DA 95-116 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red No. 5

Southern Telephone Co. Before the Revisions to Tariff Transmittal No. 636 Federal Communications Commission F.C.C. No. 39 Washington, D.C. 20554 Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. In the Matter of Revisions to Tariff Transmittal Nos. 2405, 2408 F.C.C. No. 73 Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff , Transmittal Nos. 846, 859 United and F.C.C. No. 2 Central Telephone Company Transmittal No. 24 Revisions to Tariff Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies F.C.C. No. 1 Revisions to Tariff Transmittal No. 725 F.C.C. No. 1 US West Communications, Inc. Revisions to Tariff Transmittal No. 570 BellSouth , Inc. F.C.C. No. 5 Revisions to Tariff Transmittal No. 248 F.C.C. No. 1 ORDER

Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. Adopted: January 26,1995; Released: January 26,1995 Revisions to Tariff Transmittal No. 673 F.C.C. No. 35 By the Acting Chief, Tariff Division, Common Carrier Bureau: GTE Telephone Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff Transmittal Nos. 937, 938 I. INTRODUCTION F.C.C. No. 1 1. In the summer of 1994, the local exchange carriers (LECs) captioned above filed petitions for waiver of Part 69 GTE System Telephone Companies of the Commission©s Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 69, to establish Revisions to Tariff Transmittal Nos. 131, 135 one or more new rate elements for 500 access service. 1 The F.C.C. No. 1 Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) granted those waiver petitions on November 30, 1994.2 These LECs have now NYNEX Telephone Companies filed tariffs for 500 access service pursuant to the waivers Revisions to Tariff Transmittal Nos. 329, 357 they were granted in the 500 Access Waiver Order.3 Two parties, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) and F.C.C. No. 1 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint), filed peti tions to reject or suspend and investigate several of those Pacific Bell tariff filings,4 and each carrier filed an opposition to those Revisions to Tariff Transmittal No. 1764 petitions.5 In this Order, we deny the petitions against these F.C.C. No. 128 500 access service tariffs, and allow those tariffs to take effect on January 28, 1995, as scheduled. Rochester Telephone Corporation Revisions to Tariff Transmittal Nos. 3, 4 F.C.C. No. 1

1 Ameritech Operating Companies, et al., Petitions for Waiver MCI nor Sprint filed a petition against NYNEX Transmittal 357, of Sections 69.4(b) and 69.106 of Part 69 of the Commission©s and our review of Transmittal 357 has revealed nothing that Rules, DA 94-1350 (Com. Car. Bur., released Nov. 30, 1994), warrants rejection or suspension and investigation of that trans- app, for review pending (500 Access Waiver Order). mittal at this time. 2 td. 4 Those petitions to reject or suspend and investigate are listed 3 In addition to Transmittal 357, which the NYNEX Telephone in Appendix A. Companies (NYNEX) filed following the grant of its waiver 5 Rochester Telephone Corporation (Rochester) filed its op petition, NYNEX had previously filed Transmittal No. 329 to position to MCI©s petition to reject or suspend and investigate introduce what it calls "Limited Access Screening Service" Rochester Transmittal No. 3 on January 11, 1995, two days after within the 500 Service Access Code. NYNEX Telephone Com its© opposition was due. Rochester also filed a motion for leave panies, Transmittal No. 329, filed September 8, 1994. MCI filed a to file its opposition out of time. Motions for extension of time petition to reject or suspend and investigate Transmittal 329 on are not to be granted routinely. See Section 1.46(a) of the September 23, 1994, which NYNEX opposed on October 3, 1994. Commission©s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a). In this case, however, Because NYNEX Transmittal 357 revises Transmittal 329 sub it appears that Rochester©s relatively short delay in filing its stantially, we conclude that the issues raised by MCI regarding opposition did not prejudice any other party in this proceeding. Transmittal 329 in its September 8 petition are moot. Neither Accordingly, we grant Rochester©s motion.

