WPC  2?BJ%:Courier3|x&Bold#o\  PCynXP#CourierCourier BoldTimes New Roman@`7X@gX@CourierCourier BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldynXP#2,q ZCourierTimes New RomanHP LaserJet 5Si (Additional) RM 290HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\!9gX@|D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)^B(klN&o) @ U;7G;A7<?xxx,x6X@`7X@2^QnQb3|x%CourierCourier BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italicg"\X@ I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)CourierCourier BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2XK0 K{ K <?xxx,x6X@`7X@?xxx,x `7X7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,%/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""\4  pG;W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,:BZW*f9 xr G;XSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM2  yO X )ө X<w  #XP\  P6QynXP#Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 97244 ă  yxdddy )q0p yO-N#X\  P6G;ɒP#q3v#X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# #X\  P6G;ɒP#Before theTPFederal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#у  XX- `(#(#X ă  X*-x` `  hh@h#XP\  P6QynXP#)  X-In the Matter of hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X-Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA h)pp CC Docket No. 96159  X-Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local h)ppFile Nos. NSDLM972  X-Calling Service (ELCS) at Various Locations h)pp through NSDLM9725 x` `  hh@h   Xr -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  X--X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:to allow local calling.V  6@ yO - xԍ See e.g., United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 slip op. at 2, 3 n.3 (D.D.C. Jan. 31,  yO- x1985) (hereinafter Jan. 1985 Order); United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C. Dec.  yO{- x3, 1993) (hereinafter Dec. 3, 1993 Order); United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C.  yOC-Dec. 17, 1993) (hereinafter Dec. 17, 1993 Order).V In particular, they considered the state commission's community of  x.interest finding and any additional evidence supporting this finding. A community of interest  xcould be demonstrated by such evidence as: (1) poll results indicating that customers in the  xaffected exchange were willing to pay higher rates to be included in an expanded local calling  X - xarea;V 6@ yOw-ԍ See July 1984 Order, at 2 n.5. V (2) usage data indicating a high level of calling between the exchanges; and (3) narrative  xystatements describing how the two exchanges were part of one community and how the lack of  X- xlocal calling between the exchanges caused problems for community residents._6@ yO-ԍ See Jan. 1985 Order, at 23 & n.3. _ The Court was  x.willing to grant waivers when the competitive effects were minimal and a sufficient community  Xb- xof interest across LATA boundaries was shown.b( 6@ yO;-Ѝ See July 1984 Order; Jan. 1985 Order; United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192,  yO-slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. May 18, 1993) (hereinafter May 1993 Order). The Court frequently granted waivers to permit interLATA ELCS.  X4-    x8. The Court granted waivers for more than a hundred flatrate, nonoptional ELCS  X- xplans 6@ yO7"-ԍ See e.g., Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1002   n.54; July 1984 Order; Jan. 1985 Order. that allow the provision of traditional local telephone service between nearby exchanges.  xUnder such plans, subscribers pay no extra charge for calls beyond their established monthly  X- xservice charge (the plan involves a flatrate), and all subscribers in the exchange are included in  X- xthe plan (the plan is nonoptional).:6@ {O&-ԍ Id. : The Court refused, however, to grant waivers for optional",N(N(ZZ"  X- xor measuredrate ELCS plans.X6@ yOy- xԍ See e.g., Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1002   n.54 (optional ELCS plans denied); May 1993 Order  yOA- xz(optional ELCS plan denied); Dec. 3, 1993 Order (measuredrate ELCS plan denied); Dec. 17, 1993 Order (measuredrate, optional ELCS plan denied). Under optional plans, subscribers may chose to pay an  X- xadditional monthly charge for an expanded local calling area,36@ yO-ԍ Id.3 while under measuredrate plans,  X- xsubscribers pay measuredrates based on such factors as duration, distance, and time of day.M x6@ yO-ԍ See Dec. 3, 1993 Order.M  xThe Court found that granting waivers for such ELCS arrangements could have an  x[anticompetitive effect because these services were similar to the toll service normally provided  xby interexchange carriers, and that these arrangements were basically discounted toll service for  Xv- xcalls that would otherwise be carried competitively.!v6@ yO/-ԍ See Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1001, 1002 n.54; Dec. 17, 1993 Order at 34; Dec. 3, 1993 Order. The Court was especially concerned that  xthe discount appeared to result from