******************************************************** 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 In the Matter of ) ) COMPLAINTS, filed pursuant to ) Section 208 of the Communications Act, ) Alleging Violations Relating to ) Sections 201(b), 202(a), and 211(a) of ) the Act in Connection with Defendants' ) Shared Network Facilities Agreements and ) 1985 Special Access Tariffs ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 11, 1997 ; Released: February 20, 1997 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we address 192 formal complaints filed by 15 interexchange carriers ("IXCs") against various Bell Operating Companies ("BOCs") and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company ("AT&T") pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"). Each of the complainants challenges the defendant BOCs' tariffed special access rates under Section 202(a) of the Act, alleging that these rates are unreasonably discriminatory as compared with rates under the shared network facilities agreements ("SNFAs") entered into by the BOCs and AT&T as part of the breakup of the Bell System in 1983. The complainants all seek orders requiring the defendants to pay monetary damages for harm allegedly suffered as a consequence of the defendants' actions. Complaints filed by the BOCs against AT&T and AT&T against the BOCs stemming from the SNFAs were previously dismissed. 2. With the exceptions discussed below, the issues and arguments presented by complainants are identical to those addressed at length in our recent decision in CC Docket No. 85- 166. In that proceeding, we concluded our investigation into the lawfulness of the defendant BOCs' special access tariffs. As an initial matter, we held that the SNFAs are not a common carrier offering and thus not subject to regulation under Title II of the Act. Nonetheless, we went on to determine that, assuming arguendo, the SNFAs are subject to regulation under Title II, the rates reflected in these special access tariffs were not unreasonably discriminatory in comparison with the SNFAs between the BOCs and AT&T. Consistent with our findings and conclusions in the Tariff Investigation MO&O, we deny the complaints and terminate these proceedings. II. BACKGROUND 3. Our findings and conclusions regarding the lawfulness of the defendant BOCs' special access rates under Section 202(a) of the Act are discussed at length in the Tariff Investigation MO&O. Nevertheless, because of the special circumstances presented by the tariff investigation and the subject complaints, we find that a detailed discussion of the evolution of these related proceedings is appropriate. 4. Each of the complaints before us was filed with the Commission following an order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("the court") remanding for further proceedings the Commission's initial determination in CC Docket No. 85-166 that the defendant BOCs' special access tariffs were not unreasonably discriminatory within the meaning of Section 202(a) of the Act. The Court ruled that the Commission's discrimination analysis was flawed because it failed to properly consider and determine whether the SNFAs between the BOCs and AT&T and the special access services provided to other IXCs were "like" within the meaning of Section 202(a) and, if so, whether these like communications services were provided at unreasonably disparate rates in violation of Section 202(a). In remanding the matter for further proceedings on the issue of discrimination, the Court made clear that the Commission need not review all of the approximately 9,000 SNFAs at issue. It emphasized that the Commission could reasonably base its Section 202(a) conclusions on a review of a "meaningful sample" of the SNFAs relative to the defendants' special access tariff filings. 5. In January 1989, following the SNFA Remand Order, the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau directed AT&T and the BOCs to file copies of all SNFAs negotiated between them pursuant to the Modification of Final Judgment. In addition, the Bureau proposed a framework for analyzing the terms of the SNFAs in accordance with the SNFA Remand Order and established a schedule for filing supplemental direct cases, addressing in particular the "three-stage" analysis identified by the court for ascertaining whether unreasonable discrimination exists. 6. Shortly after release of the Bureau's order, a number of IXCs filed formal complaints against each of the twenty-two BOCs and AT&T contending that the BOCs' unlawfully discriminated against carriers because the IXCs could not obtain special access facilities at the rates charged to AT&T under the SNFAs. Subsequently, and continuing through mid-1990, additional IXCs filed virtually identical complaints against all or some of the same defendants. In each case, the complainant referred to the court's remand of the Commission's decision in the CC Docket No. 85-166 tariff investigation for further proceedings on the issue of discrimination. 7. In subsequent pleadings, each of the complainants requested that the Commission "continue" the deadline for filing answers and other pleadings in the complaint proceedings until after the Commission had issued a final order in the related tariff investigation. The complainants, in some cases with the support of the defendant BOCs, contended that the Commission's disposition of the discrimination issues in the tariff investigation would contribute materially to the expeditious resolution of the complaints. They further argued that a stay of the complaint proceedings would promote efficient use of resources and permit a logical consideration of the issues. The Bureau initially denied the requests, and the parties to these complaint actions filed additional pleadings and conducted discovery with respect to their claims and defenses. Subsequently, following representations by the parties that they would not institute court actions under Section 208(b) of the Act to compel Commission action on the complaints during the pendency of the related tariff investigation, the Bureau issued a series of rulings holding each of the complaints in abeyance pending the outcome of the tariff investigation. 8. In June 1989, in accordance with the Bureau's SNFA Filing Requirements Order, the BOCs and AT&T filed copies of the SNFAs and supplemental direct cases to support their claims in the tariff proceeding that the BOCs' special access tariffs were not unreasonably discriminatory in comparison with the SNFAs. Oppositions were filed by MCI, Sprint, and the Competitive Telecommunications Association, a trade association of IXCs, and the BOCs and AT&T filed replies to these oppositions. 