WPC6 2PB`.3|x )Roman (TT)Courier New (TT)RomanXj\  P6G; XP#Courier New (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (TT)X@8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxR]SxJxJ.xof8xEf.SSSxxxxxxSSxxSSxSo8xx8Sof8JoxAJAJ]x]x]ffx.Sfo@.SASSooffAS.8]fx]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxoxoxoxxxxxxooxxfSfxfSxfxJSJSJJJJfxfx.SES8xxxNS.f.SS..S.J8fSxxfA.8x.fJxJxSgSoJSJooJ]?t]S\\Ss\d*x@A.wR..n\Cfx@xWlRx\]\cdIfIs`Wx\rriwgdSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS8*88S:888888828888888S8Sb.xJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxR]SxJxJSxJoJoJoJoJxgfJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS8.8.8.8.s]A.xSf.f@f.f?f.xSxSxSxSxSxSxo8o8o8]A]A]A]Af@f.f.xSxSxSxSxSxSxxSfJfJfJxSxSf.xSo8]Courier New (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)QP2 ;4 Z1 X4#Xj\  P6G;8XP#WP MultinationalA Roman (TT)Times New Roman (TT)XPPS - PSt 4M (rm. 6326) LPT1:26XPPSPS.WRSSx  @c"QX@zC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddX01Í ÍX0Í Í2  K D VZ 3|nCourier New (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)hwy.K8?XpK\  P@QPx7PC2X XP\  P6QXP.7UC2X.XU4  pQXCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNd<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCdddddd>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!94)0400000000000G2-2-2-2-2-744040404094949494-004240402-40220044002-2-2-2-442-7-7077-7-94944444$42++)7474444(4)0(N$2+00020000-00000000t0>77+0c7<&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-22@36"5@^2CTdd+CCd2C28ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN8NTdCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2CC!CCPRCddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdYYo8oRdddzNzRdNdNNF2idNdddddd7>d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd X'#X\  P6G;pP#X0Í ÍX8Í Í#Xj\  P6G; XP#  @--@( X4x  #XP\  P6Q XP#Federal Communications Commission`(#dDA 97684 ă   yxdddy (Պ  `*Before the V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X'+Washington, D.C. 20554 \  X4In the Matter of  hhCq) ` `  hhCq)  X_4THE PEOPLE'S NETWORK INCORPORATED,)  XH4` ` Complainant,hhCq)  X14` `  hhCq)ppFile No. E9299  X 4` ` v. hhCq) ` `  hhCq)  X 4AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH)  X 4COMPANY,  hhCq)  X 4` ` Defendant.hhCq)  X4 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER  \  Xb4Adopted: April 4, 1997hhCq: pp Released: April 10, 1997 ` ` By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:  X4J: I. INTRODUCTION ă  X4 e 1.` ` We have before us a formal complaint filed by The People's Network, Incorporated  x3("TPN") against the American Telephone and Telegraph Company ("AT&T"), pursuant to Section  X4 x208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act").PX% yO#' "ԍ47 U.S.C.  208. Section 208 provides for the filing of a complaint with the Commission by "[a]ny person  x. . . complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to this Act, in contravention of the provisions thereof." P TPN alleges that AT&T has  xVviolated the Act by, (1) denying TPN service in violation of Section 201(a); (2) imposing certain  xlimitations that were unjust and unreasonable under Section 201(b); and (3) discriminating against  xTPN in violation of Section 202(a). Additionally, TPN asserts that AT&T has violated the  x<Commission's resale policy, and that AT&T violated Section 203 of the Act by failing to amend  xits tariff to reflect certain service limitations. TPN seeks an order prohibiting AT&T to bill or  xcollect amounts which, TPN asserts, were unlawfully backbilled. TPN also requests that we  xaward damages against AT&T for its alleged misconduct while providing service to TPN and its  xcustomers. For the reasons stated below, we find in favor of TPN on its Section 201(b) claim relating to backbilling and deny the remainder of its complaint. " 0*''ZZH"Ԍ X4f< II. BACKGROUND ă  X4 e 2.` ` TPN is a Texas corporation that provides interstate long distance services,  X4 x/including the resale of AT&T's Software Defined Network yO4' "ԍAT&T's SDN service permits a customer to create a "virtual" private network within AT&T's larger, switched  yO'network. See AT&T Brief at 4. ("SDN") and Distributed Network  X4 xServices{  yOu'ԍDNS is designed to provide an SDNtype service exclusively to resellers. { ("DNS") services.D yO 'ԍComplaint at 12. D AT&T is a communications common carrier that provides domestic  xand international telecommunications services, including SDN and DNS, subject to the  Xv4Commission's jurisdiction under Title II of the Act.Bv@ yOg 'ԍId. at 3. B  XH4 e 3.` ` TPN began resellingAT&T's SDN service after signing an agreement with AT&T  X14 xon October 13, 1989.@1 yO'ԍId. at 9.@ After experiencing certain difficulties with AT&T's services, TPN  xrequested, on February 18, 1992, that AT&T write off the remaining charges on TPN's account,  X 4 xyalleging that AT&T's conduct justified this action.H `  yO'ԍId. at Exh. 14. H Subsequently, AT&T notified TPN of its  xintention to terminate TPN's service for nonpayment of accrued charges. TPN sought emergency  x+relief from the Commission to prevent termination of its service; and while AT&T originally  xcopposed the requested emergency relief, it later agreed not to terminate TPN's service. Shortly  X 4thereafter, TPN filed its formal complaint with the Commission.+   yOH' "ԍOn the general issue of TPN's pleadings in this proceeding, we note that its counsel failed to abide by the  yO' xyCommission's published page limits for reply briefs. See 47 C.F.R.  1.732(d). Although we have not done so in this  xinstance, counsel is reminded that the Commission's rules provide for the return, without consideration, of briefs  yO'that exceed the announced page limits. See 47 C.F.R.  1.48. + "0*%%ZZy"Ԍ X4C0 III. DISCUSSION ă  X' A.