WPC 2BJZ Courier3|jx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 2000M RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\Y"aqX@2^6 ZF 3|jHP LaserJet 5Si 2000M RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\Y"aqX@HeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  28t.8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# BibliogrphyBibliography݅X  (# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper   ? X X` hp x (#%' y*dddyy*dddy H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28 +  ӈ2QjKK KQ CourierCourier BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""\4  pG;W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,:BZW*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,:rXh*f9 xr G;XX yO X )ө X<w  #XP\  P6QynXP#Federal Communications Commission`)(#5DA 981740 ă  yxdddy )q0p yO-f#X\  P6G;ɒP#qKv#X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# #X\  P6G;ɒP#Before thelUFederal Communications Commission  yO}"Washington, D.C. 20554#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#у  XX-  X*-` `  hh,V#XP\  P6QynXP#)  X-In the Matter of hh,V) ` `  hh,V)  X-Bell AtlanticVirginia, Inc.hh,V)  X-Petition for Limited Modification of LATA )pp   X-Boundaries to Provide Expanded LocalV )ppFile No. NSDL9891  X -Calling Service (ELCS) hh,V)pp     X[ -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER lU  X--X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:evidence as poll results, usage data, and descriptions of the communities involved; and (5)  X-involves a limited number of customers or access lines.ۿ {OK-ԍId. at para. 24. The Commission also delegated authority to act on petitions to modify LATA  {O-boundaries to the Common Carrier Bureau. Id. at para 23. On August 6, 1997, the Commission released a decision granting requests to modify LATA boundaries to permit three independent telephone company (ITC) exchanges in Texas to change LATA association for purposes of improving service to subscribers. The Commission stated that a carrier will be deemed to have made a prima facie case supporting grant of a proposed association change if the petition: (1) states that the association change is necessary because of planned upgrades to the ITC's network or service that will require routing traffic through a different BOC LATA; (2) involves a limited number of access lines; and (3) includes a statement from the affected BOC(s) requesting a LATA modification, pursuant to section 3(25) of the Act, to permit the change in association. Petitions for LATA  {OW -Association Changes by Independent Telephone Companies, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No.  {O! -96158, FCC 97258 (rel. Aug. 6, 1997) (August 1997 Order).  X-  X-` `  hh,III. DISCUSSION  Xv-   5.` ` The petitions propose to establish twoway, nonoptional ELCS, and are   xaccompanied by: (1) a statement that only traditional local service is proposed; (2) an order issued   by The Virginia State Corporation Commission approving ELCS between the specified  X1-  -exchanges; (3) subscriber poll results; 10 ۿ yO-ԍSeventy percent of those who responded favor ELCS from Greenwood to Crozet; no responses were received from Crozet to Greenwood. Fiftyseven percent favor ELCS from Providence Forge to Toano; no responses were received from Toano to Providence Forge. Fiftyeight percent from Providence Forge to Williamsburg; no responses were received from Williamsburg to Providence Forge.  (4) a statement of the number of access lines involved;1ۿ yO-ԍGreenwood has 1,749 access lines; Crozet 3,449 access lines; Providence Forge 6,448 access lines; Toano 4,329 access lines; Williamsburg 38,363 access lines.   =and (5) resulting rate increases. The petitions provide usage data in the form of the number of  X -  messages per main station per month, pۿ yO$-ԍGreenwood to Crozet 12.60; Crozet to Greenwood 5.80. Providence Forge to Toano 1.16; Toano to Providence Forge 1.67. Providence Forge to Williamsburg 1.80; Williamsburg to Providence Forge 0.24. but not the percentage of subscribers making such calls.   The brief descriptions of the community interest reveal that many community services (such as   jhospitals, schools, and commercial services) are located in a nearby community in the adjacent   LATA, and that making interLATA toll calls for such services generates significant expenses for residents.  Xy-  6.