FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 35
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
U.S. West Telephone Companies (U.S. West)
Petition for Waiver of Various Sections of Part 69 of the
Commission's Rules, FCC 86-145, released Apr. 28, 1986
(hereinafter Guidelines Order ).
2 See id. at paras. 145-149.
3 The petitions filed by Ad Hoc, API, Federal Agencies, and
Pacific were filed prior to May 29, 1986, in accordance with our
rules. MCI's petition was filed on June 9, 1986. On June 18,
1986, we issued a Public Notice stating that, pursuant to Sections
1.4(b)(2) and 1.106(f) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.4(b)(2),
1.106(f), MCI's petition appeared to be untimely. FCC Public
Notice No. 5235, released June 18, 1986. This Public Notice also
stated that we might decide on our own motion to consider
matters raised by MCI during our reconsideration of the Guidelines
Order. We conclude that it is in the public interest to do
4 A list of these pleadings appears in Appendix A to this
5 MTS and WATS Market Structure, 93 FCC 2d 241
(1983)(hereinafter Access Charge Order ).
6 Id. at 243, 283-291.
7 See 47 C.F.R. 69.105. A more detailed explanation of the
common line revenue requirement and the transition plan is
contained in the Guidelines Order at paras. 3-8.
8 Id. at paras. 8, 54-59.
9 We sought comments on the proposals through four separate
Public Notices. One hundred and three comments and 44
reply comments were filed in response. See id. at para. 1 n.3,
10 This risk shifting would result, we noted, because these
plans propose to allocate a significant portion or all of the
LECs' NTS costs among IXCs at the beginning of a year and to
recover 100 percent of such costs whether or not the interstate
usage of LEC facilities changes during the year. In effect, we
concluded, this amounted to a guarantee that LECs would
recover their NTS revenue requirement, regardless of economic
a guarantee not currently provided under our
rules. ld. at para. 92.
]~ Under the direct end user model, we noted, substantial
customer confusion could accompany an end user's attempts to
reconcile two bills for the same interstate call, one from a LEC
representing a charge for originating access and another from a
IXC representing a charge for interstate transmission. Id. at
12 A more complete list of the guidelines and requirements
for capacity charge plans is contained in the Guidelines Order at
13 A more complete list of the guidelines and requirements
for end user charge plans is contained in the Guidelines Order
at para. 148.
14 Pacific Petition at 3.
15 Id. at Attachment A.
16 Id. at 4.
17 Id. at 5.
18 Western Union Comments at 2; Ad Hoc Comments at 4;
ARINC Comments at 1.
19 California PUC Comments at 2-3.
20 AT MCI Comments at 9.
24 MCI Comments at 8, citing Pacific Petition at 5.
25 Ad Hoc Comments at 3 n.5.
26 Pacific Reply at 4.
27 Id. at 3 (emphasis in original).
28 See API Petition at 8-8; Ad Hoc Petition at 4-7.
29 Ad Hoc Petition at 4-7.
30 Id. at 4, citing AT API Petition at 7-10.
33 API Petition at 11.
34 See Federal Agencies Petition at 2-4; API Petition at 12-14;
Ad Hoc Petition at 19-23; MCI Petition at 7.
35 See, e. g., MCI Petition at 12-17; Ad Hoc Petition at 15-16.
36 MCI Petition at 6.
37 API Petition at 14-15.
38 MCI Petition at 18-20.
39 Id. at 22.
40 ALC Comments at 3-7.
41 BellSouth Opposition at 5, citing Section 1.3 of this Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3.
42 GTE Opposition at 3; BellSouth Opposition at 3-4.
43 See, e. g., BellSouth Opposition at 4-6; NYNEX Opposition
44 See Bell Atlantic Opposition at 2 see also NYNEX Opposition
50 NYNEX Opposition at 18-19.
51 Bell Atlantic Opposition at 4-5.
52 See, e. g., Ad Hoc Reply at 3 (Guidelines Order and
oppositions do not provide a basis for concluding that bypass is
a serious threat to LECs); NYNEX Reply at 2 (bypass threat
will worsen if LECs denied flexibility to implement interim
NTS plans); API Reply at 3 (Guideline Order constitutes improper
use of waiver procedures); MCI Reply at I (bypass
incentives have been substantially reduced by recent Commission
53 See ITT World Communications Inc., 90 FCC 2d 783
s4 Guidelines Order at para. 92.
55 See Guidelines Order at paras. 47-53. Ad Hoc's claim that
the Guidelines Order represents a departure from our established
practice regarding consideration of bypass issues was not
specifically addressed in that order, so we briefly address it
here. Essentially, Ad Hoc asserts that our decision in the
Guidelines Order to employ waiver procedures is at odds with
our statement in a previous tariff proceeding that bypass questions
should be addressed in rulemaking proceedings. See supra
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987, book, January 1987; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1597/m1/42/: accessed May 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.