the fact that BOCs, unlike interexchange carriers, did not  XH- xhave to pay access charges on such calls.a"H6@ yO-ԍ Dec. 17, 1993 Order at 5.a The Court also noted that, in the case of optional or  xkmeasuredrate plans, the state commission had not found a sufficient community of interest  X - xbetween the exchanges to justify traditional local service, (i.e., flatrate, nonoptional ELCS).t# ( 6@ yO-ԍ See id. at 4; See also May 1993 Order, at 4.t  xFinally, the Court expressed concern that allowing new exceptions for measuredrate or optional  xplans could lead to a "piecemeal dismantling" of the prohibition on the BOCs' provision of  X -interLATA service.R$ 6@ yO>-ԍ See May 18, 1993 Order at 4.R  X -  X -B.xELCS Requests Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996  X-   "x9. On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) became law,  Xb- xamending the Communications Act of 1934 (Act).S%bH 6@ yO[-ԍ Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).S Pursuant to the 1996 Act, matters previously  XK- xzsubject to the Consent Decree are now governed by the Act.&xK6@ yO!- xԍ Section 601(a)(1) of the 1996 Act states that "[a]ny conduct or activity that was, before the date of enactment  xof this Act, subject to any restriction or obligation imposed by the AT&T Consent Decree shall, on and after such  xdate, be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by this  xAct and shall not be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by such Consent Decree." On April 11, 1996,  yO$- xthe Court issued an order terminating the AT&T Consent Decree and dismissing all pending motions under the  yO%- xwConsent Decree as moot, effective February 8, 1996. See United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82 yO&-0192, 1996 WL 255904 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1996).  Section 271(b)(1) of the Act"K&,N(N(ZZ"  X- xxprohibits a BOC from providing "interLATA services originating in any of its inregion States"'6@ yOy- xZԍ Section 271(i)(1) of the Act defines "inregion State" as a state in which a Bell operating company or any  xof its affiliates was authorized to provide wireline telephone exchange service pursuant to the reorganization plan  xapproved under the Consent Decree, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Telecommunications  xhAct of 1996. 47 U.S.C.  271(i)(1). Section 3(21) of the Act defines "interLATA service" as "telecommunications  xbetween a point located in a local access and transport area and a point located outside such area." 47 U.S.C.   yOa-153(21).   xuntil the BOC takes certain steps  "` to open its own market to competition and the Commission  X- xapproves the BOC's application to provide such service.(X@6@ yO - xԍ 47 U.S.C.  271(b)(1). Section 271(f), however, provides that BOCs are not prohibited from engaging in an  yO - xactivity to the extent that such activity was previously authorized by the Court. See 47 U.S.C.  271(f). Thus, BOCs  yOS -may continue to serve previously authorized interLATA ELCS routes. Id.  In addition, while the Commission  X- xmay forbear from applying certain provisions of the Act under certain circumstances,J)` 6@ yO -ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  160(a).J the  X- xCommission may not forbear from Section 271.J* 6@ yOE-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  160(d).J Section 3(25)(B) of the Act provides that  X-BOCs may modify LATA boundaries, if such modifications are approved by the Commission.Z+ 6@ yO-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  153(25)(B).Z  Xv-   x10. Since passage of the 1996 Act, the Commission has received six petitions requesting  xLATA relief in order that ELCS can be offered. On July 26, 1996 the Commission issued a  x.public notice requesting comment on petitions filed by BellSouth and SWBT for a "waiver" of  X - xLATA boundaries.S, 6@ yO-ԍ See supra note 6.S On January 15, 1997 the Commission issued a Second Public Notice  xjrequesting comment on petitions filed by Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, and US West, and allowing  X - xadditional comment on the petitions previously filed by BellSouth and SWBT.9- 6@ yO=-č Id.9 The Second  xPublic Notice stated that, although several of the petitions describe the relief requested as a  x?"waiver" of LATA boundaries, all of the petitions cited Section 3(25) as the basis of the  xCommission's jurisdiction to act upon these requests. Accordingly, the Commission stated that  xkit would treat all of these petitions as requests for modification of LATA boundaries for the  x>limited purpose of providing the specific service indicated in the request. The Commission  Xb-further stated that the LATA boundaries would remain unchanged for all other purposes. X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:  yO|-ԍ See Appendix A.E In each case, the LATA is not modified to permit the BOC to  xoffer any other type of service, or calls that originate or terminate outside the specified areas.  