2220 10 FCC Red No. 5 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95- 116

II. BACKGROUND LECs. but stated that other LECs seeking a waiver com 2. LECs provide 500 access service to customers provid parable to any of the waivers granted in the 500 Access ing 500 service to end users. 500 service is a new "follow Waiver Order would warrant "expedited consideration. 14 me" personal communications service which enables cus tomers, among other things, to instruct their 500 service providers where to route their calls, e.g., to landline or III. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS cellular telephones, to , or to voice messaging ser vices.6 In providing 500 access service, the LECs must A. Ameritech Transmittai No. 846 screen the first six digits of the ten digit 500 number (i.e., 4. Sprint claims Ameritech©s 0 + 500 Activation Charge 500-NXX) in order to identify and route calls to the sub of $600 is excessive given that Ameritech©s 1 + 500 Activa scriber©s designated 500 service provider.7 There are two tion Charge is $35.00. IS Similarly, MCI asserts that ways that a LEG can perform this six-digit screening and Ameritech©s 500 activation charge in excessive when com routing. First, the carrier can use switch-based translation, pared to Ameritech©s 900 activation charge. 16 MCI also in which case it deploys a translation table contained in the argues that the LECs© 500 access labor costs should go software of the LEC switches, located at either the end down as LECs gain experience and become more efficient office or the access tandem, to route the call to the sub in providing 500 access service. MCI criticizes Ameritech scriber©s 500 service provider.8 Alternatively, if the LEC©s for not reflecting these efficiency gains in its labor cost end office or access tandem has Advanced Intelligent Net projections. 17 Finally, MCI asserts that Ameritech©s estimate work (AIN) capability, the LEC launches a query to a of the cross-elastic effects of 500 access service, required by centralized AIN database to identify the 500 service pro Section 61.49(h)(l)(ii) of the Commission©s Rules. 47 vider and routing.9 C.F.R. § 61.49(h)(l)(ii), is unreasonably low in light of 3. The Bureau did not impose a uniform rate structure Pacific Bell©s estimate. 1* for 500 access service on the LECs, because such a uniform 5. Ameritech explains that its 0+ translation subsequent rate structure would force some carriers into rate structures order charge is more expensive because this function re unrelated to the way they incur costs, and a uniform rate quires Ameritech to remove existing routing instructions structure might have delayed the availability of 500 from all central offices and then reinstall the 0+ routing service. 10 Accordingly, LECs were granted waivers to estab instructions. 19 In response to MCI©s comparison of lish rate structures to recover the costs of providing 500 Ameritech©s 500 activation rates with its 900 activation access service consistently with the way they incur those rates, Ameritech asserts that it plans to increase its 900 costs. Specifically, LECs planning to use switch-based trans activation rates to bring them more in line with the 500 lation were granted waivers to establish one or more activation rates proposed in its transmittal before us now.20 nonrecurring charges for 500 access service. 11 LECs plan Ameritech also argues that comparing rates for different ning to use AIN-based translation were permitted to services cannot form a basis for alleging unreasonable dis establish recurring charges for their 500 access services, crimination.21 Ameritech maintains that its labor force has and could at their option establish a smali nonrecurring developed experience activating 900 NXX codes, that this charge to recover small customer-specific nonrecurring experience is applicable to 500 activation, and therefore costs. 12 Similarly, LECs that intended to use switch-based MCI©s argument on labor efficiency gains is speculative.-©2 translation initially, in whole or in part, but expected to Ameritech claims that its cross-elasticity estimate is reason begin converting to AIN some time in 1995. were granted able, because Ameritech plans to apply existing switched waivers to establish either recurring charges or a combina access charges in addition to its 500 charges. Thus, accord tion of recurring and nonrecurring charges. 13 Finally, the ing to Ameritech, any migration from other switched ac Bureau declined to grant a blanket waiver to all other cess services to 500 access services will not affect total switched access demand.2-1 Ameritech contends that this is consistent with Pacific Bell©s projections.24

