DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Communications Commission Record 7 FCC Red No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Communications Commission Record 7 FCC Red No DA 92-818 Federal Communications Commission Record 7 FCC Red No. 13 SOUTHERN BELL File No. E-91-23 Before the TELEPHONE AND Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 TELEGRAPH COMPANY, SOUTH CENTRAL BELL File No. E-91-24 In the Matter of TELEPHONE COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL File No. E-91-25 CABLE & WIRELESS TELEPHONE COMPANY, COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CINCINNATI BELL File No. E-91-26 Complainant, TELEPHONE COMPANY, and GTE SOUTHWEST, INC., File No. E-91-27 v. Defendants. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE File No. E-90-428 AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, ORDER BELL TELEPHONE File No. E-90-429 Adopted: June 17, 1992; Released: June 24, 1992 COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, By the Deputy Chief, Enforcement Division, Common CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC File No. E-90-430 Carrier Bureau: TELEPHONE COMPANY, CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC File No. E-90-431 TELEPHONE COMPANY I. INTRODUCTION OF MARYLAND, 1. In this Order we address discovery issues and establish a schedule for further discovery and the submission of CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC File No. E-90-432 briefs and reply briefs by the parties to the above-cap­ TELEPHONE COMPANY tioned proceedings to determine whether and to what ex­ OF VIRGINIA, tent the complainant, Cable & Wireless Communications, CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC File No. E-90-433 Inc. (Cable & Wireless), may be entitled to recover dam­ TELEPHONE COMPANY ages as a result of defendants' alleged violations of the Commission's rate of return prescription for the period OF WEST VIRGINIA, January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1988. DIAMOND STATE File No. E-90-434 TELEPHONE COMPANY, NEW JERSEY BELL File No. E-90-435 II.BACKGROUND TELEPHONE COMPANY, 2. The case that Cable & Wireless presents against the NEW YORK File No. E-90-436 defendant local exchange carriers (LECs) is virtually iden­ tical to those presented in MCI Telecommunications Cor­ TELEPHONE COMPANY, poration v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. 1 and INDIANA BELL File No. E-90-439 American Telefhone & Telegraph Co. v. Northwestern Bell TELEPHONE COMPANY, Telephone Co. In those cases, the Commission found that MICHIGAN BELL File No. E-90-440 MCI and AT&T had met their burden of establishing that TELEPHONE COMPANY, the defendant LECs had violated Section 20l(b) of the Communications Act by earning in excess of the Commis­ THE OHIO BELL File No. E-91-19 sion's prescribed rate of return for the 1985-1986 monitor­ TELEPHONE COMPANY. ing period3 and were liable for damages to the extent that WISCONSIN BELL, INC., File No. E-91-20 MCI and AT&T could establish that they suffered actual PACIFIC BELL File No. E-91-21 damage as a result of the violations. The Commission, TELEPHONE COMPANY, however, addressed the issue of liability only and directed AT&T and MCI to file supplemental complaints for dam­ NEV ADA BELL, File No. E-91-22 ages if they wished to pursue their damages claims. Both AT&T and MCI subsequently filed such supplemental complaints and related pleadings. We recently issued or- 1 5 FCC Red 216 (1990) (MCI Liability Order), recon. denied, 5 2 5 FCC Red 143 (1990) (AT&T Liability Order), appeal dis­ FCC Red 3463 (1990), appeal dismissed sub nom. Mountain missed sub nom. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co., et al. v. States Tel. and Tel. Co., et al. v. FCC, 951 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. FCC, 951 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1991). 1991). 3 The complainants relied, as does Cable & Wireless in the instant complaints, on rate of return monitoring reports (Form 3996 7 FCC Red No. 13 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 92·818 ders in the AT&T and MCI supplemental proceedings that 5. The defendants raise a number of challenges to the established guidelines and timeframes. for further discovery complainant's damages claims, including arguments that and briefs on the issue of damages.4 have been considered and rejected by the Commission in 3. Because the operative facts and questions of law in­ the MCI and AT&T Liability Orders 8 The defendants argue volved in the instant cases parallel those raised in the in unison that any damages awards based on violations of AT&T and MCI proceedings, we will not adopt the bi­ the Commission's rate of return prescription would be furcated approach used