DOCSLIB.ORG

RCED-86-66 Telephone Communications: Bypass of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RCED-86-66 Telephone Communications: Bypass of The L United State~‘Gene~al Accounting Office 13txiq6 Repo:fi to the Cong:ress b August 1986 TELEP’HONE COMMUNICATIONS Bypass of the Local Telephone Companies I IIIIllI II 130846 I , I cIIE3~sa.4 GAO/RCED-86-ij0 1/s I I $ ’ “1 , * I United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20648 Comptroller General of the United States B-203706 August IS,1986 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives This report provides the results of our work on customers bypassing local telephone companies. We discuss the extent of and reasons for bypass, the impact that bypass may have on local telephone company revenues, and observations on some regulatory actions and proposals that address bypass. We conducted the review because of the concern that local telephone companies could lose billions of dollars if large-volume customers avoid or bypass local telephone company facilities. The report provides the Congress information that may be helpful in oversight and regulation of the nation’s telecommunications industry. We are sending copies of this report to the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Chairman, Federal Communications Commission; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Charles A. Bowsher Comptroller General of the United States Executive Summary Local telephone customers could face billions in rate increases if the Purpose local telephone companies lose their large-volume customers due to bypass. Bypass occurs when customers use available technologies, such as microwave and satellite transmission facilities, to avoid using certain local telephone company facilities. Increased local telephone rates could reduce the affordability of telephone service. This report provides the Congress with data that will be useful in its oversight and regulation of the nation’s telecommunications industry GAO’sreview relates to: l the extent of and reasons for bypass. The results are based on GAO'S interviews with 82 large-volume telephone users in Colorado and Massa- chusetts and review of 3 other bypass studies. l the impact that bypass may have on local telephone company revenues. GAOanalyzed two simulation models that can estimate nationwide bypass revenue loss associated with long-distance calls. l observations on current regulatory actions and other options available to policymakers for addressing bypass concerns. The Federal Communications Commission is concerned about bypass Background because it can affect the Commission’s ability to ensure that the nation’s telecommunications policy of reasonable charges, universality of ser- vice, efficiency, and innovation is met. Bypass occurs because the regulated rates of local telephone companies can exceed the costs and prices of unregulated competitive suppliers of telephone service Regulated prices can be higher because they include both the actual or economic costs of providing service and an allocated share of overhead or fixed costs of the local telephone company. I In 1982 the Commission changed its method for recovering certain inter- state telephone costs, in part, as a way of limiting bypass. This “access charge” decision provided for local telephone companies to recover a part of their costs from all customers rather than a previous method that recovered these costs only from those making interstate long- distance calls. Accordingly, local telephone companies were permitted to add to then- regular charges, a monthly charge for each telephone line. While the Commission has changed the amount since 1982, the current monthly charge can range up to $6. Page 2 GAO/RCED-86436 Telecommunications Executive Summary In changing its method for recovering telephone costs, the Commission stated that the access charge decision may deter customers from bypassing the local telephone company because the decision permits a reduction in interstate long-distance usage charges. Various groups have voiced concerns about the monthly line charge because it increases tele- phone bills for customers who do little or no interstate calling and reduces the affordability of telephone service. GAO'Ssurvey and 3 other studies indicate that 16 to 29 percent of large- Results in Brief volume telephone company customers are bypassing their local tele- phone companies. In addition, 19 to 53 percent of the large-volume cus- tomers are considering plans to initiate or increase bypass activity. These customers were bypassing to reduce their costs and improve ser- vice and will continue to bypass for these reasons. Bypassing could significantly reduce local telephone company revenues. For example, the Bell operating companies estimate that the loss of 1 percent of their business customer locations could represent from 14 to 48 percent (depending on the state) of their total long-distance revenues. GAO'Sreview of two simulation models showed that the two models over- estimated the actual amount of 1984 revenues that local telephone com- panies could have lost in interstate markets due to bypass. Despite their weaknesses the two models do indicate that substantial future revenue could be lost. The Commission initiated m June 1986 an evaluation of bypass issues and its access charge decision Because increased bypass could reduce telephone service affordability, GAOagrees with the Commission that a reassessment is needed which addresses specifically the relationship between bypass actions and national telephone goals, including um- * versa1 service and reasonable charges. GAO’s Analysis Extent of and Reasons for From its interviews, GAOfound that 20 out of 68 large-volume customers Bypass were usmg bypass systems. Of the 68 customers, GAOfound that 25 had future bypass plans, including the 14 who already had bypass systems and 11 others. These bypassers were continumg to use local telephone companies for more than 75 percent of their telecommunications use. Page 3 GAO/RCED-86-66 Telecommunications Executive Summary GAO also found that (1) bypass systems are being used for both voice and data transmissions, (2) several bypass technologies are being used, with the most popular being microwave, cable/wire, and fiber optics, and (3) the typical bypass system is owned and used by a single com- pany for mostly local or intrastate services. The customers reported that