` ` SECTION 201(a) ISSUES  X' ` ` 1. Service Limits  Xv4 e 4.` `  The Parties' Contentions. TPN asserts that AT&T violated Section 201(a) of the  X_4 xAct_ X_ yO' "ԍ47 U.S.C.  201(a). This section states, in pertinent part, that it "shall be the duty of every common  x4carrier engaged in interstate . . . communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon  yOh 'reasonable request." Id.  _ by failing to provide TPN0 with service upon reasonable request.B _ yO 'ԍComplaint at 9. B According to TPN, it  xVagreed to purchase AT&T's SDN service only after receiving AT&T's assurances that it could  X14 xpromptly provide service to TPN's projected customer base of 4,000 to 8,000 subscribers.< 1x yOZ'ԍId. <  x"Shortly thereafter, in February 1990, AT&T announced that it would limit to 400 the number of  X 4 xcorders per month on which AT&T would provide new service for each of its SDN customers.C   yO'ԍId. at 10. C  xTPN asserts that it subsequently subscribed to the DNS service in reliance on AT&T's  xyrepresentations that orders for DNS service could be filled more quickly than could those for  X 4 xSDN service.<  yO'ԍId. < TPN alleges, however, that, in December 1991, AT&T imposed a 100 orderper X 4 xpweek limit on the number of DNS orders for which it would provide service.< (  yO'ԍId. < TPN argues that  X4 xthese service limits effectively denied service to TPN in contravention of the Act.F  yO'ԍId.Ġat 1013. F As discussed  xbelow, AT&T points out that TPN rarely placed enough orders that it exceeded the applicable  x}service limits. TPN asserts, however, that, in response to the announced service limits, it scaled  xback its marketing efforts to avoid being unable, because of the service limits, to deliver the  X44 xservice that its customers had requested.Q4H  yO-!'ԍSee id.; TPN Reply at 5. Q Thus, TPN asserts that, but for the service limits, it  x8would have marketed its services more heavily and, consequently, would have built a larger, more profitable customer base. "0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X4 e 5.` ` AT&T concedes that it imposed the monthly service limits. It asserts, however,  xthat it imposed these limits in an attempt to keep pace with unexpected demand, and that, after  xannouncing the limits, it specifically informed TPN that the limits were "not in concrete" and that  x+AT&T would attempt to accommodate customers when their monthly service requirements  X4 x8exceeded the announced limits.a yO'ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Brief at 1314 & Exh. 8. a Moreover, AT&T has provided evidence that on only one  xAoccasion in January 1991, when TPN submitted 523 orders for SDN service did the  Xv4 xcomplainant's requirements exceed AT&T's announced limits.vX yO 'ԍSee id. 1415; TPN's Responses to AT&T's First Set of Interrogatories at 4. On that one occasion, AT&T  X_4states that it accepted for processing all 523 of the orders that TPN submitted.y_ yO 'ԍSee TPN's Responses to AT&T's First Set of Interrogatories at 4. y  X14 e 6.` ` Discussion. It is well established that, in a formal complaint proceeding under  xSection 208, the complainant has the burden of establishing a violation of the Act or of the  X 4 xCommissions rules or orders. x yO,' "ԍSee AT&T v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 5 FCC Rcd 143, 147 (1990); see also Amendment of Rules  yO' x8Concerning Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, 8 FCC Rcd 2614,  yO' x261617 (1993); Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. AT&T Communications, 4 FCC Rcd 8130, 8133 (1989), aff'd  yO' xsub nom. Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC, 915 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1310  yOL'(1991). See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.7201.7535. On the present record, we conclude that TPN has failed to carry  xits burden of establishing that AT&T's monthly service limits violated Section 201(a) by effectively denying service to TPN or its customers.  X 4 e T7.` ` As discussed above, record evidence indicates that AT&T attempted to  X4 x/accommodate customer requests in excess of the monthly limits.U(  yOi'ԍAT&T Brief at 1314 & Exhs. 8, 16. U Moreover, TPN admits that  Xy4 xonly once did it submit orders in excess of AT&T's monthly limits.ly  yO'ԍTPN's Response to AT&T's First Set of Interrogatories at 4.l On that one occasion,  Xb4 x3AT&T accepted all of the orders for processing.@bH  yO['ԍ Id.@ Nonetheless, TPN seeks to establish a Section  x201(a) violation by arguing that, but for the service limits, it would have submitted many more  xorders during the relevant period. The primary record evidence to which TPN cites for its  xuclaimed likely customer base is deposition testimony of Robert Castleberry, one of TPN's  x8founders, which discusses, without numerical specifics or supporting documentation, service"0*%%ZZ"  X4 xyagreements with various customer groups that he claimed to recall.R yOy'ԍSee TPN Exh. 4 at 29199. R We cannot accept this  xportion of TPN's argument. It would require us to speculate impermissibly on the accuracy of  xITPN's largely unsupported initial projections regarding its customer base. We therefore find no violation of Section 201(a) arising from AT&T's imposition of monthly service order limits.  X4` ` 2. Provisioning Delays   X_4 e W8.` ` The Parties' Contentions. In addition to the above service limits, TPN asserts  xthat the delay in AT&T's provisioning process for TPN's customers' orders often was so long  xyfrom the time of placement of a service order with AT&T to the actual receipt of service by  X 4 xTPN's customers that it was tantamount to a denial of service in violation of Section 201(a).F X yO# 'ԍComplaint at 1012. F  xIn support of this argument, TPN's complaint identifies three of its customers who allegedly  X 4 xsuffered unreasonable provisioning delays.J  yO'ԍSee id. at 1415. J TPN also takes the position that any provisioning  X 4delay beyond five months is, per se, a violation of section 201(a).  