xThus, flatrate, nonoptional ELCS between the specified exchanges will be deemed intraLATA,  X|- xand the provisions of the Act governing intraLATA service will apply. ?| yO#- xԍ The BOC can provide the service without meeting the Section 271 requirements, see 47 U.S.C.  271(a),  yO$-and a separate affiliate is not required. See 47 U.S.C.  272(a)(2)(B).  Other types of service"| ?,N(N(ZZ"  x/between the specified exchanges will be deemed interLATA, and the provisions of the Act  X-governing interLATA service will apply. @ yOb- x;ԍ The BOC cannot provide other types of service (such as measuredrate, optional, or toll service) between the  yO*-specified exchanges without meeting the Section 271 requirements, see 47 U.S.C.  271(a).    X-  X-x2.` ` Measuredrate, optional ELCS   0x20. US West requests a LATA modification in order to provide measuredrate, optional  xELCS from its Albany exchange in the Eugene, Oregon LATA to the Scio Mutual Telephone  X_- xAssociation's Scio exchange.tA_  yO0 -ԍ See US West's Scio/Albany request, Appendices A and B. t US West states that the Oregon state commission requires carriers  XH- xto offer both flatand measuredrate options for all ELCS routes in the state.BH yO - xJԍ This policy is intended to "avoid the potential inequity created by flatrate [ELCS] whereby lowvolume users  yOq-support the high volume [ELCS] users." See US West Petition, Appendix A at 8.  Accordingly, US  x{West's plan would offer subscribers the following options: (1) unlimited calling for a flat  x-monthly charge; (2) a "usage only" option in which calls are charged at a set rate per minute; and  X - x(3) a three or six hour "measured usage" package.~CX  yO- xLԍ See Letter from John L. Traylor, Senior Attorney, US West, Inc., to Common Carrier Bureau, Federal  xCommunications Commission (Feb. 14, 1997). These options and rates are for residential subscribers. There are  yOL-different rates and options offered to business subscribers. Id.~ US West argues that the proposed ELCS  xplan is not the type of "optional" plan previously rejected by the Court because subscribers would  xzhave to select one of the ELCS plans, and could not choose between the ELCS plan and the  X - xservice offered by an interexchange carrier.9D (  yO-ԍ Id.9 US West also states that the Scio exchange has  X - xapproximately 1600 access lines,ME  yO-ԍ See US West Petition at 4. M and that the state commission found there was a "community  xof interest" between the exchanges and that the ELCS route was necessary to meet the "critical  Xy-needs" of Scio exchange customers.AFyH  yOr-ԍ Id.  A   lx21. We do not approve this proposed LATA modification. US West's request is related  xto a measuredrate optional ELCS plan. Furthermore, although the state commission found that  xthere was a "community of interest" between the exchanges, it did not make a specific finding  X- xthat there was a sufficient community of interest to warrant traditional local service (i.e., flatrate,  xnonoptional ELCS). Subscribers generally can be expected to prefer, and to benefit from,  xreduced rate service to nearby areas but ELCS plans with optional or measuredrate elements are  xsimilar to the toll services traditionally offered by interexchange carriers. We find that modifying  xa LATA boundary in order to permit a BOC to provide measuredrate service would allow the" F,N(N(ZZ"  xBOC to provide what would otherwise be interLATA toll service without first meeting the  xzrequirements of Section 271. Allowing LATA modifications for such ELCS plans might well  X- xlead to substantial expansion of BOC service, without the BOC satisfying the Section 271  X- xrequirements.QG yO4-ԍ Cf. May 1993 Order at 4. Q The potential anticompetitive effect of optional and measuredrate plans, and the  X- xylack of any showing of a need for traditional local telephone service (i.e., flatrate, nonoptional  xELCS) between the Albany and Scio exchanges, leads us to deny US West's request. While we  xjrecognize the state commission's interest in providing additional choices to consumers, we will not approve such optional or measuredrate plans for the reasons discussed above.   x22. We note, however, that the Scio/Albany request was placed on public notice and that  xno objections were filed. Moreover, because of its general policy requiring both flat and  xmeasuredrate options on all ELCS routes, the state commission apparently never considered  xwhether a sufficient community of interest existed between the Albany and Scio exchanges to  xjustify flatrate, nonoptional ELCS. Under these circumstances, we find that the public interest  xLwill best be served by our giving US West an opportunity to seek further clarification from the  x.state commission. Accordingly, we direct US West to amend its request within 60 days of the  xrelease date of this order to state whether it has obtained a further ruling from the state  xcommission