FCC Web Documents citing 61.46

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1026A1.txt
  • as its January 1, 2008, rates. See supra para. 14. Any local switching support (LSS) PRT, Consolidated, or Frontier may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if the carriers become more efficient, LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(b)(1)(iv). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(3); 61.47. See PRT Petition at 16-18; PRT March 27 Letter at 2; Consolidated Petition at 9; Consolidated April 1 Letter at 2; Frontier Petition at 7-8; Frontier April 1 Letter at 2. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.901; 54.801. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.901(a) (providing ICLS for rate-of-return carriers).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-854A1.txt
  • March 13 Ex Parte Letter at 3. ACS Petition at 5-6. Id. at 6. Any local switching support (LSS) ACS may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if ACS becomes more efficient, LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. Comments of AT&T, WC Docket No. 08-220 at 2-3 (filed Dec. 8, 2008) (AT&T Comments). ACS Reply at 3. As AT&T notes, the CALLS Order stated that ``A further modification of the CALLS Proposal submitted by CALLS and Valor Telecommunications Company proposes a third target rate of 0.95 cents for entirely rural price cap LECs.'' AT&T
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-855A1.txt
  • exclude its ICLS receipts from the PCI calculations since these receipts will have no effect on the PCI. This will also simplify the ICLS true-up process. See CenturyTel November 24 Ex Parte Letter at 2. CenturyTel November 24 Ex Parte Letter at 2. CenturyTel Petition at 5-6 n.12. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. See Windstream Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5302, para. 18; Combined Price Cap Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 7363, para. 21. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(b)(1)(iv). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(3); 61.47. See CenturyTel Petition at 7. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.901; 54.801. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.901(a) (providing ICLS for rate-of-return carriers). See Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-802A1.txt
  • also simplify the ICLS true-up process. See supra paras. 14-15. Any local switching support (LSS) VITELCO, FairPoint, and Windstream may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if the carriers become more efficient, LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(b)(1)(iv). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(3); 61.47. See VITELCO Petition at 1; FairPoint Petition at 1; Windstream Petition at 1. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.901; 54.801. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.901(a) (providing ICLS for rate-of-return carriers). See Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • service categories. Brief Description: The Part 61 rules are designed to implement the provisions of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. These rules govern the filing, form, content, public notice periods, and accompanying support materials for tariffs. Need: Section 61.46 was adopted to specify to carriers how, in connection with any price cap tariff filing proposing rate changes, the carrier must calculate its Actual Price Index (API) for each affected basket and what revenues and elements must be included in the calculation and appropriate methodologies to be used in making the required calculations. Section 61.47 was adopted to specify the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-966A1.txt
  • PCI. This will also simplify the ICLS true-up process. See supra para. 5. Any local switching support (LSS) that Lakedale may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if Lakedale becomes more efficient, LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46, 61.42(e)(1)-(2), 61.47. See Windstream Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5302, para. 18; Combined Price Cap Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 7363, para. 21. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(b)(1)(iv). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46, 61.42(e)(3), 61.47. See Windstream Petition at 1. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.901, 54.801. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.901(a) (providing ICLS for rate-of-return carriers). See Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.txt
  • demand growth, but declined to revise the common line formula at that time because we were contemplating eliminating the common line PCI formula completely, and because we did not wish to create unnecessary rate churn.137 To avoid unnecessary rate churn here, we decide to retain "g/2" while carriers continue to charge per-minute CCL charges. 110. We revise sections 61.45(c) and 61.46(d), which govern the common line PCI 134 at 13680. 135 10 FCC Red at 1368. 136 5 FCC Red at 6795. 137 10 FCC Red. at 9079-80. 16027 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-158 and API, respectively, to reflect our revisions to the common line rate structure in the common line PCI formula. First, we redesignate section 61.45(c) as 61.45(c)(l) and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-203308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-203308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-203308A1.txt
  • chapter'' Amend Appendix B, § 54.403(b) by replacing ``§ 69.104 or § 69.152(d) and (q)'' with ``§ 69.104 or §§ 69.152(d)(1) and 69.152(q) of this chapter'' and by replacing each time it appears ``End-User Common Line'' with ``End User Common Line'' Amend Appendix B, § 54.701(g); § 54.702(a); § 54.705(c)(1); Subpart I - Interstate Access Universal Service Support Mechanism; § 61.46(d); and § 61.48(l)(1)(i)(B), by replacing ``Subpart I'' with ``subpart J'' Amend Appendix B, § 54.701(g) and § 54.702(a) by replacing ``Part'' with ``part'' Amend Appendix B, § 54.705(a)(1) by redesignating subsections (A) through (K) as (i) through (xi) Amend Appendix B, § 54.705(a)(2) by redesignating subsection (A) through (E) as (i) through (v) Amend Appendix B, § 54.705(b)(1) by redesignating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 49.50 49.50 48.15 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 54.60 54.60 Mississippi Pascagoula 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 76.38 76.38 Missouri Kansas City 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 59.69 60.37 60.83 70.95 70.95 Missouri Mexico 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.41 58.96 59.49 67.09 67.09 Missouri St. Louis 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.46 62.13 62.59 71.21 71.21 Montana Butte 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 50.83 51.05 51.05 57.56 56.50 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 85.09 87.50 94.73 94.73 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single Business Line in the Sample Cities 1 (As
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 Mississippi Pascagoula 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 59.69 60.37 60.83 61.38 61.38 61.38 53.65 Missouri Mexico 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.41 58.96 59.49 59.45 59.45 59.45 53.34 Missouri St. Louis 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.46 62.13 62.59 61.51 61.51 61.51 53.41 Montana Butte 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 50.83 51.05 51.05 51.28 50.75 50.75 50.75 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 85.09 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 88.30 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.txt
