs
calculate maintenance service charges from the time of
dispatch. BellSouth contends, however, that US Sprint
has overlooked the fact that the revisions have reduced
the applicable charges in favor of customers. Aside from
rearranging the existing content, BellSouth represents, it
has changed Section 13.3.1(C) so that: (1) only one initial
30-minute increment will be billed per request, rather
than one initial 30-minute increment per technician; and
(2) the minimum period charge for non-consecutive work
time has been decreased from four to three hours. BellSouth
Reply Comments at 24-25.
US Sprint states in its supplemental filing that the fact
that the language contained in this revision already exists
in other provisions throughout Section 13.1.1 does not
deprive US Sprint of its right to petition the Commission
for an investigation of the provision if it believes it to be
unreasonable. Because the practice of charging customers
for "Windshield Time" is questionable at best, this provision
should be subject to close Commission scrutiny. US
Sprint Supplemental Comments at 16-17.
DISCUSSION: BellSouth is correct that its revisions do
not propose to modify the provisions as US Sprint alleges.
In fact, we agree with BellSouth that the modifications
that were proposed actually benefit customers. We note,
however, that US Sprint may file a complaint under
Section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.   208,
if it considers these provisions unreasonable.
SUBJECT: Advance Payments
TARIFF SECTION: Section 2.4.1(A) 
BellSouth.
TARIFF SUMMARY:
The Telephone Company will, in order to safeguard its
interests, only require a customer which has a proven
history of late payments to the Telephone Company or
does not have established credit to make a deposit prior
to or at any time after the provision of a service ....

_, ._.317 ____  I_
317