that addresses whether there is a sufficient community of interest to warrant flat rate, nonoptional ELCS between the Albany and Scio exchanges and states whether such service  XK- x/has been approved.KHKX yOT- xYԍ We note that even if US West does not file such an amendment at this time, our ruling here does not preclude  xrelief to residents of the Albany and Scio exchanges. First, the request may be resubmitted at any time if the state  xcommission determines that the required community of interest exists. This service could also be offered by an  xalternative provider, if available, and US West will be able to offer interLATA service if it meets the requirements of Section 271. K If no amendment is filed within the 60 day period, the request will be  X4-dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Section 1.748 of the Commission's rules.I4 yO- x<ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.748(a). Section 1.748(a) provides that an application may be dismissed without prejudice if the applicant fails to comply with a request for additional information.  X-  X-  V. FUTURE LATA MODIFICATION REQUESTS ă  X-  x 23. The Common Carrier Bureau has authority to act on petitions to modify LATA  x-boundaries, consistent with the principles established in this order, pursuant to the delegation of  X- xauthority contained in Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules.IJ`  yO"-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291.I We conclude that  xythe following set of guidelines will assist the BOCs in filing those LATA modification petitions  X|- xzthat involve ELCS and the Bureau in acting on those petitions.K|  yO&- xԍ These guidelines have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control  yO&-number 30600782. See Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413.  First, we request that each"| H K,N(N(ZZ"  X- x=ELCS petition be filed by the BOCxL yOy-ԍ See Section 25(3) (LATAs may be "modified by a Bell operating company").x pursuant to the application filing requirements set forth in  X- xSections 1.742 and 1.743 of the Commission's rules.HMX yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.74243. H Second, we ask that each individual ELCS  X- xyLATA modification request be the subject of a separate petition.dN yOk-ԍ See the 24 individual requests listed in Appendix A.d Third, we request that each  xpetition be labeled "Request for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide ELCS  xBetween the [exchange name] and the [exchange name]." Finally, we request that each ELCS  xpetition include the following information, under separately numbered and labeled categories, as indicated below:  XH-(1)XxType of service (e.g., flatrate, nonoptional ELCS);(#  X -(2)XxDirection of service (oneway, twoway; if oneway, indicate direction of service);(#  X -  (3)XxExchanges involved (identity name of each exchange, the LATA and state in which each   exchange is located; if an exchange is located in independent territory, indicate the LATA,  X -if any, with which the exchange is associated);HO x yO-ԍ See supra para. 4.H (#  X-(4)XxName of carriers (name of carrier providing local service in each exchange);(#  Xb-(5)XxState commission approval (include a copy of that approval);(#  X4-(6)XxNumber of access lines or customers (for each exchange);(#  X-  !(7)XxUsage data (e.g., average number of calls per access line per month from exchange A to   Oexchange B, from exchange B to exchange A, and, if available, percent of subscribers making such calls each month);(#  X-  `(8)XxPoll results (for each exchange in which a poll was required by applicable state   procedures and conducted in accordance with those procedures. Indicate the amount of proposed rate increase in those exchanges); (#  XN-  N(9)XxCommunity of interest statement (a statement explaining why the two exchanges should be considered part of a single community and why community residents need the ELCS); (#  X -  (10)xMap (showing the exchanges and LATA boundary involved and including a scale showing  X-xdistance); and, " O,N(N(ZZ;"Ԍ X-  (11)XxOther pertinent information (e.g., copies of state commission reports, summary of hearing testimony). (#   mx24. If any of the above information is unavailable or inapplicable to a particular ELCS  X- xpetition (for example, if polling is not required by state procedures), the petition should so  X- xindicate. A carrier will be deemed to have made a prima facie case supporting grant of the  xproposed modification if the ELCS petition: (1) has been approved by the state commission; (2)  X_- x=proposes only traditional local service (i.e., flatrate, nonoptional ELCS); (3) indicates that the  xZstate commission found a sufficient community of interest to warrant such service; (4) documents  x-this community of interest through such evidence as poll results, usage data, and descriptions of  X -the communities involved; and (5) involves a limited number of customers