  • maintain traffic flow, we question whether anything beyond minor customer inconvenience would develop. Moreover, the increased transaction costs of negotiation would likely be substantially offset by reduced regulatory and litigation costs associated with justifying tariffed rates. . See Intercarrier Compensation NPRM, FCC 01-132. We refer to this rate as the ``competing ILEC rate.'' Appendix B sets out the new rule 61.46 that we adopt to effectuate the benchmark for CLEC access rates. . . Moreover, CLEC commenters have not submitted, in this proceeding, any data to justify their rates. Rather, these commenters have relied upon generalized assertions that their rates are justified by higher costs. In the Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 769 (1968), the Court noted that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-164A1.txt
  • cap changed from $7.00 in the Original CALLS Proposal to $6.50 in the Modified Proposal, the CALLS members continued to use $7.00 for purposes of allocating IAS to each price cap LEC's service area to maintain consistency of benchmarks between primary and non-primary residential lines. Id. at 13043 n. 427. Id. at 13043-44, para. 196. Id. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46(d), 69.153. CALLS Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 13046-47, para. 202. Id. at 13046-47, para. 202. Id. at 13045, para. 200. The other members of the CALLS group did not join in the citation of this study. See Memorandum in Support of the Revised Plan of the Coalition for Affordable Local and Long Distance Service, CC Dockets 94-1, 96-45, 99-249, 96-262,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-84A1.txt
  • rates resulting in an API value equal to or less than the applicable PCI value, and where the rates are within applicable bands under rule section 61.47, the filing must be accompanied by support establishing compliance with the applicable bands, and sufficient to calculate the necessary adjustment to the affected APIs and Service Band Indexes (SBI) pursuant to rule sections 61.46 and 61.47. In this case, MTC is not required to show the effect on the SBI because there are no service bands in the fourth price cap basket, the basket containing the local exchange carrier's interexchange service. As reflected in the transmittal letter, MTC did recalculate the API, which was reduced significantly from 93.98 percent to 32.98 percent as a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-18A1.txt
  • critique, propose an alternative benchmark. Similarly, parties that critique data purporting to show substantial rate increases should explain in detail why the rate increases should not be considered substantial. See Kahn/Taylor Decl. at 15. See id. Price cap LECs should perform these API and SBI calculations for all special access services, categories, and subcategories in a manner consistent with sections 61.46 and 61.47 of our rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46, 61.47. Pricing Flexibility Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14297-98, para. 144. See id. See id., 14 FCC Rcd at 14263-64, paras. 79-80. The Commission did not address whether price cap LECs had enacted a substantial and sustained rate increase because the special access market was then regulated as a monopoly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-12A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-12A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-12A1.txt
  • our rules. The Commission further forbears from section 203 of the Act to the limited extent necessary to relieve Qwest of its section 61.31-.38 obligations with respect to in-region, interstate, interLATA services. The Commission does not forbear from the application of the other dominant carrier price cap, rate of return, and tariffing rules identified by Qwest (i.e., rules 61.41, 61.45, 61.46-.49, 61.58-.59, 65.1(b)(1), 65.1(b)(3), and 65.600) because the forbearance from sections 61.31-.38 of the rules obviates the need for Qwest to file tariffs for any in-region, interstate, interLATA telecommunications services it chooses to provide on an integrated basis, and because the Commission treats, and will continue to treat, the costs and revenues associated with Qwest's provision of in-region, interstate, interLATA telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • that deal with dominant carriers apply only to carriers classified as dominant based on their affiliations with foreign carriers. We therefore do not need to forbear from these rules for Qwest to operate as it proposes to operate. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.41 (general price cap requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 61.45 (adjustments to the price cap index); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46-.49 (specific price cap implementation rules); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.58-.59 (tariff notice requirements for price cap carriers); 47 C.F.R. § 65.1(b)(1) (application of rate of return prescription procedures and methodologies for interstate access services); 47 C.F.R. § 65.1(b)(3) (application of rate of return prescription procedures and methodologies for price cap carrier offering rate of return services); 47 C.F.R. § 65.600 (reporting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-81A1.txt
  • PCI. This will also simplify the ICLS true-up process. 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(qq). The local switching support (LSS) Windstream may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if Windstream becomes more efficient, its LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. Windstream Petition at 9; Windstream February 29 Letter at 3-4. Windstream acquired Windstream Concord subsequent to the filing of the waiver petition. It seeks similar treatment under the waiver request for the acquired company as it requested for its other cost company in the NECA pool. Windstream Petition at 9; Windstream February 29 Letter at 3-4.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.txt
  • as follows: § 61.43 Annual price cap filings required. Price cap local exchange carriers shall submit annual price cap tariff filings that propose rates for the upcoming tariff year, that make appropriate adjustments to their PCI, API, and SBI values pursuant to §§61.45 through 61.47, and that incorporate new services into the PCI, API, or SBI calculations pursuant to §§61.45(g), 61.46(b), and 61.47 (b) and (c). Price cap local exchange carriers may propose rate, PCI, or other tariff changes more often than annually, consistent with the requirements of §61.59. Section 61.45 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1)(i) introductory text, and (d)(2) to read as follows: § 61.45 Adjustments to the PCI for Local Exchange Carriers. (a) Price cap local exchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.txt
  • as follows: § 61.43 Annual price cap filings required. Price cap local exchange carriers shall submit annual price cap tariff filings that propose rates for the upcoming tariff year, that make appropriate adjustments to their PCI, API, and SBI values pursuant to §§61.45 through 61.47, and that incorporate new services into the PCI, API, or SBI calculations pursuant to §§61.45(g), 61.46(b), and 61.47 (b) and (c). Price cap local exchange carriers may propose rate, PCI, or other tariff changes more often than annually, consistent with the requirements of §61.59. Section 61.45 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1)(i) introductory text, and (d)(2) to read as follows: § 61.45 Adjustments to the PCI for Local Exchange Carriers. (a) Price cap local exchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-206A1.txt
  • 10 FCC Rcd 3030, 3042 (1994). As discussed in more detail below, the Commission subsequently eliminated the lower service band indices. See infra Section II.B. 25 The "actual price index" is a weighted index of the rates that a price cap carrier is charging, or proposes to charge, for the services in a particular basket. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.3(b), 61.46. 26 Access Reform NPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 21372, 21485. 27 The ability of a price cap LEC to raise rates for some services as a result of rate reductions for other services within the same basket or band is referred to as "headroom." 28 LEC Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6788 (1990) (LEC Price Cap Order); see