9. In July 1989, the Bureau issued a Public Notice modifying the ex parte requirements for the remanded tariff investigation in light of the unique circumstances presented by the parallel section 208 complaints. The Bureau declared the tariff investigation "restricted" for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules, effectively requiring that any pleading or other written presentation filed in connection with either the tariff investigation or any one of the complaint actions be served by the submitting party on all parties to the tariff investigation as well as on all parties to the various formal complaint actions. The Bureau's ruling ensured that all parties to the tariff investigation and the complaint proceedings were fully apprised of all information and arguments presented to the Commission regarding the reasonableness of the defendant BOCs' special access tariffs in comparison with the SNFAs. 10. In January 1990, MCI filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental reply to the direct cases presented by the BOCs and AT&T. The Commission later determined that because the BOCs and AT&T submitted in their replies a substantial amount of new data and information relevant to the comparison of SNFAs and special access functions and rates, and relevant to MCI's exhibits and rate comparisons, accepting MCI's supplemental reply would ensure a balanced record in the proceeding. 11. On February 16, 1993, the Commission issued a Tentative Decision based on its review of the record developed on remand in the tariff investigation. With regard to the first issue specified by the court in the SNFA Remand Order, whether some SNFA facilities are "like special access," the Commission performed a lengthy analysis of the record and tentatively concluded that "1647 [of the SNFAs at issue] or 18.4 percent of all BOC transmission SNFAs are 'like' special access." In addressing the second issue remanded by the court, whether the special access tariffs are discriminatory in comparison to rates for "like" SNFAs, the Commission tentatively concluded that "MCI had presented some evidence that SNFA lease charges were lower than equivalent rates for 'like' special access channels, both overall and in some but not all specific cases." With regard to the third and final remand issue, whether the differences in charges between "like" transmission SNFAs and special access are unjust and unreasonable, the Commission tentatively concluded, as it had in the initial order, that the discriminatory SNFA rates "are justified as a transitional program." 12. The Commission emphasized in the Tentative Decision that, while the record on remand had enabled it to establish a test for determining when SNFA and special access facilities are "like," additional comment would be useful as to other issues. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on the "(1) the general sufficiency of the record and the tentative analyses undertaken thus far to satisfy the terms of remand, and (2) possible supplemental exhibits directed to improving the record, including BOC rate comparisons." 13. In response to the Tentative Decision, the BOCs and AT&T submitted supplemental direct cases. Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, and US West all provided alternative rate disparity studies based on samplings of SNFAs in their respective service areas. Ameritech, PacTel, Southwestern, and AT&T, using the MCI studies as a starting point, submitted adjustments to correct for what they characterized as errors in MCI's submission. MCI, US Sprint, Metromedia, and Wiltel filed oppositions to the supplemental direct cases, and AT&T and the BOCs filed replies to the oppositions. 14. On February 14, 1997, we issued a final decision on the issues specified by the court in the SNFA Remand Order. As discussed thoroughly in our Tariff Investigation MO&O, we analyzed issues remanded by the court based on the voluminous record compiled in the tariff investigation and the parallel Section 208 complaint proceedings. We placed particular emphasis on the supplemental filings submitted by the parties in response to the tentative analyses and conclusions set forth in the Tentative Decision. As an initial matter, we held that the SNFAs are not a common carrier offering and thus not subject to regulation under Title II of the Act. Nonetheless, we assumed, arguendo, that SNFAs are subject to regulation under Title II and applied the three- pronged discrimination analysis mandated by the court in the SNFA Remand Order. As discussed in detail in the Tariff Investigation MO&O, we determined that the BOCs had made persuasive showings that their special access rates were not unreasonably discriminatory, in comparison to the SNFAs within the meaning of Section 202(a) of the Act. Specifically, we found that slightly less than 20 percent of the transmission SNFAs at issue could be considered "like" special access channels for purposes of section 202(a) and that a rate disparity of at most $29.1 million existed between these "like" services. We concluded, however, that $6.7 million of the rate disparity was reasonable because of the administrative cost differences between the provision of special access and SNFA administration. We found that the remaining $22.4 million rate disparity was justified as a transition mechanism from a monopolistic market to a competitive one and, therefore, was not unreasonably discriminatory within the meaning of Section 202(a). In addition, we found that the rate disparity could be at least partially justified by (1) AT&T's retained leasehold property rights in the SNFA facilities it rented; (2) the "turnkey" feature of special access service that was nonexistent with SNFAs, i.e., special access was an integrated service, while AT&T had to combine several piece-part SNFA facilities to obtain something like special access; (3) the BOCs' right to preempt AT&T's use of SNFA facilities; and (4) differences in service quality between SNFAs and special access. III. DISCUSSION 15. Our determination in the Tariff Investigation MO&O that the defendant BOCs' special access rates were not unreasonably discriminatory under Section 202(a) of the Act effectively disposes of the discrimination claims alleged in each of the above-captioned complaints. As we noted above, many of the complaints were filed "contingent" on the outcome of the tariff investigation. Moreover, all of the complainants were afforded ample opportunity to submit evidence, arguments, and comments in the tariff investigation. Our Tentative Decision invited all parties, including the complainants, to address the Commission's tentative findings and conclusions, as well as to bolster their claims regarding the lawfulness of the defendants' tariffed special access rates under Section 202(a) of the Act. Accordingly, no further proceedings on the discrimination issue under Section 208 of the Act are required. Nor do the separate claims raised by certain of the complainants which were not addressed in the Tariff Investigation Order warrant further proceedings under section 208. We address each of these additional claims in the paragraphs that follow. We will therefore lift the stay orders issued by the Bureau and dispose of each of the pending complaints. 