******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) HALPRIN, TEMPLE, GOODMAN, ) & SUGRUE, ) Complainant, ) v. ) File No. E-98-40 ) MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) CORPORATION ) Defendant, ) ) ) In the Matter of ) ) FREEDOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC, ) Complainant, ) v. ) File No. E-98-39 ) MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) CORPORATION ) Defendant, ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 10, 1998 Released: November 10, 1998 By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth not participating. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we resolve two formal complaints brought by complainants Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue (Halprin) and Freedom Technologies, Inc. (Freedom) (collectively, Complainants) that challenge the lawfulness and application of the "Non-Subscriber" rates contained in MCI's Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 (Tariff). We conclude that (1) the Tariff's description of when customers will be charged MCI's Non- Subscriber rates is not "clear and explicit," in violation of Part 61.2 of the Commission's rules; and (2) MCI's practice of charging Non-Subscriber rates for "direct-dialed" calls is unreasonable, in violation of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Because we find these two violations, we do not reach the issue of the reasonableness of MCI's Non-Subscriber rates. II. BACKGROUND 2. MCI is an IXC engaged in the provision of interLATA telecommunications services. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Halprin was the user and customer of record for the line associated with one of the numbers at issue (Halprin Number), and Freedom was the user and customer of record for the line associated with the other telephone number at issue (Freedom Number) (collectively, the Numbers). 3. In September of 1996, Halprin sublet certain of its offices to Nextwave Communications (Nextwave). Nextwave chose MCI as its "presubscribed" long distance carrier for the lines associated with the telephone numbers used by Nextwave. Due to an apparent administrative error, and without the knowledge or consent of either Halprin or Freedom, MCI became the presubscribed interexchange service carrier for the Numbers as well as the numbers used by Nextwave. In February of 1998, Nextwave terminated its sublease from Halprin and ended its service agreement with MCI, including service to the Numbers. Accordingly, MCI removed Nextwave's account information associated with the Numbers from its billing system. MCI did not terminate the actual physical provision of service to the Numbers, however, and MCI remained the presubscribed carrier for the Numbers. As a result, Complainants continued to use the Numbers to initiate direct-dialed interexchange calls in the normal course of their businesses. As explained above, Complainants did not know that the Numbers had been presubscribed to MCI; moreover, Complainants did not know that Nextwave's account for the provision of interexchange service to the Numbers had been removed from MCI's billing system. 4. In March 1998, charges for MCI's provision of interexchange service to the Numbers were included in the bills issued to Complainants by Bell Atlantic, the local exchange carrier for the Numbers. MCI based these charges on MCI's "Non-Subscriber," or so-called "casual-caller," rates. MCI did so because the terms of the Tariff apply Non-Subscriber rates and surcharges to calls that are made by customers who "[remain] presubscribed to MCI service after [their] account(s) are removed from MCI's billing system." The Non-Subscriber rates are considerably higher than MCI's basic subscriber rates, and include a surcharge. 5. Upon receiving their March 1998 bill from Bell Atlantic, which contained charges from MCI for the provision of interexchange service, Halprin and Freedom complained to MCI about the Numbers' presubscription and rates. Complainants subsequently changed the Numbers' presubscription to their preferred IXC. Thereafter, Complainants initiated the present action challenging MCI's practices and rates for casual calling. In particular, they allege that MCI has violated section 201(b) of the Act by (1) failing to identify clearly and explicitly in the Tariff the circumstances that trigger the removal of a customer's account from MCI's billing system and the concomitant application of Non-Subscriber rates; (2) engaging in the unreasonable practice of charging its Non-subscriber rates and surcharges to lines that are presubscribed to MCI's interexchange service; and (3) charging unreasonably high Non- Subscriber rates. III. DISCUSSION A. The Commission Has Authority to Deem Tariff Terms Unreasonable. 6. Under the regulatory framework established under the Act and by the Commission's Competitive Carrier proceeding, MCI is classified as a "nondominant" interexchange carrier. As such, MCI is required to file and maintain with the Commission tariffs containing schedules of the charges, terms, and conditions of MCI's common carrier offerings, MCI does not, however, need to file cost support for its tariffs. Instead, the Commission routinely approves MCI's tariffs on a streamlined basis with one-day notice. Under this streamlined process, tariffs of non-dominant carriers, such as MCI, are presumed reasonable. 