1919 - M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
ftp.fcc.gov
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).
| Report No. CC 97-48 | COMMON CARRIER ACTION | September 24, 1997 |
Commission Denies Classic Telephone, Inc.'s Petition for Enforcement Action Against Bogue and Hill City, Kansas
In its petition, Classic argued that the Cities failed to reconsider their denials of Classic's applications for franchises to provide local telecommunications service pursuant to the Commission's October 1, 1996 Classic Telephone Preemption Order. Accordingly, Classic asked the Commission to take enforcement action and provide other relief.
In the Classic Telephone Preemption Order, the Commission preempted the Cities' decisions denying Classic's franchise applications and stated that the Commission expected the Cities to reconsider Classic's franchise requests within 60 days. The Commission based its conclusion that the Cities' franchise denials violated section 253 of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, on the Cities' cited concerns regarding the ability of the service area to support two local service providers and the Cities' comparison of the relative merits of Classic and the other carrier.
In today's Order, the Commission noted that Classic originally applied to the Cities for franchises to provide intrastate telecommunications services soon after entering into an agreement to purchase the Hill City Exchange from the United Telephone Company. (The Hill City Exchange serves both of the Cities.) On February 7, 1997, however, Classic announced that it would not complete the purchase, citing its inability to obtain a local franchise. Classic further stated that it intends to provide telecommunications service to the Cities utilizing other strategies and facilities, for which it will need to obtain new franchises.
The Commission concluded that since Classic no longer proposes to provide service using the facilities described in its previously-filed franchise applications, it appears that approval of the original franchise applications would not constitute proper authority for Classic to provide service under an alternative plan. The Commission stated that under these circumstances, there would be little point to favorable action on Classic's previously-filed franchise applications. Thus, the Commission concluded that the action requested by Classic is unwarranted at this time.
The Commission made clear, however, its serious concern that unreasonable delays by local governments in acting on franchise applications can thwart local exchange competition in contravention of the Communications Act. More specifically, the Commission stated that in certain circumstances, a failure by a local government to process a franchise application in due course may "have the effect of prohibiting" the ability of the applicant to provide telecommunications service, in contravention of section 253 of the Communications Act. Accordingly, the Commission said that if the Cities fail to act on any new or revised franchise applications filed by Classic within a reasonable period of time, the Commission will consider whether to take further action pursuant to section 253 or other provisions of the Communications Act. Possible actions include, for example, preemption of the Cities' franchising requirements as they apply to Classic. The Commission stated that any decision would be based on the record before the Commission at that time. Action by the Commission September 23, 1997, by Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 97-335). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Ness, and Chong.
News media contact: Rochelle Cohen at (202) 418-0253.
Common Carrier Bureau contact: Andrea Kearney at (202) 418-1580.