they were bypassing because the telephone company could not provide a particular type of service or could not pro- vide the same reliability, flexibility, and security that a bypass system can. The customers also said that bypass alternatives offer similar ser- vices at a lower cost and allow them to better control and budget for telecommunications service. Impact on Revenues GAOfound that no definitive studies are available to show the impact that bypass could have on local telephone company revenues. However, in late 1984 the Commission’s staff and Bell Communications Research developed simulation models that determine how interstate access rev- enue could decrease due to bypass in a fully competitive market. The two models suggest widely differing losses at current prices-the Com- mission model suggests $4 billion while Bell Communications Research suggests a S 10 billion loss per year. As a matter of perspective, local telephone company revenues were about S74 billion in 1984, of which S14.6 billion were from interstate access services regulated by the Commission. The two models contain estimates of revenue loss due to bypass. How- ever, the model results were not precise and should not be used as fore- casts of revenue loss. The models overestimate near-term bypass because they assume that all customers and long-distance carriers have fully adjusted to financial incentives to bypass. In practice, such aci)ust- ments may take some time, during which market conditions are changing so that the actual outcome can be expected to vary from the model results Observations on Current GAO'Sreview of survey and simulation model results demonstrates limi- Regulatory Options tations with the current bypass data available to address the question of how effectively the access charge decision will deter the undesirable consequences of bypass associated with long-distance calls. The decision has been criticized for its potential negative impact on two of the nation’s telecommunications goals-reasonable telephone charges and universal service In response, the Commission has reconsidered and Page 4 GAO/RCED-86-66 Telecommunications Executive S-a.ry modified its original decision, in part, to give local telephone companies more flexibility to set charges for interstate access services. In addition, the Commission initiated a review in June 1986 of the effect of its access charge decision, including bypass issues. Other regulatory options have been proposed by states and other interested parties that are available for further consideration by the Commission. These mclude reducing the regulatory control over local telephone companies and changing the pricmg structure for certain telephone services. Recommendations GAOis making no recommendations GAOrequested comments on a draft of this report from the Commission Agency and Industry and Bell Communications Research. The Commission’s Managing Cdmments Director stated that overall the report reflects the views of the Commis- sion The Director, Regulatory Policy Analysis of Bell South Corporation (previously Director of Governmental Affairs at Bell Communications Research and responsible for the bypass model), commented that the critique of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Network Competition
    Chapter 15 LOCAL NETWORK COMPETITION Glenn A Woroch* University of California, Berkeley Contents 1. Introduction 1.1.Scope and objectives 1.2.Patterns and themes 2. Local Network Competition in Historical Perspective 2.1.Local competition in one city, a century apart 2.2.U.S. experience with local competition and monopoly 2.3.The experience abroad 3. Economic Conditions of Local Network Competition 3.1.Defining local services and markets 3.2.Demand for local network services 3.3.Cost of local service and technical change 4. The Structure and Regulation of the Local Network Industry 4.1.Structure of the U.S. local exchange industry 4.2.Regulation of local network competition 5. Strategic Modelling of Local Network Competition 5.1.Causes and consequences of local network competition 5.2.Strategic choices of local network entrants 5.3.Strategic models of local network competition 5.4.Entry barriers 6. Empirical Evidence on Local Network Competition 7. Wireless Local Competition 7.1.Wireless communications technologies 7.2.Wireless services as wireline competitors 7.3.Structure of the wireless industry 7.4.An assessment of the wireless threat 8. The Future of Local Competition References * I have received helpful comments on earlier drafts from Mark Armstrong, Bob Crandall, David Gabel and Lester Taylor. Ellen Burton of the FCC and Amy Friedlander of CNRI supplied useful empirical and historical information. I am especially grateful to Ingo Vogelsang for his encouragement, guidance, and inexhaustible patience throughout this project. I. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Scope and Objectives of this Chapter This chapter surveys the economic analysis of competition in markets for local telecommunications services.1 Its main objective is to understand patterns of competition in these markets and evaluate its benefits and costs against the alternative forms of industrial organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sprint Terms and Acronyms
    User Guide Sprint Terms and Acronyms All terms and conditions detailed in these Guidelines are subject to change pending future action by the FCC or individual state regulatory commissions. 2 Contents A..............................................................3 B ..............................................................4 C ..............................................................4 D .............................................................6 E ..............................................................7 F ..............................................................8 G..............................................................8 H..............................................................8 I ...............................................................8 J ..............................................................8 L ..............................................................8 M ...........................................................10 N ...........................................................10 O............................................................11 P ............................................................12 R ...........................................................12 S ............................................................13 T ............................................................14 U............................................................14 W...........................................................14 X............................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc
    Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc. 102 South Tejon Street, 11th Floor Colorado Springs, CO 80903. Telecommunications Service Guide For Interstate and International Services May 2016 This Service Guide contains the descriptions, regulations, and rates applicable to furnishing of domestic Interstate and International Long Distance Telecommunications Services provided by Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc. (“Central Telecom Long Distance” or “Company”). This Service Guide and is available to Customers and the public in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Public Availability of Information Concerning Interexchange Services rules, 47 CFR Section 42.10. Additional information is available by contacting Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc.’s Customer Service Department toll free at 888.988.9818, or in writing directed to Customer Service, 102 South Tejon Street, 11th Floor, Colorado Springs, CO 80903. 1 INTRODUCTION This Service Guide contains the rates, terms, and conditions applicable to the provision of domestic Interstate and International Long Distance Services. This Service Guide is prepared in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission’s Public Availability of Information Concerning Interexchange Services rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 42.10 and Service Agreement and may be changed and/or discontinued by the Company. This Service Guide governs the relationship between Central Telecom Long Distance, Inc. and its Interstate and International Long Distance Service Customers, pursuant to applicable federal regulation, federal and state law, and any client-specific arrangements. In the event one or more of the provisions contained in this Service Guide shall, for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Service Guide shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers
    Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers November 1997 Jim Lande Katie Rangos Industry Analysis Division Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 This report is available for reference in the Common Carrier Bureau's Public Reference Room, 2000 M Street, N.W. Washington DC, Room 575. Copies may be purchased by calling International Transcription Service, Inc. at (202) 857-3800. The report can also be downloaded [file name LOCAT-97.ZIP] from the FCC-State Link internet site at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/stats on the World Wide Web. The report can also be downloaded from the FCC-State Link computer bulletin board system at (202) 418-0241. Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers Contents Introduction 1 Table 1: Number of Carriers Filing 1997 TRS Fund Worksheets 7 by Type of Carrier and Type of Revenue Table 2: Telecommunications Common Carriers: 9 Carriers that filed a 1997 TRS Fund Worksheet or a September 1997 Universal Service Worksheet, with address and customer contact number Table 3: Telecommunications Common Carriers: 65 Listing of carriers sorted by carrier type, showing types of revenue reported for 1996 Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and 65 Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) Cellular and Personal Communications Services (PCS) 68 Carriers Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) 83 Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) 86 Paging and Other Mobile Service Carriers 111 Operator Service Providers (OSPs) 118 Other Toll Service Providers 119 Pay Telephone Providers 120 Pre-paid Calling Card Providers 129 Toll Resellers 130 Table 4: Carriers that are not expected to file in the 137 future using the same TRS ID because of merger, reorganization, name change, or leaving the business Table 5: Carriers that filed a 1995 or 1996 TRS Fund worksheet 141 and that are unaccounted for in 1997 i Introduction This report lists 3,832 companies that provided interstate telecommunications service as of June 30, 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 3
    Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 3 SUMMARY The telecommunications infrastructure is vitally important to electronic delivery of Federal services because most of these services must, at some point, traverse the infrastructure. This infrastructure includes, among other components, the Federal Government’s long-distance telecommunications program (known as FTS2000 and operated under contract with commercial vendors), and computer networks such as the Internet. The tele- communications infrastructure can facilitate or inhibit many op- portunities in electronic service delivery. The role of the telecommunications infrastructure in electronic service delivery has not been defined, however. OTA identified four areas that warrant attention in clarifying the role of telecommunications. First, Congress and the administration could review and update the mission of FTS2000 and its follow-on contract in the context of electronic service delivery. The overall perform- ance of FTS2000 shows significant improvement over the pre- vious system, at least for basic telephone service. FTS2000 warrants continual review and monitoring, however, to assure that it is the best program to manage Federal telecommunications into the next century when electronic delivery of Federal services likely will be commonplace. Further studies and experiments are needed to properly evaluate the benefits and costs of FTS2000 follow-on options from the perspective of different sized agencies (small to large), diverse Federal programs and recipients, and the government as a whole. Planning for the follow-on contract to FTS2000 could consider new or revised contracting arrangements that were not feasible when FTS2000 was conceived. An “overlapping vendor” ap- proach to contracting, as one example, may provide a “win-win” 57 58 I Making Government Work situation for all parties and eliminate future de- national infrastructure will be much stronger if bates about mandatory use and service upgrades.