or access lines.UP  yO -ԍ See supra para. 18 and note 60.U   ]x25. We request that ELCS requests filed with the Commission, but not addressed in this  X - xorder (including the Virginia Commission's Waverly/Wakefield request),PQ X yO-ԍ See supra para. 12. P be refiled so that they  xcomply with these guidelines. Each petition will be assigned a LATA modification (LM) file number and placed on public notice. T  Xy- VI. CONCLUSION ă   {x26. For the reasons set forth above, we approve the 23 requests for LATA relief in order  xto provide flatrate, nonoptional ELCS. These LATAs are modified solely for the limited  xpurposes indicated in the requests, and shall remain unchanged for all other purposes. In  xaddition, we allow US West an additional 60 days in which to amend its Scio/Albany request.  xFinally, we establish guidelines to direct the filing of future ELCS requests. These actions serve  xthe public interest by permitting minor LATA modifications when such modifications are  x\necessary to meet the needs of local subscribers and will not have any significant effect on competition.  X|-d VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ă   x27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), that the requests of  xAmeritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth), Southwestern Bell  xTelephone Company (SWBT), and US West Communications, Inc. (US West), for LATA  xmodifications for the limited purpose of providing flatrate, nonoptional ELCS at specific  xlocations, identified in File Nos. NSDLM972 through NSDLM9724, ARE APPROVED.  xThese LATA boundaries are modified solely for the purpose of providing flatrate, nonoptional  xELCS between points in the specific exchanges or geographic areas indicated in the requests. The LATA boundary for all other services shall remain unchanged. ""Q,N(N(ZZ!"Ԍ  ԙx28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), that the Virginia State  x]Corporation Commission's request for a LATA modification to permit ELCS between the  X-Waverly and Wakefield exchanges IS DISMISSED without prejudice.   xx   x29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the  x1Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), that US West  xCommunications, Inc. (US West) SHALL AMEND its request for approval of a LATA  xmodification to provide ELCS from the Albany exchange in the Eugene, Oregon LATA to the  x Scio Mutual Telephone Association's Scio exchange, File No. NSDLM9725, as indicated  x>herein, within 60 days of the release date of this order. If no amendment is filed, US West's LATA modification request will be dismissed without prejudice.   x30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 416(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  x0 416(a), the Secretary SHALL SERVE a copy of this order upon the petitioners listed in Appendix A. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary"Q,N(N(ZZ"  X-'] APPENDIX A TP  X- 6  List of Petitions and LATA Modification Requests à  X-  X-Ameritech's November 12, 1996 Petition  -L4 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d24X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:and the Richlands exchange in the Bluefield, West Virginia Independent Market Area. The  X - xrequest indicates that Honaker has 3,460 access lines,t (  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Bell Atlantic Petition Supplement, Attachment A at 1. that Honaker customers average 5.15 calls  X - xito the Richlands exchange per access line per month,`u  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.` and that 90% of Honaker poll respondents  X- xfavored the ELCS.vH  yO-ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# Bell Atlantic Petition, Exhibit C, Attachment at 12. The request further indicates that Honaker is a small rural exchange with  xno major industries, medical specialty clinics, hospitals, shopping malls, colleges, or commercial  xZtransportation facilities and that Richlands is the closest location that provides such facilities and  XK-services.`wK  yO!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 1.` This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements.4xKh  yOd#-ԍ Id. 4  X- x12. Bell Atlantic's Mason/PomeroyMiddleport request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide oneway,  xflatrate, nonoptional ELCS from Bell Atlantic's Mason exchange in the Charleston, West  x[Virginia LATA to the Pomeroy and Middleport exchanges in Ohio. This request indicates that"x,N(N(ZZc"  xMason has 854 customers, that these customers average 17.4 calls to the Pomeroy and Middleport  X- xexchanges per access line per month,y  yOb-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Bell Atlantic Petition, Exhibit B, Order of West Virginia Public Utility Commission at 23. and that 83% of poll respondents said calling volume  X- xwould increase substantially if an ELCS were provided.azX  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 