FCC Web Documents citing 65.702

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-804A1.txt
  • is filed. USTA further states that services that are excluded from price cap regulation should not be subject to the prescribed rate of return. In addition, USTA claims that the Commission should modify section 65.700 to calculate the maximum allowable rate of return on all access elements in the aggregate instead of for each access category, and should modify section 65.702 to measure earnings on an overall interstate basis instead of separately for each category. NECA states that Class B carriers have the option of using a standard allowance method for calculating the cash working capital (CWC) element of the interstate rate base. NECA contends that the full lead-lag method for calculating CWC creates a heavy administrative burden for carriers. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.txt
  • previous biennial review. Comments USTA asserts that services that are excluded from price cap regulation should not be subject to the prescribed rate of return. USTA further states that the Commission should modify section 65.700 to calculate the maximum allowable rate of return on all access elements in the aggregate instead of for each access category, and should modify section 65.702 to measure earnings on an overall interstate basis instead of separately for each category. Recommendation WCB staff finds the rules in Part 65 are necessary in the public interest and therefore recommends no changes at this time. Part 65 rules are necessary to protect consumers from excessive rates and to enable incumbent LECs to calculate payments to and disbursements from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.txt
  • costs assigned to the common line access element by our Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation rules. For each price cap basket, the rates allowed are determined based on price cap formulas, without reference to interstate allocation of costs. We measure the earnings of price cap carriers by comparing revenues to interstate allocated costs. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.45(c), 65.702, & 69.104. The data indicate that only two study areas served by price cap LECs, (Bell Atlantic in the District of Columbia, and GTE in Minnesota) have interstate-allocated common line costs that are less than the current $3.50 SLC. These two study areas represent less than two percent of subscriber lines nationwide. See Supporting Material filed with 1996 Annual Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-448A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-448A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-448A5.txt
  • from imposing minimum monthly charges on their residential customers. Providers of interstate interexchange telecommunications services in rural and high-cost areas of the United States must pass through to long distance customers the savings that IXCs realize from lower access rates charged by Path A LECs and Path B LECs. PART 65 Subpart F - Maximum Allowable Rates of Return Section 65.702(b) is amended by inserting the phrase ``pool or pools'' in place of the word ``pools''. PART 69 Subpart A - General Section 69.2 is amended by inserting the following definitions alphabetically and renumbering existing definitions: §69.2 * * * * * Non-price cap LEC. This term means the same as in §61.3. Path A incentive study area. This term means
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.txt
  • initiated a proceeding to represcribe the rate of return. This proceeding has not yet been completed. Initial Recommendation The staff does not recommend changes in the Part 65 rules at this time. Comments USTA maintains that Part 65 reporting requirements should be eliminated, except when a lower formula adjustment is filed. USTA also states that the Commission should modify Section 65.702 to measure earnings on an overall interstate basis. USTA further proposes that the Commission modify section 65.700 to calculate the maximum allowable rate of return on all access elements in the aggregate instead of for each access category. GSA notes that the Common Carrier Bureau initiated a proceeding to represcribe the interstate rate of return in October 1998. GSA recommends
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-32A1.txt
  • See ATU Reply Br. at 12, n.11 (``the 1997 and January 1998 Tariffs treated ISP traffic as intrastate and counted intraoffice calls as two DEMs and the July 1998 Tariff treated ISP traffic as interstate and counted intraoffice calls as one DEM''). Complaint at Exhibit 5. Rate-of-return carriers must compute their returns for several access service categories. 47 C.F.R. § 65.702(a). The switched traffic sensitive category, which includes services provided by local exchange carriers to their access customers, such as line termination and local switching, is the category affected by ATU's allocation of ISP traffic costs and counting of DEMs for intraoffice calls. Complaint at Exhibit 5. Joint Statement at ¶ 14. See Rate-of-Return Prescription Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7532,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.txt