7. MCI relies on this presumption of reasonableness to raise a threshold challenge to the Commission's authority to consider the Tariff's terms in the context of a section 208 complaint proceeding. We reject MCI's position. The Commission and the courts have long held that tariffs of nondominant carriers are subject to challenges under the Act and the Commission's rules and orders in the form of formal complaints filed pursuant to section 208. In fact, the Commission has consistently emphasized its authority to review the tariffed rates and practices of carriers using the section 208 complaint procedures regardless of how streamlined the tariff filing process has been. In the Commission's Tariff Forbearance Order, for example, the Commission expressly noted that the administration of the Section 208 complaint process should protect consumers from carrier rates and practices that violate Sections 201 and 202 of the Act. The importance of the complaint process to evaluate the reasonableness, and thus lawfulness, of charges and practices contained in tariffs under section 208 is further exemplified by the fact that the Act provides for expedited review of such complaints. Thus, the Act and the Commission's existing rules and orders provide for our review of the reasonableness of the charges and practices contained in the Tariff in a section 208 formal complaint. B. Reasonableness of MCI's Practices 8. As explained below, our order reaches two conclusions: (1) that the Tariff is not clear and explicit as required by section 61.2 of the Commission's rules, which renders the Tariff unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act; and (2) that the Tariff MCI's practice of assessing "Non-Subscriber" per-minute rates and per-call surcharges on interexchange calls originating on lines presubscribed to MCI's interexchange service is unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. We note, however, that these two conclusions are interrelated, because they stem from two sections of the Act, 201(b) and 203, that are directed at reaching the same goal, requiring that the tariffing practices of carriers be reasonable. That is, it is an unreasonable practice for a carrier to file a tariff that contains terms that consumers will not understand. In the first instance, we find that consumers cannot understand the Tariff because it contains insufficient explanatory information. In the second instance, we find that consumers would not understand the Tariff, even if MCI were to provide further explanatory information, because the Tariff's distinctions between Subscriber and Non-Subscriber rates are inherently confusing. 1. MCI's Tariff Terms are Not "Clear and Explicit." 9. Section 201(b) of the Act requires that all of MCI's charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for the provision of communications services be just and reasonable. To further this statutory obligation, Part 61.2 of the Commission's rules requires that all tariff publications must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding rates and regulations. In addition, we must construe any ambiguities in tariffs against the filing carrier. 10. Complainants contend that the Tariff is vague and ambiguous regarding the circumstances that trigger the application of MCI's Non-Subscriber rates to direct-dialed interexchange calls. Complainants focus on the portion of the Tariff providing when MCI will charge its Non-Subscriber per-minute rates and per-call surcharges for direct-dialed calls. calls which are placed by a person, firm corporation or other entity that: . . . remains presubscribed to MCI service after its account(s) are removed from MCI's billing system, subsequently continues to use MCI's network, and is billed for such use by a local exchange carrier, the Company or its agents. Complainants argue that the Tariff is unclear because it does not identify the circumstances under which MCI removes a customer's account from its billing system. 11. MCI claims that the challenged Tariff terms are unambiguous. In addition, MCI submitted supplemental explanations concerning the meaning of the terms at issue. According to MCI, those terms mean that direct-dialed calls are subject to Non-Subscriber per-minute rates and per-call surcharges only when "the account was terminated for customer violation of the terms and conditions of its contract with MCI or because the customer chose not to set up a customer account." 12. We reject MCI's claim that the Tariff is unambiguous for several reasons. First, the supplemental explanation offered by MCI is not consistent with the facts here. Neither complainant had entered into a contract with MCI for the provision of service to the Numbers. Nor had either complainant "[chosen] not to set up a customer account." Indeed, Complainants never even knew that the Numbers had been presubscribed to MCI. Second, MCI's explanation does not square with the actual text of the Tariff, which describes "removal" of the account from MCI's billing system as the triggering event for the imposition of Non-Subscriber rates. Removal presupposes an existing account -- not that a customer refrained from setting up a customer account in the first place. 