From ecsvax!ruslan%mcnc.org@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Thu Jul 30 21:06:52 1987 Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by buit1.bu.edu (3.2/4.7) id AA15408; Thu, 30 Jul 87 21:06:52 EDT Received: from mcnc.mcnc.org ([128.109.131.1].#Internet) by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Thu 30 Jul 87 21:06:19-EDT Received: from ecsvax (ecsvax.uncecs.edu) by mcnc.mcnc.org (5.54/MCNC/1-2-87) id AA25234; Thu, 30 Jul 87 21:05:32 EDT Received: by ecsvax (4.12/4.7) id AA19095; Thu, 30 Jul 87 21:03:04 edt To: comp-dcom-telecom@%mcnc.org Path: ecsvax!ruslan From: ecsvax.uucp!ruslan@mcnc.org (Robin C. LaPasha) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: FCC Docket 87-215 (part 1 of 2) Keywords: access charges, document Message-Id: <3614@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: 31 Jul 87 01:03:02 GMT Distribution: usa Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service Lines: 319 Status: RO Well, now that I've noticed that this is a Moderated group (um, before this FCC stuff I wasn't an avid reader of this newsgroup,) I'll just up and send this FCC docket (87-215) and not fear for duplication of efforts. This is a copy from another guy in our user's group who downloaded it from Genie... Part 1 of 2: first, the basic text. Robin LaPasha ruslan@ecsvax --------------------------------------------------------------------- Here at last is the full text of the FCC's warmly-received access charge proposal. As indicated in paragraph 14, comments are due at the FCC by or on August 24, 1987, and reply comments by or on September 14, 1987. ============================================================================= Before The Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendments of Part 69 ) CC Docket 87-215 of the Commission's Rules ) Relating to Enhanced Service ) Providers ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: June 10, 1987: Released: July 17, 1987 By The Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In 1983 we adopted a comprehensive "access charge" plan for the recovery by local exchange carriers (LECs) of the costs associated with the organization and termination of interstate calls.1 At that time, we concluded that the immediate applica- tion of this plan to certain providers of interstate services might unduly burden their operations and cause disruptions in provision of service to the public. Therefore, we granted temporary exemptions from payment of access charges to certain classes of exchange access users, including enhanced service providers. Three years later, in the Second Report and Order in CC Docket No. 86-1, in which we eliminated the exemption for resale carriers, we announced our intention to reexamine the exemption granted to enhanced service providers after our consideration of certain related issues in the Computer III proceeding.2 We recently completed that consideration.3 We issue this Notice of Proposed Rule Making to consider whether interstate access charges should be assessed on enhanced service providers. We tentatively conclude that it is now appropriate that enhanced service providers, like providers of interstate basic services, be assessed access charges for their use of local exchange facilities, and we propose amendments to our rules to accomplish that end. II. BACKGROUND 2. In the access charge proceeding, the first of our four primary goals was the "elimination of unreasonable discrimination and undue preferences among rates for interstate services."4 Specifically, our objective has been to distribute the costs of exchange access in a fair and reasonable manner among all users of exchange access service, irrespective of their designation as carriers, non-carrier service providers, or private customers.5 We noted in 1983 that although many entities used exchange access service, some were paying local business rates.6 We endeavored to establish a more equitable sharing of costs, and initially intended to impose interstate access charges on enhanced service providers for their use the same manner as MTS and some MTS equivalent services. To the extent that this is the case, we concluded that equity and efficiency require that those enhanced service providers pay the same charges for exchange access. 3. In the discussion of the application of access charges to enhanced service providers in the First Reconsideration, we said that we wanted to develop a rate structure under which all exchange access users were charged nn the same basis.8 In the pre-access charge environment, facilities-based interstate carriers other than AT&T (other common carriers or OCCs) were paying carrier-type access charges in the form of ENFIA rates, while WATS resellers, enhanced service providers, and shares were paying much lower local business rates.9 Despite our resolve to distribute the costs of exchange access among all users of access service, we recognized that the immediate imposition of inter- state access charges on all users of exchange access would have some undesirable consequences. For example, we said that because WATS resellers and enhanced service providers were currently paying local business rates for their interstate access, the immediate imposition of interstate access charges would have a substantial and sudden impact on their costs, which could undermine their ability to continue to provide service while they were adjusting their operations in response to the new access charge rules.10 4. Because of these concerns about rate shock, we exempted certain exchange access users from the payment of certain interstate access charges in the First Reconsideration.11 At that time, we did not intend those exemptions to be permanent,12 and we have since eliminated several of them. For example, in CC Docket No. 86-1, we considered the question of access charge exemptions for resellers. In the First Report and Order in that docket, we eliminated the exemptions from all access charges for WATS resellers and from traffic-sensitive access charges for MTS resellers, on the grounds that these exemptions were uneconomic and inequitable and could no longer be supported by a rate shock rationale.13 We said there that our goal was to promote competition, not to protect competitors, and we regarded the elimination of the