  • reasonableness of a tariffed rate in the context of a section 208 complaint proceeding. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 12312, 12317-20, ¶¶ 9-12 (2001). We must assess the lawfulness of Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994 in combination with Beehive's rates and earnings in 1993. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 65.600(b), 65.702(b). See also Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. v. FCC, 989 F.2d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Here, we conclude that Beehive's rates in 1994 were unlawful based, in part, on an assumption that Beehive did not materially underearn in 1993. This assumption is reasonable, because Beehive knew that AT&T was urging us to consider information regarding Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.txt
  • accounting techniques in a tariff filing, thereby concealing potential rate-of-return violations.'' ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, 290 F.3d 403, 413 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The carrier would also be subject to sanctions for violating the Commission's tariffing rules. 47 C.F.R. § 65.700. An exchange carrier's interstate earnings are measured in accordance with the requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 65.702. See, e.g., Verizon Access Stimulation Comments at 13, 18 (25 percent increase in traffic compared to the same quarter of the prior year); Qwest Access Stimulation Comments at 20-22 (100 percent increase in traffic compared to average monthly historical volume figures). See, e.g., Sprint Access Stimulation Comments at 13-14; Qwest Access Stimulation Comments at 20-22. See, e.g., Verizon Access Stimulation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • Section XV Comments at 35 (opposing requiring a competitive LEC to use section 61.38). USF/ICC Transformation NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 4768, para. 666. The carrier would also be subject to sanctions for violating the Commission's tariffing rules. 47 C.F.R. § 65.700. An exchange carrier's interstate earnings are measured in accordance with the requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 65.702. USF/ICC Transformation NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 4768, para. 666. See, e.g., Level 3 Section XV Comments at 4. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01032.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01032.html
  • See ATU Reply Br. at 12, n.11 (``the 1997 and January 1998 Tariffs treated ISP traffic as intrastate and counted intraoffice calls as two DEMs and the July 1998 Tariff treated ISP traffic as interstate and counted intraoffice calls as one DEM''). Complaint at Exhibit 5. Rate-of-return carriers must compute their returns for several access service categories. 47 C.F.R. § 65.702(a). The switched traffic sensitive category, which includes services provided by local exchange carriers to their access customers, such as line termination and local switching, is the category affected by ATU's allocation of ISP traffic costs and counting of DEMs for intraoffice calls. Complaint at Exhibit 5. Joint Statement at ¶ 14. See Rate-of-Return Prescription Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7532,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • the reasonableness of a tariffed rate in the context of a section 208 complaint proceeding. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 12312, 12317-20, 9-12 (2001). 93 We must assess the lawfulness of Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994 in combination with Beehive's rates and earnings in 1993. See 47 C.F.R. 65.600(b), 65.702(b). See also Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. v. FCC, 989 F.2d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Here, we conclude that Beehive's rates in 1994 were unlawful based, in part, on an assumption that Beehive did not materially underearn in 1993. This assumption is reasonable, because Beehive knew that AT&T was urging us to consider information regarding Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01032.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01032.html
  • See ATU Reply Br. at 12, n.11 (``the 1997 and January 1998 Tariffs treated ISP traffic as intrastate and counted intraoffice calls as two DEMs and the July 1998 Tariff treated ISP traffic as interstate and counted intraoffice calls as one DEM''). Complaint at Exhibit 5. Rate-of-return carriers must compute their returns for several access service categories. 47 C.F.R. § 65.702(a). The switched traffic sensitive category, which includes services provided by local exchange carriers to their access customers, such as line termination and local switching, is the category affected by ATU's allocation of ISP traffic costs and counting of DEMs for intraoffice calls. Complaint at Exhibit 5. Joint Statement at ¶ 14. See Rate-of-Return Prescription Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7532,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • the reasonableness of a tariffed rate in the context of a section 208 complaint proceeding. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 12312, 12317-20, 9-12 (2001). 93 We must assess the lawfulness of Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994 in combination with Beehive's rates and earnings in 1993. See 47 C.F.R. 65.600(b), 65.702(b). See also Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. v. FCC, 989 F.2d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Here, we conclude that Beehive's rates in 1994 were unlawful based, in part, on an assumption that Beehive did not materially underearn in 1993. This assumption is reasonable, because Beehive knew that AT&T was urging us to consider information regarding Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-804A1.txt
