$// Pacific Bell - Special Access Video Service DA 95-591 //$
$/ Section 0.291 Delegated Authority /$
TRANSMITTED FOR FCC RECORD ONLY  
$///DA 95-591 Record only 4-10-95///$
///newjob///
                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C.

                                                  
In the Matter of                             )                             DA 95- 591  
                                             )
Pacific Bell                                 )                     Transmittal No. 1779
Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 128   )              

                                   ORDER

               Adopted:  March 23, 1995;     Released:  March 24, 1995

By the Chief, Tariff Division, Common Carrier Bureau:

       1.      On February 21, 1995, Pacific Bell filed Transmittal No. 1779 to revise its
Tariff F.C.C. No. 128 to make certain in-band rate changes for its Special Access Video
Service.  Transmittal No. 1779 is scheduled to become effective on March 25, 1995.

       2.      On March 14, 1995, Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) filed a
petition to reject or suspend and investigate Transmittal No. 1779, to which Pacific Bell
replied on March 17, 1995.  Stanford contends that Pacific Bell's proposed tariff revisions
would increase its charge to Stanford by approximately 70 percent per month.  Stanford
Petition at 1.  Stanford asserts that such a rate increase is unjust and unreasonable because
Pacific Bell's cost of providing the service has not increased proportionally and is not cost-
justified.  Id. at 2.  Stanford further argues that Pacific Bell's proposed rate changes are
unreasonably discriminatory because they do not represent a fair and equitable allocation of
costs for the services provided.  Id.  Finally, Stanford contends that the notice of the rate
changes it received from Pacific Bell was defective because it did not contain the transmittal
number for the revised tariff filing.  Id.

       3.      Pacific Bell first states that Stanford's petition was late-filed and that Stanford
failed to deliver a copy of its petition to Pacific Bell.  Pacific Bell Reply at 1.  Pacific Bell
further argues that its proposed tariff revisions constitute a within-band, within-cap adjustment
to its Video Channel Mileage rates.  Id. at 2.  Pacific Bell asserts that it has provided the
necessary cost support with its tariff filing, including a revised Actual Price Index and Service
Band Index in accordance with Section 61.49(b) of the rules, 47 C.F.R.    61.49(b).  Id. 
Pacific Bell dismisses Stanford's claim that the proposed rate increases are unjust and
unreasonable, maintaining that its Video Service rates are based on study-area costs and thus
are fair and equitable.  Id. at 3.  

       4.      The Tariff Division has reviewed Pacific Bell's Transmittal No. 1779 and the
related pleadings.  We conclude that Pacific Bell's filing is not patently unlawful so as to
warrant rejection and that an investigation is not warranted at this time.

       5.      Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition to reject or suspend and
investigate Pacific Bell's revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 128, Transmittal No. 1779, filed by
Leland Stanford Junior University, IS DENIED.


                                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                                     Geraldine A. Matise
                                     Chief, Tariff Division
                                     Common Carrier Bureau