WPCN 2BVXZ3|P (TT)7PC2X XP\  P6QXP"5^2BQdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BBBBPBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdNdoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSXj\  P6G;,,,"@JXP2 *4pD 3|PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)WP MultinationalA Roman (TT)"5^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BV*7777C7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJoJoJoJSSS]]C]A]A7A]SSx]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2||S}277SSS77SS7S72N7[[_C`_SS`*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BVv7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7|2S_7|SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]2 Z  "5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSC\  P6Q,,,"@JP"5^2BQdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BBBBPBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdNdoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#C\  P6Q/P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#XP\  P6QXP#2#vpHk"5^2BoddȦ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BBBBPBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNBNoddȐoNNF2ldBddddddd<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5^*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777C7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277]]S77SS7]72N7[[pC`pSS`*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7~.Sp7~SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS"5^%-77[U%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777U7777%+77O77155;%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!SS7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77[U%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777U7777%+77O77155;N%71n77%n=%b%%11&7n%l+%OO%77777%S7>%S7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5^`@0@@`B@@@@@@@:@@@@@@@`@`q5UUUUUUuUuUuUuU@5@5@5@5``````````U````_k`UU5u@u5````````@@`u@UJUJUkkkuu5`uI5`J``uuJ`5@kuku`uu`uuN`5u5``55`5U@u`uJ5@5uUU`v`U`UUkINk``IJ55I``@0@@`B@@@@@@@:@@@@@@@`@`q5UUUUUUuUuUuUuU@5@5@5@5``````````U````_k`UU`UUUUUvuUuUuUuU````````@5@5@5@5kJ5`u5uIu5uIu5``````@@@kJkJkJkJuIu5u5```````uUuUuU``u5`@k2N EC 5F`%IR"5^0@N``"@@`l0@05``````````55lllUuj@Kujjuu@5@Z`@U`U`U@``55`5````@K5````U\&\g0@@@@M@``UUUUUUuUuUuUuU@5@5@5@5``````````U`````j``UUUUuUuUuU`````M`@`@@@`K`jKNC0W`@U`````5;`9`9@@UU`@@``@U@9N@iilMnl``n0@N``"@@`l0@05``````````55lllUuj@Kujjuu@5@Z`@U`U`U@``55`5````@K5````U\&\g@`U``@j@@@UUC`@K@0@````&`@5`l@`Mi99@nW0@9;`Uuuuu@@@@lj`UUUUUUUUUUU5555```````i```````"5^S8*88S:888888828888888S8Sb.xJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxR]SxJxJ.xof8xf.SSSxxxxxxSSxxSSxSo8xx8Sof8JoxAJAJ]x]x]ffx.Sfo@.SASSooffAS.8]fx]xxxxxxxxxxxxxoxxxxxxxooxxfSfxfSxfxfxxxNS.f.SS..S.J8fSxxfA.8x.fJxJxSgSoJSJooJ]?N]SSsx@A..@SS8*88S:888888828888888S8Sb.xJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxR]SxJxJSxJoJoJoJoJxgfJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS8.8.8.8.s]A.xSf.f@f.f?f.xSxSxSxSxSxSxo8o8o8]A]A]A]Af@f.f.xSxSxSxSxSxSxxSfJfJfJxSxSf.xSo8]Xy.C8*X/C\  P6QP Y7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.Z7UC2XXU4  pQX\W!0(Xh0\  P6QhP]I(!X,(\  P6Q,P2I=.X &I\  P6Q&P 0J=.X3L&J*f9 xQ&Xf5PC2X3f_XP*f9 xQXXg{,C8*X3VC*f9 xQXP,%XJ,\  P6QJP.hy.G8*X<G4  pQj6s@`XRy?s{2 PQ?Pk5M@0X ?M\  P6Q?Px/d8SXRˏd{2 PQP2N X- X   (q X-{  #XP\  P6QXP#Federal Communications Commission`y(#FCC 9830 ă  yxdddy ( yO-#C\  P6Q/P#D3 1, 4D draft+2 Before the { Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă T#XP\  P6QXP#у  X-In the Matter of hh@) x` ` hh@)  X_-Transport Rate Structure and Pricing@) CC Docket No. 91213 x` `  hh@)  X1-Resale, Shared Use and Split Billing@)  X -  REPORT AND ORDER ă  X -Adopted:` ` February 27, 1998hh@hpp Released: March 5, 1998 c$lM  By the Commission:  Xy- I.xINTRODUCTION  XK- xA.` ` Summary   X- ` Ax1. ` ` Split billing for transport is a billing arrangement pursuant to which an incumbent  xlocal exchange carrier (LEC) provides separate bills to different access customers when they  xLshare use of the same dedicated entrance facilities or directtrunked transport facilities. In this  xReport and Order, we decline, based on the record before us, to require incumbent LECs to offer  xtariffed split billing arrangements. We find that the affected industries, through cooperative  x-efforts, have taken great strides to obtain the benefits of split billing through various means. We  xynote in particular that the Ordering and Billing Forum (OBF) has developed a split billing model  X|- xthat allows LECs to accommodate a variety of resale and sharing arrangements.;| yO-ԍ #C\  P6Q/P# The Ordering and Billing Forum is an industry forum composed of LECs and IXCs established to resolve issues regarding service ordering procedures and billing procedures. Although OBF establishes important  {O-precedent regarding billing issues, in the case of split billing its decision is not considered binding upon its  WO-participants. See OBF Reply at 3 n.7. #?s{2 PQ y?P#  Requiring split  x-billing could impose an unnecessary regulatory requirement that could disrupt the various billing arrangements currently in place that address these issues.  