Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 97-2640
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Ameritech
Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA
Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local
	
File No. NSD-L-97-44
Calling Service (ELCS) at Various Locations
MEMORANDUM OP1MON AND ORDER
Adopted: December 18, 1997
	
Released: December 18, 1997
By the Chief, Network Services Division:
I.
	
INFRODUCTION
1. On November 14, 1997, Ameritech, on behalf of its affiliate The Ohio Bell
Telephone Company, which does business as Ameritech Ohio, pursuant to Section 3(25) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,' filed a petition to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-
optional, expanded local calling service (ELCS) between the Monroe and Cincinnati exchanges,
and the Monroe and Hamilton exchanges. Ameritech's petition requests a limited modification
of local access transport area (LATA) boundaries.2 The petition was placed on public notice3 and
no comments or replies were filed. For the reasons stated below, we grant Ameritech's ELCS
request.
II. BACKGROUND
	
2.
	
Requests for new ELCS routes are generally initiated by local subscribers.
See 47 U.S.C. § 153(25).
Section 3(25) of the Act defines LATAs as certain contiguous geographic areas established prior to
enactment of the 1996 Act or established or modified by a BOC after such date of enactment and approved by the
Commission.
See Public Notice, Requests by Ameritech for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to provide ELCS
Between Various Exchanges, (Net. Ser. Div. rel. Nov. 19, 1996).
21935
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 97-2640
IntraLATA ELCS routes can be ordered by the state commission.4 For interLATA routes, prior
to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act),5 the BOCs were required to secure state
approval and then obtain a waiver from the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (District Court).6 In the years between the Consent Decree7 and the 1996 Act, the
District Court received more than a hundred requests for Consent Decree waivers to permit new
interLATA ELCS routes.8 Because of the large number of requests involved and because most
of the requests were non-controversial, the District Court developed a streamlined process for
handling such requests.9
3. Under the streamlined process developed by the District Court, the BOC submitted
its waiver request to the Department of Justice (Department). The Department reviewed the
request and then submitted the request, along with the Department's recommendation, to the
District Court. In evaluating ELCS requests, the Department and the District Court considered
the number of customers or access lines involved'0 as well as whether a sufficiently strong
	
community of interest between the exchanges justified granting a waiver of the Consent Decree."
A community of interest could be demonstrated by such evidence as: (1) poll results showing
that customers in the affected exchange were willing to pay higher rates to be included in an
expanded local calling area;'2 (2) usage data demonstrating a high level of calling between the
exchanges; and (3) narrative statements describing how the two exchanges were part of one
community and how the lack of local calling between the exchanges caused problems for
United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 990, 995 (D.D.C. 1983). "The distance at
which a local call becomes a long distance toll call has been, and will continue to be, determined exclusively by the
various state regulatory bodies." Id.
Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
6
	