6 500 Access Waiver Order at paras. 2-3. Telephone Co. (Southwestern Bell); and US West Communica 7 500 Access Waiver Order at para. 3. The 500 service provider, tions. Inc. (US West). Specifically. BellSouth and NYNEX were using database technology, will then route the call to the tele permitted to establish recurring charges, and Southwestern Bell phone or other device designated by the 500 service subscriber. and US West were permitted to establish both recurring and Id. nonrecurring charges. Id. 8 Id. at para. 4. 14 SOI) Access Waiver Order at para. 31. 9 Id. 15 Sprint December 19 Petition at 9. 10 Id. at para. 27. 16 MCI December 19 Petition at 7-8. " 500 Access Waiver Order at para. 29. Those LECs include the 17 Id. at 8-9. Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech); Cincinnati Bell 18 Id. at 11-12. Telephone Co. (Cincinnati Bell): GTE Telephone Operating 10 Ameritech Opposition at 3. Companies (GTOC) and GTE System Telephone Companies 20 Id. at 1. (GSTC) (together, GTE); Pacific Bell; Rochester: and United 21 Id. at 1-2. Telephone Company and Central Telephone Company (togeth " Id. at 2. er. United). 23 Id. at 2-3. 12 Id. at para. 28. These LECs are the Bell Atlantic Telephone 21 Id. at 3, citing Pacific Bell Transmittal No. 1764, Description Companies (Bell Atlantic) and Southern New England Tele and Justification (D&J) at 6. phone Co. (SNET). In addition, the Bureau granted GTE a waiver to establish this rate structure if and when it shifts to AIN. See id. at para. 7; para. 29 n.75. 13 Id. at para. 30. Those LECs are NYNEX: BellSouth Tele communications, Inc. (BellSouth); Southwestern Bell