X 4 e (9.` ` AT&T concedes that, during the time in question, many of its SDN customers  X4 xlexperienced provisioning intervals that were longer than normal.ux yO'ԍ See, e.g., AT&T Brief at 2829 & Exh. 21 at A30007576. u According to AT&T, this  xadded delay was attributable to the inability of its provisioning systems to meet the sudden and  xunexpected demand for its SDN services. AT&T denies, however, that any of TPN's customers  xexperienced delays that were sufficiently prolonged to constitute a denial of service under Section  x201(a). Additionally, AT&T has submitted evidence indicating that it had completed the  xnecessary process to provision two of the TPN customers named in the complaint within 75 days,  X4and that it had completed work on the third order within 135 days.Y yO'ԍId. at 2930 & Exh. 9 at  6. Y  X4  10.` `  Discussion. We find that TPN has failed to meet its evidentiary burdenV yO# 'ԍSee supra,  6 & n.20.V to  xestablish that either it or its customers suffered any provisioning delay that would amount to a"( 0*%%ZZK"  X4 xdenial of service under Section 201(a). yOy' ",ԍCf. AT&T Communications, Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order to Show Cause, 10 FCC Rcd 1664,  x16661667 (1995) (noting that delay in provision of service beyond one year apparently constitutes violation of  x~section 201(a)). We note that the provisioning standards necessary to comply with Section 201(a) are not as  yO' xEstringent as the standards that the Commission has adopted pursuant to Section 251(c). See, e.g., Implementation  yO' xEof the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report & Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 1565860, 1576368,  312314, 51628 (1996).  As discussed above, AT&T has submitted evidence  xtending to show that, even under TPN's proposed fivemonth rule, it provided reasonably prompt  xservice to the three end users who, TPN's complaint contends, experienced an allegedly  X4 xunreasonable delay.@ yO ' " ԍTherefore, we need not address TPN's argument that any provisioning delay beyond five months is, per se, a violation of Section 201(a). Beyond these three instances of alleged provisioning delay, TPN has failed  xto provide evidence to support this portion of its argument. AT&T correctly points out that, in  xyresponding to an interrogatory regarding the alleged delay, TPN offered evidence only of the  Xv4 xdates on which certain of its customers actually received SDN service. v yO'ԍAT&T Brief at 32; TPN's Responses to AT&T's First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory No. 4. TPN has not provided  xevidence indicating the date on which it ordered service for these customers from AT&T.  x Without such evidence, it is plainly impossible to determine what delay, if any, occurred. Accordingly, this portion of TPN's claim under Section 201(a) is denied.  X 4 B.` ` SECTION 201(b) ISSUE  X 4` ` 1. Backbilling   X 4 e W 11.` ` The Parties' Contentions. TPN alleges that AT&T violated Section 201(b) of  X4 xthe Act!(  yOi' "ԍ47 U.S.C. 201(b). This section states, in pertinent part, that all "charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with [interstate] communication service shall be just and reasonable."  by including on the bills of many TPN customers calls that had been placed long before  x'the date of the bill. TPN asserts that this backbilling caused it to lose both revenues and  Xb4 xcustomers.F"b  yO'ԍComplaint at 1729. F The complaint offers numerous examples of backbilling by AT&T and includes,  x}as exhibits, copies of several letters written by TPN customers complaining about bills reflecting  X44 xcalls placed long before the bill date.L#4 yO!'ԍId. at 2226. L TPN asserts, without elaboration, that the Bureau's Order"4#0*%%ZZ"  X4 xin American Network, Inc.$ yOy' "WԍAmerican Network, Inc., 4 FCC Rcd 550 (Com. Car. Bur. 1989) (AmNet Order) (holding that backbilling may, in some instances, violate Section 201(b)). compels a ruling that billing for a call more than 60 days  X4 x<after it is placed is, per se, unreasonable and a violation of Section 201(b).A%  yO'ԍComplaint at 28.A Additionally, TPN  xcomplains that certain of its customers received bills that simply requested payment of a lump sum and provided no call detail.  X4 e  12.` ` AT&T concedes that, during the time relevant to this proceeding, TPN and many  Xz4 xof its other SDN customers experienced substantial delays in their billing.]&z yO 'ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Brief at 1516, 4348.] It asserts that this  xproblem arose because its billing systems were not able to accommodate the unanticipated  XL4 xgincrease in demand that arose for SDN service.F'L@ yO='ԍId. at 1516. F Specifically, AT&T explains, because of certain  xdelays inherent in the provisioning process, end users who had been activated on SDN service  xmade calls before a billing identifier was in place to match the customer's calls to the appropriate  X 4 xbilling record.(X  yO' "ԍId. According to AT&T, the failure of its billing system that gave rise to backbilling could be attributable,  xin any particular instance, either to an error in billing information that AT&T received or to its own delay in  yO'creating the appropriate billing identifiers. See Answer at 2728; AT&T Brief at 1516, 4445.  As a result, calls were placed that were not matched to any account. AT&T  xwould subsequently investigate these calls and attempt to attribute them to the proper account.  