******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 97-1149 In the Matter of ) ) Local Exchange Carriers' ) Payphone Functions and Features ) CC Docket No. 97- 140 ) Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies ) Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 ) Transmittal No. 962 ) GTE System Telephone Companies ) Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 ) Transmittal No. 206 ) GTE Telephone Operating Companies ) Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 ) Transmittal No. 1095 ) NYNEX Telephone Companies ) Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 ) Transmittal No. 452 SUSPENSION ORDER Adopted: June 2, 1997; Released: June 2, 1997 By the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On May 19, 1997, these four local exchange carriers (LECs) filed the above transmittals to make available under their federal access tariffs various payphone features and functions (features). The American Public Communications Council (APCC) filed petitions to suspend and investigate each of these transmittals. Replies to these petitions were filed by NYNEX and jointly by GSTC and GTOC. Each of these transmittals is scheduled to become effective June 3, 1997. We find that each of these transmittals raises issues of lawfulness under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Accordingly, we suspend these transmittals for one day, initiate an investigation, and impose an accounting order. II. TRANSMITTALS AND PLEADINGS A. Bell Atlantic Transmittal No. 962 2. In Transmittal No. 962, the Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic) proposes to include in its federal access tariff six unbundled payphone features currently offered under its state tariffs to payphone service providers (PSPs). Bell Atlantic currently makes these features available to PSPs under its state exchange tariffs. These services can be of assistance to independent PSPs in making payphone services available to the public, for example, by helping them prevent fraudulent calls from their payphones. 3. APCC petitions for suspension and investigation of this Bell Atlantic transmittal because, in its view, the proposed charges for many of these features are greatly in excess of Bell Atlantic's disclosed costs and, thus, fail to meet the requirements of Section 276 of the Communications Act and the Commission's Payphone Orders. For example, APCC contends Bell Atlantic's proposed overhead loadings on its direct charges for certain of these features fail to meet the requirements of the new services test applicable to such rates. Bell Atlantic did not file a reply to the APCC petition. B. NYNEX Transmittal No. 452 4. In Transmittal No. 452, the NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) proposes to revise their access tariff to add four unbundled, payphone-specific features. Like the similar features offered by Bell Atlantic, NYNEX's Public Access Line Optional (PAL) Features can be of assistance to independent PSPs in making payphone services available to the public. 5. APCC petitions for suspension and investigation of the NYNEX transmittal because, in its view, the proposed charges for some of these PAL features are considerably in excess of NYNEX's disclosed costs and, thus, fail to meet the requirements of Section 276 of the Communications Act and the Commission's Payphone Orders. More specifically, APCC contends, these disparities prevent NYNEX's proposed charges from meeting the requirements of the new services test applicable to such rates. For example, APCC claims that the proposed charges and related cost support for NYNEX's terminating (billed) number screening (BNS) and LSAS services are not consistent with the charges and cost support submitted by other LECs for similar services. In its reply to the APCC petition, NYNEX contends that the "isolated comparisons" cited by APCC do not establish sufficient grounds for suspension or investigation of this NYNEX transmittal. C. GTE System Telephone Companies Transmittal No. 206 and GTE Telephone Operating Companies Transmittal No. 1095 6. In these two transmittals, GSTC and GTOC (GTE Companies) propose to add to their respective federal access service tariff an unbundled, payphone-specific feature called Selective Class of Call Screening (SCOCS). In these transmittals, the GTE Companies also clarify certain matters unrelated to payphone features such as the application of their multiline end user subscriber line charges and the addition of certain provisions regarding the warehousing and hoarding of toll free subscriber numbers. 7. APCC petitions for suspension and investigation of each of these transmittals because, in its view, the GTE Companies direct costs are far in excess of the costs reported for similar services by other major LECs, and, thus, these companies proposed tariff revisions fail to meet the requirements of Section 276 of the Communications Act and the Commission's Payphone Orders. More specifically, APCC contends the disparities between the direct costs of the GTE Companies and other companies prevent the GTE Companies' proposed rates from meeting the requirements of the new services test. 8. The GTE Companies replied to the APCC petition by stating that their proposed tariff revision meet the required new services criteria and that the tariff would be revised to clarify subscription to 1+ and O+/O- call restrictions. III. DISCUSSION 9. We hereby suspend the above transmittals for one day because we find that these transmittals raise questions of lawfulness, including whether they (1) are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of Section 202(a) of the Communications Act, (2) contain any unjust and unreasonable charge, practice, classification or regulation in violation of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act, or (3) include any subsidy, preference, or discriminatory provision in violation of Section 276 of the Communications Act. We therefore shall suspend each of these transmittals for one day until June 4, 1997, impose an accounting order, and initiate an investigation into the lawfulness of their respective provisions. We will issue a separate order designating the issues to be investigated and establishing a pleading cycle. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  204(a), and Section 0.291 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, the following transmittals ARE SUSPENDED FOR ONE DAY from their respective effective dates and an investigation of these transmittals IS INSTITUTED: Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 962; GTE System Telephone Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 206; GTE Telephone Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 1095; and NYNEX Telephone Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 452. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  204, each of these four carriers SHALL KEEP ACCURATE ACCOUNT of all earnings, costs, and returns associated with the rates that are subject to this investigation, and of all amounts paid thereunder and by whom such amounts are paid. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each of these four carriers SHALL FILE tariff revisions within five business days from the release of this Order to effect this suspension. For these purposes, we waive Sections 61.56, 61.58, and 61.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.56, 61.58, and 61.59. Each carrier should cite the "DA Number" of this Order as its authority for making these changes. 13. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of the American Public Communications Council For Leave to File One Day Late its petition against the above NYNEX transmittal IS GRANTED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions filed by the American Public Communications Council to suspend and investigate Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies Transmittal No. 962, GTE System Telephone Companies Transmittal No. 206; GTE Telephone Operating Companies Transmittal No. 1095; and NYNEX Telephone Companies Transmittal No. 452 ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Schlichting Chief, Competitive Pricing Division Common Carrier Bureau