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • this chapter. * * * (w) Price Cap Index (PCI). An index of prices applying to each basket of services of each carrier subject to price cap regulation, and calculated pursuant to § 61.45. * * * (y) Price cap tariff. Any tariff filing involving a service subject to price cap regulation, or that requires calculations pursuant to §§ 61.45, 61.46, or 61.47. * * * 4. Insert before Section 61.18, "Subpart C - General Rules for Nondominant Carriers". 5. Insert new Section 61.18. § 61.18 Scope. The rules in this subpart apply to all nondominant carriers. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 14 6. Redesignate Sections 61.20 through 61.24 as Sections 61.19 through 61.23, and revise Section 61.19 as follows: §
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98106.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. § 69.152. A price cap LEC's MLB SLC may exceed its monthly per-line BFP revenue requirement forecast only to the extent necessary to recover certain marketing expenses. 47 C.F.R. § 69.156 (permitting price cap LECs to increase the MLB SLC and non-primary residential SLC above the monthly per-line BFP revenue requirement to recover marketing expenses). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46(d-e); 69.153. 78 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.45(c), 61.46(d). 79 1997 Annual Tariff Investigation Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3856. 80 Id. 81 22 A price cap LEC then sets its PICCs and its per-minute CCL charges to recover the difference between its anticipated SLC revenues and the total common line revenues permitted by its price cap.78 48. A price cap LEC
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.wp
  • 10 FCC Rcd 3030, 3042 (1994). As discussed in more detail below, the Commission subsequently eliminated the lower service band indices. See infra Section II.B. 25 The "actual price index" is a weighted index of the rates that a price cap carrier is charging, or proposes to charge, for the services in a particular basket. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.3(b), 61.46. 26 Access Reform NPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 21372, 21485. 27 The ability of a price cap LEC to raise rates for some services as a result of rate reductions for other services within the same basket or band is referred to as "headroom." 28 LEC Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6788 (1990) (LEC Price Cap Order); see
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.txt
  • pursuant to section 54.802, and thereafter on June 30th of each year. PART 61 - TARIFFS § 61.3 Definitions (a) Act. The Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1004; 47 U.S.C. chapter 5), as amended. (b) Actual Price Index (API). An index of the level of aggregate rate element rates in a basket, which index is calculated pursuant to § 61.46. (c) Association. This term has the meaning given it in § 69.2(d). (d) Average Price Cap CMT Revenue per Line month. Price Cap CMT Revenue (as defined in § 61.3(cc)) per month as of July 1, 2000 (adjusted to remove Universal Service Contributions assessed to Local Exchange Carriers pursuant to § 54.702 of this chapter) using 2000 annual filing base
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • maintain traffic flow, we question whether anything beyond minor customer inconvenience would develop. Moreover, the increased transaction costs of negotiation would likely be substantially offset by reduced regulatory and litigation costs associated with justifying tariffed rates. . See Intercarrier Compensation NPRM, FCC 01-132. We refer to this rate as the ``competing ILEC rate.'' Appendix B sets out the new rule 61.46 that we adopt to effectuate the benchmark for CLEC access rates. . . Moreover, CLEC commenters have not submitted, in this proceeding, any data to justify their rates. Rather, these commenters have relied upon generalized assertions that their rates are justified by higher costs. In the Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 769 (1968), the Court noted that
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • this chapter. * * * (w) Price Cap Index (PCI). An index of prices applying to each basket of services of each carrier subject to price cap regulation, and calculated pursuant to § 61.45. * * * (y) Price cap tariff. Any tariff filing involving a service subject to price cap regulation, or that requires calculations pursuant to §§ 61.45, 61.46, or 61.47. * * * 4. Insert before Section 61.18, "Subpart C - General Rules for Nondominant Carriers". 5. Insert new Section 61.18. § 61.18 Scope. The rules in this subpart apply to all nondominant carriers. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 14 6. Redesignate Sections 61.20 through 61.24 as Sections 61.19 through 61.23, and revise Section 61.19 as follows: §
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99235.doc
  • be recalculated on July 1, 2000, January 1, 2001 and thereafter as determined by the Administrator. § 61.3 Definitions (a) Act. The Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1004; 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5), as amended. (b) Actual Price Index (API). An index of the level of aggregate rate element rates in a basket, which index is calculated pursuant to § 61.46. (c) Association. This term has the meaning given it in § 69.2(d) (d) Average Price Cap CMT Revenue per Line Month. Price Cap CMT Revenue per Month as of December 31, 1999 (including the adjustments to be made pursuant to § 61.48(1)) using base period demand, divided by the base period demand number of lines as of December 31, 1999.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/err97158.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/err97158.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/err97158.wp
  • no sooner than June 15, 1997: 47 CFR 61.45, 61.47, 69.104, 69.126, 69.151, and 69.152. The following rules, or amendments thereto, shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register: 47 CFR 69.103, 69.107, 69.122, 69.303, and 69.304. The following rules, or amendments thereto, in this Report and Order shall be effective January 1, 1998: 47 CFR 61.3, 61.46, 69.1, 69.2, 69.105, 69.123, 69.124, 69.125, 69.154, 69.155, 69.157, 69.305, 69.306, 69.309, 69.401, 69.411, 69.502, and 69.611. The following rules, which impose new or modified information or collection requirements, shall become effective upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but no sooner than January 1, 1998: 47 CFR 61.42, 61.48, 69.4, 69.106, 69.111, 69.153, 69.156. Unless otherwise
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97403.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97403.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97403.wp
  • common line (EUCL) cap applicable to multiline business (MLB) lines from $6.00 to $9.00 monthly.9 Second, effective January 1, 1998, the Access Charge Reform Order requires recovery of common line costs from IXCs first through flat-rated primary interexchange carrier charges (PICCs), up to a designated cap, before permitting the LECs to Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-403 10 47 C.F.R. § 61.46(d)(2). 11 The sign test is the equivalent of calculating the probability that a someone using a fair coin would obtain six heads in six flips of the coin, or five heads in six flips, etc. The higher the number of heads (in excess of three) obtained in six flips, the less confidence one has that the coin is not tail-heavy.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98106.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98106.wp
