WPC 2BJZ Courier3|n/x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 2000M RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\Y"aqX@2^6 ZF 3|nHP LaserJet 5Si 2000M RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\Y"aqX@HeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  28t.8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# BibliogrphyBibliography݅X  (# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper   ? X X` hp x (#%' y*dddyy*dddy H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28 +  ӈ2QjKK KQ CourierCourier BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""\4  pG;W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,:BZW*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,:rXh*f9 xr G;XX yO X (ө X<w  #XP\  P6QynXP#Federal Communications Commission`(#=DA 98859 ă  yxdddy (q0p yO-f#X\  P6G;ɒP#qKv#X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# #X\  P6G;ɒP#Before thelUFederal Communications Commission  yO}"Washington, D.C. 20554#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#у  XX-  XA-` `  hh,V#XP\  P6QynXP#)  X*-In the Matter of hh,V) ` `  hh,V)  X-Southwestern Bell Telephonehh,V)  X-Petition for Limited Modification of LATA )pp   X-Boundary to Provide Expanded LocalV )ppFile No. NSDL9817  X-Calling Service (ELCS) hh,V)pp    X -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER lU  X[ -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:to provide twoway, flatrated, nonoptional expanded local calling service (ELCS) between  Xu-  various exchanges in Texas.LuZ0 {O-ԍSee Appendix A.L SWBT's petition requests a limited modification of local access  X^-  Ztransport area (LATA) boundaries.X^0 yO-ԍSection 3(25) of the Act defines LATAs as those areas established prior to enactment of the 1996 Act or established or modified by a Bell Operating Company (BOC) after such date of enactment and approved by the Commission. The petition was placed on public notice,^ 0 {O-ԍSee Public Notice, "Requests by Southwestern Bell for Limited Modification of LATA Boundary to provide ELCS," rel. Mar. 3, 1998. and no comments or reply comments were filed. For the reasons stated below, we grant SWBT's requests.  X0-  X-  ` `  hh,II.VBACKGROUND l  X-   2.` ` Requests for new ELCS routes are generally initiated by local subscribers.  X-  IntraLATA ELCS routes can be ordered by the state commission.U\f 0 {O&-ԍUnited States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 990, 995 (D.D.C. 1983). "The distance at which a local call becomes a long distance toll call has been, and will continue to be, determined exclusively  {O}(-by the various state regulatory bodies." Id.U For interLATA routes, prior" ,))ZZ?"  X-  to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act),Zۿ yOy-ԍPub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).Z the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) were  X-  required to secure state approval and then obtain a waiver from the United States District Court  X-  for the District of Columbia (District Court).:Xۿ {O-ԍId.: In the years between the Consent Decree.\ۿ {Om-ԍThe Consent Decree required AT&T to divest its ownership of the BOCs. United States v. American  {O7-Telephone and Telegraph Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983).. and the   1996 Act, the District Court received more than a hundred requests for Consent Decree waivers  X-  to permit new interLATA ELCS routes.Y \ۿ yOc -ԍPetitions for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service  {O+ -(ELCS) at Various Locations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96159, FCC 97244 (rel. July  {O -15, 1997) (July 1997 Order) at para. 6.Y Because of the large number of requests involved and   because most of the requests were noncontroversial, the District Court developed a streamlined  Xv-process for handling such requests. v2 ۿ {OY-ԍSee United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 1984); United States  {O#-v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 1984).   XH-  3.` ` Under the streamlined process developed by the District Court, the BOC submitted   zits waiver request to the Department of Justice (Department). The Department reviewed the   request and then submitted the request, along with the Department's recommendation, to the  X -  LDistrict Court. In evaluating ELCS requests, the Department and the District Court considered  X -  the number of customers or access lines involved  ۿ {O+-ԍSee United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192, slip op. at 3 n.8 (D.D.C. July 19,  {O-1984) (hereinafter July 1984 Order). as well as whether a sufficiently strong  X -  Kcommunity of interest between the exchanges justified granting a waiver of the Consent Decree. ^ ۿ {Op-ԍSee, e.g., United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 slip op. at 2, 3 n.3 (D.D.C. Jan.  {O:-31, 1985) (hereinafter Jan. 1985 Order); United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C.  {O-Dec. 3, 1993); United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 1993).   LA community of interest could be demonstrated by such evidence as: (1) poll results showing   that customers in the affected exchange were willing to pay higher rates to be included in an  X-  expanded local calling area;W ۿ {OQ"-ԍSee July 1984 Order, at 2 n.5. W (2) usage data demonstrating a high level of calling between the   exchanges; and (3) narrative statements describing how the two exchanges were part of one   community and how the lack of local calling between the exchanges caused problems for  XK-  community residents.ZKۿ {O&-ԍSee Jan. 1985 Order, at 23 & n.3. Z In addition, the Department and the District Court gave deference to the"K4,N(N(ZZ"   state's community of interest finding. The District Court also considered the competitive effects  X-of granting a proposed ELCS waiver.