exemptions as another step toward an economically rational pricing scheme.14 5. In the 86-1 Second Report and Order, we eliminated the eering MTS/WATS-type services, use local exchange facilities to originate and terminate interstate traffic and should pay the same charges as those assessed on other interexchange carriers for their use of the same facilities.15 We also noted that our purpose in adopting the exemption for data and telex carriers in the first place had been to grant transitional rather than permanent relief.16 Finally, we said that our decisions to apply access charges to these resellers, as well as to resellers of MTS and WATS, represented another step toward our objective of distributing the costs of exchange access service in a fair and reasonable manner.17 III. THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE ACCESS CHARGE TREATMENT OF ENHANCED SERVICE PROVIDERS 6. When we modified our access charge plan in the First Reconsideration, we granted enhanced service providers an exemption from the payment of such charges because we were concerned about rate shock. We feared that if we imposed full interstate access charges on enhanced service providers, which were then paying local business rates for their interstate access, they would face large increases in their operating costs and might no longer be viable.18 Therefore, instead of immediately applying access charges to enhanced service providers, we decided to fashion a transition plan to avoid the severe rate impact of assessing such charges at the outset.19 As a result, enhanced service providers currently pay local business rates and subscriber line charges for their switched access connections to local exchange company central offices.20 7. We are concerned that the charges currently paid by enhanced service providers do not contribute sufficiently to the costs of the exchange access facilities they use in offering their services to the public. As we have frequently emphasized in our various access charge orders, our ultimate objective is to establish a set of rules that provide for recovery of the costs of exchange access used in interstate service in a fair, reasonable, and efficient manner from all users of access service, regardless of their designation as carriers, enhanced service providers, or private customers.21 Enhanced service providers, like facilities-based interexchange carriers and resellers, use the local network to provide interstate services. To the extent that they are exempt from access charges, the other 8. As we stated in the Notice initiating the CC Docket No. 86-1 proceeding, "concerns with 'rate shock' cannot sustain an uneconomic pricing structure in perpetuity."22 Accordingly, in previous orders in that docket, we have concluded that such concerns no longer justify providing WATS resellers or resellers of other services with exemptions from access charges. Similarly, we tentatively conclude today that a rate shock rationale no longer justifies an access charge exemption for enhanced service providers. Enhanced service providers have had ample notice of our ultimate intent to apply interstate access charges to their operations and ample opportunity to adjust their planning accordingly.23 We discussed our intent to impose access charges on enhanced service providers almost four years ago in the First Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 78-72.24 The access charge plan itself has now been in place for almost three years. Moreover, in the Second Report and Order in CC Docket No. 86-1, we stated that after the resolution of certain issues with regard to enhanced service providers in Computer III, we would consider initiating a further Rule Making to consider the application of access charges to enhanced service providers. Furthermore, we propose that the application of access charges to enhanced service providers become effective on January 1, 1988. This should provide additional time for enhanced service providers to incorporate this change into their business planning. In sum, concerns over rate shock may justify a temporary, but not a permanent, exemption, and it now appears to us that the temporary period during which an access charge exemption was appropriate has lapsed. 9. In addition, the financial impact on enhanced service providers from the imposition of interstate access charges will be substantially smaller than it would have been at the time of the implementation of the access charge plan and will decrease in the immediate future. As the end user contribution to common line costs through subscriber line charges increases, the contribution from carriers and enhanced service providers through carrier common line (CCL) charges decreases. In May of 1984, the CCL charge for both originating and terminating traffic was 5.24 cents per minute of use.25 Currently, the terminating charge is 4.33 cents per minute of use, and the originating charge is .69 cents per minute. This decline in CCL charges represents a sizeable drop in the costs of interstate access charges, and will mitigate the impact of the imposition of those charges on enhanced service providers. With additional increases in subscriber line charges scheduled for December 1988 and April 1989, the CCL charge for both originating and terminatig CCL charges.27 10. Parties are free to comment upon our tentative conclu- sions about rate shock. Such comments should be accompanied by detailed data supporting the arguments advanced therein. Commenters addressing the rate shock issue should provide information on network configurations used by enhanced service providers and possible reconfigurations, as well as data on industry rates, revenues, and growth rates going back at least five years (which would include a period prior to the adoption of our access charge plan). For example, we request comment on the types of interstate transmission and exchange access facilities that enhanced service providers are currently using, and on the types of enhanced service providers that would be affected by the elimination of the exemption from interstate access charges. Parties should also discuss ways in which affected enhanced service providers might reconfigure their networks in response to rule changes of the kind proposed. In addition, we request comment on