**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | Transmittal No. 1430         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Ameritech Operating Companies    | ** | Transmittal No. 84           |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Tariff FCC No. 2                 | *  | Transmittal No. 187          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Nevada Bell Telephone Company    | ** | Transmittal No. 843          |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Tariff FCC No. 1                 | *  | Transmittal No. 3022         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Pacific Bell Telephone Company   | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| FCC Tariff No. 1                 | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Southern New England Telephone   | ** |                              |
| Company                          |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Tariff FCC No. 39                | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Southwestern Bell Telephone      |    |                              |
| Company                          | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| FCC Tariff No. 73                | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: December 27, 2004 Released: December 27, 2004**

By the Chief, Pricing Policy Division:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  Pursuant to section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended,[^1] the Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech), the
    Nevada Bell Telephone Company (Nevada Bell), the Pacific Bell
    Telephone Company (Pacific Bell), the Southern New England Telephone
    Company (SNET), and the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT)
    filed Transmittal Nos. 1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022, respectively,
    revising certain provisions of their interstate access tariffs, FCC
    Nos. 2, 1, 1, 39, and 73, respectively, to become effective December
    28, 2004.[^2] Because these telephone companies are all part of SBC
    Communications, Inc., they will be referred to collectively
    throughout this order as "SBC." SBC's tariff transmittals revise the
    refusal and discontinuance of service and security deposit
    provisions of its current interstate access tariffs.

2.  SBC's current tariffs allow it to require security deposits from a
    customer that has a late payment history or lacks established
    credit. SBC's tariff transmittals state that a customer has a late
    payment history "if \[it\] has failed to pay the undisputed amount
    of a monthly bill by the billed due date in any two of the most
    recent twelve months, provided that both the past due period and the
    amount of the delinquent payment are more than de minimus \[sic\]. A
    de minimus \[sic\] late payment is construed to mean either 1) the
    payment received was deficient in balance by 5% or less of the
    original billed undisputed amount or 2) the payment received was
    late by one day as compared to the required bill payment date."[^3]
    SBC's tariff transmittals permit it to base the amount of the
    security deposit on the "total charges billed and rendered by the
    Telephone Company for the most recent two months of service."[^4]
    SBC's tariff transmittals also define "established credit" as,
    "within the past 12 months . . . pa\[ying\] all undisputed billed
    amounts within required bill payment dates to this telephone company
    or another telecommunications carrier or an electric utility."[^5]
    SBC's tariff transmittals also shorten from 30 to 15 calendar days
    the notice period for refusal and discontinuance of service for
    nonpayment, provided it has sent the unpaid bill to the customer
    within seven business days of the bill date, or more than 30
    calendar days before giving notice of refusal or discontinuance.[^6]
    SBC's tariff transmittals state that it will not initiate refusal
    and discontinuance of service procedures for disputed amounts if the
    customer has not paid the disputed amount by the due date and SBC
    has not "rendered a decision on the dispute."[^7]

3.  In its Description and Justification SBC asserts that it is filing
    these revisions "\[c\]onsistent with the guidance provided from the
    Commission's December 23, 2002, Policy Statement" and "to make
    additional changes . . . \[to\] standardize SBC's existing separate
    deposit provisions for each company/state . . . ." [^8]

4.  On December, 20, 2004, AT&T Corp. (AT&T), Sprint Corporation
    (Sprint), and VarTec Telecom, Inc. (VarTec) filed petitions to
    reject, or, in the alternative, to suspend and investigate the SBC
    tariffs.[^9] On the same date, MCI filed a petition to suspend and
    investigate the SBC tariffs.[^10] On December 23, 2004, SBC filed
    its reply.[^11] In this Order we grant the petition of MCI, and the
    petitions of AT&T, Sprint, and VarTec so far as they ask us to
    suspend and investigate SBC's tariffs, and we suspend for five
    months and set for investigation SBC's tariff transmittals revising
    the refusal and discontinuance of service and security deposit
    provisions of its interstate access Tariffs FCC Nos. 2, 1, 1, 39,
    and 73.

# DisCUSSION

5.  We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the
    lawfulness of SBC's tariff transmittals that require further
    investigation. They question whether SBC's tariff transmittals are
    unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections
    201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the
    revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and
    61.54 of the Commission's rules.[^12] Sprint further questions
    whether SBC has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change
    by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan.[^13] For these
    reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the
    lawfulness of SBC's FCC Tariffs Nos. 2, 1, 1, 39 and 73, Transmittal
    Nos. 1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022, respectively, require further
    investigation, and we suspend them for five months. The specific
    issues that will be the subject of the investigation will be
    identified in an upcoming designation order and may include, but not
    be limited to, the issues identified in this paragraph. We may also,
    by order, identify discrete issues that do not warrant further
    investigation.