xThis investigation was largely manual, however, and caused delays that resulted in the late billing  X 4of messages once they were attributed to the proper customer.N)  yOc'ԍSee AT&T Brief at 16. N  X4 e  13.` ` AT&T maintains that, upon realizing the magnitude of the delays in its billing  X}4 xprocess, it instituted a variety of remedial measures.* }  yO' "ԍSee AT&T Reply Brief at 2425. Specifically, AT&T asserts that it took the following steps, through its Specialized Markets Division ("SMD"), in an attempt to remedy its delayed billing difficulties:  e iXX` ` SMD implemented a tracking system to follow the progress of orders as they were entered  e iinto the provisioning and billing databases. SMD redesigned its systems so that the  e ibilling information on SDN orders was loaded mechanically from the "K report" into the  e ibilling databases, thereby generating a billing order which would then be "BARDed." It  e ialso implemented the action plan developed by the Billing Process Management Team to  e iTinvestigate and bill existing [unbilled] messages with the result that [the level of unbilled"$)0*%%#" messages] for resellers was reduced by approximately 50 percent by January 1992. `  yO'See AT&T Reply Brief at 2425 (citation and footnote omitted).  Thus, AT&T argues that, given its"}*0*%%ZZI"  xdinability to foresee the increase in SDN demand, which, in turn, gave rise to the billing  xdifficulties, and given its attempts to cure the problem, the level of delayed billing that occurred here was reasonable and therefore did not violate Section 201(b).  X4 e  14.` ` Discussion. In ruling on TPN's backbilling claim, we first note that, as the parties  X4 xrecognize, the Bureau has previously addressed the issue of backbilling. In AmNet, we held that,  xnotwithstanding the 2year statute of limitation for recovery actions provided in Section 415(a)  Xa4 x_of the Act,>+Xa yO ' "ԍ47 U.S.C.  415(a). This section provides that "[a]ll actions at law by carriers for recovery of their lawful  xcharges, or any part thereof, shall be begun, within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after." > a "delay of much less than 24 months between the rendering of service and the  x4receipt of an initial bill for such service may be an unjust and unreasonable practice" and  X34 xEconsequently violative of Section 201(b).W,X3 yO' "ԍAmNet Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 552; see also id. ("Section 415(a) establishes a time limit for filing a court  xaction to recover unpaid bills; it does not establish the time limit for sending an initial bill to the customer for services rendered."). W In that proceeding, however, the party seeking a  x/declaratory ruling on the backbilling issue failed to provide evidence that adequately established  xEthe nature and extent of the alleged backbilling. Accordingly, we declined to decide at what  xpoint the alleged backbilling became unjust and/or unreasonable within the meaning of Section  X 4201(b).B-  yOx'ԍId. at 551.B  X 4 e 15.` ` The record currently before us does not appear to suffer from those weaknesses  X4 xpresent in the AmNet record. AT&T concedes that it rendered bills as much as 15 months after  X}4 xpprovision of service..}  yO'ԍCompare Answer at 29 n.23 and Complaint at 22  42(d) & Exh. No. 8. Moreover, TPN has presented additional evidence that at least one of its  Xf4 x'customers received a bill for calls placed 20 months earlier.f/f yO' 'ԍSee Complaint at 22,  42(c) & Exh. No. 7. f We have little difficulty in  xdetermining that, under the facts of this case, billing delays of 15 or 20 months qualify as an  xunreasonable practice within the meaning of Section 201(b). AT&T does not deny that delays  xof this magnitude could substantially and unreasonably disrupt the operations of both TPN and  x/its end users. Indeed, the record reflects that AT&T issued most of the bills about which TPN  xVcomplains more than 10 months after service was rendered. TPN would have us conclude that"/0*%%ZZj"  X4 xbilling delays of 60 days or more are, per se, unreasonable under Section 201(b). Such a limit  xis necessary, it asserts, so that it may have some reasonable chance of obtaining payment, for the  xbilled services, from its end users who, given the conditions prevailing in the marketplace, may  xregularly change their longdistance carrier. TPN also argues that some limit is necessary  xbecause its business customers wish either to pass their phone bills through to clients on a timely  xbasis, or, at least, to be able accurately to track their longdistance expenses for budgeting  Xx4purposes.F0x yO'ԍTPN Brief at 3233. F  XJ4 e 16.` ` We accept AT&T's position that the backbilling that TPN experienced arose  xtbecause of the unprecedented and unforeseen demand for its SDN service. Moreover, AT&T has  xyrepresented that it took what it viewed as reasonable and timely steps to attribute and bill the  xpunbilled messages to its various customers, including TPN's end users, and revised its billing and  xprovisioning systems in an attempt to reduce the future incidence of unbilled messages. In the  xabsence of credible evidence to counter these assertions, we are not prepared to adopt the 60day  xlimit for reasonable backbilling that TPN's complaint urges. On the other hand, AT&T has failed  xto make a persuasive showing that the billing delays experienced by TPN's customers in some  xcases more than 10 months should be viewed as reasonable under Section 201(b), especially  xin light of the particular requirements of TPN as a resale carrier and its dual status as a customer  xand competitor of AT&T. AT&T has provided no specific information regarding the policies and  xprocedures it followed in preparing the bills at issue that might show what period was reasonably required to prepare and render some or all of the bills.  