2221 DA 95-116 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red No. 5

B. Bell Atlantic Transmittal No. 725 any significant cross-elastic effects in providing 500 access 6. According to Sprint, Bell Atlantic states that it will service.38 Finally, Bell Atlantic replies to MCI that it cal apply its 500 charges on a per query basis in some parts of culated its demand estimates in a way that will be consis its tariff, and on a "per call delivered" basis in other parts tent with other services that will use the AIN database.39 of its tariff. Sprint argues that this ambiguity should be corrected.25 Sprint favors applying the charge on a per call C. BellSouth Transmittal No. 248 delivered basis, because that would make it easier for 9. Sprint argues that BellSouth©s recurring 500 query interexchange carriers to audit and verify the LECs© charge is much higher than the charges proposed by billings for access services.26 Sprint notes that Bell Atlan Southwestern Bell and US West.40 Sprint also contends that tic©s 500 access service rate is almost three times as high as BellSouth©s 500 recurring charge of $0.01 per query is its 800 database service rate. Sprint argues that a rate based unreasonably high relative to BellSouth©s 800 query charge in part on switch-based costs should be lower than a rate of $0.00381.41 Sprint asserts that this is especially unreason based exclusively on AIN costs.27 able given that BellSouth expects its nonrecurring costs for 7. MCI asserts that Bell Atlantic has failed to show the switch-based translation to be $16,150.29.42 cross-elastic effects of 500 access service, as required by 10. MCI maintains that BellSouth©s estimate of the labor Section 61.49(h)(l)(ii).28 MCI also claims that Bell Atlan time required to activate a 500 NXX code is significantly tic©s demand estimate, based on the present value of de higher than the estimates of Ameritech, Cincinnati Bell. mand for a five-year period, raises several concerns. First, United, and US West.43 MCI also asserts that the 12-month MCI claims that Bell Atlantic should explain its use of period for which BellSouth estimated demand is not a present value factors to adjust future demand rather than "representative" 12-month period as required by the Com future income.29 Second, MCI argues that Bell Atlantic mission©s Rules, and in this case this causes BellSouth©s should justify its estimate of three minutes as the average demand estimates to be unreasonably low.44 call length on which it bases its per query rate.30 Third, 11. BellSouth contends that its 500 rates are not un MCI maintains that Bell Atlantic could have manipulated reasonable simply because other LECs plan to charge lower its demand estimate for the representative 12-month pe rates.45 BellSouth also argues that it has incurred costs in riod, by basing it on either a weighted average or an introducing 500 access service that it did not incur when it arithmetic average of demand for the five year period, or introduced 800 database service, because the 800 service by allocating costs on an actual demand basis while cal access code (SAC) was already defined in BellSouth©s culating per unit costs on a present value of demand switches.46 BellSouth also contends that its 500 access rate basis.31 MCI advocates using a weighted average to calculate is higher because it anticipates lower demand for 500 ser demand for the representative 12-month period because vice than it has experienced for 800 database service.47 MCI believes that demand for 500 access service will be BellSouth states that its overhead loadings are not un greater in the later part of the five year period.32 reasonable.48 BellSouth also contends that other LECs es 8. Bell Atlantic argues that 500 service is not "like" 800 tablish separate charges for "route pattern" activity, while service within the meaning of Section 202 of the Commu BellSouth includes the time for that activity in its NXX nications Act.33 Bell Atlantic also contends that demand activation rate element.49 BellSouth believes that its first projections for 500 and 800 service are different, and that year of projected demand is a "representative 12-month the costs for the services are different because the AIN period." BellSouth denies that it will experience any database used for 500 service is different from the 800-spe- significant cross-elastic effects in providing 500 access ser cific database used for 800 service.34 Bell Atlantic maintains vice. 51 that, if 500 service were like 800 service, the rate disparity between 500 service and 800 service would be justified by D. Cincinnati Bell Transmittal No. 673 differences in costs and demand characteristics. According to Bell Atlantic, MCI has not shown that Bell Atlantic©s 12. MCI claims that Cincinnati Bell©s projected labor estimated average call length or its levelized average de time and labor rate is higher than that of the average of mand are inaccurate.3(1 Bell Atlantic also contends that its similar LECs. 52 MCI argues that this seems unreasonable tariff clearly states that it will apply its charge on a per call given that Cincinnati Bell©s service region is smaller than delivered basis.37 Bell Atlantic denies that it will experience that of other LECs who have filed 500 access tariffs.53 MCI also argues that the LECs© 500 access labor costs should go

25 Sprint December 29 Petition at 1-2. between BellSouth©s 500 rate and 800 rate is unreasonable dis 26 Id. at 2. crimination in violation of Section 202 of the Communications 27 Id. at 2-3. Act). 28 MCI December 29 Petition at 9-10. 42 Sprint December 19 Petition at 7-8. citing BellSouth Trans 29 Id. at 11. mittal No. 248 D&J, App. B at Worksheet 2. 30 Id. at 12. 43 MCI December 20 Petition at 4. 31 Id. at 12-13. 44 Id. at 5-6. See Section 61.4P(h)(l) of the Commission©s 32 Id. at 13-14. Rules. 47 C.F.R. 61.49(h)(l). 33 Bell Atlantic Opposition at 2. 45 BellSouth Opposition at 2. 34 Id. at 2-3. 46 Id. at 2-3. 35 Id. at 3-4. 47 Id. at 3. 36 Id. at 4-5. 48 Id. at 3-4. 37 Id. at 5-6. 49 Id. at 4-5. 3H Id. at 6. 50 Id. at 5. 39 /rf.at 6-7. 51 Id. at 6. 40 Sprint December 19 Petition at 7. 52 MCI December 21 Petition at 3-4. 41 Id. See also MCI December 20 Petition at 3-4 (difference 53 Id. at 4-5.