24.a The request indicates that Mason  xcustomers are really a part of a larger community that includes the surrounding Pomeroy and  xMiddleport exchanges in Ohio, and that as many as half the people live in one state and work in  X- xthe other.j{  yO& -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. Exhibit B at 2.j The request indicates that the exchanges' schools, medical service providers,  xbusinesses, and fire departments suffer from large long distance bills due to frequent calling  X_-among the exchanges.Z|_x  yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.Z  X1- x13. Bell Atlantic's New Florence/Johnstown request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide oneway,  xflatrate, nonoptional ELCS from its New Florence exchange in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  X - xLATA to the Johnstown exchange. The request states that New Florence has 1,155 access linesi}   yO-ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# Id. Exhibit A at 1.i  X - xand averages 5.56 calls per month per access line,~   yO5-ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# Id. Exhibit A, Order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, at 1. and that over 61% of New Florence poll  X -respondents favored the ELCS.j (  yO-ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# Id. Exhibit A at 2.j  X - x14. Bell Atlantic's Stone Mountain/Lynchburg request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide twoway,  xflatrate, nonoptional ELCS between the Stone Mountain exchange in the Roanoke, Virginia  xLATA and the Lynchburg exchange in the Lynchburg, Virginia LATA. The request indicates  Xb- xithat the Stone Mountain exchange has 6,120 access lines,b  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Bell Atlantic Petition Supplement, Attachment A at 1. and that 61% of Stone Mountain poll  XK- xrespondents favor the ELCS.KH  yOD -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Bell Atlantic Petition, Exhibit E, Public Notice Report of the Virginia Commission at 1. The Stone Mountain exchange has no major industries, medical  X4- xspecialty clinics, hospitals, shopping malls, colleges, or commercial transportation facilities,4  yO"-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Bell Atlantic Petition Supplement, Attachment C at 3. and  X- xthe closest communities providing these facilities are Roanoke and Lynchburg.[h  yO6%-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. [ Stone Mountain  xalready has ELCS to Roanoke, and ELCS to Lynchburg would provide an important additional",N(N(ZZ"  X- xlocal calling link to customers in the eastern half of the Stone Mountain exchange.Z  yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.Z This  X-request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements.ZX  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.Z  X-  X- x15. BellSouth's FranklintonLouisburg/Raleigh request. BellSouth seeks to provide twoway,  xflatrate, nonoptional ELCS between the Franklinton and Louisburg exchanges, and the Raleigh  xMexchange in the Raleigh, North Carolina LATA. The request indicates that Franklinton and  Xv- xLouisburg have 2,561 and 6,478 access lines respectively|v  yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition, Attachment 1, at 2 n.2.| and that over 90% of poll respondents  X_- x]favored the ELCS.a_x  yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 2. a The request also indicates that the proposed ELCS meets the state  XH-commission's usage criteria for ELCS requests.xH  yO- x-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э In evaluating such requests, the state commission considers the rate of calling between the exchanges and  yO- xrequires different usage rates depending on the type of service provided (i.e, countyseat ELCS, other intracounty  xELCS, intercounty ELCS, or intercounty ELCS between exchanges without a common boundary). The state  xhcommission considers a community of interest factor (CIF) which is equal to the number of calls divided by the total  x;number of customer trunks, and a percentage making calls factor (PMC) which is the number of access lines making  yO- xcalls divided by the total number of local customer lines/trunks. See North Carolina PUC Comments, Attachment at 1, 3.   X - x16.  BellSouth's Louisburg/Zebulon request. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#BellSouth seeks to provide twoway, flatrate, non x-optional ELCS between the Louisburg exchange, and the Zebulon exchange in the Raleigh, North  xCarolina LATA. The request indicates that Louisburg and Zebulon have 6,478 and 6,604 access  X - xlines{ H  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition, Attachment I at 2 n.2.{ respectively, and that over 90% of Louisburg poll respondents favored the ELCS.`   yO^-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 2.