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. ***************************************************************** ******** $// Order; SWB (SONET); Trans. No. 2453; DA 95-1868 //$ $/ Section 0.291 Delegated Authority /$ TRANSMITTED FOR FCC RECORD ONLY Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. DA 95-1868 In the Matter of ) ) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ) Transmittal No. 2453 Tariff F.C.C. No. 73 ) ORDER Adopted: August 24, 1995; Released: August 25, 1995 By the Chief, Tariff Division, Common Carrier Bureau: 1. On April 28, 1995, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) filed Transmittal No. 2453 to introduce Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) Based Interconnection (SBI) service. Transmittal No. 2453 is scheduled to become effective on August 26, 1995. 2. SWB explains that SBI is an alternative form of expanded interconnection which uses SONET technology to provide interconnection. SWB offers this filing as a technical alternative to the Commission's mandated virtual collocation service. SWB states that some of the features that distinguish SBI from its virtual collocation service are that: (1) SWB selects the basic transmission equipment that its technicians are trained to install, maintain and repair; (2) there are no charges for training costs assessed on interconnectors; and (3) equipment SWB dedicates to the interconnector is reusable. Monthly recurring charges are greater for SBI than for virtual collocation, and the non-recurring, up-front costs are less for SBI than for virtual collocation. SWB proposes to include this offering under the Digital Service Category of the trunking basket when it becomes subject to price cap regulation. SWB filed portions of its cost support data for Transmittal No. 2453 with a request for confidentiality. 3. On May 15, 1995, MCI filed a petition to suspend and investigate Transmittal No. 2453. MCI argues that many of the rates and rate elements proposed for SBI raise the same or similar questions of lawfulness that were raised by SWB's virtual collocation rates and that the Commission should utilize its partial suspension authority to require SWB to lower its proposed SBI rates to the level of its virtual collocation rates. MCI states that SWB should not be permitted to charge rates for services comparable to existing interconnection services that the Commission has already determined to be excessive. MCI further argues that the Commission should apply a rate adjustment factor (RAF) to SWB's SBI rates. Finally, MCI alleges that SWB has violated the Communications Act and the Commission's rules by filing its cost support under confidential cover. 4. SWB filed a reply to MCI's petition on May 25, 1995. SWB asserts that SBI is an alternative method of interconnection and is not subject to the mandates and standards that the Commission has developed and required for virtual collocation service. SWB also states that it adequately explains its method of developing its SBI rates and that those rates are reasonable. They do not, and should not, reflect the rate adjustments ordered by the Commission in the context of mandated virtual collocation, says SWB. SWB further argues that its SBI offering will give expanded interconnection customers a choice: some may continue to use virtual collocation service set at rates mandated by the Commission, while others may opt to use SBI as an alternative. SWB claims, therefore, that the market will determine if rates for SBI are too high or otherwise unreasonable. Finally, SWB states that it is simply trying to protect confidential business information, which consists of certain costs associated with providing interconnection services and the price information of third party equipment vendors (as is required by contracts with those vendors). 5. Sections 0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.453(j), 0.455(b)(11), provide that materials filed in support of tariff revisions are to be publicly available. SWB, however, has filed a request for confidential treatment of its tariff support material under the requirements of Section 0.459 of our rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.459. Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, provides that the Commission may, on its own motion, waive any provisions of its rules if good cause is shown. The Tariff Division finds that there is good cause to waive the Commission's rules that the cost support data filed with Transmittal No. 2453 be publicly available. Therefore, on our own motion, the Division grants SWB a waiver of Sections 0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules. As a result, the Transmittal No. 2453 cost support data for which SWB sought confidentiality will not be publicly available. The Division grants this waiver for the limited purpose of reviewing Transmittal No. 2453. 6. The Tariff Division has reviewed SWB's Transmittal No. 2453 and the related pleadings. We conclude that no compelling argument has been presented that an investigation is warranted at this time. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 0.291 and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, 1.3, for the purposes of this proceeding, Sections 0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.453(j), 0.455(b)(11), ARE WAIVED. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition to suspend and investigate SWB Transmittal No. 2453 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Geraldine A. Matise Chief, Tariff Division Common Carrier Bureau