Id.
' The Consent Decree required AT&T to divest its ownership of the BOCs. United States v. American
Telephone and Telegraph Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S.
1001 (1983).
' Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS)
at Various Locations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96-159, FCC 97-244 (rel. July 15, 1997)
(July 1997 Order) at para. 6.
° See United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82-0192 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 1984); United States v.
Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82-0 192 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 1984).
10 See United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82-0 192, slip op. at 3 n.8 (D.D.C. July 19, 1984)
(hereinafter July 1984 Order).
See eg.. United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82-0192 slip op. at 2, 3 n.3 (D.D.C. Jan. 31,
1985) (hereinafter Jan 1985 Order); United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82-0192 (D.D.C. Dec.
3, 1993); United States v. Western Electric Company, inc., No. 82-0 192 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 1993).
See July 1984 Order, at 2 n.5.
21936
Federal Communications Commission DA 97-2640
community residents.'3 In addition, the Department and the District Court gave deference to the
state's community of interest finding. The District Court also considered the competitive effects
of granting a proposed ELCS waiver.'4
4. Matters previously subject to the Consent Decree are now governed by the Act.'5
Under section 3(25)(B) of the Act, BOCs may modify LATA boundaries, if such modifications
are approved by the Commission.'6 On July 15, 1997, the Commission released a decision
granting 23 requests for limited boundary modification to permit ELCS.'7 Although calls between
the ELCS exchanges would now be treated as intraLATA, each ELCS exchange would remain
assigned to the same LATA for purposes of classifying all other calls.'8 The Commission stated
that it would grant requests for such limited modifications only where a petitioning BOC showed
that the ELCS was a flat-rated, non-optional service, a significant community of interest existed
among the affected exchanges, and grant of the requested waiver would not have any
anticompetitive effects.'9 The Commission stated further that a carrier would be deemed to have
made a prima facie case supporting grant of the proposed modification if the ELCS petition: (1)
has been approved by the state commission; (2) proposes only traditional local service (i.e., flat-
rated, non-optional ELCS); (3) indicates that the state commission found a sufficient community
of interest to warrant such service; (4) documents this community of interest through such
eyidence as poll results, usage data, and descriptions of the communities involved; and (5)
See Jan. 1985 Order, at 2-3 & n.3.
See July 1984 Order; Jan. l985 Order; United Staie,s v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82-0192,
slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. May 18, 1993) (hereinafter May 1993 Order). The District Corirt granted waivers for
more than a hundred flat-rate, non-optional ELCS plans that allow the provision of traditional local telephone
service between nearby exchanges. See e.g., Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 1002 n.54; July 1984 Order; Jan.
1985 Order. Under such plans, subscribers pay no extra charge for calls beyond their established monthly service
charge (the plan involves a flat-rate), and all subscribers in the exchange are included in the plan (the plan is
non-optional). Id.
Section 601 (a)( I) of the 1996 Act states that "[a]ny conduct or activity that was, before the date of
enactment of this Act, subject to any restriction or obligation imposed by the AT&T Consent Decree shall, on and
after such date, be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by the Communications Act of 1934 as
	
