DA 92-93 Federal Communications Commission Record 7 FCC Red No. 3 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
In the Matter of 
American Telephone 
and Telegraph Company 
Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 12 
ORDER 
Transmittal No. 3585 
Adopted: January 23, 1992; Released: January 24, 1992 
By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: 
I. American Telephone and Telegraph Company 
(AT&T) has filed Transmittal No. 3585 to modify Virtual 
Telecommunications Network Service (VTNS) Option 31. 
Option 31. as modified. is described by AT&T as a gen­
erally available offering designed and engineered for voice 
and data communications service among stations in the 
United States, Puerto Rico. the U.S. Virgin Islands. and 
specific international locations. The revisions to Option 
31: decrease the basic charge: reduce rates in Schedule C; 
introduce a domestic usage volume pricing plan: modify 
the international usage volume pricing plan; modify the 
minimum annual charge; modify the changes provisions; 
introduce a domestic data transmission capability (DTC) 
volume pricing plan: introduce an international OTC. 
voice transmission capability and satellite transmission ca­
pability volume pricing plan: and modify the outage cred­
it units. See AT&T Transmittal No. 3585 Description and 
Justification (D&J) at 2-5. Transmittal 3585 is scheduled 
to take effect on January 28. 1992. 
2. US Sprint Communications Company Limited Part­
nership (Sprint). Williams Telecommunications Group. 
Inc. (Williams), and Competitive Telecommunications As­
sociation (CompTel) filed petitions to reject or suspend 
and investigate the transmittal on November 14. 1991. 
AT&T filed a reply on November 22. 1991. 
3. Petitioners argue that the Commission ·s action in CC 
Docket 90-132 1 prohibits the Commission from accepting 
the revisions to Option 31. In the Interexchange Order, the 
Commission determined that. pending 800 number porta­
bility. 800 or inbound services cannot be legally bundled 
with other services, but also "grandfathered" existing op­
tions. lnterexchange Order at para. 149. Petitioners argue 
that the Commission intended to grandfather only those 
options on file as of August I. Sprint Petition at 3-4; 
Williams Petition at 4; CompTel Petition at 3. 
1 Competition in the Interstate lnterexchange Marketplace, Re­
port and Order. 6 FCC Red 5880. 5905-06 (1991) (lnterexchange 
Order), reconsidered in part, FCC No. 91-930. Mimeo 38289 
~released Nov. 25, 1991). petitions for further recon. pending. 
MCI Telecommunications Corp. V. FCC. 917 F.2d 30 (D.C. 
Cir. 1990). 
3 Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. ICC, 738 F.2d 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1984). 
912 
4. The petitioners contend that the proposed revisions 
substantially alter Option 31, which they assert establishes 
that AT&T is using revisions as a way of avoiding the 800 
bundling restriction. See Sprint Petition at 3: Williams 
Petition at 5: CompTel Petition at 2. Sprint and Williams 
allege that these modifications expand the scope of 800 
service bundling in Option 31 and should not be 
permitted. See Sprint Petition at 4; Williams Petition at 5. 
5. CompTel insists that these modifications are objec­
tionable because they are material changes in the option. 
CompTel Petition at 1. Sprint asserts that the changes in 
Transmittal 3585 are not being made to serve the current 
customer but to make this offering more attractive to 
other customers and thereby avoid the Commission's pro­
hibition on bundling of inbound service. Sprint Petition 
at 2-4. Williams alleges Tariff 12 cannot be justified under 
the princT!es enunciated in the Tariff 12 Remand2 and 
Sea-Land decisions, claiming that those cases require that 
the tariff filing or contract provide sufficient information 
to ensure compliance with statutory anti-discrimination 
provisions. Id. at 8-9. Williams argues that the Tariff 12 
options are not generally available and are otherwise un­
lawful violations of Section 202(a) of the Communications 
Act. Id. at 9-12. 
6. AT&T replies that this filing makes no fundamental 
change to Option 31: the rate elements. rate structure, 
and functionality remain essentially as originally filed. 
AT&T Reply at 1. AT&T asserts that the Interexchange 
Order does not prohibit revisions to existing VTNS op­
tions that include inbound capability. Id. at 2-5. Further­
more, AT&T contends that the proposed revisions to 
Option 31 would not thwart the policy of promoting 
competition for inbound services. Id. at 6. 
7. The Commission's Intere:r:change Order precluded 
AT&T from including any inbound service in new Tariff 
12 options until 800 numbers become portable. but 
"grandfathered" existing Tariff 12 options containing such 
service. Intere:r:change Order at para. 149. The Commission 
reasoned that. while this action would inconvenience cus­
tomers who were in negotiations for Tariff 12 options. 
such customers would not have to reconfigure their exist­
ing service offerings. which existing customers would be 
required to do in the absence of the grandfathering provi­
sion. Id. at n.237. On November 25, 1991. the Commis­
sion released an Order extending the grandfathering 
provision of the lnterexchange Order to include the addi­
tional Tariff 12 options that had been filed with the 
Commission before September 1. 1991.4 
8. The Common Carrier Bureau has reviewed AT&T 
Transmittal No. 3585, the revisions. and the pleadings. We 
conclude that this transmittal must be rejected because 
these revisions substantially change Option 31. which in­
cludes inbound service, and are therefore inconsistent 
with the Commission's decision in CC Docket 90-132 to 
prohibit any further bundling of inbound services in Tar­
iff 12 Packages and in contract-based tariffs. 5 
4 Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, CC 
Docket No. 90-132, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 
91-390. Mimeo 38289 (released Nov. 25, 1991). 
5 See American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Transmit­
tal No. 3375, DA 91-1577 (released Dec. 19, 1991) at para. ll. 
7 FCC Red No. 3 Federal Communications Commission Record 
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that American 
Telephone and Telegraph Company Tariff F.C.C. No. 12, 
Transmittal No. 3585, IS REJECTED. 
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions to 
reject or suspend and investigate American Telephone 
and Telegraph Company Tariff F.C.C. No. 12, Transmittal 
No. 3585, filed by US Sprint Communications Company 
Limited Partnership, Williams Telecommunications 
Group, Inc., and Competitive Telecommunications Asso­
ciation, ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, 
and otherwise ARE DENIED. 
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that American Tele­
phone and Telegraph Company SHALL ISSUE revisions 
to the tariff no later than five business days from the 
release of this Order removing the rejected material and 
reinstating currently effective material. These revisions 
shall be scheduled to become effective on not less than 
one day's notice. For this purpose, Special Permission No. 
92-13 is assigned and Sections 61.58 and 61.59 of the 
Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.58, 61.59. are 
waived. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Richard M. Firestone 
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 
913 
DA 92-93