X4 e 17.` ` For the purposes of this Order and taking into account the arguments and evidence  x&presented by the parties, we find that AT&T's actions in backbilling TPN's customers for services  xrendered more than 120 days after such services were rendered constituted an unreasonable  xpractice, violative of Section 201(b). In reaching this conclusion, we note that, in 1993, AT&T  x}amended its tariff for SDN service to guarantee that calls would be billed within 120 days of the  X4 xdate on which they were placed.1X yO'ԍSee AT&T Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Section 6.4.2.D (effective August 2, 1993); AT&T Brief at 47 n.101. As early as 1992, it appears that AT&T had set as its goal  x_to bill all calls within 60 days: TPN provided evidence reflecting AT&T's "objective to write  Xg4 xoff all messages that are greater than 60 days past the message date starting January 1, 1993."%2g yO ' "mԍSee TPN's Second Motion to Compel, Exh. 42; TPN Brief, Exh. 43 at A30005851, Exh. 60 at A30005843; see  yO 'also AT&T Brief at 16 (referring to "customary billing interval for current usage of 60 days"). %  xConsistent with our findings in this case, to the extent that TPN has established in its complaint  xthat it experienced backbilling delays exceeding 120 days in connection with AT&T's SDN"9 @20*%%ZZ"  xIservice offerings, it may file a supplemental complaint for damages as provided in section 1.722  X4of the Commission's Rules.F3 yOb'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.722.F  X4 e F18.` ` Our decision regarding the reasonableness of AT&T's backbilling practices in this  x_particular case should not be construed as establishing a rule of general applicability. As we  X4 xstated in the AmNet Order, "any fixed limit upon all backbilling should be established in a Rule  Xx4 xMaking proceeding."Z4xX yO 'ԍAmNet Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 55152. Z Today's ruling is limited strictly to the facts of this case. We do not  x<foreclose the possibility that backbilling delays of less than 120 days could be found to be unjust  xand unreasonable under the facts of a particular case. Likewise, backbilling delays exceeding 120  xIdays may be reasonable in certain instances. We will consider such matters on a casebycase  X 4basis to determine compliance with the just and reasonable requirements of Section 201(b).5   yO' "WԍWe are not persuaded that the backbilling problems described in this proceeding are so commonplace that  xthey warrant a rulemaking action at this time. We will revisit the need for such action in response to petitions filed  xby interested parties or on our own motion should we receive indications that backbilling delays are an industrywide concern.   X '` ` 2. Other Alleged Unjust Practices  X 4 e 19.` ` In addition to the backbilling, discussed above, TPN argues in its briefs that AT&T  xalso violated Section 201(b) in several other respects. In most instances, TPN did not include  xthese additional claimed Section 201(b) violations in either its complaint or its reply.  X{4 xAccordingly, these further alleged violations are not properly before us.6{ yO' "ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.720(a) ("All matters concerning a claim, defense or requested remedy . . . should be pleaded fully and with specificity."). Nonetheless, we have  x"reviewed each of these claims; for the reasons discussed below, we find that, in each instance, TPN has failed to establish a violation of Section 201(b).  X4 e 20.` ` First, TPN assigns as a violation of Section 201(b) AT&T's allegedly unreasonable  X4 xIdelays in the provisioningF7(  yO'ԍTPN Brief at 2125. F and terminatione8  yOq!'ԍSee Complaint at 30, 33; TPN Brief at 2728. e of service in response to customer orders. As we  X4 xhave set out above,R9H  yO#'ԍSee supra  10. R TPN has presented evidence of the date on which certain of its customers  xactually received AT&T's SDN service, but it has not provided evidence from which it is possible" 90*%%ZZT"  xto determine the extent of any delay. Nor has TPN presented persuasive evidence in support of  xits claim that AT&T delayed in disconnecting service. Indeed, the primary record evidence of  xdelay in the termination of service evidence to which, inexplicably, TPN's brief does not cite  xfor this portion of its argument is what appears to be an internal AT&T survey of problems  X4 xIwith its SDN service.\: yO'ԍSee TPN Brief Exh. 19 at A30011818. \ This survey concludes only that "disconnects were not done in a timely  xpmanner," and TPN has failed to present other evidence of the disconnect delays that it claims to  Xv4 xhave suffered.;vX yO ' "ԍEven in the context of TPN's case, in which numerous other claims fall for lack of evidence, the failure of  xyproof in connection with TPN's claim of delayed service termination is particularly glaring. Of the materials relating  xto this claim to which TPN's brief cites, only one exhibit appears even to mention the claimed problems with the  yO ' x"disconnect process." See TPN Brief, Exh. 39 at A30011155. Nonetheless, TPN's counsel has attached to the brief,  xNand generally cited to, several other exhibits, totalling more than 40 pages, without specifically indicating what  yOg ' xportion or portions of them may support TPN's position. See TPN Brief at 2728, Exhs. 22, 3539. Counsel is  xadmonished that, under the Commission's Rules, briefs shall contain "specific citation to the record" and be  x"supported by relevant . . . analysis." 47 C.F.R.  1.732(a). Additionally, we note that, at least in connection with  xthe present argument, TPN's counsel appears not to have heeded our Rule 1.52, which provides that an attorney's  xsignature of a pleading indicates "that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground  yOO'to support" the arguments contained therein. See 47 C.F.R.  1.52.  