ۿ {Ob-ЍSee July 1984 Order; Jan. 1985 Order; United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192,  {O,-slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. May 18, 1993) (hereinafter May 1993 Order). The District Court granted waivers for more than a hundred flatrated, nonoptional ELCS plans that allow the provision of traditional local telephone  {O-service between nearby exchanges. See, e.g., Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1002   n.54; July 1984 Order; Jan.  {O-1985 Order. Under such plans, subscribers pay no extra charge for calls beyond their established monthly service  yOR-charge (the plan involves a flatrated charge), and all subscribers in the exchange are included in the plan (the  {O-plan is nonoptional). Id.Ħ  X-   X-    4.` ` Matters previously subject to the Consent Decree are now governed by the Act.q|ۿ yO~ -ԍSection 601(a)(1) of the 1996 Act states that "[a]ny conduct or activity that was, before the date of enactment of this Act, subject to any restriction or obligation imposed by the AT&T Consent Decree shall, on and after such date, be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by this Act and shall not be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by such Consent  yO-Decree." On April 11, 1996, the D.C. District Court issued an order terminating the AT&T Consent Decree and  {Of-dismissing all pending motions under the Consent Decree as moot, effective February 8, 1996. See United States  {O0-v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192, 1996 WL 255904 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1996). q   Under section 3(25)(B) of the Act, BOCs may modify LATA boundaries, if such modifications  X-  are approved by the Commission.aV ۿ {O-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  153(25)(B).a On July 15, 1997, the Commission released a decision  Xv-  -granting 23 requests for limited boundary modification to permit ELCS.bvۿ {O-ԍJuly 1997 Order, cited supra, n.9. b Although calls between   the ELCS exchanges would now be treated as intraLATA, each ELCS exchange would remain  XH-  assigned to the same LATA for purposes of classifying all other calls. Hzۿ yOs-ԍIf an exchange were assigned to another LATA for all purposes, any existing local calling routes between that exchange and the original LATA would be lost because such traffic would now be interLATA and could no longer be carried by the BOC. Instead, the traffic would generally be carried by an interexchange carrier charging long distance rates. The Commission stated   that it would grant requests for such limited modifications only where a petitioning BOC showed   ythat the ELCS was a flatrated, nonoptional service, a significant community of interest existed   among the affected exchanges, and grant of the requested waiver would not have any  X -  anticompetitive effects.W bۿ {O -ԍJuly 1997 Order at paras. 1617.W The Commission stated further that a carrier would be deemed to have   Lmade a prima facie case supporting grant of the proposed modification if the ELCS petition: (1)   has been approved by the state commission; (2) proposes only traditional local service (i.e., flat  rated, nonoptional ELCS); (3) indicates that the state commission found a sufficient community   /of interest to warrant such service; (4) documents this community of interest through such   >evidence as poll results, usage data, and descriptions of the communities involved; and (5)"y,N(N(ZZ"  X-involves a limited number of customers or access lines.ۿ {Oy-ԍId. at para. 24. The Commission also delegated authority to act on petitions to modify LATA  {OC-boundaries to the Common Carrier Bureau. Id. at para 23. On August 6, 1997, the Commission released a decision granting requests to modify LATA boundaries to permit three independent telephone company (ITC) exchanges in Texas to change LATA association for purposes of improving service to subscribers. The Commission stated that a carrier will be deemed to have made a prima facie case supporting grant of a proposed association change if the petition: (1) states that the association change is necessary because of planned upgrades to the ITC's network or service that will require routing traffic through a different BOC LATA; (2) involves a limited number of access lines; and (3) includes a statement from the affected BOC(s) requesting a LATA modification, pursuant to section 3(25) of the Act, to permit the change in association. Petitions for LATA  {O -Association Changes by Independent Telephone Companies, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No.  {OO -96158, FCC 97258 (rel. Aug. 6, 1997) (August 1997 Order).  X- ` `  hh,III. DISCUSSION  X-   5.