X - xB.` ` Background  X-x ` ` 1. LEC Provision of Transport Service  X - ` Qx2.` ` LECs provide interstate switched access service so that interexchange carriers  x(IXCs) and other customers can originate and terminate interstate telecommunications traffic.  x"Transport" is the portion of interstate switched access service that a LEC provides to transmit  x\traffic between its end office and the access customer's point of presence (POP). The LECs"#,))ZZe""  xiprovide transport to a particular IXC through circuits dedicated exclusively to the use of that IXC,  x=or through a combination of dedicated circuits and circuits used in common to carry the traffic  X-of several IXCs.  yOK-ԍ The actual facilities have different amounts of capacity. For example, a single voicegrade circuit can carry one voice conversation. A DS0 circuit has a similar capacity. A DS1 facility can carry 24 voice conversations, and has the same capacity as 24 voicegrade channels. A DS3 facility can carry 672 voice conversations, and has the same capacity as 28 DS1s.  x  X-x 2.` ` Transition from Equal Charge Rule to Flat Rates  Xv- ` _x3.` ` Equal Charge Rule. Prior to our 1993 restructuring of local transport rates, LECs  x-recovered their transport costs through a rate structure based on the "equal charge per minute of  XJ- xyuse" requirement in the Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ).F\J {O -ԍ  United States v. AT&T, 552 F.Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom., Maryland v. United States, 460  {Ou-U.S. 1001 (1983);  see also United States v. Western Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 82-0192 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1996) (vacating the MFJ). F The "equal charge per minute  x>of use" rule required that the Bell Operating Companies charge an equal amount per unit of  xtraffic for delivery or receipt of traffic of the same type between end offices and IXC POPs  X - xlwithin an exchange area. This approach essentially required all interstate access service  xcustomers to pay averaged rates. The actual type of facilities voice grade, DS1, or DS3 that  xwere used to transport a customer's traffic between the IXC POP and the LEC serving wire center  x did not affect the charges that were assessed, because the rates were usagesensitive and,  x/generally, distance sensitive. Under the terms of the MFJ, the equal charge rule expired on  xSeptember 1, 1991. At that time, we ordered LECs to maintain the equal charge rate structure  X{-pending further agency action.{ {O-ԍ MTS and WATS Market Structure, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, Order and Further Notice of  {O-Proposed Rulemaking, 6 FCC Rcd 5341, 5344 (1991)(Transport Rate Structure and Pricing).  XM- ` nx4.` ` Interim Transport Rate Restructure. In the First Transport Order, we determined  xythat the rate structure under the equal charge rule promoted inefficient use of LEC networks by  xIXCs and other access customers, causing wasteful use of LEC facilities and higher rates for  X - xratepayers. 0  {O-ԍ Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, Petition for Waiver of Transport Rules filed by GTE Service Corp,  {O -Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7006 (1992)(First Transport Order);  {O!-recon., First Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 8 FCC Rcd 5370 (1993)(First  {OI"-Reconsideration Order); further recon., Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 8 FCC Rcd  {O#-6233 (1993)(Second Reconsideration Order); further recon., Third Memorandum Opinion and Order on  {O#-Reconsideration and Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 3030 (1994) (Supplemental  {O$-Notice); further recon., Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 12979  {Oq%-(1995)(Fourth Reconsideration Order); Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, CC Docket No. 91213, Third  {O;&-Report and Order, FCC 97158 (released May 16, 1997)(collectively, Transport Restructure Orders).  