Opinion ID: 382674
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: FCC Action

Text: 14 The FCC wrote to NYT as soon as it heard about the December 4, 1979, tariff and NYT responded by letter that it had not made a comparable filing with the FCC because the rate revision concerns only local service and rates, and because local exchange costs are now treated as intrastate by current NARUC-FCC Separations Procedures. Thereafter General Electric Company and the New York State Council of Retail Merchants filed a petition for relief with the FCC, as did various other parties interested as customers of FX or CCSA services. They are intervenors here. 7 15 On March 12, 1980, the FCC, over NYT's opposition, released its Memorandum Opinion and Order, 76 F.C.C.2d 349. The order recognized that in the past the FCC had not asserted jurisdiction over local exchange service when used in connection with interstate FX and CCSA services, but stated that the Commission was doing so now because the New York PSC imposed a substantial surcharge only upon interstate users. The FCC therefore ordered that any charges concerning the local distribution of FX and CCSA services that apply to interstate customers only are subject to FCC jurisdiction and must be filed with the Commission under section 203 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 203, 76 F.C.C.2d at 354-55. 16 Meanwhile, California and Missouri had taken somewhat similar action to that of New York, but upon the filing of the FCC order at issue here those states rescinded their actions and instructed their local utilities not to treat interstate users of FX and CCSA differently from intrastate users. 8