` The  X - xrequest also indicates that Louisburg and Zebulon do not meet the CIF criterion, h  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition, Attachment I, Exhibit A at 1. See also supra note 136. but that the  xstate commission approved the proposed ELCS because (1) it would provide countyseat calling  X- xto 15% of Zebulon subscribers;  yO9"-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition, Attachment I, Exhibit C at 4.and (2) approximately 50% of the students in school in the  Xy-Louisburg exchange live in the Zebulon exchange.ay  yO$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. a  XK- x17. BellSouth's Pittsboro/ApexCaryRaleigh request . BellSouth seeks to provide twoway, flat xrate, nonoptional ELCS between the Pittsboro exchange, and the Apex, Cary, and Raleigh"4,N(N(ZZ"  X- xyexchanges in the Raleigh LATA. The petition indicates that Pittsboro has 6,302 access lines  yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition, Attachment V, Exhibit C at 1.  X- xand that over 93% of the Pittsboro poll respondents favored the ELCS.mX  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. Attachment V at 2.m The request indicates  xthat the CIF criterion is satisfied for Pittsboro and Raleigh, but is not satisfied for Pittsboro and  X- xleach of the Cary and the Apex exchanges.x  yOT-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. Attachment V, Exhibit C at 2.x The request noted, however, that the state  xcommission favored the ELCS because allowing an ELCS to only one of the three exchanges  X-would require skipping the other two.bx  yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 23.b  X_- xj18. BellSouth's Saxapahaw/Chapel Hill request. BellSouth seeks to provide twoway, flat rate,  xnonoptional ELCS between the Saxapahaw exchange in the Greensboro, North Carolina LATA  xLand the Chapel Hill exchange in the Raleigh, North Carolina LATA. The request indicates that  X - xSaxapahaw has 3,784 access lines   yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition, Attachment II, Exhibit C at 1. and that 72% of Saxapahaw poll respondents favored the  X -ELCS.o   yOL-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. Attachment II, at 2.o` The request also indicates the state's usage criteria for ELCS have been met.y (  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. Attachment II, Exhibit C at 1.y  X - x19. BellSouth's Scotts HillHolly Ridge/Wilmington request. BellSouth seeks to provide two xway, flatrate, nonoptional ELCS between the Holly Ridge exchange, and the Wilmington  x"exchange and that portion of the Scotts Hill exchange served by the 270 prefix in the  x Wilmington, North Carolina LATA. The request indicates that the number of access lines,  Xy- xrespectively, in Scotts Hill and Holly Ridge is 3,809, and 1,689,ry  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. Attachment III at 2 n.2.r and that over 60% of Scotts  Xb- x.Hill poll respondents and over 97% of Holly Ridge poll respondents favored the ELCS.`bH  yO[-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 2.` The  xkstate's usage criteria were satisfied between Holly Ridge and Scotts Hill and between Holly  X4-Ridge and Wilmington.{4  yO"-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. Attachment III, Exhibit C at 2.{  X- x20. SWBT's Albany/Breckenridge request. SWBT seeks to provide twoway ELCS between  xSWBT's Albany exchange in the Abilene, Texas LATA and the Breckenridge exchange in the"h,N(N(ZZE"  X- x.Dallas, Texas LATA. The request indicates that Albany has a population of less than 2,000o  yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э SWBT Petition, Exhibit B at 3.o  X- xand that over 70% of Albany poll respondents favored the ELCS.ZX  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.Z The request states that  xLAlbany residents, who rely on farming, ranching, and the oil industry for their economic basis,  xitend to own property that spans both counties and rely on Breckenridge for farming and ranching  X- xsupplies.`  yO= -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 4.` The petition further states that Breckenridge is the closet town of its size`x  yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 4.` (5,203  X- xaccess lines),  yOF - xM#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Letter from J. Paul Walters, Jr., Attorney, SWBT, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Feb. 13, 1997). and that Albany residents rely on Breckenridge for local government needs,  xincluding several state and federal agencies located in Breckenridge that serve both  X_- x-communities.o_`  yOp-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э SWBT Petition, Exhibit B at 4.o The request also notes that Albany relies on Breckenridge for doctors, medicine  XH-and medical facilities, shopping, and employment opportunities.ZH  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.Z FFZx  X - x=21. SWBT's Pawnee/KenedyKarnesFall City request. SWBT Bell seeks to provide twoway,  xflatrate, nonoptional ELCS