Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                                 Before the
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                      Washington, DC  20554


Mountain Communications, Inc.,  )
)                               )
                               )
    Complainant,               )
                               )
         v.                    )        File No. EB-00-MD-017
Qwest Communications            )
International, Inc.,            )
                               )
            Defendant.        


                         ORDER ON REVIEW

    Adopted: July 23, 2002           Released: July 25, 2002


By the Commission:

I.   INTRODUCTION

          In this Order on Review, we deny Mountain 
Communications, Inc.'s (``Mountain'') application for review1 of 
the Memorandum Opinion and Order2 in the above-captioned matter 
issued by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'').  In the Mountain 
Order, the Bureau denied Mountain's complaint alleging that Qwest 
Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest''), an incumbent 
local exchange carrier (``LEC''), violated sections 51.703 and 
51.709(b) of the Commission's rules3 by charging Mountain, a 
commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') carrier, for costs 
associated with ``transiting traffic'' and for the facilities 
used to provide ``wide area calling.''  Mountain provides us with 
insufficient justification to overturn the Bureau's conclusions 
in the Mountain Order, and, therefore, we deny the Mountain 
Petition.
 II.     DISCUSSION
 
     A.   Qwest May Lawfully Charge Mountain for Transiting 
Traffic.

     2.   Mountain first contends that the Bureau erred in 
finding that Qwest may lawfully charge Mountain for a portion of 
the facilities used for the transport of transiting traffic.4  As 
it did in its complaint, Mountain argues that Qwest is ``double 
recovering'' for those facilities, that the Commission's rules 
and orders prohibit such charges, and that the Commission erred 
in the TSR Wireless Order5 in allowing LECs to charge for 
transiting traffic.6  The Bureau considered and rejected all of 
these allegations in the Mountain Order.7  Moreover, the 
Commission has subsequently reaffirmed its determination that a 
LEC may lawfully charge a CMRS carrier for the facilities used in 
transporting transiting traffic.8  In addition, Mountain again 
fails to support its double recovery allegations with any 
evidence that Qwest already recovers for the facilities in 
question from some other source.9  Thus, Mountain provides no 
basis for us to overturn the Bureau's decision.

     3.   Further, Mountain argues that the Bureau's order is 
flawed because it relies on a purportedly incorrect finding by 
the Commission in the Texcom Order.  According to Mountain, the 
Commission wrongly concluded in the Texcom Order that the 
interconnecting LEC was the terminating carrier with respect to 
call traffic sent to a CMRS carrier.  Mountain argues that the 
Bureau relied on this incorrect conclusion in determining that 
Mountain, rather than Qwest, is responsible for the cost of 
facilities used to deliver transiting traffic to Mountain.10  
Mountain's reading of the Texcom Order is incorrect.  The 
Commission in the Texcom Order stated that the CMRS carrier, not 
the interconnecting LEC, was the terminating carrier.11  The 
Commission subsequently confirmed this point in the Texcom 
Reconsideration Order.12  Accordingly, the Commission concluded 
that the interconnecting LEC, because it is not a terminating 
carrier, could not recover reciprocal compensation payments for 
transiting traffic, and the interconnecting LEC could charge the 
CMRS carrier for the transport of such traffic.13  Thus, 
Mountain's reliance on an incorrect reading of the Texcom Order 
does not justify overturning the Bureau's decision. 

     B.   Qwest May Lawfully Charge Mountain for Wide Area 
          Calling.

     4.   Mountain claims that the Bureau erred in its 
          determination that Qwest may lawfully charge Mountain 
          for wide area calling.14  The Bureau's order stated 
          that the wide area calling arrangement at issue 
          involves Qwest's provision of dedicated toll 
          facilities to Mountain that connect the Direct Inward 
          Dialing (``DID'') numbers that Mountain has obtained 
          in each of Qwest's local calling areas to Mountain's 
          interconnection point in another local calling area. 
          15  The Bureau found that this enabled the calling 
          customer in each of Qwest's local calling areas to 
          dial a local number to reach a Mountain subscriber and 
          avoid incurring toll charges.16  Mountain first 
          disputes the Bureau's finding that the interconnection 
          arrangement it has obtained from Qwest constitutes 
          wide area calling.17  Mountain maintains that wide 
          area calling is limited to a reverse billing 
          arrangement18 and does not encompass the provision of 
          facilities.19  In addition, Mountain denies that the 
          T-1 facilities it obtains from Qwest to connect the 
          DID numbers used by Mountain's customers in each of 
          Qwest's local calling areas to Mountain's 
          interconnection point are ``dedicated toll 
          facilities'' because those facilities do not carry 
          ``toll'' traffic.20  Mountain maintains that the T-1 
          lines provisioned by Qwest are simply facilities 
          required to effectuate a single point of 
          interconnection within a Local Access and Transport 
          Area (``LATA''), for which Qwest is responsible 
          pursuant to section 51.703(b) of the Commission's 
          rules.21  Mountain also contends that the Bureau's 
          ruling is inconsistent with the Commission's TSR 
          Wireless Order, because the network configuration 
          discussed in the TSR Wireless Order is identical to 
          Mountain's arrangement with Qwest.22 