13. In any event, in evaluating whether the Tariff is clear and explicit, we must look solely to the terms used in the Tariff, not to MCI's post-filing explanations. Those terms do not clearly and explicitly describe when MCI will apply Non-Subscriber rates to lines that are presubscribed to MCI. In particular, the Tariff does not explain what circumstances cause MCI to remove a customer's account from its billing system, which removal triggers the imposition of Non-Subscriber rates. Without such an explanation, a customer cannot determine whether, or even when, MCI will remove its account from MCI's billing system. Thus, we find that the Tariff does not clearly describe when MCI will charge Non-Subscriber rates to a line presubscribed to MCI. Accordingly, we conclude that the Tariff is neither clear nor explicit. On this basis, we find that the Tariff violates part 61.2 of the Commission's rules and section 201(b) of the Act. 2. MCI's Charging of Non-Subscriber Rates to Customers That Have Telephone Lines Presubscribed to MCI is Unreasonable. 14. Complainants allege that, even if the pertinent portions of MCI's Tariff were sufficiently clear and explicit, MCI's charging of Non-Subscriber rates to customers making direct-dialed calls is unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. According to Complainants, the legal presumption that MCI's Non-Subscriber rates and practices are reasonable is rebutted under these circumstances, because MCI insulates its Non-Subscriber rates from competitive forces by charging them to unsuspecting customers. Complainants assert that customers cannot know in advance of billing they will be charged Non-Subscriber rates, which negates the competitive market forces underlying the presumption of reasonableness. 15. MCI argues that Complainants had sufficient information as of December, 1996, to know that the lines associated with the Numbers were presubscribed to MCI and that no customer account had been established with MCI for the provision of interexchange service to the Numbers. It appears that Nextwave paid for MCI's provision of service to the Numbers from September 1998 through February 1998. MCI apparently reasons that Nextwave's payment for such services evidences that Complainants were not paying for presubscribed service during that period. Consequently, Complainants' nonpayment gave Complainants' reason to suspect that a change in the presubscription of service for the Numbers had occurred. Thus, MCI reasons, Complainants knew or should have known that they would be charged MCI's Non- Subscriber rates. 16. We conclude that MCI's charging of Non-Subscriber rates for direct-dialed calls is unreasonable. As explained below, Complainants have provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of reasonableness given to tariffs of nondominant IXCs. For competition effectively to police the rates, terms and conditions of tariff offerings, consumers must have access to clear information from which to make choices and compare offerings. Indeed, fundamental to the Commission's reliance on market forces to ensure that charges are competitive, and thus reasonable, is the tenet that consumers know what prices they are being charged and what choices they are being given. The market can serve as a constraint on an unreasonable practice only if consumers are aware of the practice. As the Commission has recently stated, "consumers must have adequate information about the services they are receiving, and the alternatives available to them, if they are to reap the benefits of a competitive market." 17. Our evaluation of MCI's use of the term "Non-Subscriber" to describe rates that will be charged for calls made over presubscribed lines is based on the relationship between presubscription and direct-dialing, which informs customers about the nature of the customer- carrier relationship. Presubscription is the process by which a customer chooses a single IXC to carry all of its "1+" interexchange calls. Thus, when a customer dials "1" plus the area code and local telephone number, the customer accesses only the services of the IXC it chose. In contrast, a customer that does not choose to presubscribe its line to an IXC cannot originate interexchange calls from its line by dialing "1" plus the area code and local telephone number. Customers may choose to access IXCs to which their lines are not presubscribed by dialing a seven-digit carrier access code plus the area code and local telephone number. Dialing a seven- digit carrier access code is the only way a customer that did not choose to presubscribe its line to an IXC may complete an interexchange call. 18. Because a customer cannot complete a direct-dialed interexchange call unless a specific IXC has been chosen to carry the traffic on that line, the fact that an