  • is filed. USTA further states that services that are excluded from price cap regulation should not be subject to the prescribed rate of return. In addition, USTA claims that the Commission should modify section 65.700 to calculate the maximum allowable rate of return on all access elements in the aggregate instead of for each access category, and should modify section 65.702 to measure earnings on an overall interstate basis instead of separately for each category. NECA states that Class B carriers have the option of using a standard allowance method for calculating the cash working capital (CWC) element of the interstate rate base. NECA contends that the full lead-lag method for calculating CWC creates a heavy administrative burden for carriers. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-21A1.txt
  • previous biennial review. Comments USTA asserts that services that are excluded from price cap regulation should not be subject to the prescribed rate of return. USTA further states that the Commission should modify section 65.700 to calculate the maximum allowable rate of return on all access elements in the aggregate instead of for each access category, and should modify section 65.702 to measure earnings on an overall interstate basis instead of separately for each category. Recommendation WCB staff finds the rules in Part 65 are necessary in the public interest and therefore recommends no changes at this time. Part 65 rules are necessary to protect consumers from excessive rates and to enable incumbent LECs to calculate payments to and disbursements from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.txt
  • costs assigned to the common line access element by our Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation rules. For each price cap basket, the rates allowed are determined based on price cap formulas, without reference to interstate allocation of costs. We measure the earnings of price cap carriers by comparing revenues to interstate allocated costs. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.45(c), 65.702, & 69.104. The data indicate that only two study areas served by price cap LECs, (Bell Atlantic in the District of Columbia, and GTE in Minnesota) have interstate-allocated common line costs that are less than the current $3.50 SLC. These two study areas represent less than two percent of subscriber lines nationwide. See Supporting Material filed with 1996 Annual Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-448A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-448A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-448A5.txt
  • from imposing minimum monthly charges on their residential customers. Providers of interstate interexchange telecommunications services in rural and high-cost areas of the United States must pass through to long distance customers the savings that IXCs realize from lower access rates charged by Path A LECs and Path B LECs. PART 65 Subpart F - Maximum Allowable Rates of Return Section 65.702(b) is amended by inserting the phrase ``pool or pools'' in place of the word ``pools''. PART 69 Subpart A - General Section 69.2 is amended by inserting the following definitions alphabetically and renumbering existing definitions: §69.2 * * * * * Non-price cap LEC. This term means the same as in §61.3. Path A incentive study area. This term means
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.txt
  • initiated a proceeding to represcribe the rate of return. This proceeding has not yet been completed. Initial Recommendation The staff does not recommend changes in the Part 65 rules at this time. Comments USTA maintains that Part 65 reporting requirements should be eliminated, except when a lower formula adjustment is filed. USTA also states that the Commission should modify Section 65.702 to measure earnings on an overall interstate basis. USTA further proposes that the Commission modify section 65.700 to calculate the maximum allowable rate of return on all access elements in the aggregate instead of for each access category. GSA notes that the Common Carrier Bureau initiated a proceeding to represcribe the interstate rate of return in October 1998. GSA recommends
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-32A1.txt
  • See ATU Reply Br. at 12, n.11 (``the 1997 and January 1998 Tariffs treated ISP traffic as intrastate and counted intraoffice calls as two DEMs and the July 1998 Tariff treated ISP traffic as interstate and counted intraoffice calls as one DEM''). Complaint at Exhibit 5. Rate-of-return carriers must compute their returns for several access service categories. 47 C.F.R. § 65.702(a). The switched traffic sensitive category, which includes services provided by local exchange carriers to their access customers, such as line termination and local switching, is the category affected by ATU's allocation of ISP traffic costs and counting of DEMs for intraoffice calls. Complaint at Exhibit 5. Joint Statement at ¶ 14. See Rate-of-Return Prescription Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7532,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-186A1.txt