     5.   We are not persuaded by Mountain's arguments.  As an 
initial matter, Mountain's understanding of wide area calling is 
incorrect.  As the Commission pointed out in the TSR Wireless 
Order, wide area calling allows a paging carrier to subsidize the 
cost of calls from a LEC's customers to the paging carrier's 
customers, when the LEC must complete those calls by transporting 
the calls from one local calling area to another.23  A reverse 
billing arrangement is only one of several types of wide area 
calling services, and the T-1 lines that constitute the 
``dedicated toll facilities'' in Mountain's interconnection 
arrangement with Qwest are referred to as such because their sole 
function is to route the DID numbers to Mountain's point of 
interconnection in Pueblo.24  By establishing a point of 
interconnection in Pueblo, obtaining DID numbers that reside in 
Qwest's central offices in Pueblo, Walsenberg, and Colorado 
Springs, and then requesting T-1 lines from Qwest to connect 
those DID numbers to its point of interconnection in Pueblo, 
Mountain ensures that calls to the DID numbers in each of the 
relevant Qwest central offices appear local and involve no toll 
charges to callers in those areas.25  By configuring its 
interconnection arrangement in this manner, Mountain prevents 
Qwest from charging its customers for what would ordinarily be 
toll calls to access Mountain's network.  Accordingly, Mountain 
has obtained a wide area calling service for which it must 
compensate Qwest.  Mountain's position that the lack of a written 
agreement between the parties indicates that no wide area calling 
arrangement with Qwest exists is meritless.26  Mountain's 
ordering and acceptance of the T-1 facilities from a tariff that 
create a wide area calling arrangement constitutes an agreement 
between the parties regarding the provisioning of this service.27  

     6.   Mountain is correct that the network configuration 
discussed in the TSR Wireless Order is similar to Mountain's 
arrangement with Qwest.28  Contrary to Mountain's contentions, 
however, the Mountain Order did not alter the Commission's 
position in the TSR Wireless Order that, pursuant to section 
51.701(b) of the Commission's rules, a LEC may not charge a CMRS 
carrier for the delivery of LEC-originated traffic that 
originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area 
(``MTA'').29  The Mountain Order merely reiterated that a LEC is 
entitled to charge its own subscribers for intraLATA toll calls 
on its network that terminate within the same MTA, and that the 
LEC may charge a CMRS carrier for services that are not necessary 
to effectuate interconnection.30  Mountain's wide area calling 
arrangement with Qwest is not necessary to effectuate 
interconnection.31  In fact, Mountain is free to cancel both the 
DID numbers and the dedicated toll facilities connecting those 
DID numbers to Mountain's single of point of interconnection, and 
instead permit Qwest to bill its own end users for toll calls to 
Mountain's point of interconnection.  Indeed, that is precisely 
the choice the Commission contemplated in addressing the network 
configuration at issue in the TSR Wireless Order.  Moreover, 
because Mountain's network arrangement is not necessary for 
interconnection, Qwest's charges do not implicate the good faith 
negotiations obligations under section 251(c)(1) of the Act.32  
Thus, Qwest's assessment of a flat monthly rate for the T-1 lines 
Mountain has leased to effectuate wide area calling is 
permissible.

     7.   Lastly, we reject Mountain's claim that the Bureau's 
wide area calling determination allows Qwest to double recover 
for the facilities used to deliver traffic to Mountain, because 
Qwest already receives compensation for these facilities from 
Qwest's subscribers and third party carriers that originate 
traffic onto Qwest's network.33  As we explained in the 
transiting traffic context, Qwest is not a terminating carrier 
and cannot recover its costs for this portion of the network 
through reciprocal compensation charges.34  Moreover, Mountain 
fails to provide any evidence that Qwest is already recovering 
its transport costs for the facilities in question from some 
other source.  
III. ORDERING CLAUSES

     8.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 
4(i), 4(j), 5(c), 208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 208, 405, 
and section 1.106 of our rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.106, that the 
``Petition for Reconsideration'' filed by Mountain Communications 
IS DENIED.