# *ex parte* requirements

6.  This investigation is a permit-but-disclose proceeding and is
    subject to the requirements of section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b), as revised. Persons making oral *ex
    parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
    presentations must contain a summary of the substance of the
    presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.
    More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and
    arguments presented is generally required.[^14] Other rules
    pertaining to oral and written presentations are also set forth in
    section 1.1206(b).

# ordering clauses

7.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 204(a) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 204(a), and
    through the authority delegated pursuant to sections 0.91 and 0.291
    of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, Transmittal
    Nos. 1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022, respectively, Tariffs FCC Nos. 2,
    1, 1, 39, and 73, respectively, of the Ameritech Operating
    Companies, the Nevada Bell Telephone Company, the Pacific Bell
    Telephone Company, the Southern New England Telephone Company, and
    the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ARE SUSPENDED for five
    months and an investigation IS INSTITUTED.

8.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Ameritech Operating Companies, the
    Nevada Bell Telephone Company, the Pacific Bell Telephone Company,
    the Southern New England Telephone Company, and the Southwestern
    Bell Telephone Company SHALL FILE a supplement within five business
    days from the release date of this order reflecting the suspension.
    They should cite the "DA" number on the instant order as the
    authority for the filing.

9.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition of MCI, Inc. to suspend and
    investigate IS GRANTED, and the petitions to reject, or, in the
    alternative, to suspend and investigate filed by AT&T Corp.; Sprint
    Corporation; and VarTec Telecom, Inc. ARE GRANTED to the extent
    indicated herein and otherwise ARE DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Tamara L. Preiss
>
> Chief, Pricing Policy Division
>
> Wireline Competition Bureau

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 204(a)(3).

[^2]: Ameritech Operating Companies, Nevada Bell Telephone Company,
    Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southern New England Telephone
    Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Transmittal Nos.
    1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022, respectively, Tariffs FCC Nos. 2, 1,
    1, 39, and 73, respectively, (filed December 13, 2004).

[^3]: *See, e.g.,* Ameritech Operating Companies Transmittal No. 1430,
    2^nd^ Revised Page 40.1, Section 2.4.1 (A).

[^4]: *See, e.g., id.*

[^5]: *See, e.g., id.*

[^6]: *See, e.g.,* *id.* at 6^th^ Revised Page 27, section 2.1.8.

[^7]: *See, e.g.,* *id.* at 3^rd^ Revised Page 28.1, section
    2.1.8(A)(2).

[^8]: *See, e.g., id.* at Description and Justification, pp. 1-2 (citing
    *Verizon Petition for Emergency Declaratory and Other Relief*, WC
    Docket No. 02-202, Policy Statement, 17 FCC Rcd 26884 (2002)).

[^9]: Ameritech Operating Companies, Nevada Bell Telephone Company,
    Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southern New England Telephone
    Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Transmittal Nos.
    1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022, respectively, Tariffs FCC Nos. 2, 1,
    1, 39, and 73, respectively, Petition of AT&T Corp. (AT&T Petition);
    Petition of Sprint to Reject Or Alternatively Suspend and
    Investigate (Sprint Petition); Petition to Reject, or, In the
    Alternative, To Suspend and Investigate (VarTec Petition) (Dec. 20,
    2004).

[^10]: Ameritech Operating Companies, Nevada Bell Telephone Company,
    Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southern New England Telephone
    Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Transmittal Nos.
    1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022, respectively, Tariffs FCC Nos. 2, 1,
    1, 39, and 73, respectively, MCI Petition to Suspend and Investigate
    (MCI Petition) (Dec. 20, 2004).

[^11]: Ameritech Operating Companies, Nevada Bell Telephone Company,
    Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southern New England Telephone
    Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Transmittal Nos.
    1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022, respectively, Tariffs FCC Nos. 2, 1,
    1, 39, and 73, respectively, SBC Opposition to Petitions to Reject
    or, in the Alternative, Suspend and Investigate (Dec. 23, 2004).

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) and 202(a); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.2, 61.54. *See
    also* Sprint Petition at 2; VarTec Petition at 1.

[^13]: *See* Sprint Petition at 5-6.

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §1.1206(b)(2), as revised.