2222 10 FCC Red No. 5 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-116 down as LECs gain experience and become more efficient base its rates on a representative 12-month period.67 MCI in providing 500 access service. MCI criticizes Cincinnati also criticizes Pacific Bell for assuming that it will exper Bell for not reflecting these efficiency gains in its labor cost ience 500 access demand in 497 central offices, rather than projections.54 Finally, MCI criticizes Cincinnati Bell for a limited number of offices in urban areas.68 Finally, MCI failing to show the cross-elastic effects of 500 access service criticizes Pacific Bell for estimating 90 percent cross-elas on its existing price cap baskets.55 ticity and not reflecting this demand shift in its existing 13. Cincinnati Bell suggests that it is misleading to com price cap baskets.69 pare its rates with the rates of other LECs who recover 17. Pacific Bell argues that it is reasonable for its 500 costs in part through recurring and in part through access nonrecurring charges to be higher than those of nonrecurring charges.56 Cincinnati Bell also argues that its other carriers. First, Pacific Bell argues that it plans to labor time is not unreasonable simply because other LECs recover all its costs through a nonrecurring charge, while have projected shorter labor times, and contends that 500 US West plans to recover only a portion of its costs access using switch-based translation is very through nonrecurring charges.70 Second, Pacific Bell asserts labor-intensive.57 Cincinnati Bell alleges that it used the that labor rates in its region are higher than in other same labor rate to develop 500 access costs as it does to regions, and that the amount of labor required varies great develop costs for other services.58 Cincinnati Bell denies ly by switch type. 71 that it will gain measurable efficiencies or experience any 18. In response to MCI. Pacific Bell denies that 500 significant cross-elastic effects in providing 500 access ser activation is comparable to 900 activation for rate pur vice in the future.59 poses.©2 Pacific Bell states that it does base its rates on a representative 12-month period.73 Pacific Bell also states E. GTOC Transmittal No. 937 and GSTC that to provide 500 access service only in urban areas Transmittal No. 31 would reduce its $163 rate by only $2.39 per switch per 14. MCI asserts that GTE plans to charge almost twice as code, and would make the service unavailable in most of much for each additional 500-NXX activation/deactivation Pacific Bell©s service region.74 Pacific Bell further argues as it does for the same function for 900 access service. MCI that its rates are based on unit costs that do not vary with maintains that this represents unreasonable demand.© 5 Finally, Pacific Bell states that it expects its shifts discrimination.60 Also. MCI contends that the first year of in demand to occur more than 12 months after the in service is not a "representative" 12-month period on which troduction of 500 service, and claims that it will reflect the to base demand projections. According to MCI, demand is cross-elastic effects in its 1996 annual access filing.76 likely to grow more rapidly after the first year, and LECs are likely to become more efficient at activating and deacti G. Rochester Transmittal Nos. 3 and 4 vating 500-NXX codes as they gain experience providing 19. MCI asserts that Rochester has failed to show the the service.61 cross-elastic effects of 500 access service, as required by 15. GTE contends that, if one assumes three "additional Section 61.49(h)(l)(ii). 77 MCI also criticizes Rochester for activations" for each "initial activation." then GSTC©s 500 not basing its demand estimates on a representative rates are similar to its 900 rates.62 GTE asserts that there 12-month period.© 8 It maintains that Rochester has not will be no cross-elastic effects in its provision of 500 ser adequately explained non-standard customer routing, or the vice.63 Finally, GTE considers the first year of service to be charges that would be applicable to non-standard customer a "representative 12-month period" within the meaning of routing. 9 MCI claims that Rochester©s nonrecurring Section 61.49(h) of the Commission©s Rules.64 charges for 500 access service are discriminatory because they are higher than its nonrecurring charges for 900 F. Pacific Bell Transmittal No. 1764 access service.80 16. Sprint contends that Pacific Bell©s nonrecurring 20. Rochester states that its rates are based on unit costs, charges are excessive when compared to nonrecurring charges proposed by US West, BellSouth. Cincinnati Bell, and United.65 MCI asserts that Pacific Bell©s 500 activation charge is excessive when compared to Pacific Bell©s 900 activation charge."6 MCI claims that Pacific Bell fails to