16. Alleged Violations of Section 211(a). Certain complainants allege that some or all of the defendant BOCs and AT&T violated Section 211(a) of the Act by failing to file the SNFA contracts with the Commission. These complainants allege that the defendants entered into SNFA agreements in 1983-85, but did not file these agreements with the Commission until June 1989, when ordered by the Commission in the SNFA Filing Requirements Order. Complainants allege that SNFAs are within the scope of "carrier-to-carrier" contracts that, under Section 211(a), must be filed with the Commission when entered. Accordingly, complainants argue that defendants violated Section 211(a) and are thus liable for damages on the theory that complainants would have claimed a right to the presumably more favorable SNFA rates. Defendants that filed answers deny any Section 211(a) violation for failure to file SNFAs. These defendants assert that Section 211(a) does not mandate the filing of every SNFA schedule and that defendants promptly and fully complied with the Commission's request for SNFA material when asked to do so. 17. Discussion. We find no merit to the complainants' claims that certain defendants violated Section 211(a) of the Act. As the Court noted in the SNFA Remand Order, these agreements stemmed from resolution of the anti-trust settlement and not out of the defendants' obligations as carriers. Accordingly, the defendants were under no obligation to file copies of their agreements until the Commission directed them to do so in 1989. 18. Alleged Conspiracy to Violate Sections 201(b) and 202(a). A number of complainants further allege, without affidavits or other evidentiary support, that the BOCs and AT&T conspired to violate the just and reasonable provisions of Sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act by secretly agreeing to thousands of unreasonably low SNFA rates during preparations for divestiture when the BOCs were still subsidiaries under the control of AT&T. The defendants deny these conspiracy allegations and further contend that the allegations fail to state a cognizable claim under the Act. 19. Discussion. Anti-conspiracy statutes typically require a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act. We need not decide whether, as defendants contend, the complainants' conspiracy allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have already determined that the defendants did not violate the Act in connection with the special access tariffs and SNFAs at issue and have no evidence on this record indicating that AT&T and the BOCs deliberately attempted to establish a discriminatory program. In the absence of such evidence, we have no basis on which to consider complainants' further allegations of conspiracy. IV. CONCLUSION 20. For the foregoing reasons, we lift the stays issued by the Common Carrier Bureau in the above-captioned complaint proceedings. Consistent with our findings and conclusions in the Tariff Investigation MO&O, we deny each of the complaints insofar as the complainants allege that the defendants violated sections 202(a), 201(b), and 211(a) of the Act in connection with the special access tariffs and SNFAs at issue. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 208, that the Orders issued by the staff holding the above-captioned formal complaints in abeyance ARE HEREBY LIFTED. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all motions filed in each of the complaints listed in the Attachments to this Memorandum Opinion and Order ARE DISMISSED as moot. 23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each complaint listed in the Attachments to this Memorandum Opinion and Order IS DENIED and each proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary ATTACHMENT A MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION filed the following complaints: The Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-88 of Pennsylvania, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-89 Company Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-90 Company of Maryland, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-91 Company of Virginia, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-92 Company of West Virginia, Diamond State Telephone Company, File No. E-89-93 New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-94 Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-95 Indiana Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-96 Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-97 The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-98 Wisconsin Bell, Inc. File No. E-89-99 The Mountain States Telephone and File No. E-89-100 Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-101 Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone File No. E-89-102 Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-103 The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-104 Company, New England Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-105 Company, New York Telephone Company, File No. E-89-106 South Central Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-107 Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-108 Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-109 American Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-110 Company, CLARK-BADER, INC. (TMC Long Distance) filed the following complaint: Pacific Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-140 (A Pacific Telesis Company) ACTION TELCOM COMPANY filed the following complaint: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-143 LITEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION filed the following complaints: The Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-147 of Pennsylvania, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-148 Company Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-149 Company of Maryland, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-150 Company of Virginia, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-151 Company of West Virginia, New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-152 Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-153 Indiana Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-154 Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-155 The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-156 Wisconsin Bell, Inc. File No. E-89-157 The Mountain States Telephone and File No. E-89-158 Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-159 New England Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-160 Company, New York Telephone Company, File No. E-89-161 Pacific Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-162 Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-163 Company, South Central Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-164 Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-165 US SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. filed the following complaints: The Bell Telephone Company of File No. E-89-251 Pennsylvania, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-252 Company, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-253 Company of Maryland, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-254 Company of Virginia, US SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. (cont'd) Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-255 Company of West Virginia, Diamond State Telephone Company, File No. E-89-256 New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-257 Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-258 Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Inc., File No. E-89-259 Michigan Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-260 Ohio Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-261 Wisconsin Bell, Inc., File No. E-89-262 The Mountain States Telephone and File No. E-89-263 Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-264 Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone File No. E-89-265 Company, Nevada Bell Telephone, File No. E-89-266 Pacific Bell Telephone, File No. E-89-267 New England Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-268 Company, New York Telephone Company, File No. E-89-269 South Central Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-270 Southern Bell Telephone and File No. E-89-271 Telegraph Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-272 ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, et al. filed the following complaints: Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-278 Indiana Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-279 Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-280 The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-281 Wisconsin Bell, Inc., File No. E-89-282 The Bell Telephone Company of File No. E-89-283 Pennsylvania, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-284 Company, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-285 Company of Maryland, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-286 Company of Virginia, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-287 Company of West Virginia, ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, et al. (cont'd) New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-288 Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-289 Company, South Central Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-290 New England Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-291 Company, New York Telephone Company, File No. E-89-292 Pacific Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-293 Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-294 The Mountain States Telephone and File No. E-89-295 Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-296 WTG-WEST, INC., WTG-EAST, INC. and WTG-CENTRAL, INC. filed the following complaints: The Bell Telephone Company of File No. E-89-298 Pennsylvania, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-299 Company, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-300 Company of Maryland, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-301 Company of Virginia, New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-302 Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-303 Indiana Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-304 Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-305 Ohio Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-306 Wisconsin Bell, Inc., File No. E-89-307 The Mountain States Telephone and File No. E-89-308 Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-309 Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone File No. E-89-310 Company, Nevada Bell Telephone, File No. E-89-311 Pacific Bell Telephone, File No. E-89-312 New England Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-313 Company, New York Telephone Company, File No. E-89-314 WTG-WEST, INC., WTG-EAST, INC. and WTG-CENTRAL, INC. (cont'd) South Central Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-315 Southern Bell Telephone and File No. E-89-316 Telegraph Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-317 RCI CORPORATION filed the following complaints: The Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-318 of Pennsylvania, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-319 Company Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-320 Company of Maryland, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-321 Company of Virginia, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-89-322 Company of West Virginia, Diamond State Telephone Company, File No. E-89-323 New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-324 Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-325 Indiana Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-326 Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-327 The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-328 Wisconsin Bell, Inc. File No. E-89-329 The Mountain States Telephone and File No. E-89-330 Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-331 Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone File No. E-89-332 Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-333 The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-334 Company, New England Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-335 Company, New York Telephone Company, File No. E-89-336 South Central Bell Telephone Company File No. E-89-337 Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-89-338 Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-339 TOTAL TEL USA filed the following complaint: New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-89-359 TELESPHERE NETWORK, INC. filed the following complaints: Bell Telephone Company of File No. E-90-90 Pennsylvania, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-91 