Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 270.0

524US1

Unit: $U84

[09-06-00 20:39:07] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 214 (1998)

225

Opinion of the Court

viz., faster provisioning, the allocation of charges through
multilocation billing, and various matters relating to depos-
its, calling cards, and service support, see 108 F. 3d, at 987–
988—all pertain to subjects that are speciﬁcally addressed
by the ﬁled tariff. See AT&T Tariff FCC No. 1, § 2.5.10
(provisioning of orders); § 6.2.4 (allocation of charges); § 2.5.6
(deposits); § 2.5.12.B (calling cards); § 6.2.5 (service supports).
The Ninth Circuit agreed that all of respondent’s claims
except those relating to provisioning and billing would be
pre-empted if the ﬁled rate doctrine applied.
108 F. 3d, at
990. But even provisioning and billing are, in the relevant
sense, “covered” by the tariff. For example, whereas re-
spondent asks to enforce a guarantee that orders would be
provisioned within 30 to 90 days, the tariff leaves it up to
petitioner to “establis[h] and conﬁr[m]” a due date for provi-
sioning, requires that petitioner merely make “every reason-
able effort” to meet that due date, and if it fails gives the
customer no recourse except to “cancel the order without
penalty or payment of nonrecurring charges.”
§ 2.5.10(B).
Faster, guaranteed provisioning of orders for the same rate
is certainly a privilege within the meaning of 47 U. S. C.
§ 203(c) and the ﬁled rate doctrine. Cf. Chicago & Alton
R. Co. v. Kirby, supra, at 163 (refusing to enforce prom-
ise for faster, guaranteed service not included in the tariff).
As for billing, whereas respondent claims that, pursuant to
the MLB option, petitioner promised to allocate usage and
charges accurately among respondent’s customers, the tariff
. usage or
provides that petitioner “will not allocate .
charges” among the locations on the customer’s network
and “is not responsible for the way that the Customer may
allocate usage or charges.” AT&T Tariff FCC No. 1, § 6.2.4.
Any assurance by petitioner that it would allocate usage and
charges and take responsibility for the task would have been
in ﬂat contradiction of the tariff. See Chesapeake & Ohio
R. Co. v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 270 U. S. 260,
266 (1926).

.