PUBLIC NOTICE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1919 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 DA 98-845 News media information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov Released: May 4, 1998 COMMISSION SEEKS COMMENT ON SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RELATED TO ASSESSMENT OF PRESUBSCRIBED INTEREXCHANGE CARRIER CHARGES ON PUBLIC PAYPHONE LINES CCB/CPD NO. 98-34 Comment Date: May 26, 1998 Reply Comment Date: June 2, 1998 The Commission's Access Charge Reform, First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 15982 (1997), implemented a Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge (PICC) through which price cap local exchange carriers may recover a portion of the common line revenues permitted by price cap regulation. Section 69.153 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  69.153, provides for recovery of the PICC, subject to varying caps on PICC levels, from residential and business lines. The Common Carrier Bureau has received a number of letters from firms that provide or market operator services, asserting that the Commission's rules governing the implementation of the PICC are unclear when applied to payphones. These letters raise several issues related to the assessment of PICCs on public payphone lines. Specifically, these letters assert that price cap LECs, among other practices, generally are assessing multiline business PICCs for "smart," privately-owned payphones on the presubscribed 1+ interstate, interLATA carrier, while they are assessing the PICC for LEC-owned public payphones on the presubscribed 0+ interstate, interLATA carrier. In addition, these letters suggest that section 69.153 does not or should not permit imposition of multiline business PICCs on LEC-owned payphones. In light of the fact that the Commission's rules do not clearly state which PIC -- the 0+ carrier or the 1+ carrier -- may be charged the PICC in the case of public payphones, we seek comment on the letters identified below, as well as several specific questions. Interested parties are invited to file comments on these letters, and on the list of questions in Attachment 1. Commenters should restate and underline each question above their responses. Comments should follow the order of the questions. Comments should be filed on or before May 26, 1998. Reply comments should be filed on or before June 2, 1998. Interested parties must file an original and four copies of their comments with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room 222, 19191 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, in accordance with 47 C.F.R.  1.51(c). Comments should reference CCB/CPD No. 98-34. Parties also must send one copy of their comments to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, and one copy to the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 518, Washington, D.C. 20554. For further information contact Yvonne Hawkins, 202-418-1520. --FCC-- Attachment 1: Questions (1) We seek comment on all issues raised in the following letters to Common Carrier Bureau representatives: (a) Letter from John H. Goida, President, Teleconcepts Inc., to A. Richard Metzger, Jr., Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, April 17, 1998. (b) Letter from Larry Kay, National Operator Services, to A. Richard Metzger, Jr., Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, April 22, 1998. (c) Letter from Stephen H. Loberbaum, General Counsel, ONCOR Operator Communications, Inc., to A. Richard Metzger, Jr., Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, April 22, 1998. (d) Letter from William M. Waldron, Boston Telecommunications Company, to Jane Jackson, Chief, Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, April 22, 1998. We also seek comment on the following specific questions: (2) Does the Commission's existing rule governing collection of the PICC, 47 C.F.R.  69.153, permit price cap LECs to impose PICC charges for LEC public payphone lines and, if not, whether the rule should be amended to provide explicitly for assessment of PICCs on public payphone lines? (3) Assuming that price cap LECs are permitted to assess PICC charges on public payphone lines, should the PICC be: (a) charged to the presubscribed 1+ carrier; (b) charged to the presubscribed 0+ carrier; (c) imputed to the LEC's payphone unit as an end user; (d) split evenly between the 1+ and 0+ PIC; or (e) prorated among all IXCs that carry calls originating from a particular payphone each month? Commenters may also propose other alternatives methods for allocating the public payphone PICC. (4) Should all public payphones should be charged the multiline business PICC, or should some public payphones, such as those that constitute the only telephone line at a given location, be charged the single-line business PICC? (5) Do policy reasons, practical considerations, or other factors suggest that price cap LECs should be permitted to assess PICCs on the LEC's public payphone lines that are different in amount, or collected from a different party, from those assessed on privately-owned payphones? (6) To what degree could imposition of PICC charges on any of the parties listed in Question (3), above, cause reductions in the availability of public payphone services, increases in rates, or reduction in competition for interstate, interLATA traffic originating from public payphones?