[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17830]
[[Page 36191]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 96-128; DA 98-1198]
Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
Telecommunciations Act of 1996
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Request for comments pursuant to court decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document seeks further comment on certain issues raised
by the May 15, 1998 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit in MCI Telecommunications Corporation,
et al. v. FCC. The Court of Appeals decision related to the
Commission's Second Report and Order on pay telephone reclassification
and compensation provisions.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 13, 1998, and reply comments
are due on or before July 27, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Room 222 , 1919 M St.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Lipscomb, Formal Complaints and
Information Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
(202)418-0960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In MCI Telecommunications Corporation, et
al. v. FCC (``MCI v. FCC''),1 the court held that the
Commission failed to explain, in its Second Order,2
published on October 30, 1997, at 62 FR 58659, why a market-based rate
for coinless calls could be derived by subtracting avoided costs from a
market rate charged for coin calls.3 In light of the court's
decision in MCI v. FCC, we seek comment on competition in the payphone
market since the deregulation of payphones and the impact of
deregulation on the local coin rate. To that end, we seek comment and
evidence on whether the local coin rate reflects competitive market
conditions and the extent to which costs and rates converge in the coin
call market. We also seek comment on the similarities and differences
between the market segments for coin and coinless calls and the factors
attributable to these similarities and differences, including the use
of payphones to initiate both types of calls. We further seek comment
on whether, and how, the distinctions between these market segments
should affect the determination of a reasonable default compensation
amount for coinless calls. Parties should address any market
imperfections that might affect the use of the local coin rate as a
market-based surrogate for coinless calls, including locational
monopolies, and limitations on the use of pennies in payphones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MCI v. FCC, No. 97-1675, slip op. (D.C. Cir. May 15, 1998).
\2\ Implementation of Pay Telephone Reclassification and
Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-128, 62 FR 58659 (October
30, 1997), 13 FCC Rcd 1778 (1997) (``Second Order'').
\3\ MCI v. FCC, slip op. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Order concluded that coin and coinless calls share
certain joint and common costs, because each type of call generally
uses the same piece of equipment. Therefore, we seek comment on the
reasonableness of adjusting the local coin rate for cost differences
between providing coin and coinless calls as a market-based mechanism
for deriving fair compensation for coinless calls. We ask that parties
respond specifically to the concerns raised by the court in
establishing the appropriate per-call compensation amount using this
approach. We also seek comment on other market-based methodologies that
could be used to establish a per-call compensation rate for coinless
calls. In suggesting alternative market approaches, parties should
address, for example, how a payphone service provider would use the
market-based approach to set a price for coinless calls in a
deregulated market when providing a number of related types of services
using substantially the same payphone equipment.
We will incorporate in this proceeding the comments and reply
comments filed in the Second Order proceeding and in response to
petitions for reconsideration of the Second Order. Parties may also
file additional information regarding specific payphone costs for
providing coinless calls and the differences in costs for providing
coin calls.
Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments with the Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 222, 1919 M St. NW, Washington, DC
20554 on or before July 13, 1998, and reply comments on or before July
27, 1998. To file formally in this proceeding, participants must file
an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and
supporting comments. In addition, parties should file two copies of any
such pleadings with the Chief, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier
Bureau, Stop 1600A, Room 6008, 2025 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554.
Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket
with the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Comments
and reply comments will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Federal Communications Commission.
Kathryn C. Brown,
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-17830 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