amended by this Act and shall not be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by such Consent Decree."
On April 11, 1996, the D.C. District Court issued an order terminating the AT&T Consent Decree and dismissing
all pending motions under the Consent Decree as moot, effective February 8, 1996. See United States v. Western
Electric Company, Inc., No. 82-0192, 1996 WL 255904 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1996).
16 See 47 U.S.C. § 153(25XB).
17 July 1997 Order, cited supra n. 9.
' If an exchange were assigned to another LATA for all purposes, any existing local calling routes between
that exchange and the original LATA would be lost because such traffic would now be interLATA and could no
longer be carried by the BOC. Instead, the traffic would generally be carried by an interexchange carrier charging
long distance rates.
" July 1997 Order at paras. 16-17.
21937
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 97-2640
involves a limited number of customers or access lines.20
ifi. DISCUSSION
5. Ameritech's petition proposes to establish a flat-rated, two-way, non-optional
ELCS between the Monroe and Cincinnati exchanges, and Monroe and Hamilton exchanges. The
request is accompanied by: (1) an order confirming state approval of the limited LATA
modification requested; (2) a statement that only traditional local service is proposed; (3) a
community of interest finding by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio; and (4) a statement
of the number of access lines involved.2' The petition states that Monroe subscribers make 16.20
calls per main station per month to Cincinnati, and 11.11 calls per main station per month to
Hamilton. No data regarding the percentage of subscribers making such calls is provided. Thebrief descriptions of the basis for the requested ELCS reveal that Monroe residents seek many
community services (such as hospitals, doctors offices, schools, stores, public transportation
facilities, and government offices) in Cincinnati and Hamilton, and that making interLATA toll
calls for such services generates significant expenses for residents.
6. As we stated in the July 1997 Order, granting an ELCS petition removes theproposed route from the competitive interexchange market. Some LATA modifications could
reduce the incentive created by Section 271 of the Act for BOCs to open their local exchange and
exchange access markets to competition.Z Given, however, the small number of access lines
involved in each of the proposed ELCS areas in these petitions, as well as the type of service to
be offered (i.e., flat-rated, non-optional local service), we fmd that the proposed LATA
modifications will not have a significant anticompetitive effect on the interexchange market or
on Ameritech's incentive to open its local exchange and exchange access markets to competition.
N. CONCLUSION
7.	We conclude that in Ameritech's request, the community's need for the proposed
20 Id at para. 24. The Commission also delegated authority to act on petitions to modify LATA 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 (tIC) 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 fade 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 Association Changes by Independent Telephone Companies,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96-158, FCC 97-258 (released Aug. 6, 1997) (August 1997
Order).
21 Monroe has 3,529 access lines; Cincinnati has 501,408 access lines; and Hamilton has 7,315 access lines.
Idatpara.18.
Id.
21938
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 97-2644)
ELCS routes outweighs the risk of potential anticompetitive effects. Granting Ameritech's
petition serves the public interest by permitting minor LATA modifications in cases where such
modifications are necessary to meet the needs of local subscribers and will not have any
significant effect on competition. Accordingly, we approve Ameritech's petition for limited
LATA modifications in order to provide flat-rated, non-optional ELCS. These LATAs are
modified solely for the limited purpose of allowing Ameritech to provide flat-rated, non-optional
local calling service between the specific exchanges or geographic areas identified in the request.
In each case, the LATA is not modified to permit Ameritech to offer any other type of service,
including calls that originate or terminate outside the specified areas. Thus, flat-rated, non-
optional ELCS between the specified exchanges will be treated as intraLATA, and the provisions
of the Act governing intraLATA service will apply.24 Other types of service between the
specified exchanges will remain interLAlA, and the provisions of the Act governing interLATA
service will apply.25
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(1) of the
Communications 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 Ameritech for LATA modifications for
the limited purpose of providing flat-rated, non-optional ELCS at specific locations, identified
in File No. NSD-L-97-44, ARE APPROVED to the extent described above.
9.
	
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, Ameritech.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Geraldine Matise
Chief, Network Services Division
24 The BOC may provide ELCS service without meeting the Section 271 requirements, see 47 U.S.C. §
271(a), and a separate affiliate is not required. See 47 U.S.C. § 272(aX2XB).
25 The BOC may not provide other types of service (such as measured-rate, optional, or toll service) between
the specified exchanges without meeting the Section 271 requirements. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(a).
21939
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 97-2641
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Ameritech
Petition for Limited Modification of LATA
Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local
	
File No. NSD-LM-97-30Calling Service (ELCS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: December 18, 1997
	
Released: December 18, 1997
By the Chief, Network Services Division:
I.
	
INTRODUCTION
1. On August 14, 1997, Ameritech, on behalf of The Ohio Bell Telephone Company,
which does business as Ameritech Ohio, pursuant to Section 3(25) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended,' filed a petition to provide flat-rated, one-way, non-optional, expanded local
calling service (ELCS) between New Philadelphia/Dover exchange and Ubrichsville exchanges.Ameritech requests a limited modification of a local access transport area (LATA) boundary.2The petition was placed on public notice3 and no comments or replies were filed. For the
reasons stated below, we grant Ameritech's request.
II. BACKGROUND
2.
	
Requests for new ELCS routes are generally initiated by local subscribers.
See 47 U.S.C. § 153(25).
2 Section 3(25) of the Act defines LATAs as certain contiguous geographic areas established prior to
enactment of the 1996 Act or established or modified by a BOC after such date of enactment and approved by theCommission.
See Public Notice, Requests by Ameritech Request for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to provideELCS Between New Philadelphia/Dover (Ohio) Exchange and tihrichsville Exchanges, (Net. Ser. Div. ret. Aug.12, 1997).
21940