    [Show full text]
  • Introductory Concepts
    www.getmyuni.com INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 1.1 WHAT IS TELECOMMUNICATION? Many people call telecommunication the world’s must lucrative industry. In the United States, 110 million households have telephones and 50% of total households in the U.S. have Internet access and there are some 170 million mobile subscribers. Long-distance service annual revenues as of 2004 exceeded 100 × 109 dollars.1 Prior to divestiture (1983), the Bell System was the largest commercial company in the United States. It had the biggest fleet of vehicles, the most employees, and the greatest income. Every retiree with any sense held the safe and dependable Bell stock. Bell System could not be found on the “Fortune 500” listing of the largest companies. In 1982, Western Electric Co., the Bell System manufacturing arm, was number seven on the “Fortune 500.” However, if one checked the “Fortune 100 Utilities,” the Bell System was up on the top. Transferring this information to the “Fortune 500” put Bell System as the leader on the list. We know it is big business; but what is telecommunications? Webster’s (Ref. 1) calls it communications at a distance.TheIEEE Standard Dictionary (Ref. 2) defines telecom- munications as the transmission of signals over long distance, such as by telegraph, radio, or television. Another term we often hear is electrical communication. This is a descriptive term, but of somewhat broader scope. Some take the view that telecommunication deals only with voice telephony, and the typical provider of this service is the local telephone company. We hold a wider interpretation. Telecommunication encompasses the electrical communication at a distance of voice, data, and image information (e.g., TV and facsimile).
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission FCC 04-97 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter Of
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 04-97 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Petition for Declaratory Ruling that AT&T’s ) WC Docket No. 02-361 Phone-to-Phone IP Telephony Services are ) Exempt from Access Charges ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: April 14, 2004 Released: April 21, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell and Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin, and Adelstein issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION 1. On October 18, 2002, AT&T filed a petition for declaratory ruling that its “phone-to- phone” Internet protocol (IP) telephony services are exempt from the access charges applicable to circuit-switched interexchange calls.1 The service at issue in AT&T’s petition consists of an interexchange call that is initiated in the same manner as traditional interexchange calls – by an end user who dials 1 + the called number from a regular telephone.2 When the call reaches AT&T’s network, AT&T converts it from its existing format into an IP format and transports it over AT&T’s Internet backbone.3 AT&T then converts the call back from the IP format and delivers it to the called party through local exchange carrier (LEC) local business lines.4 We clarify that, under the current rules, the service that AT&T describes is a telecommunications service upon which interstate access charges may be assessed. We emphasize that our decision is limited to the type of service described by AT&T in this proceeding, i.e., an interexchange service that: (1) uses ordinary customer premises equipment (CPE) with no enhanced functionality; (2) originates and terminates on the public switched telephone network (PSTN); and (3) undergoes no net protocol conversion and provides no enhanced functionality to end 1 Petition for Declaratory Ruling that AT&T’s Phone-to-Phone IP Telephony Services are Exempt from Access Charges (filed Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Telecommunications; Amending 17 O.S
    STATE OF OKLAHOMA 2nd Session of the 48th Legislature (2002) HOUSE BILL HB2796 By: Braddock and Case AS INTRODUCED An Act relating to telecommunications; amending 17 O.S. 2001, Section 139.102, which relates to the Oklahoma Telecommunications Act of 1997; adding definition; prohibiting the Corporation Commission from imposing any regulation on a high speed Internet access service or broadband service provider; allowing regulation in certain circumstances; allowing continuation of certain interconnection agreements; requiring certain provider to make agreements available to other providers; allowing the Corporation Commission to enforce certain interconnect agreements; prohibiting the Commission from expanding certain regulation; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA: SECTION 1. AMENDATORY 17 O.S. 2001, Section 139.102, is amended to read as follows: Section 139.102 As