by the Commission in those pro­ contrary to the court's decision in American Telephone and ceedings and postpone discovery and the submission of Telegraph Company v. FCC 9 and, therefore, unlawful. De­ additional pleadings on the issue of damages until defen­ fendants contend that the fact that their rates produced dants' liability for damages has been determined. We note overearnings in one access service category is not sufficient that both complainant and defendants have argued the to establish damage to the complainant. Some defendants issue of liability extensively in their pleadings filed in the contend that damages cannot be awarded on an access captioned cases.5 We believe that the Commission's, as well category level when their overall interstate rates of return as the parties', interests in obtaining the earliest practicable were below the authorized level. 10 Several of the defen­ resolution of these complaint proceedings will be better dants maintain that, under AT&T v. FCC, they must be served by requiring the parties to develop a full record on allowed to offset overearnings in individual access cate­ the issue of damages as well as liability at this time.6 gories against underearnings in access categories.11 Some defendants contend that an award of damages based on the measure advocated by the complainant would result in the III. DISCUSSION same consequences as the automatic refund rule found 4. Initially, we note that the issue of damages in a unlawful in AT&T v. FCC. 12 Section 208 complaint proceeding involves an issue of fact, 6. We have carefully reviewed the pleadings of the par­ the resolution of which depends on the particular cir­ ties and are unable to resolve on the record before us the cumstances involved in the case. Cable & Wireless' dam­ substantial factual issues raised by the parties regarding the ages claims rest primarily on the contention that the extent to which Cable & Wireless may have suffered actual proper measure of the damages it has incurred as a result damage as a consequence of defendants' alleged violations of defendants' alleged violations of the Commission's rate of the Commission's rate of return prescription. We tend of return prescription is the difference between the to agree with Cable & Wireless in principle, that a possible amount it actually paid defendants for interstate access measure of the damages stemming from defendants' al­ services during the period January 1, 1987 through De­ leged rate of return violations could be the difference cember 31, 1988, and the amount it would have paid if the between the rates it actually paid for defendants' interstate defendants' rates had produced earnings that did not ex­ access services and the rates it would have paid if defen­ ceed the Commission's prescribed rate of return.7 dants' rates had produced earnings within the authorized 492) filed with the Commission by the defendants as required 8 The ismes and arguments raised by defendants in response to by Section 65.600 of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F .R, § Cable & Wireless' claims are identical in their essentials. For 65.600. the sake of convenience and clarity, we will refer to defendants' 4 See MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Pacific Bell Tel. arguments as if they are part of the same pleading. To the Co., 7 FCC Red 2985 (Com.Car.Bur. 1992) (MCI Discovery extent that individual defendants raise separate or unique ar­ Order) and AT&T Communications v. Northwestern Bell Tel. ~uments, we will address them accordingly. Co., 7 FCC Red 2982 (Com.Car.Bur. 1992). 836 F.2d 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (AT&T v. FCC). The court set 5 Complainant and defendants, should they choose, are free to aside the automatic refund rule adopted by the Commission in discuss the issue of liability in the briefs and reply briefs re­ Authorized Rates of Return for the Interstate Services of AT&T ~uired by this Order. Communications and Exchange Telephone Carriers, CC Docket We note that the Commission has pending a rulemaking No. 84-800, Phase I, FCC 85-527 (released Sept. 30, 1985), 50 proceeding that solicits comments. on, inter alia, a proposal that Fed. Reg. 41,350 (Oct. 10, 1985), modified on reconsideration, would amend the Commission's rules to prohibit any discovery Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 86-114 (released March regarding damages until after the Commission has decided the 24, 1986), 51 Fed. Reg. 11,033 (Apr. 1, 1986), further recon. issue of liability. See Amendment of Rules Governing Proce­ denied, 2 FCC Red 190 (1987). The court found the automatic dures to be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed refund mechanism to be arbitrary and capricious "because it is