Accordingly, we find that TPN has failed to carry its burden of establishing a violation of Section 201(b) with respect to these two claims.  X14 e 21.` ` Second, TPN asserts that AT&T unreasonably refused to transfer customers to  xTPN unless AT&T received a letter in which the end user's prior carrier consented to the  X 4 x}change.W<  yOl'ԍSee TPN Brief at 2728, 3335. W The record evidence on this issue demonstrates solely that, when an end user wished  x+to change its service from a reseller to a different carrier, AT&T required that the end user  xprovide to the new carrier a copy of the letter terminating the end user's service with the prior  X 4 xreseller.W= H  yO'ԍSee id., Exh. 22 at A30006855. W We agree with AT&T's position that this requirement was not an unreasonable means  xIof "protect[ing] itself from claims of improperly removing end users from one reseller's account  X4 x}to another carrier's account."\> yO'ԍSee AT&T Reply Brief at 2728 n.56. \ Accordingly, we find no violation of Section 201(b) with respect  Xy4to TPN's untimely claim on this issue.-? yh yO!' "ԍTo the extent that TPN also purports to allege that a violation of Section 203 arises from this requirement  yOZ"' xEof AT&T's, see TPN Brief at 33, we find that TPN has failed to establish a violation of the statute. As discussed more  x4fully below, Section 203 requires the inclusion in a tariff only of those "classifications, regulations and practices  yO#'affecting" a carrier's charges. See infra  3334. - "b P?0*%%ZZ&"Ԍ X4 e 22.` ` Third, TPN complains that AT&T allegedly required it to waive any liability limit  X4 xon calling cards that AT&T issued for the ultimate use of TPN's end users.F@ yOb'ԍTPN Brief at 3536. F In support of its  xargument, TPN provides the "AT&T Card Bulk Issuance Agreement" (the "Card  X4 x+Agreement"),FAX yO'ԍId., Exh. 48. F which states that, "AT&T will not know that a billing card number has been  xcompromised, or that a subscriber's account with Customer has been closed, unless Customer so  xnotifies AT&T"; the agreement therefore provides that AT&T's customer shall be liable for all  xqcalling card charges until AT&T is notified "that the billing card number...should be  X_4 xinvalidated."SB_ yO 'ԍId., Exh. 48 at A30000611. S TPN offers, as its sole authority that the card issuance agreement violates Section  x201(b), a regulation issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the  X14 x<"Federal Reserve Board").C 1x yOZ' "Sԍ12 C.F.R.  226.12. We also note that TPN has not established that it was subject to the liability waiver  xcontained in the Card Agreement. The version of the agreement that TPN submitted with its brief is not signed and  xNappears to have been prepared for an entirely different AT&T subscriber. In addressing TPN's argument on this  yO'issue, we have assumed, arguendo, that TPN entered a similar agreement.  Given the limitations on AT&T's ability to contact a reseller's end  xusers, we decline to rule that it is unreasonable, within the meaning of Section 201(b), for AT&T  xto require TPN to waive the subject liability limitation for the unauthorized use of calling cards  xissued to TPN. This claim is therefore denied. Furthermore, the Commission is clearly not  X 4 x<empowered to interpret or apply the regulations of the Federal Reserve Board.D `  yO'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  151 (Commission shall "execute and enforce the provisions of th[e] Act."). To the extent that TPN seeks such a ruling in this proceeding, it is also denied.  X4 e  23.` ` Fourth, in the last pages of its Brief, TPN asserts for the first time that AT&T  xviolated Section 201(b) by requiring that TPN refrain from using AT&T's trademarks and service  Xb4 xImarks in marketing TPN's services.KEb  yO'ԍTPN Brief at 45 & n. 28. K Apart from its unsupported assertion of a violation, TPN  xhas offered no authority for the proposition that AT&T's attempts to protect its registered marks  xconstitute an unjust or unreasonable practice under the Act. Accordingly, this claim is also denied. " E0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X' C.` ` SECTION 202(a) ISSUE: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RESELLERS (#`  X4 e 24.` ` TPN argues that, in a variety of different ways, AT&T unreasonably discriminates  xagainst it and other resellers in preference to AT&T's commercial, nonreseller customers. Thus,  xas discussed more fully below, TPN argues that: (1) for a variety of reasons, AT&T's response  x/to the service orders of its reseller customers was substantially slower than was its response to  xcsimilar orders from its commercial customers, and (2) reseller customers suffered a higher level  x<of backbilling than did commercial customers. As we set out below, AT&T controverts TPN's  XH4arguments on each of these points.RFH yO 'ԍSee infra  2629. R  X 4 e 25.` ` Applicable judicial decisions establish a threeprong test for determining whether  x}a violation of Section 202(a)'s prohibition of unreasonable discrimination has occurred. First, the  xCommission must determine whether the services at issue are like one another. Second, if the  xIservices in question are sufficiently similar, the Commission must decide whether the defendant  xcarrier is offering disparate pricing or treatment to different customers receiving the like services.  xThird, if disparate pricing or treatment exists, the Commission must decide whether such disparity  X4 xis justified and, therefore, not unreasonable.GX yO' "rԍSee Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, 6 FCC Rcd 5880, 5903 (1991); MCI  yOa'Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 917 F.2d 30, 39 (D.C. Cir. 1990).  