  • 47 C.F.R. § 69.152. A price cap LEC's MLB SLC may exceed its monthly per-line BFP revenue requirement forecast only to the extent necessary to recover certain marketing expenses. 47 C.F.R. § 69.156 (permitting price cap LECs to increase the MLB SLC and non-primary residential SLC above the monthly per-line BFP revenue requirement to recover marketing expenses). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46(d-e); 69.153. 78 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.45(c), 61.46(d). 79 1997 Annual Tariff Investigation Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3856. 80 Id. 81 22 A price cap LEC then sets its PICCs and its per-minute CCL charges to recover the difference between its anticipated SLC revenues and the total common line revenues permitted by its price cap.78 48. A price cap LEC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992418.doc
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Petition of U S WEST Communications, Inc. ) CC Docket No. 97-149 for Waiver of Sections 61.45(d), 61.46(d) ) and 69.152 of the Commission's Rules ) CCB/CPD No. 98-7 ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 9, 1999 Released: November 9, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: 1. On December 1, 1997, the Commission released the 1997 Annual Access Tariff Refund Order, which found that several price cap local exchange carriers (LECs), including U S
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.wp
  • 10 FCC Rcd 3030, 3042 (1994). As discussed in more detail below, the Commission subsequently eliminated the lower service band indices. See infra Section II.B. 25 The "actual price index" is a weighted index of the rates that a price cap carrier is charging, or proposes to charge, for the services in a particular basket. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.3(b), 61.46. 26 Access Reform NPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 21372, 21485. 27 The ability of a price cap LEC to raise rates for some services as a result of rate reductions for other services within the same basket or band is referred to as "headroom." 28 LEC Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6788 (1990) (LEC Price Cap Order); see
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99397.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99397.txt
  • cap.'' It is the Actual Price Index and is a calculated weighted average of prices for all services that are subject to price caps. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.45. This is the ``cap'' in ``price cap.'' It is the Price Cap Index that normally establishes the upper limit above which a carrier cannot raise its API. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.46. 47 C.F.R. § 61.49(e). Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Second Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6786, 6823 (1990). In adopting the price cap rules, the Commission stated that, when above-cap rates are filed, a different and higher review standard will be applied than when the rates filed are within the cap. Access Charge Reform, Fifth Report
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.txt
  • pursuant to section 54.802, and thereafter on June 30th of each year. PART 61 - TARIFFS § 61.3 Definitions (a) Act. The Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1004; 47 U.S.C. chapter 5), as amended. (b) Actual Price Index (API). An index of the level of aggregate rate element rates in a basket, which index is calculated pursuant to § 61.46. (c) Association. This term has the meaning given it in § 69.2(d). (d) Average Price Cap CMT Revenue per Line month. Price Cap CMT Revenue (as defined in § 61.3(cc)) per month as of July 1, 2000 (adjusted to remove Universal Service Contributions assessed to Local Exchange Carriers pursuant to § 54.702 of this chapter) using 2000 annual filing base
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • maintain traffic flow, we question whether anything beyond minor customer inconvenience would develop. Moreover, the increased transaction costs of negotiation would likely be substantially offset by reduced regulatory and litigation costs associated with justifying tariffed rates. . See Intercarrier Compensation NPRM, FCC 01-132. We refer to this rate as the ``competing ILEC rate.'' Appendix B sets out the new rule 61.46 that we adopt to effectuate the benchmark for CLEC access rates. . . Moreover, CLEC commenters have not submitted, in this proceeding, any data to justify their rates. Rather, these commenters have relied upon generalized assertions that their rates are justified by higher costs. In the Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 769 (1968), the Court noted that
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • 51.25 51.25 51.25 Mississippi Pascagoula 76.90 77.58 77.58 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.55 70.55 70.55 70.55 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 60.87 59.69 Missouri Mexico 68.55 68.55 68.55 68.55 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.96 59.41 Missouri St. Louis 70.10 70.10 70.10 70.10 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.98 61.46 Montana Butte 64.40 64.40 64.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 69.96 69.96 71.94 49.05 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 51.02 51.02 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 New Mexico Alamogordo 74.20 64.61 64.72 64.72 57.46 57.47 57.29 57.29 57.29 57.29 57.47 57.47 New
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • Mississippi Pascagoula 76.90 77.58 77.58 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.55 70.55 70.55 70.55 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 60.87 59.69 66.37 Missouri Mexico 68.55 68.55 68.55 68.55 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.96 59.41 58.96 Missouri St. Louis 70.10 70.10 70.10 70.10 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.98 61.46 68.13 Montana Butte 64.40 64.40 64.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 69.96 69.96 71.94 49.05 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 51.02 50.83 51.05 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 80.75 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single Business Line in the Sample
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • 49.50 48.15 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 Mississippi Pascagoula 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.55 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 60.87 59.69 60.37 60.83 Missouri Mexico 68.55 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.96 59.41 58.96 59.49 Missouri St. Louis 70.10 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.98 61.46 62.13 62.59 Montana Butte 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 49.05 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 51.02 50.83 51.05 51.05 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 85.09 85.09 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single Business Line in the Sample Cities 1 (As of October
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 51.01 51.01 Minnesota Minneapolis 49.50 49.50 48.15 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 Mississippi Pascagoula 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 59.69 60.37 60.83 61.38 Missouri Mexico 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.41 58.96 59.49 59.45 Missouri St. Louis 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.46 62.13 62.59 62.56 Montana Butte 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 50.83 51.05 51.05 51.28 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 85.09 87.50 87.50 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single Business Line in the Sample Cities 1 (As of October 15) State
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1026A1.txt