Against Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 92-26, 7 FCC Red inconsistent with the rate of return prescription it purports to 2042 (1992). Our decision here not to bifurcate damages and enforce." AT&T v. FCC, 836 F.2d 1386, 1390. The court ac­ liability for purposes of completing discovery should not be knowledged, however, that "the Commission has authority un­ viewed as prejudging the merits of the Commission's proposal. der the Act to order refunds where a carrier has violated an Rather, it reflects the protracted history and unique circum­ outstanding rate-of-return prescription." Id., 836 F.2d at 1392. stances underlying these rate of return complaint proceedings 10 Additionally, the Ameritech operating companies argue that and our desire to resolve these matters as expeditiously as the relevant overall interstate rate of return is that of the ~ossible.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Before the Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of ) ) Section 63.71 Application of ) ) File No. Bellsouth Telecommunications, L
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Section 63.71 Application of ) ) File No. BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC ) Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC ) Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated ) Michigan Bell Telephone Company ) Nevada Bell Telephone Company ) Pacific Bell Telephone Company ) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ) The Ohio Bell Telephone Company ) Wisconsin Bell, Inc. ) ) For Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of ) The Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, ) To Discontinue the Provision of Service ) SECTION 63.71 APPLICATION OF AT&T AT&T Services, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates, BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Alabama, AT&T Florida, AT&T Georgia, AT&T Kentucky, AT&T Louisiana, AT&T Mississippi, AT&T North Carolina, AT&T South Carolina, and AT&T Tennessee; Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Illinois; Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, d/b/a AT&T Indiana; Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan; Nevada Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Nevada; Pacific Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T California; Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Arkansas, AT&T Kansas, AT&T Missouri, AT&T Oklahoma, and AT&T Texas; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Ohio; and Wisconsin Bell, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Wisconsin, (collectively referred to herein as “AT&T”) applies for authority under Section 214(a) of the Communications Act, as amended (“the Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 214, and Section 63.71 of the Federal Communications Commission’s (“Commission”) rules, 47 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • 304 340 0325 Exchange and Long Distance Business in West Virginia
    2OB9-I 1 :I6 4’-:51 703 - 696 - 2960 >* 304 340 0325 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNITED STATES ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY $01 NORTH STUART STREET ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 222034837 November 16,2009 REPLY To An‘ltNTION OR Regulatory Law Office U 4192 VnJ&1 on-03 3 Sandra Squire TZaJ a U Executive Secretary 2s Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street, P.O.Box 812 Charleston, West Virginia 25323-0812 Subject: DoD/FEA’s Direct Testirnonv of Charles W. King In Re: Case No. 09-0871-T-PC- Frontier Communimtions Corporation, Citizens Telecommunications Company of West Virginin, dba Frontier Communications of West Virginia, Verizbn West Virginia hc., et al. Joint Petition for consent and approval of the transfer of Verizon’s local, exchange and long distance business in West Virginia to companies to be owned and controlled by Frontier Coimunioations. Dear Ms. Squire: Enolosed for filing in the above-captioned proceeding are the hard copy original and Twelve (12) copies of the Direct Testimony of Charles W. King 011 behalf ofthe United States Department of Defense and All Other Federal. Executive Agencies (collectively referred to herein as “DoDFEA”). A Certificate of Service is appended to this filing. Copies of this document are being sent in accord with the Certificate of Service. Inquiries to this office regarding this proceeding should be directed to the undersigned at (703) 696-1643, . Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. General Attorney Regulatory Law Office (JALS-RL) US. Army Litigation Center 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 700 Arlington, Virginia 22203-1 837 Telephone: (703) 696-1643 stmhenmelniko ffmhada.