interexchange call can be completed using "1+" dialing signifies to the customer that its local line has been presubscribed to an IXC. Making an interexchange call using "1+" dialing is also referred to as "direct-dialing" because once a customer chooses to presubscribe to a carrier its calls are directly routed to that IXC. 19. At bottom, the practice at issue is MCI's charging of rates that are identified in the Tariff as applicable to "Non-Subscribers" for calls made over lines that are presubscribed to MCI, i.e., lines that permit the caller to engage in direct-dialing. For the following reasons, we conclude that this practice is inherently confusing to consumers and therefore violative of section 201(b) of the Act. 20. When a customer can use a line to direct-dial a call using 1+ dialing, this signifies to the customer that the line has been presubscribed to an interexchange service. It is unreasonable to expect a customer that has chosen to "pre-subscribe" to MCI's service to consider itself a "Non-Subscriber." Thus, regardless of the Tariff's terms, such a customer would not understand that use of a telephone line that is "presubscribed" to MCI's interexchange service may be subjected to "Non-Subscriber" rates under any circumstances. Moreover, customers making direct-dialed interexchange calls would be misled by MCI's wholly internal distinction between a customer making direct-dialed calls who has a billing account with MCI, and a customer making direct-dialed calls who does not have a billing account with MCI. Because it is reasonable for a consumer to believe that direct-dialing capability triggers Subscriber rates, not Non-Subscriber rates, we find that a customer would not understand that MCI can or will charge Non-Subscriber rates for direct-dialed calls. Accordingly, we conclude that the challenged practice contained in the Tariff is unreasonable, because it is inherently misleading to consumers. 21. MCI further argues that its practice is reasonable because MCI allegedly does not remove an account from its billing system without customer authorization and, therefore, it claims that customers do have actual knowledge of the fact that they will be subject to MCI's Non-Subscriber rates. We disagree. A customer "authorizing" its removal from MCI's billing system would not understand that such removal could occur while such customer remains presubscribed to MCI. We conclude that the continuing capability to place a direct-dialed interexchange call signifies to a customer, notwithstanding such customer's "authorization" to remove him/her from MCI's billing system, that an ongoing billing relationship between such customer and MCI exists. This is so regardless of the language used to describe the relationship in the Tariff. 22. We further find MCI's attempt to make an administrative distinction, especially one that benefits MCI financially, between categories of presubscribed customers based on MCI's choice to remove certain customers from its billing system, is disingenuous. Customers reasonably expect that they are choosing to establish a billing arrangement with MCI by choosing to presubscribe their interexchange service to MCI. Indeed, the purpose of a presubscribed relationship is to permit the continuing provision of direct-dialed interexchange service to a customer in exchange for the customer's obligation to pay the carrier at the tariffed rate. In addition, the language of the Tariff itself assumes that presubscribed customers have accounts in MCI's billing system in the normal course of events. The choice to presubscribe a line to MCI's interexchange services equates to the choice to establish a billing relationship between the customer for that line and MCI. We conclude that even customers who authorize removal of their accounts from MCI's billing system do not have actual knowledge that MCI will continue to provide them with presubscribed interexchange service and charge them Non- Subscriber rates. 23. MCI also contends that Complainants had constructive knowledge that they would be charged MCI's Non-Subscriber rates. In so contending, MCI relies on the Filed Rate Doctrine, which establishes that, as a matter of law, customers are deemed to know the charges and practices described in a filed tariff. MCI's reliance on the Filed Rate Doctrine is misplaced. While the Filed Rate Doctrine imposes constructive knowledge of the terms of tariffs on consumers, it also provides for a review of the reasonableness of the rates and practices contained in a tariff pursuant to the statutory provisions for such review. Where, as we have already held here, it is determined that the terms of a tariff are unreasonable because they are inherently confusing, the Filed Rate Doctrine cannot validate such terms. That is, the constructive notice established as a matter of law by the Filed Rate Doctrine cannot be used to prove that the charges and practices contained in the tariff are themselves lawful. Indeed, it is well established that the rates and practices carriers seek to shelter pursuant to the Filed Rate Doctrine are always subject to an inquiry into their reasonableness. 