We reviewed the transport rate structure, seeking to balance three goals: (1)  xencouraging efficient use of transport facilities by allowing pricing to reflect costs; (2) adopting",-(-(ZZ"  xia rate structure conducive to full and fair interexchange competition; and (3) avoiding interference  X- xwith the development of interstate access competition.Y {Ob-ԍ First Transport Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 7009.Y We replaced the equal charge rule with  xa new rate structure designed to reflect more closely the manner in which the costs of providing  X-transport services are incurred.<Z {O-ԍ Id. at 7007.<  X- ` @x5.` ` In the First Transport Order, we established an interim transport rate structure that,   Xx- xinter alia, introduced flatrated transport charges for dedicated circuits. A flatrate charge applied  Xc- xyto the entrance facilities, which provide dedicated transport from an access customer's POP to  xzthe LEC end office serving the customer's POP (serving wire center). A flatrate charge also  X7- xxapplied to directtrunked transport, which is the service carrying traffic over dedicated interoffice  X" -facilities without passing through a tandem switch.a"  {O-ԍ The interim rate structure also included a usagesensitive charge for tandemswitched transport, which is the service carrying traffic that is switched at an access tandem switch between the serving wire center and the  {OQ-LEC's end offices. A transport interconnection charge was usagesensitive, and was paid by all customers of  {O-interstate switched access service, even those not subscribing to LEC switched transport service. See First  {O-Transport Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 700910. a  X - ` 2x6.` ` Final Transport Rate Restructure. In the Access Reform Order, we established a  xfinal rate structure for transport services in which we affirmed our conclusion that both entrance  X - xjfacilities and directtrunked transport services should be priced on a flatrated basis.   {O-ԍ Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96262, First Report and Order, FCC 97158 (rel. May 16,  {O-1997)(Access Reform Order) at paras. 15357. We also  xconcluded that incumbent LECs should implement a costbased rate structure for tandem switched  x[transport in four stages over a twoyear period commencing with incumbent LEC access tariffs  X- x=effective January 1, 1998.B   {O4-ԍ Id. at para. 65. B As part of this four step plan, rates are to be recovered using both  Xl-a flatrated basis and a usage basis.H l  {O-ԍ Id. at paras. 16769. H  X>- ` `x7.` ` Through the introduction of flatrated charges that reflect the manner in which  xjcosts are incurred, we sought to promote more efficient use of LEC networks and to encourage  X- x.access competition.Y $ {O#-ԍ First Transport Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 7008.Y We expressly contemplated that smaller IXCs could reduce their access  xjcosts by reselling the services of other IXCs or by utilizing network sharing arrangements with  xother carriers to terminate interstate calls. We reasoned that IXCs that terminate their traffic  xythrough resale would purchase the services of a medium or large IXC whose access costs were" ,-(-(ZZ"  xlower and then resell the services to other carriers, thereby indirectly benefitting from the larger  X- xZcarrier's access charges.S  {Ob-ԍ  Id. at 7086 and n.210 (Appendix C).S We also noted that "smaller IXCs may choose to aggregate their traffic  x\together and share transmission facilities," observing that IXCs may be able to share a DS3  xfacility to transport either their originating or terminating traffic, allocating the individual circuits  X-among themselves.SZ {O-ԍ Id. at 7087 and n.212 (Appendix C).S  Xv- ` x8.` ` Prior to the implementation of the interim transport rate structure, split billing  xprocedures were not necessary to facilitate the sharing of network facilities because switched  x<access was billed on a usage basis. LECs measured the usage for each customer and billed those  xcustomers according to the amount of their usage of the overall network. After the restructure,  xhowever, LECs had to assess flatrated charges for certain specific pieces of the network. For  xexample, LECs now identify and bill a single customer of record a flat rate for that customer's  X - xuse of the dedicated, flatrated entrance facilities and directtrunked transport rate elements.  