  • reasonableness of a tariffed rate in the context of a section 208 complaint proceeding. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 12312, 12317-20, ¶¶ 9-12 (2001). We must assess the lawfulness of Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994 in combination with Beehive's rates and earnings in 1993. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 65.600(b), 65.702(b). See also Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. v. FCC, 989 F.2d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Here, we conclude that Beehive's rates in 1994 were unlawful based, in part, on an assumption that Beehive did not materially underearn in 1993. This assumption is reasonable, because Beehive knew that AT&T was urging us to consider information regarding Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.txt
  • accounting techniques in a tariff filing, thereby concealing potential rate-of-return violations.'' ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, 290 F.3d 403, 413 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The carrier would also be subject to sanctions for violating the Commission's tariffing rules. 47 C.F.R. § 65.700. An exchange carrier's interstate earnings are measured in accordance with the requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 65.702. See, e.g., Verizon Access Stimulation Comments at 13, 18 (25 percent increase in traffic compared to the same quarter of the prior year); Qwest Access Stimulation Comments at 20-22 (100 percent increase in traffic compared to average monthly historical volume figures). See, e.g., Sprint Access Stimulation Comments at 13-14; Qwest Access Stimulation Comments at 20-22. See, e.g., Verizon Access Stimulation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • Section XV Comments at 35 (opposing requiring a competitive LEC to use section 61.38). USF/ICC Transformation NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 4768, para. 666. The carrier would also be subject to sanctions for violating the Commission's tariffing rules. 47 C.F.R. § 65.700. An exchange carrier's interstate earnings are measured in accordance with the requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 65.702. USF/ICC Transformation NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 4768, para. 666. See, e.g., Level 3 Section XV Comments at 4. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01032.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01032.html
  • See ATU Reply Br. at 12, n.11 (``the 1997 and January 1998 Tariffs treated ISP traffic as intrastate and counted intraoffice calls as two DEMs and the July 1998 Tariff treated ISP traffic as interstate and counted intraoffice calls as one DEM''). Complaint at Exhibit 5. Rate-of-return carriers must compute their returns for several access service categories. 47 C.F.R. § 65.702(a). The switched traffic sensitive category, which includes services provided by local exchange carriers to their access customers, such as line termination and local switching, is the category affected by ATU's allocation of ISP traffic costs and counting of DEMs for intraoffice calls. Complaint at Exhibit 5. Joint Statement at ¶ 14. See Rate-of-Return Prescription Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7532,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • the reasonableness of a tariffed rate in the context of a section 208 complaint proceeding. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 12312, 12317-20, 9-12 (2001). 93 We must assess the lawfulness of Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994 in combination with Beehive's rates and earnings in 1993. See 47 C.F.R. 65.600(b), 65.702(b). See also Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. v. FCC, 989 F.2d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Here, we conclude that Beehive's rates in 1994 were unlawful based, in part, on an assumption that Beehive did not materially underearn in 1993. This assumption is reasonable, because Beehive knew that AT&T was urging us to consider information regarding Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01032.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01032.html
  • See ATU Reply Br. at 12, n.11 (``the 1997 and January 1998 Tariffs treated ISP traffic as intrastate and counted intraoffice calls as two DEMs and the July 1998 Tariff treated ISP traffic as interstate and counted intraoffice calls as one DEM''). Complaint at Exhibit 5. Rate-of-return carriers must compute their returns for several access service categories. 47 C.F.R. § 65.702(a). The switched traffic sensitive category, which includes services provided by local exchange carriers to their access customers, such as line termination and local switching, is the category affected by ATU's allocation of ISP traffic costs and counting of DEMs for intraoffice calls. Complaint at Exhibit 5. Joint Statement at ¶ 14. See Rate-of-Return Prescription Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7532,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-186A1.html
  • the reasonableness of a tariffed rate in the context of a section 208 complaint proceeding. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Business Telecom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 12312, 12317-20, 9-12 (2001). 93 We must assess the lawfulness of Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994 in combination with Beehive's rates and earnings in 1993. See 47 C.F.R. 65.600(b), 65.702(b). See also Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. v. FCC, 989 F.2d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Here, we conclude that Beehive's rates in 1994 were unlawful based, in part, on an assumption that Beehive did not materially underearn in 1993. This assumption is reasonable, because Beehive knew that AT&T was urging us to consider information regarding Beehive's rates and earnings in 1994,