47 C.F.R. § 61.40

Private line rate structure guidelines

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Commission uses a variety of tools to determine whether a dominant carrier's private line tariffs are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. The dominant carrier's burden of cost justification can be reduced when its private line rate structures comply with the following five guidelines.

(1) Rate structures for the same or comparable services should be integrated;

(2) Rate structures for the same or comparable services should be consistent with one another;

(3) Rate elements should be selected to reflect market demand, pricing convenience for the carrier and customers, and cost characteristics; a rate element which appears separately in one rate structure should appear separately in all other rate structures;

(4) Rate elements should be consistently defined with respect to underlying service functions and should be consistently employed through all rate structures; and

(5) Rate structures should be simple and easy to understand.

(b) The guidelines do not preclude a carrier, in a given case when a private line tariff does not comply with these guidelines, from justifying its departure from the guidelines and showing that its tariff is just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.

[49 FR 40869, Oct. 18, 1984, as amended at 76 FR 43213, July 20, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1990–1990 · leading case: MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship, Itt Commc'ns Servs., Inc., Competitive Telecomm. Ass'n, Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Intervenors. Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., MCI Telecomm. Corp., Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Itt Commc'ns Servs., Inc., Competitive Telecomm. Ass'n, Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Intervenors. Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship, MCI Telecomm. Corp., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Itt Commc'ns Servs., Inc., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Competitive Telecomm. Ass'n, Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Intervenors. Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship, Illinois Bell Tel. Co., Indiana Bell Tel. Co., Inc., Michigan Bell Tel. Co., the Ohio Bell Tel. Co., & Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (Ameritech Operating Companies), MCI Telecomm. Corp., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Intervenors. Williams Telecomm. Grp., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship, Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Intervenors, 917 F.2d 30 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship, Itt Commc'ns Servs., Inc., Competitive Telecomm. Ass'n, Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Intervenors. Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., MCI Telecomm. Corp., Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Itt Commc'ns Servs., Inc., Competitive Telecomm. Ass'n, Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Intervenors. Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship, MCI Telecomm. Corp., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., Itt Commc'ns Servs., Inc., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Competitive Telecomm. Ass'n, Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Intervenors. Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship, Illinois Bell Tel. Co., Indiana Bell Tel. Co., Inc., Michigan Bell Tel. Co., the Ohio Bell Tel. Co., & Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (Ameritech Operating Companies), MCI Telecomm. Corp., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Intervenors. Williams Telecomm. Grp., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Indep. Data Commc'ns Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc., Ad Hoc Telecomm. Users Comm., Us Sprint Commc'ns Co. Ltd. P'ship, Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Intervenors, 917 F.2d 30 (D.C. Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “204 (1988)), and designated for inquiry, inter alia, the questions: whether the lower rates charged for the integrated packages constitute an unreasonable discrimination in provision of like communication service, whether the tariffs comply with the FCC's Private Line Rate…”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 917 F.2d 30 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “See 47 C.F.R. Part 61.40; Private Line Rate Structure and Volume Discount Practices, 97 F.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.