yO-ԍ A "customer of record" is the access customer that receives bills and is responsible for paying access charges to a LEC. The  X - xTransport Restructure Orders did not address the possible use of split billing provisions in LEC  xtransport tariffs or their access billing systems. Thus, in cases where multiple access customers  xdecided that they wanted to receive transport service from a single LEC provider by sharing the  xuse of specific flatrated transport facilities to a particular IXC POP, there were no established  xaccess billing arrangements for a LEC to provide each customer with a separate bill for its individual use of a facility that shared with other access customers.  X6-Xx 3.` ` Implementing the Transport Rate Restructure (#  X- ` 4x9.` ` Review of Initial LEC Transport Restructure Tariffs. Pursuant to the First  X- xTransport Order, LECs were directed to file tariffs implementing the transport rate restructure  X- xon September 1, 1993.?D {O-ԍ See supra n. 4.? In the tariff review process, several parties filed petitions raising issues  X- x-concerning resale, shared use, and split billing of transport facilities.  yON -ԍ During the transport tariff review process, AT&T asserted that, as a result of the transport restructure, a number of LECs, rather than providing a split billing arrangement whereby the LECs would bill the customer of record for Feature Group A service, intended to commence billing AT&T for all the directtrunked transport and entrance facilities terminating at an AT&T POP that were used to transport the Feature Group A traffic of other carriers. On February 17, 1994, AT&T responded to the LECs' new billing practice by filing Transmittal No. 6788. By that transmittal, AT&T proposed to resell, on a bundled basis, the dedicated transport facilities used to provide Feature Group A access service that the LECs were billing to AT&T. We found that the AT&T tariff  {O%-was unlawful on other grounds and did not make any determinations regarding AT&T's resale provision. See In  {O&-the Matter of AT&T Communications Tariff F.C.C. Nos. 9 and 11, Transmittal No. 6788, CC Docket 94120, 10  {OZ'-FCC Rcd 4228 (1995)(Termination Order)(declaring AT&T's transmittal unreasonable as filed under Section"Z',-(-('" 201(b) of the Communications Act).  Several petitioners sought"X,-(-(ZZq"  xprovisions in the transport tariffs that would permit split billing so that multiple customers of  x]record could be billed by the LEC for their use of a portion of a highcapacity facility. In  xaddition, although Southwestern Bell and NYNEX did offer tariffed provisions permitting  x multiple users for higher capacity facilities, CompTel argued that these arrangements were  xlimited in application and held a single IXC liable for unused capacity and the unpaid charges of other entities sharing the facility.  X_- ` x10.` ` LEC Responses. Various LECs opposed a tariffed split billing requirement  XJ- xthroughout the tariff review process.JX {OS -ԍ  In the Matter of Local Exchange Carrier Switched Local Transport Restructure Tariffs, 9 FCC Rcd 400,  {O -42326 (Com Car. Bur. 1993)(Tariff Order). They argued that customers who order a particular  xinterface and the associated facility should be billed for the type of interface they use. The LECs  x<were reluctant to bill the ultimate access customers for high capacity entrance facilities as though  xthe facilities were a collection of standalone voice grade facilities, because they did not wish to  xabsorb the costs of channels on high capacity facilities that are not sold to access customers.  xInstead, the LECs wanted to bill the reseller IXC for the cost of the facilities, because they  X - xkargued that the reseller IXC, as the host customer of record, X  yO%-ԍ The "host customer of record" is the customer being billed for the highest capacity facility, such as the access customer being billed for a DS3 capacity facility who then resales a portion of the DS3 capacity to other IXCs.  should absorb the cost of the  X -unused channels.  {O.-ԍ Suspension Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4481; Termination Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4293.  X{- ` x11.