the rates that enhanced service providers have charged customers, as well as on industry revenues during that period. If possible, commenters should provide data on the demand for services and the revenues in the entire enhanced service provider sector (including, but not limited to, the value added networks and data base services), and on the possible effect of the proposed rule changes on demand and revenues. Finally, commenters should provide information on the growth rates of the various segments of the enhanced services industry, and the way in which those growth rates might be affected by the proposed rule changes. To the extent that a commenter proposes that application of access charges to enhanced service providers be implemented on a date later than January 1, 1988, such proposal should present specific arguments justifying the continuation of the current special treatment of enhanced service providers for the extended period.28 11. In addition, we request comment on issues involving implementation of the proposal to assess interstate access charges on enhanced service providers. We invite parties to comment on the method of determining interstate and intrastate usage of enhanced services for access charge billing. Parties that address the measurement issue are requested to comment on the possibility of using the Entry/Exit Surrogate (EES) method currently used to estiention problems they think the Commission should address prior to applying access charges to enhanced service providers and to suggest possible approaches to resolving these problems. IV. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT 12. The proposal contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and found to contain no new or modified form, information collection and/or recordkeeping, labeling, disclosure, or record retention requirements, and will not increase or decrease burden hours imposed on the public.30 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 13. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201-05, 218, and 403, and 5 U.S.C. 553, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed adoption of new or modified rules.31 14. All interested persons MAY FILE comments on the issues and proposals discussed herein not later than August 24, 1987 and replies may be filed not later than September 14, 1987. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1.419 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. 1.419) an original and five copies of all statements, briefs, comments, or replies shall be filed with the Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554 and all such filings will be available for public inspection in the Docket Reference Room at the Commission's Washington, D.C. office. In reaching its decision, the Commission may consider informationtn or ideas is noted in the Order. 15. For purposes of this nonrestricted notice and comment Rule Making proceeding, members of the public are advised that ex parte contacts are permitted until the time a public notice is issued stating that a substantial disposition of the matter is to be considered in a forthcoming meeting or until a final order disposing of the matter is adopted by the Commission, whichever occurs earlier. In general, an ex parte presentation is any written or oral communications (other than formal written comments, pleadings, and oral arguments) between a person outside the Commission and a Commissioner or a member of the Commission's staff that addresses the merits of the proceeding. 16. Any person who submits a written ex parte presentation must serve a copy of that presentation on the Commission's Secretary for inclusion in the public file. Any person who makes an oral ex parte presentation addressing matters not fully covered in any previously-filed written comments for the proceeding must prepare a written summary of that presentation, and that written summary must be served on the Commission's Secretary for inclusion into the public file, with a copy to the Commission official receiving the oral presentation. Each ex parte presentation described above must state on its face that Secretary has been served, and must also state by docket number the proceeding to which it relates. See generally, Section 1.1231 of the Commission's Rule, 47 C.F.R. 1.1231. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William J. Tricarico Secretary From ecsvax!ruslan%mcnc.org@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Thu Jul 30 22:34:56 1987 Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by buit1.bu.edu (3.2/4.7) id AA17213; Thu, 30 Jul 87 22:34:56 EDT Received: from mcnc.mcnc.org ([128.109.131.1].#Internet) by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Thu 30 Jul 87 22:34:55-EDT Received: from ecsvax (ecsvax.uncecs.edu) by mcnc.mcnc.org (5.54/MCNC/1-2-87) id AA26284; Thu, 30 Jul 87 22:34:14 EDT Received: by ecsvax (4.12/4.7) id AA19757; Thu, 30 Jul 87 22:31:41 edt To: comp-dcom-telecom@%mcnc.org Path: ecsvax!ruslan From: ecsvax.uucp!ruslan@mcnc.org (Robin C. LaPasha) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: FCC Docket 87-215 (Part 2 of 2) Keywords: access charges, appendices, notes Message-Id: <3615@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: 31 Jul 87 02:31:39 GMT Distribution: usa Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service Lines: 374 Status: RO The rest of FCC docket 87-215; Part 2 of 2: the appendices, notes, etc.. Robin LaPasha ruslan@ecsvax.UUCP -------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX A Part 69 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Part 69 - ACCESS CHARGES 1. The authority citation for Part 69 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 403, and 410 of the Communications Act as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 403, and 410. 47 CFR Part 69 is amended to read as follows: 2. Section 69.