  • as its January 1, 2008, rates. See supra para. 14. Any local switching support (LSS) PRT, Consolidated, or Frontier may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if the carriers become more efficient, LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(b)(1)(iv). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(3); 61.47. See PRT Petition at 16-18; PRT March 27 Letter at 2; Consolidated Petition at 9; Consolidated April 1 Letter at 2; Frontier Petition at 7-8; Frontier April 1 Letter at 2. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.901; 54.801. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.901(a) (providing ICLS for rate-of-return carriers).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-854A1.txt
  • March 13 Ex Parte Letter at 3. ACS Petition at 5-6. Id. at 6. Any local switching support (LSS) ACS may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if ACS becomes more efficient, LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. Comments of AT&T, WC Docket No. 08-220 at 2-3 (filed Dec. 8, 2008) (AT&T Comments). ACS Reply at 3. As AT&T notes, the CALLS Order stated that ``A further modification of the CALLS Proposal submitted by CALLS and Valor Telecommunications Company proposes a third target rate of 0.95 cents for entirely rural price cap LECs.'' AT&T
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-855A1.txt
  • exclude its ICLS receipts from the PCI calculations since these receipts will have no effect on the PCI. This will also simplify the ICLS true-up process. See CenturyTel November 24 Ex Parte Letter at 2. CenturyTel November 24 Ex Parte Letter at 2. CenturyTel Petition at 5-6 n.12. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. See Windstream Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5302, para. 18; Combined Price Cap Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 7363, para. 21. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(b)(1)(iv). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(3); 61.47. See CenturyTel Petition at 7. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.901; 54.801. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.901(a) (providing ICLS for rate-of-return carriers). See Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-802A1.txt
  • also simplify the ICLS true-up process. See supra paras. 14-15. Any local switching support (LSS) VITELCO, FairPoint, and Windstream may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if the carriers become more efficient, LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(b)(1)(iv). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(3); 61.47. See VITELCO Petition at 1; FairPoint Petition at 1; Windstream Petition at 1. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.901; 54.801. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.901(a) (providing ICLS for rate-of-return carriers). See Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • service categories. Brief Description: The Part 61 rules are designed to implement the provisions of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. These rules govern the filing, form, content, public notice periods, and accompanying support materials for tariffs. Need: Section 61.46 was adopted to specify to carriers how, in connection with any price cap tariff filing proposing rate changes, the carrier must calculate its Actual Price Index (API) for each affected basket and what revenues and elements must be included in the calculation and appropriate methodologies to be used in making the required calculations. Section 61.47 was adopted to specify the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-966A1.txt
  • PCI. This will also simplify the ICLS true-up process. See supra para. 5. Any local switching support (LSS) that Lakedale may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if Lakedale becomes more efficient, LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46, 61.42(e)(1)-(2), 61.47. See Windstream Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5302, para. 18; Combined Price Cap Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 7363, para. 21. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(b)(1)(iv). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46, 61.42(e)(3), 61.47. See Windstream Petition at 1. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.901, 54.801. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.901(a) (providing ICLS for rate-of-return carriers). See Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.txt
  • demand growth, but declined to revise the common line formula at that time because we were contemplating eliminating the common line PCI formula completely, and because we did not wish to create unnecessary rate churn.137 To avoid unnecessary rate churn here, we decide to retain "g/2" while carriers continue to charge per-minute CCL charges. 110. We revise sections 61.45(c) and 61.46(d), which govern the common line PCI 134 at 13680. 135 10 FCC Red at 1368. 136 5 FCC Red at 6795. 137 10 FCC Red. at 9079-80. 16027 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-158 and API, respectively, to reflect our revisions to the common line rate structure in the common line PCI formula. First, we redesignate section 61.45(c) as 61.45(c)(l) and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-203308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-203308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-203308A1.txt
  • chapter'' Amend Appendix B, § 54.403(b) by replacing ``§ 69.104 or § 69.152(d) and (q)'' with ``§ 69.104 or §§ 69.152(d)(1) and 69.152(q) of this chapter'' and by replacing each time it appears ``End-User Common Line'' with ``End User Common Line'' Amend Appendix B, § 54.701(g); § 54.702(a); § 54.705(c)(1); Subpart I - Interstate Access Universal Service Support Mechanism; § 61.46(d); and § 61.48(l)(1)(i)(B), by replacing ``Subpart I'' with ``subpart J'' Amend Appendix B, § 54.701(g) and § 54.702(a) by replacing ``Part'' with ``part'' Amend Appendix B, § 54.705(a)(1) by redesignating subsections (A) through (K) as (i) through (xi) Amend Appendix B, § 54.705(a)(2) by redesignating subsection (A) through (E) as (i) through (v) Amend Appendix B, § 54.705(b)(1) by redesignating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 49.50 49.50 48.15 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 54.60 54.60 Mississippi Pascagoula 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 76.38 76.38 Missouri Kansas City 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 59.69 60.37 60.83 70.95 70.95 Missouri Mexico 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.41 58.96 59.49 67.09 67.09 Missouri St. Louis 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.46 62.13 62.59 71.21 71.21 Montana Butte 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 50.83 51.05 51.05 57.56 56.50 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 85.09 87.50 94.73 94.73 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single Business Line in the Sample Cities 1 (As
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 Mississippi Pascagoula 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 59.69 60.37 60.83 61.38 61.38 61.38 53.65 Missouri Mexico 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.41 58.96 59.49 59.45 59.45 59.45 53.34 Missouri St. Louis 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.46 62.13 62.59 61.51 61.51 61.51 53.41 Montana Butte 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 50.83 51.05 51.05 51.28 50.75 50.75 50.75 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 85.09 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 88.30 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.txt