` ` The petitions propose to establish twoway, flatrated, nonoptional ELCS, and are   xaccompanied by: (1) a statement that only traditional local service is proposed; (2) an order issued   by the Public Utility Commission of Texas approving ELCS between the specified exchanges;   (3) results from subscriber polls documenting a community of interest; (4) a statement of the  XH-  Knumber of access lines involved;FH0 ۿ {O)-ԍSee Appendix A.F and (5) the rate increases that will result. The petitions do not   provide usage data in the form of an average number of calls per access line per month between   the respective exchanges, nor the percentage of subscribers making such calls. The brief   descriptions of the community interest reveal that many community services (such as hospitals   and commercial services) are located in a nearby community in the adjacent LATA, and that making interLATA toll calls for such services generates significant expenses for residents.  X -  6.` ` As we noted in the July 1997 Order, granting an ELCS petition removes the   proposed route from the competitive interexchange market, and some LATA modifications could   reduce the BOCs' incentive to open their own markets to competition pursuant to section 271 of  Xd-  the Act.Td ۿ {O-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  271(b)(1).T Our focus, however, is on the number of access lines in the exchange to be added to   =the local calling area. The exchanges to be added to the local calling area have a small number   Zof access lines and should pose no competitive concerns. Given the small number of access lines   jand the small volume of traffic involved for the proposed ELCS areas in this petition, as well as  X-  the types of service to be offered (e.g., flatrated, nonoptional local service), it is highly unlikely   >that provision of ELCS service would reduce SWBT's motivation to open its own market to   competition. The Division finds that the proposed LATA modifications will not have a   Lsignificant anticompetitive effect on the interexchange market or on SWBT's incentive to open its own market to competition. "T ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X- ' VI. CONCLUSION ă  X-  7.` ` We conclude that, in this request, the need for the proposed ELCS routes   outweighs the risk of potential anticompetitive effects. Granting SWBT's petitions serves the   [public interest by permitting a minor LATA modification where such modification is necessary   to meet the needs of local subscribers and will not have any significant effect on competition.   Accordingly, we approve SWBT's petitions for limited LATA modification in order to provide   jnonoptional ELCS. The LATAs are modified solely for the limited purpose of allowing SWBT   to provide flatrated, nonoptional local calling service between the specific exchanges or   [geographic areas identified in the requests. The LATAs are not modified to permit the BOC to   .offer any other type of service, including calls that originate or terminate outside the specified   areas. Thus, flatrated, nonoptional ELCS between the specified exchanges will be treated as  X -  <intraLATA, and the provisions of the Act governing intraLATA service will apply.  ۿ {Oe -ԍThe BOC may provide ELCS service without meeting the section 271 requirements, see 47 U.S.C.   {O/-271(a), and a separate affiliate is not required. See 47 U.S.C.  272(a)(2)(B).  Other types  X -  of service between the specified exchanges will remain interLATA, and the provisions of the Act  X -governing interLATA service will apply. $ۿ yO-ԍThe BOC may not provide other types of service (such as optional measuredrate or toll service)  {O[-between the specified exchanges without meeting the section 271 requirements. See 47 U.S.C.  271(a).   X-d  VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Xb-  S8.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the   zCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), and 47 C.F.R.  0.91   <and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, that the requests of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company,   [Inc. for LATA modifications for the limited purpose of providing flatrated, nonoptional ELCS   Nat specific locations, identified in File No. NSDL9817 ARE APPROVED. These LATA   boundaries are modified solely for the purpose of providing nonoptional ELCS between points   Lin the specific exchanges or geographic areas indicated in the request. The LATA boundaries for all other services shall remain unchanged.  X-  9.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 416(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.    416(a), the Secretary SHALL SERVE a copy of this order upon the petitioner,  $L Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Inc. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Geraldine A. Matise ` `  hh,Chief, Network Services Division ` `  hh,Common Carrier Bureau"!~,N(N(ZZ "  X-A APPENDIX A ă O ddx !ddx<< O  5     AspermontContel/GTE Southwest to Anson, Hamlin, Rotan, and Stamford of SWBTH Aspermont 848 access lines Anson 1,912 access lines Hamlin 1,447 access lines Rotan 1,222 access lines Stamford 2,368 access lines5 C   *  ElkinsMidPlains Telephone Cooperative Amarillo and Canyon of SWBT3 I Elkins 152 access lines Amarillo 114,035 access lines Canyon 7,717 access linesC C  **  RedmonMidPlains Telephone Cooperative Amarillo and Canyon of SWBTvI Redmon 186 access lines Amarillo 114,035 access lines Canyon 7,717 access linesC Z   *I  RuleContel/GTE Southwest Stamford of SWBTI Rule 529 access lines Stamford 2,368 access linesZ C _ I*  Vigo ParkMidPlains Telephone Cooperative Amarillo and Canyon of SWBT* Vigo Park 99 access lines Amarillo 114,035 access lines Canyon 7,717 access linesC Z  *I  WintersContel/GTE Southwest Abilene of SWBTVI Winters 1,464 access lines Abilene 69,688 access linesZ   Iv  ZavallaContel/GTE Southwest Jasper of SWBTv Zavalla 69 access lines Jasper 12,272 access lines Vv