FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 60
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Comnission Record
[W]e do not, however, foreclose the possibility that
restrictions might be imposed to implement state
commission policies. For example, if a state prohibits
the provision of some or all intrastate services by
a particular carrier, a LEC could reasonably block
such traffic even if the OCC [other common
carrier] had not requested such a blocking service.
The May 20 Order also would not prevent a state
from requiring that intrastate WATS services only
be provided over jurisdictionally dedicated access
lines. We would, of course, expect that the restrictions
be clearly stated in the LEC's interstate tariff
and adequately justified in materials that are filed to
support the tariff.20
16. The Commission thus recognized that a state's intention
to impose restrictions on intrastate WATS access
lines might be evidenced in a variety of ways. We agree
with MCI, however, that a state's silence or failure to act
cannot be used as grounds for refusing to supply the
unrestricted WATS access lines required by the May 20
Order. Contrary to the assertions of BellSouth and
Ameritech, such silence cannot supply the basis for the
clear statement and justification for limitations on WATS
access lines which LECs must include in their interstate
17. We therefore clarify that LECs which decline to
provide dual jurisdiction lines on grounds that provision
of such lines would contravene state policy are required
to furnish in their interstate tariff filings the specific
grounds on which they rely in reaching their determination
that a restriction on use of the WATS access line in
necessary to prevent illegal use. In reviewing such
grounds, we will not find acceptable an assertion by the
LEC that here silence or failure to act on the part of the
state necessarily constitutes a basis for the LEC's refusal to
comply with the requirements of the May 20 Order or the
May 30 Order.
IV. CONCLUSION; ORDERING CLAUSE
18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Emergency
Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by the ALC Communications
Corporation IS GRANTED to the extent indicated
herein and, otherwise, IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau
4 See ALC Supplement to Emergency Petition for Declaratory
Ruling, filed Oct. 21, 1986 (Supplement).
5 WATS-related and Other Amendments of Part 69, FCC
86-15, released Mar. 21, 1986 (WATS Access Order ).
6 Petition at 9.
7 See letter to Richard D. Petty, Allnet Communications
Services, Inc., from Allen P. Jones, Vice President, SCB, dated
Sept. 25, 1986.
8 Comments of US Sprint Communications Company, filed
Oct. 20, 1986 (US Sprint Comments), at 2-4.
9 Id. at 5, citing Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. FCC,
106 S.Ct. 1890 (1986).
10 BellSouth Opposition, filed Oct. 20, 1986, at 2; Reply of the
Ameritech Operating Companies, filed Oct. 20, 1986, at 3.
" BellSouth Opposition at 2.
12 Supplement at 2-3. Ameritech's Band 7 WATS access
service consists of two components: (1) a dedicated access line
between the end user and the Ameritech Feature Group D
office, and (2) a switching and local transport function between
the Ameritech Feature Group D office and the interLATA
carrier point of presence (POP). Id.
13 Ameritech Opposition at 2.
14 See Ameritech Reply, filed Nov. 3, 1986, at 1.
15 Reply of ALC in Support of Supplement to Emergency
Petition for Declaratory Ruling, filed Nov. 12, 1986 (ALC Nov.
12 Reply), at 3.
16 Reply of MCI Telecommunications Corporation, filed Nov.
12, 1986 (MCI Reply), at 2, n.2.
17 Ameritech, for example, furnishes no citation to any state
action, policy or regulation which supports its assertion of
implied permission to intercept and divert to itself 1+ intraLATA
traffic. Ameritech refers to its October 20 reply to
ALC's original petition for support for its contention.
Ameritech Nov. 3 Reply at 9. The October reply incorporated
by reference Ameritech's July 10, 1986 comments in regard to
MCI's petition for clarification of the May 20 Order. See
Ameritech Oct. 20 Reply at 5, n.2. We have reviewed
Ameritech's July 10 comments and find that pleading similarly
lacking in references to statutes, rulemakings or policy statements
indicating state intent in the Ameritech region. Indeed,
one appendix to Ameritech's July 10 comments appears to
indicate that intrastate competition is being encouraged in
Michigan. See Midyear 1986 Access Tariff Filings, Comments of
the Ameritech Operating Companies on MCI's Petition for
Clarification, Attachment B, filed July 10, 1986.
18 Supra, n.l.
19 May 30 Ord er at para. 17.
20 May 20 Reconsideration Order at para. 19 (emphasis added).
1 Midyear 1986 Access Tariff Filings, Mimeo No. 4621,
released May 20, 1986 (May 20 Order ), recon. denied, FCC
86-535, released Dec., 1986 (May 20 Reconsideration Order ).
2 Midyear 1986 Access Tariff Filings, CC Docket No. 86-181,
Mimeo No. 4867, released May 30, 1986 (May 30 Order ).
3 ALC Emergency Petition for Declaratory Ruling, filed Oct.
7, 1986 (Petition). Comments on the petition were filed by the
Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech), BellSouth Corporation
(BellSouth), and US Sprint Communications Company
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/m1/67/: accessed April 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.