******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 97- 554 In the Matter of ) ) Investigation of Alascom, Inc., ) CC Docket No. 95-182 Interstate Transport and Switching Services ) ) Alascom, Inc. ) Transmittal No. 852 Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 11 ) ORDER Adopted: March 14, 1997; Released: March 14, 1997 By the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On November 15, 1996, Alascom, Inc. (Alascom), filed Transmittal No. 852 to revise its Tariff F.C.C. No. 11 for its common carrier interexchange services provided in Alaska (Alaska Services). These tariff revisions are scheduled to become effective March 15, 1997. The proposed tariff revisions would change certain transport and switching rates, lengthen the time interval to implement service changes requested by customers, delete certain switching centers, and, otherwise, define, change, and clarify various terms and conditions in this tariff. 2. On December 2, 1996, General Communication, Inc. (GCI), filed a petition to suspend and investigate the proposed tariff revisions (GCI Suspension Petition), and ATU Long Distance, Inc. (ATU-LD), filed a "Petition to Enforce 90 Day Notice Period of Alaska Market Structure Order, and to Reject, or In the Alternative, to Suspend and Investigate (ATU-LD Rejection Petition)." ATU-LD filed a supplemental petition on December 10, 1996 (ATU-LD Supplemental Petition). Various responsive pleadings have been filed. II. CONTENTIONS 3. GCI and ATU-LD claim that Alascom's Transmittal No. 852 raises the same questions of lawfulness as Alascom's Transmittal No. 790 that gave rise to the above- captioned investigation. GCI claims that it would be unlawful for Alascom to maintain, as provided in the proposed tariff, separate switching rates for intra-Alaska Bush and non-Bush calls because Alascom now has only one switching center serving both Bush and non-Bush areas. ATU-LD contends that Alascom's division of locations between Bush and non-Bush areas and its assignment of joint and distributed costs to these areas are unreasonable. ATU- LD also claims that Alascom's overall ratemaking process and the resultant rates are unlawful; that the rates proposed by Alascom are excessive, particularly when compared to those proposed 15 months earlier in Transmittal No. 790; that Alascom fails to adequately explain certain changes in the cost support for these transmittals; that the proposed tariff would unlawfully discriminate in provision of capacity to competitors; and that it is not necessary for Alascom to extend from 25 to 60 days the time to implement service changes requested by customers. 4. GCI requests that Alascom's transmittal be suspended and made subject to the instant investigation. ATU-LD urges that the tariff be suspended for longer than one day in order to avoid alleged cash-flow burdens on new entrants like ATU-LD. Alternatively, ATU-LD claims that the proposed tariff should be rejected because Alascom filed it on 45 days' notice. ATU-LD contends that, under Section 69.3(a) of Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  69.3(a), and the applicable part of the Commission's Market Structure Order, Alascom should have filed the proposed tariff revisions on at least 90 days' notice. ATU-LD contends that this error prejudiced ATU-LD because it had only 15 days -- rather than 25 days -- to prepare and file an opposing petition under applicable rules. 5. In opposition to the GCI and ATU-LD petitions, Alascom states that it is appropriate to attribute a portion of the investment and expense of switching facilities to the Bush category because its remaining switching center in Anchorage handles Bush as well as non-Bush traffic. Alascom also contends that its overall ratemaking methodology, and its division of locations and assignment of joint and distributed costs between the Bush and non- Bush categories are reasonable. Alascom contends that 45 days' notice was the correct notice period for its tariff because Section 69.3(a) generally applies to tariffs for "access service" whereas its tariff is for interexchange services and because other requirements of that section do not conform to the requirements imposed by the Commission on Alascom. III. DISCUSSION 6. We have reviewed the above transmittal, supporting materials, and subsequent pleadings. We find Transmittal No. 852 raises the same issues regarding rate levels, rate structures, and terms and conditions of service as those identified in the Transmittal 790 Suspension Order. For example, the proposed tariff, like the earlier Transmittal Nos. 790, 797, and 807, raises questions regarding the adequacy of Alascom's cost support and the extent to which the terms and conditions in the proposed tariff comply with the Communications Act and relevant Commission orders. We conclude, therefore, that significant questions of lawfulness have been raised concerning Alascom's Transmittal No. 852. Accordingly, we suspend Transmittal No. 852 for one day following the effective date and make it subject to the investigation initiated in the Transmittal 790 Suspension Order. These rates will also be subject to an accounting order to facilitate any refunds that may later be necessary. ATU-LD's generalized, unsupported allegations of harm do not warrant a longer suspension. Our accounting order will assure that ATU-LD will be able to receive refunds of any improper amounts charged to it should the Commission ultimately determine that Alascom's tariff is unlawful. 7. In the Market Structure Order, the Commission stated that "[i]n order to process Alascom's common carrier services tariff by the required effective date, we require that Alascom file its [initial] tariff and cost support information 120 days before . . . January 1, 1996 . . . [and that] . . . [t]he tariff . . . be revised annually thereafter on the schedule set forth in Section 69.3(a) of the Commission's Rules (footnotes omitted)." Thus, the Market Structure Order makes clear that Alascom was required to file its proposed tariff on a minimum of 90 days' notice. We remind Alascom that it is required to file tariffs on the correct notice period. In any event, in the present case, Alascom's tariff has been deferred out to the statutory maximum of 120 days. Thus, we do not believe that Alascom's filing of its tariff on 45 days notice has prejudiced any party, or, warrants its rejection. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  204(a), and Section 0.291 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, the revisions to Alascom, Inc. Tariff F.C.C. No. 11 contained in Transmittal No. 852 ARE SUSPENDED for one day from its effective date and an investigation of that tariff transmittal is instituted and included in CC Docket No. 95-182. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Alascom, Inc., SHALL FILE tariff revisions within five business days of the release date of this Order to reflect this suspension. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for these purposes, we waive Sections 61.56. 61.58, and 61.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.56, 61.58, and 61.59. Alascom should cite the "DA" number of the instant Order as the authority for this filing. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 204(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 204(a), and Section 0.291 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, ALASCOM SHALL KEEP ACCURATE ACCOUNT of all amounts received by reason of the rates that are the subject of this investigation. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the "Petition to Enforce 90 Day Notice Period of Alaska Market Structure Order, and to Reject, or In the Alternative , to Suspend and Investigate" Alascom Transmittal No. 852 filed by ATU Long Distance, Inc., IS GRANTED to the extent discussed above. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to suspend and investigate Alascom Transmittal No. 852 filed by General Communications, Inc., IS GRANTED. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion filed January 10, 1997, by Alascom, Inc., to strike the "Response of ATU-LD to Supplemental Reply of Alascom, Inc.," IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Schlichting Chief, Competitive Pricing Division Common Carrier Bureau