` ` Bureau Tariff Order. In the Transport Tariffs Order, the Common Carrier Bureau  x(Bureau) stated that split billing by the LECs helps customers obtain maximum benefits from the  XO- xxrestructured transport rates.ROf  {Of-ԍ Tariff Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 42627.R The Bureau noted that, although the Transport Restructure Orders  xdid not permit restrictions upon resale and sharing, the Orders did not make clear how LECs were  xto facilitate resale and sharing arrangements. The Bureau encouraged LECs to implement  xKarrangements such as those tariffed by NYNEX and Southwestern Bell. The Bureau also directed  xthe LECs to refer the split billing issue to the industry's OBF for resolution and to report back  x[to the Bureau on their progress in resolving the "split billing issue." The Bureau stated that, if  xZthose discussions did not produce substantial progress toward resolution, the Commission might  X-consider prescribing a method for providing split billing.>  {OY$-ԍ Id. at 42627.>  X- II.xSUPPLEMENTAL NPRM AND COMMENTS "k ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` x12.` ` We subsequently released a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as part  X- xof the local transport rate restructure proceeding.X {Ob-ԍ Supplemental Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 3087.X In the Supplemental Notice, weW tentatively  xlconcluded that we should require LECs to offer "split billing" on a tariffed basis for their  X- xtransport service.@Z {O-ԍ Id. at 309394. @ We reasoned that implementing procedures for common carriers to provide  x?split billing would enable smaller customers to obtain more easily the benefits of, and to  xcontribute to, our goal of more efficient use of network facilities by allowing pricing to reflect  xcosts, by permitting a rate structure conducive to competition, and by encouraging the  xdevelopment of full and fair competition. We sought comments from interested parties on  xvarious proposals to stimulate the resale and sharing of network facilities by common carriers  X3-through the use of split billing.<3 {O -ԍ Id. at 3093.< VA3 W  X - x  X - ` x13.` ` Ad Hoc, Allnet, AT&T, GTE, MCI, and Sprint supported our proposal to require  X - xLECs to offer a tariffed split billing option for their transport services. ~ yO-ԍ Ad Hoc Comments at 12; Allnet Comments at 3; AT&T Comments at 12; GTE Comments at ii; MCI Comments at 12; Sprint Comments at 2. AT&T, MCI, and Sprint  x=stated that split billing would enable smaller IXCs to reduce their access costs by reselling the  X - xservices of other carriers, and by utilizing network sharing arrangements.j  yOG-ԍ AT&T Comments at 15; MCI Comments at 2; Sprint Comments at 2. j They contended that  xLECs would not incur additional administrative costs if split billing is required because members  xof the sharing group would probably be current LEC access customers who would otherwise be  X{- xbilled individually for the LEC facilities they use.Q{f  yO-ԍ Ad Hoc Reply at 3; Sprint Reply at 67.Q MCI and Sprint asserted that split billing  xwould encourage more efficient use of DS3 facilities because members of a sharing group would  XM-pay rates that are closer to costs for the facilities they are sharing.QM  yO-ԍ MCI Comments at 2; Sprint Reply at 56.Q  X- ` x14.` ` The LECs contended that a tariffed split billing requirement is contrary to the  X- xpublic interest because it is burdensomeBX  yO?"-ԍ JSI Comments at 1; NECA Comments at 3, 56; NYNEX Comments at 9; PacTel Comments at 6 (IXC costs will increase because LECs will pass on the additional costs from increased administrative and network management responsibilities they may incur from any split billing requirements).B and discriminatory.7Z yO_%-ԍ Citizens Comments at 46 (a customer would pay more for a single DS1 facility than a customer sharing  {O'&-a DS3 facility as one of 28 LEC customers); see also NECA Reply at 2; PacTel Reply at 2; Southwestern Bell  yO&-Reply at 3.7 NECA argued that exchange",-(-(ZZ("  x.carriers and consumers would incur additional costs because facilities would be underutilized,  X- xLeven if some small IXCs experience increased savings.t  yOb-ԍ NECA Comments at 6; OPASTCO Comments at 2; Southwestern Bell Reply at 23.t The LECs also claimed that mandated  X- xsplit billing would not increase network efficiency.!X yO-ԍ Bell Atlantic Reply at 3; BellSouth Reply at 12; NECA Reply at 34; OPASTCO Comments at 45; PacTel Reply at 3. They asserted there is no demand for  X- xexisting arrangements because other alternatives either already exist or are being planned."" yO -ԍ CBT Comments at 4; JSI Comments at 2; NECA Comments at 3; NECA Reply at 3; NYNEX Comments at 6; PacTel Comments at 6; SNET Comments at 3; Southwestern Bell Comments at 4; USTA Comments at 2;  {O -US West Comments at 3; see also Bell Atlantic Reply at 3; PacTel Reply at 3; BellSouth Reply at 12; OPASTCO Comments at 45; JSI Comments at 2.  