54 Id. at 5. nett. Analyst, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, to Acting 55 Id. at 5-6. Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, January 5, 5b Cincinnati Bell Opposition at 2. 1995 (January 5 Letter). 57 Id. at 2-3. 67 MCI December 19 Petition at 9. 58 Id. at 3-4. 68 Id. at 9-11. 59 Id. at 4. 69 Id. at 12. 60 MCI January 3 Petition at 4-5. 70 Pacific Bell Opposition at 1-2. "© Id. at 6-7. 71 Id. at 2. 62 GTE Opposition at 2-3 and Att. I. 72 Id. at 2-3. 63 Id. at 3. 73 Id. at 3-4. 64 Id. at 3-4. 74 Id. at 4-6. 65 Sprint December 19 Petition at 6-7. 75 Id. at 6. 66 MCI December 19 Petition at 7-8. In a letter submitted on T6 Id. at 6-7. January 5, 1995, MCI contends that the 900 access service provi 77 MCI December 29 Petition at 9-10. sioning and description in Pacific Bell©s tariff now is virtually 78 Id. at 10-11. the same as the 500 access service provisioning and description 79 Id. at 14. in Pacific Bell©s Transmittal 1764. Letter from Christopher Ben- 80 Id. at 15-16.

2223 DA 95-116 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red No. 5

and therefore are not sensitive to demand.81 Rochester 24. SNET further argues that a per-query rate structure claims that, unlike a recurring charge, demand estimates for 500 access service is consistent with the rate structure are not necessary to determine whether its nonrecurring for 800 database and Line Information Database (LIDB) charges are reasonable.82 Rochester denies that it will services, and that Sprint has not explained its anticipated experience any significant cross-elastic effects in providing audit problems.95 SNET denies that it will experience any 500 access service.83 Finally, in response to MCI©s criticism significant cross-elastic effects in providing 500 access ser of Rochester©s non-standard customer routing charges, vice.96 SNET states that it incurred costs in revising its Rochester explains that this charge will apply where a billing system for 500 access service, and asserts that MCI is specific access customer requests a routing arrangement mistaken in concluding that those costs are detariffed bill that differs from the standard arrangements that Rochester ing and collection costs.97 Finally, SNET maintains that offers.84 MCI could have derived SNET©s cost projections from data provided in its cost support.98 H. SNET Transmittal No. 636 21. Sprint observes that SNET©s planned charge of $0.015 I. Southwestern Bell Transmittal Nos. 2405 and 2408 per query is substantially higher than any 500 per query 25. MCI contends that Southwestern Bell©s overhead cost charge planned by any other LEG.85 Sprint notes that loadings for 500 access service are unreasonable, because SNET©s 500 access service rate is almost three times as high the ratio of rate to direct cost is 15 to 1." MCI also asserts as its 800 database service rate. Sprint argues that a rate that Southwestern Bell has failed to show the cross-elastic based in part on switch-based costs should be lower than a effects of 500 access service, as required by Section rate based exclusively on AIN costs.86 Finally, Sprint notes that SNET plans to impose its charge regardless of whether 26. Sprint maintains that Southwestern Bell has not ade the associated call is delivered. Sprint contends that this is quately explain the portion of its 500 costs attributable to unreasonable given that most other LECs plan to impose switch-based translation, and the portion attributable to their charges on a per call delivered basis, and a per call AIN. 101 According to Sprint, recovery of any switch-based delivered basis would make it easier for interexchange car costs through a recurring charge would be inconsistent riers to audit and verify the LECs© billings for access ser- 07 with the 500 Access Waiver Order. 102 Sprint contends that vices. Southwestern Bell©s rate structure is likely to overrecover 22. MCI asserts that SNET has failed to show the nonrecurring costs after 500 access service is incorporated cross-elastic effects of 500 access service, as required by into its price cap basket. Sprint recommends that South Section 6l.49(h)(l)(ii).88 MCI also criticizes SNET for not western Bell recover its nonrecurring costs through a basing its demand estimates on a representative 12-month nonrecurring charge, and its recurring costs through a period.89 MCI believes that SNET©s inclusion of billing recurring charge."" Sprint also maintains that Southwest costs in its 500 access rates is inconsistent with the Com ern Bell©s demand estimates are unreasonably low. 104 mission©s detariffing of billing and collection services.90 27. According to Southwestern Bell, the direct cost ratio MCI claims that SNET©s recurring rates for 500 access in its D&J is based exclusively on AIN direct costs, and if service are discriminatory because they are higher than its Southwestern Bell had considered direct costs associated recurring rates for 800 access service.91 with both AIN and switch based translation, the direct cost 23. SNET lists several reasons why it believes that its 500 ratio would be L.015 to I. 105 Southwestern Bell denies that access rates should not be expected to be equal to its 800 there will be any cross-elastic effects, because both access database rates. SNET states that it maintains its own AIN for 500 calls and access "normal" 1+ and 0+ calls are database, while the 800 database is maintained by a na switched access services. 106 Southwestern Bell denies that it tional database management group.92 SNET also argues that based any of its per query demand estimate on its estimate projected demand for 800 database service was much great for demand for NXX translations. 107 Southwestern Bell also er than 500 access service.93 SNET also contends that the contends that the 500 Access Waiver Order permitted Commission required 800 database service to be treated as Southwestern Bell to recover its costs through a recurring a restructure under the price cap rules, while 500 access service is a new service.94