Under Section 208, the complainant has the  x8evidentiary burden of establishing that the services are like and that the discrimination exists  xbetween them. Once the complainant has established the presence of like services and  xdiscrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant carrier to show that the discrimination is not  X44 xunreasonable.fH4 yO'ԍSee 6 FCC Rcd at 5903; 917 F.2d at 39. f In connection with each of the above instances of alleged discrimination, TPN's claim of discrimination fails.  X'` ` 1. Provisioning Delays  X4 e 26.` ` TPN alleges that several different factors contribute to make the provisioning  xinterval for resellers substantially greater than for similarly situated commercial customers.  x3Specifically, TPN asserts that the greater delays experienced by AT&T's reseller customers were  x#caused by: (1) the claimed fact that the 400 orderpermonth provisioning limit had a  Xe4 xIdisproportionate effect on resellers;PIe@ yOV"'ԍSee TPN Brief at 1618. P (2) AT&T's alleged refusal directly to contact TPN's end  xusers to collect order information or to correct errors in the service orders that TPN submitted"N I0*%%ZZN"  X4 xVto AT&T;J yOy'ԍSee, e.g., id. at 1415. TPN refers to this genre of services as "data collection" and "data scrubbing." (3) AT&T's decisions to process reseller service orders through its SMDPKX yO 'ԍSee id. at 1216. P and not  X4to pay sales commissions to its sales employees who processed resellers' orders.PL yO'ԍSee id. at 1112. P  X4 e 27.` ` Monthly Order Limits. TPN speculates that AT&T's monthly service limits had  X4 xa disproportionate effect on resellers;WMx yO 'ԍSee, e.g., id. at 1618. W TPN provides no evidence of this effect, however.  x8Instead, TPN has restricted itself to inferring discrimination based on what it asserts are the  Xv4 x&typical structures of AT&T's reseller and nonreseller customers.:Nv yO/'ԍId.: On the other hand, AT&T has  xboth averred, and presented substantial evidence tending to show, that it applied these service  XH4 xlimits to both its commercial and its reseller customers.iOH yO'ԍSee Answer at 2122; AT&T Brief at 1315, 3839. i Thus, this portion of TPN's Section  x202(a) claim fails to prove that the carrier differentiates between its customers in the provision of its services.  X 4 e 28.` `  Data Collection. TPN next asserts that resellers' orders were processed more  xyslowly because, in contrast to its practice with its commercial, nonreseller customers, AT&T  x8refused to contact the resellers' end users to obtain accurate data for use in provisioning the  xordered service. AT&T argues persuasively in response that, during the provisioning process,  xit declined to contact resellers' end users directly in order to protect itself from accusations of  Xy4 x3improperly attempting to lure away the resellers' customers.\Py(  yOR'ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Brief at 35 & n.81. \ We find that AT&T has articulated  xa reasonable basis for the distinction that it has drawn in connection with its collection of order data from the resellers' end users and its own end users.  X4 e 029.` ` Provisioning Support. TPN's next instance of claimed discrimination relates to  x}the facilities and personnel that, it alleges, AT&T used to process resellers' service requests. In  xparticular, TPN complains of AT&T's practice of routing through its Specialized Market Division  X4 xall reseller service requestsPQ  yOA#'ԍSee TPN Brief at 1213. P and its decision not to pay sales commissions to employees who"H Q0*%%ZZ{"  X4 x<processed reseller service orders.PR yOy'ԍSee id. at 1112. P TPN has not, however, presented adequate evidence to establish  xthat it, or resellers generally, suffered slower service as a result of either of these two factors.  xEIndeed, substantial record evidence shows that resellers' orders were provisioned at least as  X4 x<quickly as those of AT&T's commercial customers.pSX yO'ԍ See AT&T Brief at 1617, citing Exhs. 15, 20, 21. p Accordingly, this portion of TPN's claim also must fail.  Xv'` ` 2. Backbilling   XH4 e 30.` ` TPN's second major claim of unreasonable discrimination in violation of Section  x202(a) relates to AT&T's practice, discussed above, of backbilling its SDN customers during the  xVtime in question. TPN asserts that reseller customers suffered a higher incidence of backbilling  X 4 xthan did AT&T's commercial customers.FT  yO'ԍTPN Brief at 2933. F In particular, TPN avers that, on its "information and  xhbelief" AT&T simply wrote off or deleted the older charges on the bills of its commercial  X 4 xIcustomers, while it routinely backbilled its reseller customers.CU x yO'ԍId. at 29. C Notwithstanding its information  xand belief, TPN has failed to present evidence that it, or resellers in general, were subject to a  X 4 xhigher level of backbilling than were AT&T's commercial customers.PV  yO`'ԍSee id. at 2933. P Because TPN has failed  xto establish the necessary element of disparate treatment, its discrimination claim relating to backbilling is denied.  XK4 D.` ` THE COMMISSION'S RESALE POLICY  X4 e 31. ` ` The Parties' Contentions. TPN's complaint generally alleges that AT&T's various  xpractices discussed above violate the Commission's resale policies by discriminatorily making  X4 xAT&T's SDN service less attractive to resellers than to nonreseller commercial customers.W yO8' "#ԍComplaint at 46. Parenthetically, we note that TPN's briefs have not pursued this alleged discrimination in violation of resale policies; nonetheless, we briefly address the argument. In  xresponse to TPN's allegations, AT&T asserts that all of its SDN customers have experienced the  xproblems of which TPN complains; consequently, it argues, it cannot have violated the  X4Commission's resale policies.HX  yOK$'ԍAnswer at 1718, 3233.H " X0*%%ZZ("Ԍ X4 e ԙ32.