For  xexample, both Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell already offer or have offered some form of  x[split billing. Bell Atlantic offers a "Shared Network Arrangement," which gives the reseller the  Xv- xoption of using Bell Atlantic as its billing agent.G#v yO-ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 5. G Through the "Shared Network Arrangement"  x-Bell Atlantic bills each end user for that user's proportionate amount of traffic over the interoffice  XH- xnetwork.3$H*  {O#-ԍ Id.3 Southwestern Bell offered an "Interim Split Billing Option" (ISBO), for which it  X1- xxstates that demand was practically nonexistent.%Z1  yO-ԍ Southwestern Bell Comments at 2. According to Southwestern Bell, only one customer utilized ISBO  {Of-and no other IXC expressed serious interest in the service. Id. After filing its comments in this proceeding, Southwestern Bell indicated to Commission staff that it discontinued its ISBO service due to lack of interest.  Bell Atlantic and US West contended that split  xybilling would not lead to more efficient use of transport facilities because it could lead to prices  x.that are not costbased, thereby preventing large purchasers from taking advantage of natural  X - xMeconomies of scale.&  {O{-ԍ Bell Atlantic Comments at 23; US West Comments at 4. See also NYNEX Comments at 910; NECA Reply at 2; US West Reply at 6. NECA urged us to exempt nontier 1 exchange carriers from any split  X -billing requirement.' 8 {O-ԍ NECA Comments at 78, citing First Transport Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 704951 (exempting small LECs  {O-that did not have measurement and billing capabilities in their end offices); see also OPASTCO Comments at 4.  X - ` x15.` ` In its comments CompTel, one of the original proponents of mandatory split  X- xbilling, contended that mandatory LEC split billing was no longer necessary because small IXCs  Xy- xhave implemented solutions to their transport needs.(y {O$-ԍ CompTel Comments at 24; see also Ameritech Reply at 12; Bell Atlantic Reply at 1; NECA Reply at 4; NYNEX Reply at 14; PacTel Reply at 12; Southwestern Bell Reply at 23; US West Reply at 2. It argued that replacing those solutions"y(,-(-(ZZ"  X- x[with a mandated split billing requirement would be costly,) {Oy-ԍ CompTel Comments at 3; see also NYNEX Reply at 12; Southwestern Bell Reply at 3; US West Reply at 2. inefficient, and counterproductive, and that  X- xithe LECs' resources are now better devoted to other issues.*" {O-ԍ CompTel Comments at 34; see also NYNEX Reply at 4; NYNEX Reply at 4; US West Reply at 2. Ad Hoc, however, argued that split  X-billing would still be of value to IXCs and endusers.<+ yO -ԍ Ad Hoc Reply at 5.<  X- III.xDISCUSSION  Xv-  X_- ` x16. ` ` As contemplated by our transport orders, multiple IXCs may share higher capacity  xLfacilities than their own usage, considered alone, would otherwise permit. We conclude that it  x[is not necessary for us to mandate a split billing arrangement primarily because, in response to  X - xZthe Bureau's request, the industry has provided a voluntary solution to the issue of split billing.Z, D {O-ԍ See Tariff Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 427. Z  xThe OBF has developed a model by incorporating ideas from the LECs and their customers, and  xthe model should, therefore, be suitable for most situations with few, if any, modifications. The  xmodel does not contain some of the characteristics of the NYNEX and Southwestern Bell tariffs  xto which the LECs or the IXCs have objected. For example, unlike the NYNEX tariff, the OBF  xmodel is not limited to particular configurations. And, unlike Southwestern Bell's tariff, the OBF  xmodel permits more than one customer of record. In the OBF model, a "host customer of record"  x/is the owner of the largest amount of capacity being billed, and a "subsequent customer of  Xb- x record" is a service user that is billed for a fraction of the higher capacity.P-b yO-ԍ OBF Comments at 1112; OBF Reply at 2.P A subsequent  xcustomer who resells part of the capacity for which it is being billed becomes the host customer  xof record with respect to the resold capacity. Access charges are billed to "host" and  x"subsequent" customers. The host customer's bill is adjusted each month to account for  xcustomers whose services are added to or disconnected from the shared capacity. The billed  xparty is responsible for reporting its percent interstate usage in the usual manner. The model  x<includes paper and billing data tape requirements as well as information requirements for the host  X- xand the secondary customer of record.V.f  yO!