  • maintain traffic flow, we question whether anything beyond minor customer inconvenience would develop. Moreover, the increased transaction costs of negotiation would likely be substantially offset by reduced regulatory and litigation costs associated with justifying tariffed rates. . See Intercarrier Compensation NPRM, FCC 01-132. We refer to this rate as the ``competing ILEC rate.'' Appendix B sets out the new rule 61.46 that we adopt to effectuate the benchmark for CLEC access rates. . . Moreover, CLEC commenters have not submitted, in this proceeding, any data to justify their rates. Rather, these commenters have relied upon generalized assertions that their rates are justified by higher costs. In the Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 769 (1968), the Court noted that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-164A1.txt
  • cap changed from $7.00 in the Original CALLS Proposal to $6.50 in the Modified Proposal, the CALLS members continued to use $7.00 for purposes of allocating IAS to each price cap LEC's service area to maintain consistency of benchmarks between primary and non-primary residential lines. Id. at 13043 n. 427. Id. at 13043-44, para. 196. Id. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46(d), 69.153. CALLS Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 13046-47, para. 202. Id. at 13046-47, para. 202. Id. at 13045, para. 200. The other members of the CALLS group did not join in the citation of this study. See Memorandum in Support of the Revised Plan of the Coalition for Affordable Local and Long Distance Service, CC Dockets 94-1, 96-45, 99-249, 96-262,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-84A1.txt
  • rates resulting in an API value equal to or less than the applicable PCI value, and where the rates are within applicable bands under rule section 61.47, the filing must be accompanied by support establishing compliance with the applicable bands, and sufficient to calculate the necessary adjustment to the affected APIs and Service Band Indexes (SBI) pursuant to rule sections 61.46 and 61.47. In this case, MTC is not required to show the effect on the SBI because there are no service bands in the fourth price cap basket, the basket containing the local exchange carrier's interexchange service. As reflected in the transmittal letter, MTC did recalculate the API, which was reduced significantly from 93.98 percent to 32.98 percent as a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-18A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-18A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-18A1.txt
  • critique, propose an alternative benchmark. Similarly, parties that critique data purporting to show substantial rate increases should explain in detail why the rate increases should not be considered substantial. See Kahn/Taylor Decl. at 15. See id. Price cap LECs should perform these API and SBI calculations for all special access services, categories, and subcategories in a manner consistent with sections 61.46 and 61.47 of our rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46, 61.47. Pricing Flexibility Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14297-98, para. 144. See id. See id., 14 FCC Rcd at 14263-64, paras. 79-80. The Commission did not address whether price cap LECs had enacted a substantial and sustained rate increase because the special access market was then regulated as a monopoly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-12A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-12A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-12A1.txt
  • our rules. The Commission further forbears from section 203 of the Act to the limited extent necessary to relieve Qwest of its section 61.31-.38 obligations with respect to in-region, interstate, interLATA services. The Commission does not forbear from the application of the other dominant carrier price cap, rate of return, and tariffing rules identified by Qwest (i.e., rules 61.41, 61.45, 61.46-.49, 61.58-.59, 65.1(b)(1), 65.1(b)(3), and 65.600) because the forbearance from sections 61.31-.38 of the rules obviates the need for Qwest to file tariffs for any in-region, interstate, interLATA telecommunications services it chooses to provide on an integrated basis, and because the Commission treats, and will continue to treat, the costs and revenues associated with Qwest's provision of in-region, interstate, interLATA telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • that deal with dominant carriers apply only to carriers classified as dominant based on their affiliations with foreign carriers. We therefore do not need to forbear from these rules for Qwest to operate as it proposes to operate. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.41 (general price cap requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 61.45 (adjustments to the price cap index); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46-.49 (specific price cap implementation rules); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.58-.59 (tariff notice requirements for price cap carriers); 47 C.F.R. § 65.1(b)(1) (application of rate of return prescription procedures and methodologies for interstate access services); 47 C.F.R. § 65.1(b)(3) (application of rate of return prescription procedures and methodologies for price cap carrier offering rate of return services); 47 C.F.R. § 65.600 (reporting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-81A1.txt
  • PCI. This will also simplify the ICLS true-up process. 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(qq). The local switching support (LSS) Windstream may receive will be excluded from the PCI calculations, as is done by other price cap LECs. We note that if Windstream becomes more efficient, its LSS will decrease. See 47 C.F.R. § 69.156. 47 C.F.R. § 61.45(i). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46; 61.42(e)(1) and (2); 61.47. Windstream Petition at 9; Windstream February 29 Letter at 3-4. Windstream acquired Windstream Concord subsequent to the filing of the waiver petition. It seeks similar treatment under the waiver request for the acquired company as it requested for its other cost company in the NECA pool. Windstream Petition at 9; Windstream February 29 Letter at 3-4.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.txt
  • as follows: § 61.43 Annual price cap filings required. Price cap local exchange carriers shall submit annual price cap tariff filings that propose rates for the upcoming tariff year, that make appropriate adjustments to their PCI, API, and SBI values pursuant to §§61.45 through 61.47, and that incorporate new services into the PCI, API, or SBI calculations pursuant to §§61.45(g), 61.46(b), and 61.47 (b) and (c). Price cap local exchange carriers may propose rate, PCI, or other tariff changes more often than annually, consistent with the requirements of §61.59. Section 61.45 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1)(i) introductory text, and (d)(2) to read as follows: § 61.45 Adjustments to the PCI for Local Exchange Carriers. (a) Price cap local exchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.txt
  • as follows: § 61.43 Annual price cap filings required. Price cap local exchange carriers shall submit annual price cap tariff filings that propose rates for the upcoming tariff year, that make appropriate adjustments to their PCI, API, and SBI values pursuant to §§61.45 through 61.47, and that incorporate new services into the PCI, API, or SBI calculations pursuant to §§61.45(g), 61.46(b), and 61.47 (b) and (c). Price cap local exchange carriers may propose rate, PCI, or other tariff changes more often than annually, consistent with the requirements of §61.59. Section 61.45 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1)(i) introductory text, and (d)(2) to read as follows: § 61.45 Adjustments to the PCI for Local Exchange Carriers. (a) Price cap local exchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-206A1.txt
  • 10 FCC Rcd 3030, 3042 (1994). As discussed in more detail below, the Commission subsequently eliminated the lower service band indices. See infra Section II.B. 25 The "actual price index" is a weighted index of the rates that a price cap carrier is charging, or proposes to charge, for the services in a particular basket. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.3(b), 61.46. 26 Access Reform NPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 21372, 21485. 27 The ability of a price cap LEC to raise rates for some services as a result of rate reductions for other services within the same basket or band is referred to as "headroom." 28 LEC Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6788 (1990) (LEC Price Cap Order); see