` ` The petition also shows that BA presently offers several classes of service   measured rate, message rate, economy, and exchange rate in addition to flatrated service. We  XK-  note that in the July 1997 Order, the Commission stated that the District Court refused to grant  X6-  {waivers where optional or measured rate ELCS requests were considered.R6ۿ {O&-ԍJuly 1997 Order at para. 8.R This refusal,"6Z,N(N(ZZ"  X-  however, was based upon the District Court's opposition to ELCS requests that would introduce   measured rate or optional plans into the expanded local calling area as contrasted with ELCS  X-  requests that entailed existing levels of service other than flatrated. We believe that this   \distinction is borne out by the District Court's approval of several ELCS requests involving   exchanges in Virginia where measured rate, message rate, economy, and exchange rate services  X-were part of the existing service offerings.oۿ {O -ԍSee, e.g.,United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C. March 25, 1993);  {O-United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C. July 31, 1991); United States v. Western  {O-Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C. July 8, 1991); United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 820192 (D.D.C. Nov. 17, 1994). Bell Atlantic has stated that at the time of the granting of the above District Court decisions, BA offered flatrate, measured rate, message rate, economy measured rate, economy message rate, and residential exchange services in each of the exchanges for which a LATA modification was  {O -sought. See letter from Joseph J. Mulieri, Bell Atlantic, to Allen [sic] Thomas, FCC (Dec. 5, 1997). o  Xc-  7.` ` As we noted in the July 1997 Order, granting an ELCS petition removes the   proposed route from the competitive interexchange market, and some LATA modifications could   reduce the BOCs' incentive to open their own markets to competition pursuant to section 271 of  X -  the Act.T ۿ {O-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  271(b)(1).T Our focus, however, is on the number of access lines in the exchange to be added to   =the local calling area. The exchanges to be added to the local calling area have a small number   Zof access lines and should pose no competitive concerns. Given the small number of access lines   jand the small volume of traffic involved for the proposed ELCS areas in this petition, as well as  X -  /the types of service to be offered (e.g., nonoptional local service), it is highly unlikely that   provision of ELCS service would reduce Bell Atlantic's motivation to open its own market to   -competition. The Division finds that the proposed LATA modification will not have a significant   anticompetitive effect on the interexchange market or on Bell Atlantic's incentive to open its own market to competition.  X<- ` `  hh, VI. CONCLUSION  X-  8.` ` We conclude that, in these requests, the need for the proposed ELCS routes   outweigh the risk of potential anticompetitive effects. Granting Bell Atlantic's petitions serve the   public interest by permitting minor LATA modifications where such modifications are necessary   to meet the needs of local subscribers and will not have any significant effect on competition.   Accordingly, we approve Bell Atlantic's petitions for limited LATA modifications in order to   provide nonoptional ELCS. The LATAs are modified solely for the limited purpose of allowing   Bell Atlantic to provide nonoptional local calling service between the specific exchanges or   geographic areas identified in the requests. The LATAs are not modified to permit Bell Atlantic   to offer any other type of service, including calls that originate or terminate outside the specified   areas. Thus, nonoptional ELCS between the specified exchanges will be treated as intraLATA,"?,N(N(ZZ{"  X-  and the provisions of the Act governing intraLATA service will apply. ۿ {Oy-ԍThe BOC may provide ELCS service without meeting the section 271 requirements, see 47 U.S.C.   {OC-271(a), and a separate affiliate is not required. See 47 U.S.C.  272(a)(2)(B).  Other types of service   Kbetween the specified exchanges will remain interLATA, and the provisions of the Act governing  X-interLATA service will apply.$ۿ yO-ԍThe BOC may not provide other types of service (such as optional measuredrate or toll service)  {Oo-between the specified exchanges without meeting the section 271 requirements. See 47 U.S.C.  271(a).   X-  X-` `  hh,VII. ORDERING CLAUSES  Xv-  S9.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the   zCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), and 47 C.F.R.  0.91   =and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, that the requests of Bell Atlantic for LATA modifications   for the limited purpose of providing nonoptional ELCS at specific locations, identified in File   No. NSDL9891 ARE APPROVED. These LATA boundaries are modified solely for the   -purpose of providing nonoptional ELCS between points in the specific exchanges or geographic   0areas indicated in the request. The LATA boundaries for all other services shall remain unchanged.  X -  10.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 416(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  416(a), the Secretary SHALL SERVE a copy of this order upon the petitioner, Bell Atlantic. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Anna M. Gomez ` `  hh,Deputy Chief, Network Services Division ` `  hh,Common Carrier Bureau