    [Show full text]
  • Qwest Corporation TARIFF FCC NO. 2[1]
    Qwest Corporation TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 2[1] SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL TITLE PAGE REGULATIONS, RATES AND CHARGES Applying to the Special Construction of Facilities in connection with the provision of Interstate Services within the operating territory of Qwest Corporation in the State(s) of Arizona (AZ) Colorado (CO) Idaho (ID) Iowa (IA) Minnesota (MN) Montana (MT) Nebraska (NE) New Mexico (NM) North Dakota (ND) Oregon (OR) South Dakota (SD) Utah (UT) Washington (WA) Wyoming (WY) as provided herein d/b/a Qwest Original Tariff effective July 26, 2000. [1] This entire Tariff is issued under the authority of Special Permission No. 00-064. (Filed under Transmittal No. 1.) Issued: July 25, 2000 Effective: July 26, 2000 By: Director - Federal Regulatory Suite 5100 1801 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Qwest Corporation TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 2 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 105TH REVISED PAGE 0-1 CANCELS 104TH REVISED PAGE 0-1 CHECK SHEET Title Page and Pages 0-1 to 0-7; 1-1; 2-1 to 2-14; 3-1 to 3-11; 4-1; 5-1 to 5-22; 6-1 to 6- 110 inclusive of this Tariff are effective as of July 26, 2000. NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF REVISION REVISION REVISION EXCEPT AS EXCEPT AS EXCEPT AS PAGE INDICATED PAGE INDICATED PAGE INDICATED Title Original 3-2 Original 5-21 Original 0-1 105th * 3-3 Original 5-22 Original 0-1.1 84th * 3-4 Original 6-1 Original 0-1.2 60th * 3-5 Original 6-2 Original 0-1.3 31st * 3-6 Original 6-3 Original 0-1.4 12th * 3-7 Original 6-4 Original 0-1.5 7th * 3-8 Original 6-5 Original 0-1.6 3rd * 3-9 Original 6-6 Original 0-2 Original 3-10 Original
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse 1529 4Th Avenue West, Seattle Landmark
    Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse 1529 4th Avenue West, Seattle Landmark Nomination BOLA Architecture + Planning Seattle December 21, 2015 Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse Landmark Nomination 1529 4th Avenue W, Seattle December 21, 2015 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 Background Research Seattle’s Landmark Designation Process Preservation Incentives Design Reviews of Proposed Changes to a Landmark 2. Property Data 4 3. Historic Context Statement 5 Historic Overview of Queen Anne Hill The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company in Seattle The Building’s Construction History The Original Designers The Role of Women as Switchboard Operators 4. Architectural Description 12 Neighborhood Context The Site The Structure and Exterior Facades Interior Layout and Features Changes to the Original Building 5. Bibliography and Resources 18 6. Photographs and Images 23 Figure Index Images Select Drawings Cover: Views looking southwest at the building: Museum of Communications, 1923; King County Tax Assessor’s Property Record Card, 1936; Contemporary, BOLA, July 2015. BOLA Architecture + Planning 159 Western Avenue West, Suite 486 Seattle, Washington 98119 206.447.4749 Name (common, present, or historic): The Pacific Telegraph and Telephone Garfield Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse Year built: 1921-1922, 1929 (remodeled in 1950 and 1961); 1977 (Renovation) Street and number: 1529 4th Avenue West, Seattle WA 98119 Assessor's file no.: 423290-3170
    [Show full text]
  • AT&T Debt Information
    AT&T Inc. and Subsidiary Debt Detail - September 30, 2010 This chart shows the principal amount of AT&T Inc.'s and its subsidiaries' outstanding long-term debt issues as of the date above. AT&T intends to update this chart quarterly after filing its Form 10-Q or Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Outstanding Long-term Notes and Debentures Amount Outstanding at Unconditional Guarantee Entity (Original Issuer) Maturity Coupon Maturity Date Current Portion Long-term Portion Total by AT&T Inc. SBC Communications Inc. $1,000,000,000 5.300% 11/15/2010 $1,000,000,000 - $1,000,000,000 AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. $3,000,000,000 7.875% 3/1/2011 $3,000,000,000 - $3,000,000,000 SBC Communications Inc. $1,250,000,000 6.250% 3/15/2011 $1,250,000,000 - $1,250,000,000 BellSouth Corporation $1,000,000,000 4.295% 4/26/2021 (a) $1,000,000,000 - $1,000,000,000 Yes BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. $152,555,337 6.300% 12/15/2015 $24,012,263 $128,543,074 $152,555,337 Ameritech Capital Funding Corporation $59,802,300 9.100% 6/1/2016 $7,299,540 $52,502,760 $59,802,300 Various $112,492,335 Various Various $103,734,725 $8,757,610 $112,492,335 BellSouth Corporation $1,000,000,000 6.000% 10/15/2011 - $1,000,000,000 $1,000,000,000 AT&T Corp. $1,500,000,000 7.300% 11/15/2011 - $1,500,000,000 $1,500,000,000 Yes Cingular Wireless LLC $750,000,000 6.500% 12/15/2011 - $750,000,000 $750,000,000 SBC Communications Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Curtis L. Kennedy Attorney at Law
    CURTIS L. KENNEDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 8405 E. PRINCETON AVE. DENVER, CO 80237-1741 [email protected] TELEPHONE (303) 770-0440 ALSO ADMITTED IN: ___________________ UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT STATE OF ARIZONA FAX (303) 843-0360 STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF TEXAS WASHINGTON, D.C. August 20, 2004 List of Retiree Telephone Concession Reimbursement Documents: 1 Date (Approximate): Originator Title and Description: Revised 12-1-61 Mountain States Telephone & Interdepartmental Manual No. 122 –Telephone Service Furnished to Revised 7-1-63 Telegraph Company Active and Pensioned Employees for Personal Use (21 pages) January 1974 Benefits Department - Telephone Service After Retirement. “Effective with your Mountain Bell retirement. charges for your residence telephone service will be paid by this Company. during your lifetime. After retirement, if you take up residence in an area not served by Mountain Bell, this concession still applies. .” (1 page) 1 Note: Documents indicated with * are supplemental either in whole or in part to those appearing on the July 19, 2004, index. -1- September 1976 Corporate Personnel - Benefits Pensioners’ Concession Telephone Service. “When your pension is Mountain Bell effective, charges for your residence telephone service will be paid by this Company. This means that, except for a few special types of service, you will receive free local service and be allowed a reasonable but limited amount of toll service over Bell System or connecting company lines within the continental United States during your lifetime. .also applies if your telephone service is provided by a company other than Mountain Bell. .If you take up residence in an area not served by Mountain Bell, this concession still applies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Telecom Meltdown for a Listing of Recent Titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, Turn to the Back of This Book
    The Great Telecom Meltdown For a listing of recent titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, turn to the back of this book. The Great Telecom Meltdown Fred R. Goldstein a r techhouse. com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the U.S. Library of Congress. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Goldstein, Fred R. The great telecom meltdown.—(Artech House telecommunications Library) 1. Telecommunication—History 2. Telecommunciation—Technological innovations— History 3. Telecommunication—Finance—History I. Title 384’.09 ISBN 1-58053-939-4 Cover design by Leslie Genser © 2005 ARTECH HOUSE, INC. 685 Canton Street Norwood, MA 02062 All rights reserved. Printed and bound in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. All terms mentioned in this book that are known to be trademarks or service marks have been appropriately capitalized. Artech House cannot attest to the accuracy of this information. Use of a term in this book should not be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark or service mark. International Standard Book Number: 1-58053-939-4 10987654321 Contents ix Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) Gave Cable Providers an Advantage on “Triple Play” 122 RBOCs Took the Threat Seriously 123 Hybrid Fiber-Coax Is Developed 123 Cable Modems
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Telecommunications Law
    RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW ANGELA D. O’BRIEN* INTRODUCTION It has been four years since President Clinton signed the revolutionary and ambitious Telecommunications Act of 19961 (“TA 96” or “the Act”) in order to remove barriers to competition in the local telecommunications market and provide all Americans with access to affordable telecommunications service. Since that time, and particularly within the past year, there have been a large number of regulatory and judicial decisions at the federal and state levels that endeavor to implement the goals of the Act and to regulate telecommunications carriers under specific provisions of state law. This Article reviews some of the significant developments in federal and Indiana telecommunications law2 for the period of October 1, 1998 to October 31, 1999. I. IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION The Act’s goal is to eliminate barriers to local competition in the telecommunications marketplace by requiring that incumbent local exchange carriers (“ILECs”) provide access to their networks to competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”). This access is facilitated by requiring ILECs (1) to permit a requesting new entrant in the [ILEC’s] local market to interconnect with the [ILEC’s] existing local network and thereby use the [ILEC’s] network to compete with the [ILEC] in providing telephone services (interconnection); (2) to provide its competing * J.D., 1998, Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis. The author is an Associate in the Chicago office of Mayer, Brown & Platt and a former Associate of Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis. The views expressed in this Survey are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the attorneys at Mayer, Brown & Platt or Barnes & Thornburg.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit N. CCS4.1 Page 1 of 5 Docket No. 01-035-01 Witness: John B
    Exhibit N. CCS4.1 Page 1 of 5 Docket No. 01-035-01 Witness: John B. Legler Regulatory Participation of John B. Legler Company Docket No. Date Georgia Power Company GPSC 2663-U 4/75 Savannah Electric and Power GPSC 2842-U 8/75 Southern Bell (Georgia) GPSC 2897-U 12/75-1/76 Georgia Power Company NRC 50-424/425 1/76 Southern Bell (Georgia) GPSC 2994-U 11/76-12/76 Savannah Electric and Power GPSC 2995-U 5/77 Georgia Power Company GPSC 3002-U 6/77-7/77 South Central Bell (Mississippi) MPSC U-3359 2/78 Carolina Tel and Tel (North Carolina) NCUC P7, Sub 524 6/78 Southern Bell (South Carolina) SCPSC 78-353-C 11/78 Duke Power (South Carolina) SCPSC 78-189-E 12/78 Alabama Power Company APSC 17667 5/79 Savannah Electric and Power GPSC 3147-U 6/79 Georgia Power Company GPSC 3129-U 7/79 South Carolina Electric and Gas SCPSC 18,362 7/79 Tucson Electric Power Company ACC U-1933 8/79 Gas Light Company of Columbus (Georgia) GPSC 3162-U 11/79 Atlanta Gas Light Company GPSC 3167-U 12/79 Georgia Power Company GPSC 3129-U 12/79 Southern Bell (South Carolina) SCPSC 79-303-C 1/80 General Telephone of the Southeast (Alabama) APCS 17850 4/80 Alabama Power Company APSC 17859 5/80 Duke Power Company (South Carolina) SCPSC 79-300-E 7/80 South Central Bell (Mississippi) MPSC U-3804 7/80 Mississippi Power and Light Company MPSC U-3850 9/80 Gulf Power Company (Florida) FPSC 80001-EU 9/80 Savannah Electric and Power GPSC 3220-U 11/80 Carolina Power and Light SCPSC 80-69-E 11/80 Southern Bell (Georgia) GPSC 3231-U 2/81 Southern Bell (South Carolina) SCPSC 80-263-C 2/81
    [Show full text]
  • Tab 23 – Miscellaneous Charges / Enhanced Services Table of Contents
    Tab 23 – Miscellaneous Charges / Enhanced Services Table of Contents Overview..................................................................................................... 2 Detailed Process ........................................................................................... 2 Requesting Billing of Miscellaneous Charges/Enhanced Services ........................ 2 Record Processing ...................................................................................... 3 Taxes ....................................................................................................... 4 Implementation Time Frames....................................................................... 4 Processing Requirements ............................................................................... 