between the Pawnee exchange, and SWBT's Kenedy and  xKarnes/Falls City exchanges in the San Antonio, Texas LATA. The request indicates that  X - xKenedy and Karnes/Falls City have 2,363 and 2,518 access lines respectively,  yO- xM#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Letter from J. Paul Walters, Jr., Attorney, SWBT, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Feb. 13, 1997). and that over  X - x70% of poll respondents of these exchanges favored the ELCS.o   yOG-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э SWBT Petition, Exhibit A at 5.o The request explains that  xPawnee residents depend on the Kenedy and Karnes/Falls City exchanges for shopping, groceries,  X- x[banking, emergency services, and legal services, which are not available in Pawnee.[h  yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. [ Pawnee  xresidents are also served by schools, churches, funeral services, and public utility companies of  Xb-the other exchanges.bb  yO $-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 56.b  X4- x22. US West's 234/Omaha request. US West seeks to provide flatrate, nonoptional ELCS from  xits Omaha common service area in the Omaha, Nebraska LATA to Lincoln Telegraph &",N(N(ZZ"  xTelephone Company's (LT&T's) 234 exchange (covering the communities of Cedar Creek,  x1Louisville, and Manley, Nebraska). The petition indicates that the 234 exchange has  X- xKapproximately 1,000 access lines,g  yOK-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э US West Petition at 4.g and averages about 20 calls to Omaha per month per account,  X- xwith over 80% of the accounts placing two or more calls to Omaha per month.jX  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. Exhibit A at 2.j U S WEST's  xpetition also indicates that this request was initiated by a petition of over 350 subscribers of the  X- x234 exchange,`  yO& -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 1.` and that the state commission found a community of interest between the  Xv-exchanges based on medical, business, and social needs.gvx  yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 4. g  XH- xy23. US West's Murray/Omaha request. US West seeks to provide flatrate, nonoptional ELCS  xfrom its Omaha common service area in the Omaha LATA to LT&T's Murray exchange. The  X - xpetition states that Murray has approximately 930 access lines,r   yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э US West Petition, Exhibit B at 2.r and averages about 24 calls to  xOmaha per month per account, with over 85% of the accounts placing two or more calls to  X - x.Omaha per month.[   yO5-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. [ The petition further indicates that the request was initiated by a petition  X - xof over 925 subscribers of the Murray exchange,` (  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 1.` and that the state commission found a  X - xZcommunity of interest between the exchanges based on health, medical, and educational needs.`  yO'-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 4.`  X- x.24. US West's Scio/Albany request. US West seeks to provide measuredrate, optional ELCS  xfrom its Albany exchange in the Eugene, Oregon LATA to the Scio Mutual Telephone  x.Association's Scio exchange. The request indicates that the Scio exchange has approximately  XK- xN1,500 customersrKH  yOD -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э US West Petition, Exhibit A at 4.r and 1,600 access lines.`K  yO!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 4.` The request also indicates that 65% of Scio  X4- xexchange customers made at least two toll calls per month to the Albany exchange,b4h  yOM$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 56.b with an  X- xaverage of 9.7 toll calls per month per access line.K  yO&-ԍ Id. Exhibit A at 17.K The request describes Scio as a rural",N(N(ZZ"  X- xlogging and agricultural area with a population of 650,a  yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 4. a where employment activities are limited  xto the Scio High School, and three other small businesses. The request explains that Albany is  xthe closest and most convenient town upon which Scio residents can rely for their basic needs,  X- x.including fire, medical, and 911 emergency services,bX  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 56.b as well as government services such as  X- x[courts, law enforcement offices, and the Department of Motor Vehicles.b  yO= -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 47.b Further, the request  x<notes that 70% of the Scio School District's phone calls are placed to Albany, and that many Scio  Xv- xLresidents and children attend classes in Albany.`vx  yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 5.` The state commission has also approved a  x\measuredrate, optional plan to cover calls from the independent telephone company's Scio exchange to the Albany exchange.  X1- T