used in the Oklahoma Telecommunications Act of 1997: 1. "Access line" means the facility provided and maintained by a telecommunications service provider which permits access to or from the public switched network; 2. "Commission" means the Corporation Commission of this state; 3. "Competitive local exchange carrier" or "CLEC" means, with respect to an area or exchange, a telecommunications service provider that is certificated by the Commission to provide local exchange services in that area or exchange within the state after July 1, 1995; Req. No. 7936 Page 1 4. "Competitively neutral" means not advantaging or favoring one person over another; 5. "End User Common Line Charge" means the flat-rate monthly interstate access charge required by the Federal Communications Commission that contributes to the cost of local service; 6.
    [Show full text]
  • April 21, 2020 Issued By: Tariff Manager Lancaster, Texas
    Intrado Communications, LLC Arkansas P.S.C. No. 9 Original Page 1 ACCESS SERVICES This tariff Intrado Communications, LLC Arkansas P.S.C. No. 9 replaces West Telecom Services, LLC Arkansas P.S.C. No. 6 currently on file with the Commission in its entirety due to Company name change. REGULATION AND SCHEDULE OF INTRASTATE CHARGES GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF SWITCHED ACCESS SERVICES FOR CONNECTION TO COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS This tariff contains the descriptions, regulations and rates applicable to the furnishing of competitive access service and facilities for telecommunications services provided by Intrado Communications, LLC within the State of Arkansas. This tariff is on file with the Arkansas Public Service Commission. Copies may be inspected during normal business hours at the Company's principal place of business at 3200 West Pleasant Run Road, Suite 300, Lancaster, Texas 75146. Issued: April 6, 2020 Effective: April 21, 2020 Issued by: Tariff Manager Lancaster, Texas 75146 Intrado Communications, LLC Arkansas P.S.C. No. 9 1st Revised Page 2 Cancels Original Page 2 ACCESS SERVICES CHECK SHEET Sheets of this tariff are effective as of the date shown at the bottom of the respective sheet(s). Original and revised sheets as named below comprise all changes from the original tariff and are currently in effect as of the date on the bottom of this sheet. PAGE REVISION PAGE REVISION 1 Original 31 Original 2 1st Rev. * 32 Original 3 Original 33 Original 4 Original 34 Original 5 Original 35 Original 6 1st Rev. * 36 Original 7 Original 37 Original 8 1st Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Broadband Enterprise, LLC – Pennsylvania Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Tariff
    Atlantic Broadband Enterprise, LLC Telephone PA P.U.C. Tariff No. 1 Title Page COMPETITIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER TITLE PAGE ATLANTIC BROADBAND ENTERPRISE, LLC COMPETITIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER Regulations and Schedule of Charges For business Customers Only Within the Service Territories of Armstrong Telephone Company - North, Armstrong Telephone Company - PA, Citizens Telecommunications of New York, Inc., Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg, Consolidated Communications of Pennsylvania Company, Deposit Telephone Company, Frontier Communications - Commonwealth Telephone Company, Frontier Communications - Lakewood, Inc., Frontier Communications - Oswayo River, Inc., Frontier Communications of Breezewood, Inc., Frontier Communications of Canton, Inc., Frontier Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc., Hancock Telephone Company, Hickory Telephone Company, Ironton Telephone Company, Lackawaxen Telephone Company, Laurel Highland Telephone Company, Mahanoy & Mahantango Telephone Company, Marianna and Scenery Hill Telephone Company, North Penn Telephone Company, Palmerton Telephone Company, Pennsylvania Telephone Company, Pymatuning Independent Telephone Company, South Canaan Telephone Company, Sugar Valley Telephone Company, The Bentleyville Telephone Company, North-Eastern PA Telephone Company, United Telephone Company of PA d/b/a CenturyLink, Venus Telephone Corporation, Verizon-North, LLC, Verizon-Pennslvania, LLC, Westside Telecommunications, Windstream Buffalo Valley, Windstream Conestoga, Inc., Windstream D&E, Inc., Windstream Pennsylvania, Yukon Waltz Telephone Company. The Company will mirror the exchange area boundaries as stated in the tariffs of Armstrong Telephone Company - North P.U.C. No. 2; Armstrong Telephone Company - PA PA PUC No. 10; Citizens Telecommunications of New York, Inc. P.U.C. No. 2; Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg P.U.C. No. 3; Consolidated Communications of Pennsylvania Company P.U.C. No. 11; Deposit Telephone Company PA PUC No. 1; Frontier Communications - Commonwealth Telephone Company PA PUC No.