24. Finally, we likewise reject MCI's contention that its distinction between "Subscribers" and "Non-Subscribers" is reasonable because, when the customer account at issue herein was terminated, MCI was unable to "de-PIC" itself as the presubscribed carrier to a telephone line. MCI's alleged inability to de-PIC itself as the presubscribed carrier is irrelevant to our conclusion. Our conclusion in this proceeding is based on the inherent confusion created by the "Subscriber" and "Non-Subscriber" labels. We find that, no matter how explicitly MCI explains the circumstances that would cause a customer whose line is "presubscribed" to be charged MCI's "Non-Subscriber" rates and surcharges, those labels have such accepted and well- known meanings that their use in this manner will be confusing and thus unreasonable. C. Reasonableness of MCI's Non-Subscriber Rates 25. Complainants allege that MCI's Non-Subscriber rates charged to customers that are presubscribed to MCI's interexchange service are unreasonable, in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Because we conclude that MCI's practice of charging Non-Subscriber rates for direct-dialed interexchange calls is unreasonable, we decline at this time to resolve whether MCI's Non-Subscriber rates are unreasonable. IV. DAMAGES 26. Complainants seeks an award of damages for the difference between the amount Complainants paid to MCI pursuant to MCI's Non-Subscriber rates and the amount they would have paid to MCI had MCI's rates been reasonable. In response, MCI argues that, to the extent Complainants are entitled to damages, an award of damages should be limited to the difference between MCI's Non-Subscriber rates and the applicable interexchange rates of Complainants' chosen long distance carrier. 27. As explained above, we conclude that a customer who is presubscribed to MCI would reasonably consider itself a "subscriber" of MCI's interexchange services. Thus, we further conclude that the only reasonable rate that MCI could have charged Complainants for their interexchange service is a "Subscriber" rate. Accordingly, MCI is directed to rerate Complainants' direct-dialed interexchange calls at issue in this proceeding at MCI's tariffed basic rates for subscriber calls that were in effect at the time such calls were placed. MCI is further directed to refund to Complainants the amount Complainants paid for MCI's provision of service to the Numbers less the amount Complainants would have been billed for MCI's provision of service to the Numbers had such service been charged at MCI's basic "Subscriber" rates. 28. Complainants have additionally requested damages on behalf of all customers who have paid MCI's Non-Subscriber rates for the previous two years. Complainants assert that they have standing to request such damages, because "the policy underpinnings of Sections 201 and 208 of the Act permit the Commission to fashion appropriate relief for all consumers harmed by the unjust and unreasonable rates of non-dominant IXCs." MCI responds that Complainants do not have standing to seek damages on behalf of all other customers. 29. The Commission has clearly stated that class action lawsuits are neither contemplated by, nor consistent with, the private remedies created under sections 206 through 209 of the Act. Therefore, although other customers situated similarly to Complainants might be entitled to damages pursuant to section 208(a) of the Act, the remedy available to these customers is to file their own section 208 complaints with the Commission. Complainants simply cannot seek damages on their behalf. 30. Complainants also request that we assess forfeitures against MCI, order MCI to pay punitive damages, and condition MCI's operating authority on its compliance with the Commission's rulings in this proceeding. MCI responds that Complainants seek relief completely out of proportion to the alleged harm. MCI also contends that the Commission does not have the authority to award punitive damages. MCI argues further that Complainants' request that the Commission condition MCI's operating authority on compliance with this order is outrageous, because Complainants have not established the requisite abusive behavior for such an extreme remedy. 31. Complainants have presented the Commission with no evidence to support a conclusion that MCI will refuse to comply with the Commission's orders in this proceeding. Accordingly, we deny Complainants' request that the Commission condition MCI's operating authority on its compliance with this order. We also deny Complainants' claim of punitive damages in this instance. Assuming, without deciding, that we have the authority to award punitive damages, the facts here do not justify any consideration of such damages, because Complainants have failed to show that MCI acted "maliciously, wantonly or with a recklessness that betokens improper motive or vindictiveness." In addition, we deny Complainants' request that the Commission assess forfeitures against MCI in this proceeding. Section 208 provides for private remedies for individuals aggrieved by carriers, while Section 503 gives the