Federal Communications Commission________DA 00-1452
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company )
Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA )
Boundary to Provide Expanded Local ) File No. NSD-L-00-46
Calling Service (ELCS) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: June 28,2000 Released: June 29,2000 
By the Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On March 31, 2000, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Inc. (SWBT), pursuant 
to Section 3(25) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,1 filed a petition to provide 
two-way, flat-rated, non-optional expanded local calling service (ELCS) between the Blessing 
and El Campo exchanges in Texas.2 SWBT's petition request limited modifications of local 
access and transport area (LATA) boundaries.3 The petition was placed on public notice,4 and no 
comments were filed. For the reasons stated below, we grant SWBT's request.
1 See 47 U.S.C. 153(25).
2 Blessing is a GTE Southwest, Inc. exchange; and El Camp is a SWBT exchange.
3 Section 3(25) of the Act defines LATAs as those areas established prior to enactment of the 1996 Act by a 
Bell Operating Company (BOC) such that no exchange area includes points within more than "one metropolitan 
statistical area, consolidated metropolitan statistical area, or State, except as expressly permitted under the AT&T 
Consent Decree"; or established or modified by a BOC after such date of enactment and approved by the 
Commission.
4 See Public Notice, "Comment Sought on Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's Requests for Limited 
Modification of LATA Boundaries in to provide ELCS Between the Blessing and El Campo Exchanges in Texas", 
rel. April 7,2000.
11421
________________Federal Communications Commission_________DA 00-1452
H. BACKGROUND
2. Requests for new ELCS routes are generally initiated by local subscribers. IntraLATA 
ELCS routes can be ordered by the state commission.5 For interLATA routes, prior to the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act),6 the Bell Operating Companies (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).7 In the years between the Consent Decree8 and the 1996 
Act, the District Court received more than a hundred requests for Consent Decree waivers to permit 
new interLATA ELCS routes.9 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.10
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 involved11 as well as whether a sufficiently strong community of interest 
between the exchanges justified granting a waiver of the Consent Decree.12 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;13 (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
5 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.
6 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
7 United States v. Western Electric, 569 F. Supp. at 995.
8 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), affdsub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 
1001 (1983).
9 Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service 
(ELCS) at Various Locations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Red 10646, 10648 (July 1997 Order).
10 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. 82-0192 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 1984).
11 See United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82-0192, slip op. at 3 n.8 (D.D.C. July 19, 1984) 
(hereinafter July 1984 Order).
12 See, e.g., 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. 82-0192 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 1993).
13 See July 1984 Order at 2 n.5.
11422
________________Federal Communications Commission________DA 00-1452
local calling between the exchanges caused problems for community residents.14 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. 15
4. Matters previously subject to the Consent Decree are now governed by the Act.16 
Under section 3(25)(B) of the Act, BOCs may modify LATA boundaries, if such modifications are 
approved by the Commission.17 On July 15, 1997, the Commission released a decision granting 23 
requests for limited boundary modification to permit ELCS.18 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.19 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 LATA modification would not have any anticompetitive 
effects.20 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 evidence as poll 
results, usage data, and descriptions of the communities involved; and (5) involves a limited
14 See Jan. 1985 Order at 2-3 & n.3.
15 See July 1984 Order at 3; Jan. 1985 Order at 2-3; United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 
82-0192, slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. May 18, 1993) (hereinafter May 1993 Order). The District Court granted waivers 
for more than a hundred flat-rated, 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 at 3; 
January 1985 Order at 4. Under such plans, subscribers pay no extra charge for calls beyond their established 
monthly service charge (the plan involves a flat-rated charge), and all subscribers in the exchange are included in 
the plan (the plan is non-optional).
16 Section 601(a)(l) 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).
17 See47U.S.C. 153(25)(B).
18 July 1997 Order, 12 FCC Red at 10646
19 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 toll rates.
20 July 1997 Order, 12 FCC Red at 10649-50.
11423
________________Federal Communications Commission___________DA 00-1452
number of customers or access lines.21
III. DISCUSSION
5. The petition proposes to establish two-way, flat-rated, non-optional ELCS, and is 
accompanied by: (1) a statement that only traditional local service is proposed; (2) an order issued 
by the Public Utility Commission of Texas indicating that the commission found a sufficient 
community of interest to warrant such service; (3) results from subscriber polls documenting a 
community of interest;22 (4) a statement of the number of access lines and carriers involved;23 and 
(5) the rate increases that will result.24 Usage data is not available to SWBT because it does not 
currently carry traffic across LATA boundaries. The brief description of the community of interest 
reveals that the geographic area covered by the El Campo Exchange shares business centers and 
employment facilities with the geographic area covered by the Blessing exchange.
6. 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 the 
Act.25 Given the small number of access lines and the small volume of traffic involved for the 
proposed ELCS area in this petition, as well as the types of service to be offered (e.g., two way, 
flat-rated, non-optional local service), it is highly unlikely that provision of ELCS service would 
reduce SWBT's motivation to open its own market to competition. Because of the limited amount 
of traffic and the type of service involved, the Division finds that the proposed LATA modification 
will not have a significant anticompetitive effect on the interexchange market or on SWBT's 
incentive to open its own market to competition. We conclude that the information in the petition 
satisfies the criteria established in the July 1997 Order.
21 Id. at 10659. The Commission also delegated authority to act on petitions to modify LATA boundaries to 
the Common Carrier Bureau. Id. at para 10657-58. 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 Association Changes by Independent 
Telephone Companies, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Red 11769 (1977) (August 1997 Order).
22 Poll results reflect the percentage of Blessing customers returning ballots in favor of ELCS to El Campo: 
78.90.
23 The Blessing exchange has 1,073 access lines and the El Campo exchange has 8,480 access lines.
24 Where SWBT is the petitioning exchange, there is no proposed rate increase. Where SWBT is not the 
petitioning exchange, SWBT does not have information as to any proposed rate increase.
25 SeeU.S.C. 27l(b)(I).
11424
_______________Federal Communications Commission________DA 00-1452
7. We conclude that, in this request, the need for the proposed ELCS route outweighs 
the risk of potential anticompetitive effects. Granting SWBTs petitions serves 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 SWBTs petition for limited LATA modification in order to provide flat-rated, two-way, 
non-optional ELCS. The LATA is modified solely for the limited purpose of allowing SWBT to 
provide flat-rated, two-way, non-optional local calling service between the specific exchanges or 
geographic areas identified in the requests. The LATA is not modified to permit the BOC to offer 
any other type of service, including calls that originate or terminate outside the specified areas. 
Thus, flat-rated, two-way, non-optional ELCS between the specified exchanges will be treated as 
intraLATA, and the provisions of the Act governing intraLATA service will apply.26 Other types of 
service between the specified exchanges will remain interLATA, and the provisions of the Act 
governing interLATA service will apply.
VL CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), and authority delegated 
by Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that the request of 
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Inc. for a LATA modifications for the limited purpose of 
providing flat-rated, two-way, non-optional ELCS at specific locations identified in File No. NSD- 
L-00-46 IS APPROVED. This LATA boundary is modified solely for the purpose of providing 
flat-rated, two-way, non-optional ELCS between points in the specific exchanges or geographic 
areas indicated in the request. The LATA boundary for all other services shall remain unchanged.
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, Southwestern Bell 
Telephone Company, Inc.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
L. Charles Keller
Chief, Network Services Division
Common Carrier Bureau
26 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(a)(2)(B).
11425