     
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Marlene H. Dortch
                              Secretary
_________________________

1    Petition for Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, File No. EB-00-MD-017 (filed Mar. 4, 2002) (``Mountain 
Petition'').  Although the Mountain Petition is titled ``Petition 
for Reconsideration,'' we note that it is addressed ``To: The 
Commission,'' and cites 47 C.F.R.  1.115, which establishes 
rules for filing an application for review of actions taken 
pursuant to delegated authority.  Accordingly, we are treating 
the petition as an application for review.

2    Mountain Communications, Inc. v. Qwest Communications 
International, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 
2091 (2002) (``Mountain Order'').

3    See 47 C.F.R.  51.703(b) and 51.709(b).

4    See Mountain Petition at 3-6,  6-10; 20-22,  34-36; 22, 
 37; 23,  38-39; 24,  40.  ``Transiting traffic'' refers to 
calls made to Mountain's customers originating from customers of 
carriers other than Qwest.  Mountain Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11911, 
 4.

5    TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S West Communications, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11166, 11177,  19 n.70 
(2000) (``TSR Wireless Order''), aff'd sub. nom., Qwest Corp. v. 
FCC, 252 F.3d 462 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

6    See Mountain Petition at 3-6, 6-10 (addressing reciprocal 
compensation arguments); 20-22,  34-36 (addressing access 
charge arguments). 

7    See Mountain Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 2095,  10.

8    Texcom, Inc., d/b/a Answer Indiana v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 
d/b/a Verizon Communications, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 02-96 
(rel. Mar. 27, 2002) (``Texcom Reconsideration Order'') at 2-3, 
 3-6.  See also Texcom, Inc., d/b/a Answer Indiana v. Bell 
Atlantic Corp., d/b/a Verizon Communications, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 21493, 21495-7, 5-13 (2002) (``Texcom 
Order'').

9    See Mountain Petition at 3-6, 6-10; 20-22,  34-36.

10   Mountain Petition at 4-5,  6-8.  Mountain asserts that 47 
C.F.R.  51.701(c) and the Bureau's previous orders require a LEC 
to provide the transport for all call traffic, including 
transiting traffic, because the equipment that is used in this 
transport function up to the point of interconnection is part of 
the LEC's network.   Id. at 5-6,  9-10.

11   Texcom Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 21496,  10.  See also Texcom 
Reconsideration Order at 2-3,  4 (stating that GTE North is not 
a terminating carrier); TSR Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11180-
81,  24 (finding that paging carriers terminate calls within the 
meaning of section 51.701(d)).

12   Texcom Reconsideration Order at 2-3,  4.  

13   Texcom Reconsideration Order at 2-3,  4.  Further, the 
Commission and the Bureau have made clear that a terminating 
carrier may seek reimbursement of these costs from originating 
carriers through reciprocal compensation.  Id.; Mountain Order, 
17 FCC Rcd at 2095,  10 n.30; Metrocall, Inc. v. Concord 
Telephone Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 2252, 
2257, 11 n.41 (2002).

14   See Mountain Petition at 7-20,  11-33.

15   Mountain Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 2092,  3.

16   Id.

17   Mountain Petition. at 7-14,  11-23.  Mountain's contention 
that it does not obtain interconnection services from Qwest is 
belied by the obvious fact that it would not be able to receive 
any calls on its network from Qwest's network without Qwest's 
provision of interconnection.  Id. at 3,  3.

18   A reverse billing arrangement is one in which the LEC 
assesses a per minute usage charge to the CMRS carrier, in place 
of a toll charge to the originator of the call.  See TSR Wireless 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11169,  6 n.6.

19   See Mountain Petition at 7-14,  11-23.

20   Id. at 8,  13; 11,  18.

21   Id. at 11-14,  19-23.

     Id. at 11,  19.

22   Id. at 16-18,  26-28.

23   TSR Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11177,  30-31; Mountain 
Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 2092,  3. 

24   Mountain Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 2092,  3.  

25   See Qwest Corporation's Opposition to Mountain's Petition 
for Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion and Order, File No. EB-
00-MD-017 (filed Mar. 18, 2002) at 6.

26   See Mountain Petition at 18-20,  29-33.

27   Mountain Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 2097,  13.

28   See TSR Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11177,  31.

29   Mountain Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 2096, 11; TSR Wireless Order, 
15 FCC Rcd at 11177,  31.

30   Mountain Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 2096, 11; TSR Wireless Order, 
15 FCC Rcd at 11177,  30-31.

31   Mountain Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 2097, 13; TSR Wireless Order, 
15 FCC Rcd at 11177,  31.  

32   See Mountain Petition at 18-20,  29-33.  47 U.S.C.  
251(c)(1).

33   See Mountain Petition at 14-16,  24-25.

34   See supra  3.