81 Rochester Opposition at 1-2. 94 Id. at 3-4. 82 Id. at 2 n.5. On January 26, 1995, Rochester filed Transmit 95 M.at4. tal No. 4 which, among other things, provided demand projec 96 Id. at 5. tions as required by the Commission©s Rules. 97 Id. US. 83 Rochester Opposition at 2 n.5. 98 Id. at 5-6 and Exh. 1. 84 M.at2. 99 MCI December 19 Petition at 6-7. 85 Sprint December 29 Petition at 3-4. 100 Id. at 11-12. S6 Id. at 4. 101 Sprint December 19 Petition at 2-3. 87 Id. at 4-5. 102 Id. at 3, citing 500 Access Waiver Order at paras. 26-27. 88 MCI December 29 Petition at 9-U). 103 Sprint December 19 Petition at 5-6. 89 Id. at 10-11. 104 Id. at 3-4. 90 Id. at 14-15. 105 Southwestern Bell Opposition at 1-2, cuing Southwestern 91 Id. at 15-16. Bell Transmittal No. 2408 D&J at Figure 2. 92 SNET Opposition at 3. 106 Southwestern Bell Opposition at 2-3. 93 W.at3. 107 Id. at 3.

2224 10 FCC Red No. S Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-116 charge, and accuses Sprint of attempting to reopen an issue 500 access service and 900 access service are not relevant, already decided. 108 Finally, Southwestern Bell claims that it because 900 service does not require a database. 122 US West complied with the new service cost support rules. 109 argues that the traffic sensitive category is appropriate basis on which to judge its 500 access overhead loadings, because J. United Transmittal No. 24 500 access investment and expense will be placed in that 28. MCI claims that United©s rates for 500 access service basket. US West denies that the database access service are discriminatory because they are higher than its rates for category is appropriate for 500 access service. 123 US West 900 access service. 110 MCI also criticizes United for not attaches as Exhibit A demand projections for the first 12 basing its demand estimates on a representative 12-month months of service, and does not expect dramatic growth in period, and for .failing to show the cross-elastic effects of 500 access demand, or cross-elastic effects, as does MCI. 124 500 access service on its existing price cap baskets. 111 Finally, US West explains that the rates in its Transmittal No. 570 are lower than they were in its Transmittal No. 29. United explains that its 900 access rates reflect ju- 525 because they are based on updated and more accurate risdictional separations factors in effect when its 900 ser cost support information.125 vice tariff was filed in 1988. U2 United also contends that the difference between its 900 and 500 rates is much less than was suggested by MCI. 113 United asserts that it did IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES provide a cost study, and maintains that it did not provide an estimate for the number of NXX activations because the 32. We have reviewed the tariffs filed by the carriers only customer who has expressed interest in 500 access captioned above, as well as all associated tariff revisions service did not provide this information until after United and pleadings. We conclude that none of those tariffs are filed its tariff. 114 Finally. United expects no cross-elastic patently unlawful so as to warrant rejection, and that an effects from 500 service. According to United, parties investigation is not warranted at this time. placing 500 calls will be able to reach the called party in 33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for situations in which the called party could not be reached rejection or suspension and investigation filed by MCI using other calling methods. Thus, there will be a net Telecommunications Corporation and Sprint Communica increase in both terminating minutes and 500 access min tions Company, L.P., listed in Appendix A to this Order. utes and no shift from other services to 500 service. 