Commission the discretion to assess forfeitures. If the Commission determines that MCI's practice of charging Non-Subscriber rates for direct-dialed calls warrants the issuance of a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture under section 503 of the Act, it will do so in a separate proceeding. V. SANCTIONS 32. Complainants filed a Motion for Sanctions alleging that MCI submitted contradictory and misleading discovery responses and engaged in dilatory tactics that contravene the intent of the Commission's formal complaint rules. MCI opposed the Motion, arguing that its responses to the discovery requests at issue were accurate, and that MCI clarified the source of the minor and inadvertent discrepancies that occurred upon discovery. MCI argues further that it acted properly in filing its Motion to Stay Additional Discovery, Motion to Dismiss, and Application for Review. 33. The circumstances that warrant the Commission's issuance of sanctions is determined on a case-by-case basis. MCI has adequately explained the discrepancies that Complainants identified in MCI's discovery responses, and we do not find them to be an intentional attempt to mislead the Commission. Further, we do not find that MCI's filing of various motions warrant the imposition of sanctions. On these grounds, we deny Complainants' Motion for Sanctions. VI. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW 34. MCI filed an Application for Review of certain discovery rulings made by Commission counsel on July 24, 1998. At a July 23, 1998 status conference, Commission counsel directed MCI to (1) provide complete responses to interrogatory requests that had been previously granted at a telephonic status conference that took place on July 13, 1998, and (2) provide the Commission with information concerning "the various circumstances that trigger its Non-Subscriber charges, including an explanation of why, in circumstances like those in the complaint, MCI remains on the line to provide interexchange service at Non-Subscriber rates when its long distance customers' accounts with MCI are closed." MCI alleges that the July 23, 1998 status conference order (1) expanded the scope of previously ordered discovery without providing MCI an opportunity to oppose such expansion, and (2) exceeded the scope of issues presented in this proceeding. MCI also contends that Commission counsel's discovery rulings are reversible because, on July 22, 1998, Commission counsel and counsel for Complainants allegedly engaged in improper ex parte communications concerning the discovery disputes at issue in the July 23, 1998 status conference. 35. Under section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, "[a]ny person aggrieved by any action taken pursuant to delegated authority may file an application requesting review of that action by the Commission." No application for review will be granted if the person or entity exercising the designated authority was given no opportunity to address the question of fact or law upon which the application relies. Furthermore, the Commission may deny an application without specifying any reasons for its action. 36. We deny MCI's application, and we will address our reasons for doing so. We clarify, however, that in the future, applications for review of interlocutory staff rulings in the context of section 208 complaint proceedings generally will not be considered until the Commission issues a final ruling on the merits of the complaint. In the event, however, that the ruling on the merits of the complaint is made pursuant to delegated authority, the application for review will not be considered until after the delegated authority has issued its final ruling on the merits of the complaint. 37. As an initial matter, we find that MCI has not established its allegation that ex parte violations occurred on July 22, 1998. On that date, counsel for Complainants did contact Commission counsel to inform her that a discovery dispute existed and to inquire about when to file a motion to compel, should one be necessary, in light of the accelerated schedule of these proceedings. During that telephone conversation, Commission counsel reminded counsel for Complainants of the Commission's ex parte rules for restricted proceedings and limited the conversation accordingly. Consequently, the conversation did not address the merits or even the nature of the discovery dispute referenced by Complainants' counsel. Commission counsel scheduled a status conference for the very next day, July 23, 1998, because the impending statutory deadline for resolving the merits of this matter required identification and resolution of any outstanding discovery disputes at the earliest possible date. On these grounds, we reject MCI's allegation that improper ex parte communications occurred with respect to the discovery decisions at issue. 