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (m) and (gg), and adding a new paragraph (nn), to read as follows: 69.2 Definitions. * * * * * (m) "End user" means any customer of an interstate or foreign telecommunications service that is not a carrier or an enhanced service provider except that a carrier other than a telephone company or an enhanced service provider shall be deemed to be an "end user" when such carrier or enhanced service provider uses a telecommunications service for administrative purposes and a person or entity that offers telecommunications services exclusively as a reseller shall be deemed to be an "end user" if all resale transmissions offered by such reseller originate on the premises of such reseller; * * * * * (gg) "Access minutes" or "access minutes of use" is that usage of exchange facilities in interstate or foreign service for the purpose of calculating chargeable usage. On the originating end of an interstate or foreign call, usage is to be measured from the time the originating end user's call is delivered by the telephone company and acknowledged as received by the interexchange carrier or enhanced service provider's facilities connected with the originating exchange. On the terminating end of an interstate or foreign call, usage is to be measured from the time the call is received by the end user in the terminating exchange. Timing of usage at both the originating and terminating end of an interstate of [sic] foreign call shall terminate when the calling or called party disconnects, whichever event is recognized first in the originating and terminating end exchanges, as applicable. * * * * * (nn) "Enhanced service provider" means a person providing "enhanced services" as defined in Section 64.702(a) of these rules. 3. Section 69.5 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 69.5 Persons to be assessed. * * * * * (b) Carrier's carrier charges shall be computed and assessed upon all interexchange carriers or enhanced service providers that use local exchange switching facilities for the provision of interstate or foreign telecommunications services or enhanced services. * * * * * 4. Section 69.105 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: 69.105 Carrier common line. (a) A charge that is expressed in dollars and cents per access minute of use shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers or enhanced service providers that use local exchange common line facilities for the provision of interstate or foreign telecommunications services or enhanced services. * * * * * (c) Any interexchange carrier or enhanced service provider providing interstate or foreign telecommunications services or enhanced services shall receive a credit for Carrier Common Line charges to the extent that it resells services for which these charges have already been assessed (e.g., MTS or MTS- type service of other common carriers). 5. Section 69.106 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) to read as follows: 69.106 Line termination. (a) A charge that is expressed in dollars and cents per access minute shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers or enhanced service providers that use local exchange switching facilities for the provision of interstate or foreign telecommunications services or enhanced services. * * * * * 6. Section 69.107 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 69.107 Local switching. (a) Charges that are expressed in dollars and cents per access minute of use shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers or enhanced service providers that use local exchange switching facilities for the provision of interstate of foreign telecommunications or enhanced services. * * * * * 7. Section 69.108 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 69.108 Intercept. (a) A charge that is expressed in dollars and cents per access minute of use shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers or enhanced service providers that use local exchange switching facilities for the provision of interstate or foreign telecommunications or enhanced services. * * * * * 69.111 Common transport. (a) A charge that is expressed in dollar and cents per access minute shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers or enhanced service providers that use switching or transmission facilities that are apportioned to the Common Transport element for purposes of apportioning net investment. * * * * * 9. Section 69.112 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) to read as follows: 69.112 Dedicated transport. * * * * * (b) Appropriate subelements shall be established for the use of interface arrangements. Charges for such subelements shall be assessed and computed as follows: (1) Such charges shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers or enhanced service providers for the interface arrangements they use to provide interstate or foreign telecommunications or enhanced services; (c) A charge for the use of voice grade transmission facilities shall be assessed upon interexchange carriers or enhanced service providers that use such facilities to provide interstate or foreign telecommunications or enhanced services. Such charges shall be expressed in dollars and services. Such charges shall be expressed in dollars and cents per unit of capacity. Total units of capacity provided to an interexchange carrier or enhanced service provider shall be measured by ascertaining the number of conversations that could be transmitted simultaneously without producing blocking in the dedicated transport facilities. The capacity unit charge for carriers that offer MTS shall be weighted by a distance factor that reflects the airline distance between the entry switch and the interexchange facility. The capacity unit charged for other carriers or enhanced service providers shall be weighted by a distance between the entry switch and the interexchange facility or the airline distance between the entry switch and any interexchange facility of carriers that offer MTS that is located within 5 miles of such carrier or enhanced service provider's interexchange facility. 1. MTS and WATS Market Structure, Memoranum Opinion and Order, 97 FCC 2d 682 (1983) (hereinafter First Reconsideration). 2. WATS-Related and Other Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 86-1. FCC 86-377, para. 15 (released August 26, 1986) (hereinafter 86-1 Second Report and Order). 3. We concluded in our Computer III proceeding that protocol processing would continue to be treated as an enhanced service. Note: 10-28-91 The remainder of this file became corrupted somehow and is unavailable. About a hundred lines followed which cannot be recovered at this time.