1076 Joint application of TCG Pittsburgh, Inc. and Digital Direct of Pittsburgh, Inc.; petition for reconsideration or clarification; doc. no. A-310213

Joint Application of TCG Pittsburgh, Inc. and Digital Direct of Pittsburgh, Inc.; Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification; Doc. No. A-310213

[26 Pa.B. 3056]

Commissioners Present:  John M. Quain, Chairperson; Lisa Crutchfield, Vice Chairperson; John Hanger; David W. Rolka; Robert K. Bloom

Public meeting held
June 6, 1996

Order

By the Commission:

   In March of 1994, TCG Pittsburgh, Inc. (TCG) and Digital Direct of Pittsburgh, Inc. (DDP) filed a joint application with the Commission at Docket No. A-310213, requesting regulatory approval for the transfer of the property and Commission operating rights owned or held by DDP to TCG. At the time of filing of the joint application, DDP was a competitive access provider (CAP) which held operating rights issued by the Commission authorizing it to provide competitive access services on a facilities-based basis in the Pittsburgh LATA. Within these operating rights, DDP was also authorized to resell intraLATA and interLATA interexchange services on a Statewide basis. See 52 Pa. Code § 63.112 (definition of ''Interexchange transporter''). However, DDP was not permitted to provide service for traffic which originated and terminated within a local calling area. In their joint application, TCG and DDP requested the Commission to recognize the buyer's, TCG's, authority to offer and provide Centrex services.

   On January 12, 1995, the Commission entered an Order granting the joint application without qualification. On January 23, 1995, the Commission entered a Corrected Order which contained the following clarification:

[T]he grant of this application does not authorize TCG to originate and terminate traffic within a local calling area on either a facilities based or resale basis.

The clarification in the January 23, 1995 Corrected Order did not serve to further restrict the original authority granted to DDP but, as indicated previously, merely reiterated the restriction historically and uniformly im- posed on all CAP and interexchange reseller certificates of public convenience.

   On February 8, 1995, TCG and DDP jointly filed the instant petition requesting the Commission to reconsider or clarify its January 23, 1995 Corrected Order so as to recognize TCG's ability to provide Centrex services within its then existing operating authority. On February 10, 1995, TCG filed a separate application with the Commission at A-310213, F.0002, to provide service as a local exchange telecommunications company in the Pittsburgh area. On February 15, 1995, TCG and DDP jointly filed a supplement to their joint petition for reconsideration or clarification. On March 31, 1995, Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. (Bell) filed a petition to file a protest out of time, a protest and an answer pertaining to TCG and DDP's joint application and petition for reconsideration. Summarily, Bell's position was that the issues pertaining to TCG's provision of Centrex should be considered by the Commission within the context of TCG's local service application at F.0002. On April 13, 1995, TCG and DDP filed an answer to Bell's petition to file protest out of time.

   On October 4, 1995 the Commission entered an Opinion and Order granting TCG's local service application. Accordingly, TCG now clearly holds a certificate of public convenience to provide Centrex service between points in its local service territory and the joint petition for reconsideration or clarification pertaining to its interexchange authority is moot.

   However, we think it is important to formally clarify this issue since it is one that arises on an informal basis with Commission staff fairly frequently and will continue to arise as local resale markets develop in the Commonwealth. By way of clarification, an interexchange certificate of public convenience, whether it addresses service on a facilities-based or resale basis, only includes the provision of service which originates and terminates in different local calling areas. Since it appears certain that any provision of Centrex-type services to customers will involve the provision of at least some, if not mostly, local service, carriers which desire to provide Centrex type services should not rely on interexchange certificates of public convenience but should file an application with the Commission covering the provision of local services. These applications may specifically seek a certificate including Centrex type services or may seek broader based local facilities-based or local resale authority which would include the provision of Centrex-type services which the carrier desires to offer and provide. Given the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and our revised entry procedures adopted recently for all telecommunications applications, we do not expect the filing of these applications to be adversarial or controversial and it appears that applicants would be issued a certificate without undue delay.

   It Is Ordered:

   1. That the petition for reconsideration or clarification filed by TCG and DDP at A-310213 is hereby dismissed as moot.

   2. That the Commission's interpretation pertaining to distinctions between interexchange and local certification are hereby adopted as a declaratory order consistent with the discussion herein.

   3. That in addition to serving the parties of record to this proceeding the Secretary is hereby directed to provide a copy of this Order to all certificated telecommunications carriers by first class mail.

   4. That the Secretary is hereby directed to deposit a copy of this Order with the Legislative Reference Bureau for publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

JOHN G. ALFORD,   
Secretary

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 96-1076. Filed for public inspection June 28, 1996, 9:00 a.m.]