38. We further find that MCI has not established that the discovery rulings either were made without providing MCI an opportunity to respond to Complainants' discovery requests, or went beyond the scope of the subject matter before the Commission in this proceeding. The ruling relating to the provision of further information regarding any cost justification and non- cost factors that underlie MCI's Non-Subscriber rates was not a ruling on a new request for discovery. Rather, it was an explicit direction to MCI to comply with discovery that had been previously ordered by the July 13, 1998 status conference ruling. The timing of the ruling on this discovery dispute was responsive to the constraints imposed by the applicable statutory deadline. Moreover, the Commission's rules expressly provide that "[i]n its discretion, the Commission may modify the scope, means and scheduling of discovery in light of the needs of a particular case and the requirements of applicable statutory deadlines." We further find that the ruling requiring MCI to provide the Commission with information relating to MCI's application of its Non-Subscriber rates in this case was warranted. This ruling directed MCI to provide the Commission with information that was necessary to the proper resolution of these proceedings. The Commission's formal complaint rules explicitly provide for such inquiry, and the information requested by Commission counsel was directed at understanding MCI's practices that are at issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, we deny MCI's Application for Review. VII. CONCLUSION 39. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that MCI Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 is not clear and explicit as required by section 61.2 of the Commission's rules and is unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. We further conclude that MCI Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 is unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, to the extent that MCI assesses "Non- Subscriber" per-minute rates and per-call surcharges on interexchange calls originating on lines presubscribed to MCI's interexchange service. VII. ORDERING CLAUSES 40. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 205, 206, and 208 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 205, 206, 208, and section 61.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.2, that the formal complaint filed by Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue against MCI Telecommunications Corporation and the formal complaint filed by Freedom Technologies, Inc. against MCI Telecommunications Corporation ARE GRANTED to the extent described herein and ARE OTHERWISE DENIED. 41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the practice of charging Non-Subscriber rates for "direct-dialed" calls by customers who are presubscribed to MCI Telecommunications, Inc., IS UNREASONABLE in violation of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201(b). 42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the tariff language at issue in this complaint as specified in paragraph 12, supra, IS UNLAWFUL in violation of Section 61.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.2. 43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI Telecommunications Corporation SHALL REFUND to Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue the amount Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue paid for MCI Telecommunications Corporation's provision of service to the Halprin Number less the amount Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue would have been billed for MCI Telecommunications Corporation's provision of service to the Halprin Number had such service been charged at MCI Telecommunications Corporation's tariffed basic subscriber rates for calls that were in effect at the time such calls were placed 44. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI Telecommunications Corporation SHALL REFUND to Freedom Technologies, Inc., the amount Freedom Technologies, Inc., paid for MCI Telecommunications Corporation's provision of service to the Freedom Number less the amount Freedom Technologies, Inc., would have been billed for MCI Telecommunications Corporation's provision of service to the Freedom Number had such service been charged at MCI Telecommunications Corporation's tariffed basic subscriber rates for calls that were in effect at the time such calls were placed 45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI Telecommunications Corporation's Motion to Stay Additional Discovery and Motion to Dismiss ARE DENIED. 46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI Telecommunications Corporation's Application for Review IS DENIED. 47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue's and Freedom Technologies, Inc.'s Joint Motion for Sanctions IS DENIED. 48. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI Telecommunications Corporation SHALL IMMEDIATELY upon release of this order stop assessing Non-Subscriber charges to customers presubscribed to MCI. 49. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI Telecommunications Corporation SHALL FILE tariff revisions within ten days of the release of this Order to clarify that Non- Subscriber charges will only apply to customers that are not presubscribed to MCI. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary