FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 69
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
62. Several other concerns also warrant our
consideration. The first of these is resale under the
NYNEX plan. It is our general policy to preclude restrictions
of the resale of telecommunications services, and
our confidence in the ability of resale opportunities to
serve as an effective market check on the pricing of such
services remains undiminished. NYNEX asserts that its
proposal provides for resale, but the resale sections in its
tariff revisions are extremely vague. LECs filing interim
end user proposals in the future must address the resale
concerns reflected in the current record.8s Second,
NYNEX has not justified excluding its interstate services,
such as corridor services, from its interim end user plan.
We conclude that a LEC proposing a interim end user
plan must apply the plan to its own interstate services.
Third, NYNEX's proposal to apply the lower of the
interstate or intrastate rate if it cannot determine the
jurisdictional nature of a particular call is a potential
source of customer confusion and could result in over
underrecovery of costs apportioned through the separations
process. Furthermore, as a number of commenters
contend, it is not clear that NYNEX could implement
such an approach without the concurrence of state regulators.
Any LEC who wishes to file an end user plan must
demonstrate that implementation of the plan will not
produce a significant distortion in the implementation of
jurisdictional cost allocations.
63. Were we to let the NYNEX plan take effect, we
would need to address a number of other substantial
issues. Two among them would be NYNEX's proposed
methodology for settling with the NECA pool and its
suggestions as to how IXCs might flow through to their
customers the access savings IXCs would obtain under the
NYNEX plan. The record on these issues is unclear,
particularly regarding the specifics of NYNEX's NECA
settlement proposal. We already have outlined above a
number of problems associated with the common line
NTS portion of the NYNEX plan. Given the current state
of the record regarding these two other substantial issues,
we conclude that it is not necessary or appropriate to
attempt to resolve them in this order.
V. ORDERING CLAUSE
64. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the petitions
for waiver of various sections of Part 69 of this Commission's
rules filed by the New York Telephone Company
and the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William J. Tricarico
List of parties filing comments on the NYNEX waiver
petition and parties filing petitions to reject or to suspend
and investigate NYNEX tariff revisions
Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad
Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)
ALC Communications Corporation (ALC)
Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech)
American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
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/m1/76/: accessed October 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.