Report No. CC95-1 COMMON CARRIER ACTION January 4, 1995 COMMISSION DENIES RECONSIDERATION OF ACCESS SUBELEMENTS FOR ONA The Commission has denied various petitions for reconsideration of it order revising the cost support standards applicable to new services as defined by the price cap rules. The Ameritec Operating companies, MCI Telecommunications corporation, and Williams Telecommunications Group, Inc., sought reconsideration of the order. In the Part 69 Open Network Architecture (ONA) Order, the Commission established a flexible, cost-based upper bound for prices of new services provided by local exchange carriers (LECs) pursuant to price cap regulation. New services are defined as those that expand the range of service options available to consumers. LECs introducing new services are required to show that they have used a consistent costing methodology for direct costs for all related services. The Commission allowed LECs to establish a methodology for determining overhead costs loaded onto new services. The Commission gave LECs an opportunity to recover a "risk premium" to provide incentives for the development of new and potentially risky services. Finally, the Commission required LECs to establish a methodology for determining overhead costs loaded onto new services, and to justify that it would evaluate the reasonableness of the overhead costs that are loaded on the direct cost of the new service. On Second Reconsideration, the Commission modified the new services test to encourage the introduction of services that are close substitutes for existing services. For new services that are lower priced substitutes for existing services, use of a uniform overhead loading factor could tend to lower revenues, creating a disincentive to introduce new services based on new technology. Also in the Second Reconsideration Order, the Commission specifically authorized the use of non-uniform loadings for new services to enable a LEC to break even in revenues. (over) -2- Seeking reconsideration of the revision, the petitioners contended that the revised new services test will permit carriers to charge unreasonably high new service rates, and that the Commission should include safeguards to protect against unreasonable discrimination in the provision of new services. The Commission stated that the new services test encourages the availability of less expensive services that offer improved quality. Also, the new services test requires examination of the carrier's direct costs for reasonableness and compels carriers to file direct cost factors in support of each rate element. Consequently, the Commission disagreed with petitioners that the new services cost support requirement s produced a rate that is unreasonable. The Commission, in adopting the new services text, did not intend to imply that the anti-discrimination provisions contained in Section 202(a) of the Communications Act would not apply to evaluating new service pricing. The Commission said the potential for unreasonable discrimination between a new service and an existing service remains if 1) the two services are "like" services; 2) the two services are priced differently; and, 3) there is no cost justification or other basis to support the discrimination. The Commission said that while it agreed with petitioners that new services may potentially raise discrimination. The Commission said that while it agreed with petitioners that new services may potentially raise discrimination concerns, it disagreed that the Second Reconsideration Order foreclosed its ability to examine discrimination issues. Action by the Commission December 23, 1994, by Memorandum Opinion and Order on Third Further Reconsideration (FCC 94-348), Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness, and Chong. -FCC- News Media contact: Patricia A. Chew at (202) 418-0500. Common Carrier Bureau contact: Steve Spaeth at (202) 418- 1530.