` `  Discussion. As indicated above, TPN's claim regarding violation of the  xCommission's resale policies is restricted to the allegation that AT&T discriminated against  x}resellers in the provision of its SDN service. As we previously have discussed, however, we do  x4not find that AT&T has treated TPN, or resellers in general, in a discriminatory manner.  x[Similarly, we do not find that AT&T has violated the Commission's resale policies, which  x<generally prohibit a carrier's discrimination among its customers, on grounds of price or service,  x<depending on whether the customers are, in turn, reselling the service that they have purchased  X_4 xfrom the carrier.Y_ yO'ԍSee, e.g., In re Regulatory Policies Concerning Resale, Report and Order, 83 FCC2d 167, 171177 (1980). TPN has not demonstrated that the 400 orderpermonth limit, the alleged  xcprovisioning delays, or AT&T's backbilling practices had a discriminatory effect, or were meant  xto discriminate against TPN or resellers. Rather, we agree with AT&T's assertion that TPN  xexperienced these problems along with all other SDN customers. Since there was no showing  xby TPN to support its allegations that AT&T's reseller customers suffered a disproportionate  ximpact as a result of these problems, we do not find discrimination in violation of the Commission's orders on resale.  X ' E.` ` SECTION 203(a) ISSUE  Xy4 e z 33.` `  The Parties' Contentions. Additionally, TPN contends that AT&T violated  Xb4 x/Section 203(a)ZXbX yOk' "ԍ47 U.S.C.  203(a). This section provides, in relevant part, that every common carrier shall "file with the  x+Commission . . . schedules showing all charges for . . . interstate and foreign wire or radio communication...and showing the classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges."  of the Act by failing to amend the applicable tariff to reflect the monthly order  XK4 xlimitations that AT&T placed on its service provisioning.P[Kx yOt'ԍSee Complaint at 1011. P AT&T responds to this claim by  x<arguing that its order limits do not affect the charges applicable for its services and that Section  X4203(a) therefore does not require their inclusion in the tariff.N\ yO'ԍSee AT&T Brief at 42. N  X4 e !34.` `  Discussion. The Commission previously has ruled that, where a carrier establishes  xa reasonable and impartial means of responding to customer demand for service, the "carrier's  X4 x<practices for filling service orders are not required by Section 203 to be included in the tariff."]  yO !' "zԍSeeĠSpanish International Network, Inc., 78 FCC2d 1451, 1472 (1980); see also RCI Long Distance, Inc., 11  xFCC Rcd 8090, 810910 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996) (local exchange carrier's procedure for changing payphone  xupresubscribed interexchange carrier does not affect tariffed charges paid by payphone subscribers and therefore does not fall within Section 203).  xWe reiterate, however, that, "as a general rule, where a carrier can reasonably foresee a shortage" ]0*%%ZZ"  xAof facilities, it would be advisable to include a tariff provision setting forth the practices it  X4 xyfollows in filling orders for service."a^ yOb'ԍSpanish Int'l Network, 78 FCC2d at 1472. a Since AT&T's monthly order limitations did not affect  X4the charges for its services, TPN's claim under Section 203(a) is denied.=_XX yO' "SԍIn light of our ruling on TPN's Section 203(a) claim, we need not reach its belated claim under Section  yO' xu203(c). See TPN Brief at 4546 (seeking leave to amend TPN's complaint to plead a violation of Section 203(c)). = v  X' F.` ` TPN's REMAINING MOTIONS  Xv4 e \"35.` ` Finally, we note that, during the course of this proceeding, TPN filed numerous  x+motions and petitions, not all of which were formally ruled upon. These include: (1) its July  x21,v 1992 Petition for Emergency Relief; (2) its August 3, 1992 Petition for Sanctions; (3) its  x<August 6, 1992 Motion to Strike and for Sanctions; (4) its September 20, 1993 Motion for Entry  xVof Confidentiality Order; (5) its August 23, 1996 Third Motion to Compel; and (6) its August 23,  x1996 Motion to Deem Facts Established for the Record. Given the instant ruling disposing of  x8this proceeding, these prior, interlocutory motions are rendered moot. Accordingly, they are dismissed.  X 4|? IV. CONCLUSION ă  Xy4 e #36.` ` As set out more fully above, we find that TPN has made a persuasive showing that  xAT&T violated Section 201(b) of the Act to the extent that it rendered, to TPN or its customers,  xIbills for calls that had been placed more than 120 days earlier. This portion of TPN's complaint  xcis thus granted. The remainder of TPN's complaint is denied for the reasons that we previously have discussed. "x_0*%%ZZ?"Ԍ X45% V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X4 e S$37.` ` ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i), 201(a), and 208 of  xthe Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 201(a), 208, and authority  xVdelegated by Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that TPN's complaint IS GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART.  X_4 e ,%38.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TPN, in accordance with Section 1.722 of the  xCommission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.722, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint concerning damages relating to the backbilling issue within 60 days of the date of this decision.  X 4 e &39.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the various motions listed above in paragraph 35 are hereby DISMISSED AS MOOT. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqRegina M. Keeney ` `  hhCqChief, Common Carrier Bureau