    [Show full text]
  • Tariff Schedules Applicable to Local Exchange Services Within the State of California
    Enhanced Communications Network, Inc. Cal. P.U.C. Schedule No. 1-T d/b/a Asian American Association First Revised Cal. P.U.C. Title Sheet 1031 S. Glendora Avenue Cancels Original Title Sheet West Covina, CA 91790 COMPETITIVE LOCAL CARRIER TARIFF SCHEDULES APPLICABLE TO LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICES WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF ENHANCED COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, INC. d/b/a ASIAN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION U-6658-C Advice Letter No. 10 Issued By: Date Filed: January 19, 2007 Decision No.: 03-02-051 Thomas Haluskey, Effective Date: January 26, 2007 Resolution No. Director of Regulatory Affairs Enhanced Communications Network, Inc. Cal. P.U.C. Schedule No. 1-T d/b/a Asian American Association Fourth Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet 1 1031 S. Glendora Avenue Cancels Third Revised Sheet 1 West Covina, CA 91790 COMPETITIVE LOCAL CARRIER CHECK SHEET Current sheets of this tariff are as follows: Page Revision Page Revision Page Revision Title First Revised 41 First Revised 83 First Revised 1 Fourth Revised* 42 First Revised 84 First Revised 2 Fifth Revised* 43 First Revised 85 First Revised 3 Original 44 First Revised 86 First Revised 4 First Revised 45 First Revised 87 First Revised 5 Second Revised 46 First Revised 88 First Revised 6 Second Revised 47 First Revised 89 First Revised 7 Original 48 First Revised 90 First Revised 8 Original 49 First Revised 91 First Revised 9 Original 50 First Revised 92 First Revised SECTION 1 51 First Revised 93 Second Revised 10 First Revised 52 First Revised SECTION 2 11 First Revised 53 First Revised 94 Second Revised 12 First
    [Show full text]
  • Network Quality Assurance
    NENA-03-501 Revised October 3, 2005 NENA Technical Information Document on Network Quality Assurance NENA Technical Information Document 03-501 Prepared by: National Emergency Number Association (NENA) Network Quality Assurance Working Group Published by NENA Printed in USA Revised October 3, 2005 NENA TID 03-501, Network Quality Assurance NENA TECHNICAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT NOTICE This Technical Information Document (TID) is published by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) as an information source for the designers and manufacturers of systems that are used for the purpose of processing emergency calls. It is not intended to provide complete design specifications or parameters or to assure the quality of performance for systems that process emergency calls. NENA reserves the right to revise this TID for any reason including, but not limited to, conformity with criteria or standards promulgated by various agencies, utilization of advances in the state of the technical arts or to reflect changes in the design of network interface or services described herein. It is possible that certain advances in technology will precede these revisions. Therefore, this TID should not be the only source of information used. NENA members are advised to contact their Telecommunications Carrier representative to ensure compatibility with the 9-1-1 network. Patents may cover the specifications, techniques or network interface/system characteristics disclosed herein. No license expressed or implied is hereby granted. This document is not to be construed as a suggestion to any manufacturer to modify or change any of its products, nor does this document represent any commitment by NENA or any affiliate thereof to purchase any product whether or not it provides the described characteristics.
    [Show full text]