Company, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-92 Company of Maryland, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-93 Company of Virginia, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-94 New York Telephone Company, File No. E-90-95 Pacific Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-96 Southern Bell Telephone and File No. E-90-97 Telegraph Company, South Central Bell Telephone File No. E-90-98 Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-99 MIDAMERICAN LONG DISTANCE COMPANY filed the following complaints: Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-100 The Mountain States Telephone and File No. E-90-101 Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-102 Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-103 Wisconsin Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-104 ONE CALL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. filed the following complaints: Indiana Bell Telephone Company File No. E-90-111 Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-112 TELECOM*USA, INC. filed the following complaints: Bell Telephone Company of File No. E-90-134 Pennsylvania, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-135 Company, TELECOM*USA, INC. (cont'd) Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-136 Company of Maryland, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-137 Company of Virginia, Diamond State Telephone Company, File No. E-90-138 New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-139 Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-140 Indiana Bell Telephone Company File No. E-90-141 Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-142 The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-143 Wisconsin Bell, Inc. File No. E-90-144 The Mountain States Telephone and File No. E-90-145 Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-146 Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone File No. E-90-147 Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-148 Pacific Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-149 New England Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-90-150 Company, New York Telephone Company, File No. E-90-151 South Central Bell Telephone Company File No. E-90-152 Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-90-153 Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-154 American Telephone and File No. E-90-155 Telegraph Company, MLD HOLDINGS, INC. and Its Subsidiaries filed the following complaints: The Bell Telephone Company File No. E-90-365 of Pennsylvania, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-366 Company Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-367 Company of Maryland, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-368 Company of Virginia, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone File No. E-90-369 Company of West Virginia, Diamond State Telephone Company, File No. E-90-370 MLD HOLDINGS, INC. and Its Subsidiaries (cont'd) New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-371 Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-372 Indiana Bell Telephone Company File No. E-90-373 Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-374 The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-375 Wisconsin Bell, Inc. File No. E-90-376 The Mountain States Telephone and File No. E-90-377 Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-378 Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone File No. E-90-379 Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-380 Pacific Telephone Company, File No. E-90-381 New England Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-90-382 Company, New York Telephone Company, File No. E-90-383 South Central Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-384 Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-90-385 Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, File No. E-90-386 American Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-90-387 Company, BURLINGTON TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a Long Distance North filed the following complaints: New England Telephone and Telegraph File No. E-90-456 Company, New York Telephone Company, File No. E-90-457 ATTACHMENT B MID ATLANTIC TELECOM, INC., IC-89-06158, filed the following complaints: Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company ("C&P") C & P of Maryland C & P of Virginia C & P of West Virginia Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania Diamond State Telephone Company Illinois Bell Telephone Company Indiana Bell Telephone Company Mountain States Telephone Company New England Telephone & Telegraph Company New Jersey Bell Telephone Company New York Telephone Company Northwestern Bell Telephone Company Ohio Bell Telephone Company Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company South Central Bell Telephone Company Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company American Telephone & Telegraph Company TELESPHERE NETWORK, INC., IC-89-06183, filed the following complaints: Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company C & P of Maryland C & P of Virginia C & P of West Virginia Diamond State Telephone Company Illinois Bell Telephone Company Indiana Bell Telephone Company Michigan Bell Telephone Company Mountain States Telephone Company Nevada Bell Telephone Company New England Telephone Company New Jersey Bell Telephone Company New York Telephone Company Northwestern Bell Telephone Company Ohio Bell Telephone Company Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company South Central Bell Telephone Company TELESPHERE NETWORK, INC. (cont'd) Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Wisconsin Bell Telephone Company American Telephone & Telegraph Company PHONE AMERICA OF CAROLINA, INC., IC-89-06184, filed the following complaints: Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company C & P of Maryland C & P of Virginia C & P of West Virginia Diamond State Telephone Company Illinois Bell Telephone Company Michigan Bell Telephone Company New England Telephone Company New Jersey Bell Telephone Company New York Telephone Company Ohio Bell Telephone Company Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company South Central Bell Telephone Company Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company American Telephone & Telegraph Company MID AMERICAN LONG DISTANCE COMPANY, IC-89-06255, filed the following complaints: Illinois Bell Telephone Company Mountain States Telephone Company New Jersey Bell Telephone Company Northwestern Bell Telephone Company Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Wisconsin Bell Telephone Company American Telephone & Telegraph Company