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • this chapter. * * * (w) Price Cap Index (PCI). An index of prices applying to each basket of services of each carrier subject to price cap regulation, and calculated pursuant to § 61.45. * * * (y) Price cap tariff. Any tariff filing involving a service subject to price cap regulation, or that requires calculations pursuant to §§ 61.45, 61.46, or 61.47. * * * 4. Insert before Section 61.18, "Subpart C - General Rules for Nondominant Carriers". 5. Insert new Section 61.18. § 61.18 Scope. The rules in this subpart apply to all nondominant carriers. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 14 6. Redesignate Sections 61.20 through 61.24 as Sections 61.19 through 61.23, and revise Section 61.19 as follows: §
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98106.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. § 69.152. A price cap LEC's MLB SLC may exceed its monthly per-line BFP revenue requirement forecast only to the extent necessary to recover certain marketing expenses. 47 C.F.R. § 69.156 (permitting price cap LECs to increase the MLB SLC and non-primary residential SLC above the monthly per-line BFP revenue requirement to recover marketing expenses). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46(d-e); 69.153. 78 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.45(c), 61.46(d). 79 1997 Annual Tariff Investigation Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3856. 80 Id. 81 22 A price cap LEC then sets its PICCs and its per-minute CCL charges to recover the difference between its anticipated SLC revenues and the total common line revenues permitted by its price cap.78 48. A price cap LEC
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.wp
  • 10 FCC Rcd 3030, 3042 (1994). As discussed in more detail below, the Commission subsequently eliminated the lower service band indices. See infra Section II.B. 25 The "actual price index" is a weighted index of the rates that a price cap carrier is charging, or proposes to charge, for the services in a particular basket. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.3(b), 61.46. 26 Access Reform NPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 21372, 21485. 27 The ability of a price cap LEC to raise rates for some services as a result of rate reductions for other services within the same basket or band is referred to as "headroom." 28 LEC Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6788 (1990) (LEC Price Cap Order); see
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.txt
  • pursuant to section 54.802, and thereafter on June 30th of each year. PART 61 - TARIFFS § 61.3 Definitions (a) Act. The Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1004; 47 U.S.C. chapter 5), as amended. (b) Actual Price Index (API). An index of the level of aggregate rate element rates in a basket, which index is calculated pursuant to § 61.46. (c) Association. This term has the meaning given it in § 69.2(d). (d) Average Price Cap CMT Revenue per Line month. Price Cap CMT Revenue (as defined in § 61.3(cc)) per month as of July 1, 2000 (adjusted to remove Universal Service Contributions assessed to Local Exchange Carriers pursuant to § 54.702 of this chapter) using 2000 annual filing base
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • maintain traffic flow, we question whether anything beyond minor customer inconvenience would develop. Moreover, the increased transaction costs of negotiation would likely be substantially offset by reduced regulatory and litigation costs associated with justifying tariffed rates. . See Intercarrier Compensation NPRM, FCC 01-132. We refer to this rate as the ``competing ILEC rate.'' Appendix B sets out the new rule 61.46 that we adopt to effectuate the benchmark for CLEC access rates. . . Moreover, CLEC commenters have not submitted, in this proceeding, any data to justify their rates. Rather, these commenters have relied upon generalized assertions that their rates are justified by higher costs. In the Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 769 (1968), the Court noted that
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • this chapter. * * * (w) Price Cap Index (PCI). An index of prices applying to each basket of services of each carrier subject to price cap regulation, and calculated pursuant to § 61.45. * * * (y) Price cap tariff. Any tariff filing involving a service subject to price cap regulation, or that requires calculations pursuant to §§ 61.45, 61.46, or 61.47. * * * 4. Insert before Section 61.18, "Subpart C - General Rules for Nondominant Carriers". 5. Insert new Section 61.18. § 61.18 Scope. The rules in this subpart apply to all nondominant carriers. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 14 6. Redesignate Sections 61.20 through 61.24 as Sections 61.19 through 61.23, and revise Section 61.19 as follows: §
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99235.doc
  • be recalculated on July 1, 2000, January 1, 2001 and thereafter as determined by the Administrator. § 61.3 Definitions (a) Act. The Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1004; 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5), as amended. (b) Actual Price Index (API). An index of the level of aggregate rate element rates in a basket, which index is calculated pursuant to § 61.46. (c) Association. This term has the meaning given it in § 69.2(d) (d) Average Price Cap CMT Revenue per Line Month. Price Cap CMT Revenue per Month as of December 31, 1999 (including the adjustments to be made pursuant to § 61.48(1)) using base period demand, divided by the base period demand number of lines as of December 31, 1999.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/err97158.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/err97158.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/err97158.wp
  • no sooner than June 15, 1997: 47 CFR 61.45, 61.47, 69.104, 69.126, 69.151, and 69.152. The following rules, or amendments thereto, shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register: 47 CFR 69.103, 69.107, 69.122, 69.303, and 69.304. The following rules, or amendments thereto, in this Report and Order shall be effective January 1, 1998: 47 CFR 61.3, 61.46, 69.1, 69.2, 69.105, 69.123, 69.124, 69.125, 69.154, 69.155, 69.157, 69.305, 69.306, 69.309, 69.401, 69.411, 69.502, and 69.611. The following rules, which impose new or modified information or collection requirements, shall become effective upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but no sooner than January 1, 1998: 47 CFR 61.42, 61.48, 69.4, 69.106, 69.111, 69.153, 69.156. Unless otherwise
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97403.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97403.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97403.wp
  • common line (EUCL) cap applicable to multiline business (MLB) lines from $6.00 to $9.00 monthly.9 Second, effective January 1, 1998, the Access Charge Reform Order requires recovery of common line costs from IXCs first through flat-rated primary interexchange carrier charges (PICCs), up to a designated cap, before permitting the LECs to Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-403 10 47 C.F.R. § 61.46(d)(2). 11 The sign test is the equivalent of calculating the probability that a someone using a fair coin would obtain six heads in six flips of the coin, or five heads in six flips, etc. The higher the number of heads (in excess of three) obtained in six flips, the less confidence one has that the coin is not tail-heavy.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98106.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98106.wp