-ԍ OBF Comments at 1213; OBF Reply at 2.V Ad Hoc has argued that we should nevertheless mandate  xa split billing arrangement because it would still be of some value to IXCs and endusers. Ad  xMHoc, however, has not provided concrete evidence that such an arrangement would still be  xbeneficial given the voluntary solution developed by the industry. Therefore, in light of the  xprogress made by the industry towards voluntary split billing arrangements, we decline to  XN-mandate a tariffed split billing arrangement. "7 .,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` x17.` ` Second, the record indicates that a mandated split billing tariff would be costly  x.and burdensome to many small LECs and, based on that record, we conclude that the benefits  X- xwould not outweigh these costs./F yOK-ԍ Ad Hoc states that while several large LECs list the tasks involved in the administration of split billing  {O-arrangements, they do not quantify these costs. See Ad Hoc Comments at 3 citing Comments of Ameritech at 3; Comments of Bell Atlantic at 3. According to Ad Hoc, these LECs routinely perform administrative and  {O-billing functions in connection with other services (e.g. Centrex) similar to those that, they claim would be  {Oo-required to administer split billing arrangements. See Ad Hoc Comments at 3. Ad Hoc, however, does not address the special circumstances of small LECs who, given their lower revenues and less complex billing systems, do not enjoy the same economies of scale that are enjoyed by the larger LECs and who therefore would be more affected by the increased administrative costs needed to oversee split billing.  OPASTCO states that, although in general LECs may not be  x.affected economically by mandated split billing, small LECs would be more likely to be harmed  X- xby nonpayment, as well as by having to support the additional administrative costs that would  X- xbe incurred to supervise the provision of split billing.I0z yO-ԍ OPASTCO Comments at 4. Because we are not requiring split billing, we need not discuss the merits of CompTel's original proposals and related comments by the LECs and IXCs regarding the implementation of a  {O-required split billing tariff. See Supplemental Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 3093, for a listing of CompTel's proposals  yOn-regarding how to implement a mandated split billing tariff. Various parties have presented arguments regarding the implementation of a specific model, the method of pricing, and rate levels for a mandated split billing arrangement. Because of the substantial progress made by the OBF and our decision here not to mandate split billing, we see no need to consider the relative merits of various split billing arrangements. I In the absence of any record which  x-would allow us to conclude that there would be significant benefits to IXCs or end users, we find  x-that the costs associated with a mandated split billing arrangement outweigh the benefits. Based  xon the industry's voluntary solution to the split billing issue and the possible costs associated with  xa mandatory split billing arrangement, we decline to require a tariffed split billing arrangement.  xInstead, we encourage those LECs that find split billing to be economically and technologically feasible to offer, or to continue to offer, split billing on a voluntary basis.  X -  X -IV.xREGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS  X - ` `x18.` ` In view of our decision not to make any changes in our policies regarding split  X- xbilling, we find that there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of  Xy- xsmall business entities, as defined by  601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.X1y {OB-ԍ Supplemental Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 3095.X The Secretary  xLshall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the certification, to the Chief Counsel for  xAdvocacy of the Small Business Administration in Accordance with  605(b) of the Regulatory  X4-Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 69354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981).  X-  X-V.xORDERING CLAUSES  X-x19.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, " 1,-(-(ZZr" Resale, Shared Use and Split Billing, CC Docket No. 91213, is TERMINATED. x` `  hh x x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMagalie Roman Salas x` `  hhSecretary