NOTICE


    *********************************************************    

       

                         NOTICE


   *********************************************************


This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect.  

If the original document contained--

                    *  Footnotes
                    *  Boldface & Italics

--this information  is missing in this version

The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed
too.

If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect
version.

For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file
 how2ftp.

File  how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory
\pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous.

*****************************************************************
********
$// Order; Bell Atlantic; Exchange Access Frame Relay; Trans. 772; DA 95-1565 //$
$/ Section 0.291 Delegated Authority /$
TRANSMITTED FOR FCC RECORD ONLY

                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C.

                                                  DA 95-1565


In the Matter of                   )
                              )
Bell Atlantic                                )    Transmittal No. 772
Tariff  F.C.C.  No. 1              )


                                     
                                   ORDER

             Adopted: July 14, 1995;  Released: July 14, 1995

By the Deputy Chief, Tariff  Division, Common Carrier Bureau:

1.   On April 20, 1995, the Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic) filed
Transmittal No. 772 to revise their Exchange Access Frame Relay Service (Frame Relay
Service).  Transmittal No. 772 is scheduled to become effective on July 15, 1995. 

2.   Bell Atlantic explains that currently access to the Bell Atlantic Frame Relay Service
Network is provided via a transport facility which is priced by cross-reference to transport
facilities in Bell Atlantic's Digital Data System (DDS)/Digital Service 1 (DS1)  tariff.   Bell
Atlantic states that Transmittal No. 772 restructures Frame Relay Service by combining the
monthly and nonrecurring charges for the transport facility and the port into a unified rate
for both elements called a "User Network Interface (UNI) Access Connection."  Bell
Atlantic explains that combining the transport facility and port rate elements into a single rate
element reflects the differences in facilities needed for Frame Relay Service.  The
transmittal also establishes term pricing plans for Frame Relay Services. 

3.   On May 5, 1995, MCI filed a petition to reject or, in the alternative, to suspend and
investigate, Bell Atlantic Transmittal No. 772.  MCI states that the tariff unlawfully bundles
transport and port  elements into a single rate element.    MCI argues that the transport
facility used for Frame Relay Service could be provided separately by a competitor but that
Transmittal No. 772 would require a competitive access provider to purchase a transport
facility to interconnect with Frame Relay Service whether it is needed or not.  MCI claims
that by bundling legitimate port costs with burdensome transport costs, Bell Atlantic seeks to
prevent other access providers from competing with it to provide service from the end user
to the Frame Relay Service switch. MCI also argues that Bell Atlantic's provision of some
additional control and monitoring functions for Frame Relay Service channel terminations
that are not provided for certain existing special access channel terminations discriminates
against existing access customers.

4.   Bell Atlantic filed a reply to MCI's petition on May 15, 1995. In  response to MCI's
argument that Bell Atlantic unlawfully bundles transport and port rate elements, Bell Atlantic
states that the principal purposes of Transmittal No. 772 are to introduce term pricing plans
for Frame Relay Service and to make technical changes in the manner in which the service
may be ordered.  Bell Atlantic states that in the past, the rates customers paid for the Frame
Relay Services transport facility were specified in a separate DDS/DS1 tariff and cross-
referenced in the Frame Relay Service tariff, even though the DDS/DS1 tariff itself is
incompatible with the transport required for Frame Relay Service.  Bell Atlantic argues that
the instant revisions merely specify the rate for the transport facility in this tariff, eliminating
the cross-reference to the DDS/DS1.  With respect to the  monitoring and control functions
provided for in this tariff, as compared with standard special access service, Bell Atlantic
replies that such services are different, but that neither is inferior to the other.

5.   The Tariff Division has reviewed Bell Atlantic's Transmittal No. 772 and the related
pleadings. We conclude that no compelling argument has been presented that this tariff is
patently unlawful so as to warrant rejection or that investigation is warranted at this time. 
We note, however, that our decision here does not prejudice any decision we might make at
some future date with respect to a bona fide request for the provision of the transport facility
and port elements of Frame Relay Service on an unbundled basis.



6.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition to reject or, in the alternative, to
suspend and investigate Bell Atlantic Transmittal No. 772  IS DENIED.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         David A. Nall
                         Deputy Chief, Tariff Division
                         Common Carrier Bureau