4 PROMOTIONAL CREDIT/REBATES.................................................................... 5 Description of Service ................................................................................. 5 Formatting of EMI Record ............................................................................ 5 Bill Format - Promotional Credits .................................................................. 6 Exhibit I ...................................................................................................... 7 MISC CHARGE/ENHANCED SERVICE BILLING REQUEST FORM .......................... 7 Billing and Collections Product Binder Section 23 Miscellaneous Charges/Enhanced Services Page 2 of 7 CA, NV January 2006 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES/ENHANCED
    [Show full text]
  • The American Telephone and Telegraph Company Divestiture: Background, Provisions, and Restructuring
    Report No. 84-58 E I -. <I?....*- ".YII. -n, -- THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY DIVESTITURE: BACKGROUND, PROVISIONS, AND RESTRUCTURING b Y Angele A. Gilroy Specialist in Industrial Organization Economics Division COLLECTION WKI HEKN !CNTUCKY LIBRARY April 11, 1984 11 i :::A L.'~~-l.ii.e makes jucn research available. without parti- ::;I.. in lr:m\ !orrns inc!uding studies. reports. cornpila- ;,)I!., I!:<?\[>. :md l:a~kqroi~ndhrietings. Cpon request. CRS .. ., :i ~ !>!r::z:rrir.e.;in ann1~-zingle+slative proposals and -tl:..b. :!nd in s>w;sinq the possible effects of these proposals . < :!I irie.The Ser~ice'ssenior specialists and ii,:c( r :iil.,;ii ?is are also at-aiiable for personal consultations ;xi-ir :.t>.;!?ecri\-elieid.; t~f'expertise. ABSTRACT On January 1, 1984, The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) di- vested itself of a major portion of its organizational structure and functions. Under the post-divestiture environment the once fully-integrated Bell System is now reorganized into the "new" AT&T and seven Ladependent regional 5olding ?om- panies -- American Information Technologies Corp., 3ell Atlantic Corp., 3ell- South Corp., NYNEX Corp., Pacific Telesis Group., Southwestern Bell Corp., and U.S. West, Inc. The following analysis provides an overview of the pre- and post-divestiture organizational structure and details the evolution of the anti- trust action which resulted in this divestiture. CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................ iii INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1 1 . BELL SYSTEM CORPORATE REORGANIZATION .............................. 3 A . Predivestiture Bell System Corporate Structure ................ 3 B . Divested Operating Company Structure .......................... 5 C . Post-Divestiture AThT Organizational Structure ................ 7 11.
    [Show full text]
  • CBG Disaggregation Annual Suijijort @$31/$51* @ Models' Own Default Inputs @ FCC "Common" Inputs
    CBG Disaggregation Annual SUIJIJort @$31/$51* @ Models' Own Default Inputs @ FCC "Common" Inputs HA15.0a @ BCPM 3.1 @ BCPM HA15.0a @ BCPM 3.1 @ BCPM HAl Default Input BCPM Default Relative to FCC Common FCC Common Relative to State Study Area Values** Input Values HAl Input Values Input Values HAl VT New England Tel-VT $19,829,582 $57,713,841 291% $ 27,911,383 24,829,014 89% WA GTE Northwest Inc - Washington $13,558,020 $55,341,292 408% $ 14,785,430 26,023,743 176% WA Pacific Northwest Bell-Washington $32,613,930 $105,403,642 323% $ 34,340,028 46,203,827 135% WA Telephone Utilities Of WA Inc $28,687,697 $82,203,800 287% $ 33,992,927 44,105,939 130% WI GTE North Inc-WI $36,617,671 $157,105,870 429% $ 53,418,843 76,074,367 142% WI Wisconsin Bell $17,204,673 $64,229,071 373% $ 20,723,109 25,470,320 123% WV C And P Tel Co Of W VA $68,799,486 $169,186,364 246% $ 83,053,812 76,933,339 93% WY Mountain Bell-Wyoming $34,184,430 $96,228,775 281% $ 36,206,946 47,038,477 130% Sum $3,491,436,915 $10,009,263,007 287% $4,103,441,290 $4,485,465,272 109% * In these comparisons, it is assumed that all residence lines are supported at $51/month and all business lines are supported at $51/month. ** The true HAl default is to provide support only for primary residence lines and single line business lines, and not all lines as reported here.
    [Show full text]