115 ARE DENIED. 34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for K. US West Transmittal No. 570 rejection or suspension and investigation filed by MCI 30. Sprint criticizes US West for comparing its 500 access Telecommunications Corporation, against NYNEX Tele service overhead loading factor to overhead loadings for the phone Companies, Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. Traffic Sensitive basket, rather than the database access 329, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. sub-basket. 116 Sprint also contends that US West©s per query 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for 500 rate is unreasonably high relative to its 800 query leave to file out of time, filed by Rochester Telephone rate. 117 Similarly, MCI claims that US West©s rates for 500 Corporation. IS GRANTED. access service are discriminatory because they are higher than its rates for 900 access service."8 MCI contends that FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION the rates and cost support in US West©s Transmittal No. 525. which was US West©s initial attempt to establish rates for 500 access service, are inconsistent with the rates and cost support in its tariff filing before us now." 9 MCI also criticizes US West for not basing its demand estimates on a Geraldine . Matise representative 12-month period, and for failing to show the Acting Chief, Tariff Division cross-elastic effects of 500 access service on its existing price cap baskets. 120 Common Carrier Bureau 31. US West explains that it incurs more costs in provid ing 500 access than it does in providing 800 database service. This is because US West maintains its own switch- based translation tables and AIN database, while the 800 database is maintained by a national database management group. 121 US West also claims that comparisons between

108 Id. at 4, citing 500 Access Waiver Order at para. 30. rejected for reasons other than inadequate cost support. Id., 109 Southwestern Bell Opposition at 4. citing US West Communications, Inc., Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. 110 MCI December 22 Petition at 5-6. No. 5, 9 FCC Red 5228 (Com. Car. Bur. 1994). lit Id. at 7-8. 1211 MCI December 22 Petition at 8-9. 112 United Opposition at 1. 121 US West Opposition at 3-5. 113 Id. at 2. 122 Id. at 6-7. 114 Id. 123 Id. at 7-8. us Id. at 2-3. 124 Id. at 8-9. 116 Sprint December IP Petition at 8. 12 J Id. at 9. 117 Id. at 8-9. us MCI December 22 Petition at 5-6. Id. at 6. MCI notes that US West Transmittal No. 525 was

2225 DA 95-116 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red No. 5

APPENDIX A

Parties filing Petitions to Reject or Suspend and Invest!- gate 500 Access Tariffs

Petition Tariffs 1. MCI December 19 Ameritech 846; Pacific Bell Petition: 1764; and Southwestern Bell 2405 and 2408. 2. Sprint December 19 Ameritech 846; Pacific Bell Petition: 1764; Southwestern Bell 2405 and 2408; BellSouth 248; and US West 570. 3. MCI December 20 BellSouth 248. Petition: 4. MCI December 21 Cincinnati Bell 673. Petition: 5. MCI December 22 United 24 and US West 570. Petition: 6. MCI December 29 Bell Atlantic 725; Rochester 3; Petition: and SNET 636. 7. Sprint December 29 Bell Atlantic 725 and Petition: SNET 636. 8. MCI January 3 GTE Telephone Operating Petition: Companies 937 and GTE System Telephone Companies 131.

2226