  • 47 C.F.R. § 69.152. A price cap LEC's MLB SLC may exceed its monthly per-line BFP revenue requirement forecast only to the extent necessary to recover certain marketing expenses. 47 C.F.R. § 69.156 (permitting price cap LECs to increase the MLB SLC and non-primary residential SLC above the monthly per-line BFP revenue requirement to recover marketing expenses). 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.46(d-e); 69.153. 78 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.45(c), 61.46(d). 79 1997 Annual Tariff Investigation Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3856. 80 Id. 81 22 A price cap LEC then sets its PICCs and its per-minute CCL charges to recover the difference between its anticipated SLC revenues and the total common line revenues permitted by its price cap.78 48. A price cap LEC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992418.doc
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Petition of U S WEST Communications, Inc. ) CC Docket No. 97-149 for Waiver of Sections 61.45(d), 61.46(d) ) and 69.152 of the Commission's Rules ) CCB/CPD No. 98-7 ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 9, 1999 Released: November 9, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: 1. On December 1, 1997, the Commission released the 1997 Annual Access Tariff Refund Order, which found that several price cap local exchange carriers (LECs), including U S
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.wp
  • 10 FCC Rcd 3030, 3042 (1994). As discussed in more detail below, the Commission subsequently eliminated the lower service band indices. See infra Section II.B. 25 The "actual price index" is a weighted index of the rates that a price cap carrier is charging, or proposes to charge, for the services in a particular basket. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.3(b), 61.46. 26 Access Reform NPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 21372, 21485. 27 The ability of a price cap LEC to raise rates for some services as a result of rate reductions for other services within the same basket or band is referred to as "headroom." 28 LEC Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6788 (1990) (LEC Price Cap Order); see
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99397.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99397.txt
  • cap.'' It is the Actual Price Index and is a calculated weighted average of prices for all services that are subject to price caps. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.45. This is the ``cap'' in ``price cap.'' It is the Price Cap Index that normally establishes the upper limit above which a carrier cannot raise its API. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.46. 47 C.F.R. § 61.49(e). Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Second Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6786, 6823 (1990). In adopting the price cap rules, the Commission stated that, when above-cap rates are filed, a different and higher review standard will be applied than when the rates filed are within the cap. Access Charge Reform, Fifth Report
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00193.txt
  • pursuant to section 54.802, and thereafter on June 30th of each year. PART 61 - TARIFFS § 61.3 Definitions (a) Act. The Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1004; 47 U.S.C. chapter 5), as amended. (b) Actual Price Index (API). An index of the level of aggregate rate element rates in a basket, which index is calculated pursuant to § 61.46. (c) Association. This term has the meaning given it in § 69.2(d). (d) Average Price Cap CMT Revenue per Line month. Price Cap CMT Revenue (as defined in § 61.3(cc)) per month as of July 1, 2000 (adjusted to remove Universal Service Contributions assessed to Local Exchange Carriers pursuant to § 54.702 of this chapter) using 2000 annual filing base
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • maintain traffic flow, we question whether anything beyond minor customer inconvenience would develop. Moreover, the increased transaction costs of negotiation would likely be substantially offset by reduced regulatory and litigation costs associated with justifying tariffed rates. . See Intercarrier Compensation NPRM, FCC 01-132. We refer to this rate as the ``competing ILEC rate.'' Appendix B sets out the new rule 61.46 that we adopt to effectuate the benchmark for CLEC access rates. . . Moreover, CLEC commenters have not submitted, in this proceeding, any data to justify their rates. Rather, these commenters have relied upon generalized assertions that their rates are justified by higher costs. In the Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 769 (1968), the Court noted that
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • 51.25 51.25 51.25 Mississippi Pascagoula 76.90 77.58 77.58 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.55 70.55 70.55 70.55 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 60.87 59.69 Missouri Mexico 68.55 68.55 68.55 68.55 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.96 59.41 Missouri St. Louis 70.10 70.10 70.10 70.10 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.98 61.46 Montana Butte 64.40 64.40 64.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 69.96 69.96 71.94 49.05 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 51.02 51.02 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 New Mexico Alamogordo 74.20 64.61 64.72 64.72 57.46 57.47 57.29 57.29 57.29 57.29 57.47 57.47 New
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • Mississippi Pascagoula 76.90 77.58 77.58 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.55 70.55 70.55 70.55 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 60.87 59.69 66.37 Missouri Mexico 68.55 68.55 68.55 68.55 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.96 59.41 58.96 Missouri St. Louis 70.10 70.10 70.10 70.10 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.98 61.46 68.13 Montana Butte 64.40 64.40 64.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 69.96 69.96 71.94 49.05 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 51.02 50.83 51.05 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 80.75 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single Business Line in the Sample
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • 49.50 48.15 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 Mississippi Pascagoula 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.55 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 60.87 59.69 60.37 60.83 Missouri Mexico 68.55 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.96 59.41 58.96 59.49 Missouri St. Louis 70.10 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.98 61.46 62.13 62.59 Montana Butte 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 49.05 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 51.02 50.83 51.05 51.05 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 85.09 85.09 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single Business Line in the Sample Cities 1 (As of October
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 51.01 51.01 Minnesota Minneapolis 49.50 49.50 48.15 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 Mississippi Pascagoula 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 71.69 Missouri Kansas City 70.78 61.44 61.44 61.50 61.63 61.13 59.69 60.37 60.83 61.38 Missouri Mexico 68.55 59.70 59.70 59.96 60.80 59.96 59.41 58.96 59.49 59.45 Missouri St. Louis 70.78 61.63 61.63 61.63 59.96 61.98 61.46 62.13 62.59 62.56 Montana Butte 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.40 61.25 61.25 61.25 61.25 Nebraska Grand Island 49.05 49.05 49.13 49.13 49.13 51.02 50.83 51.05 51.05 51.28 New Jersey Phillipsburg 79.50 79.50 80.27 80.27 80.27 80.27 85.09 85.09 87.50 87.50 Table 1.12 Connection Charges for a Single Business Line in the Sample Cities 1 (As of October 15) State