TELEPHONE (51 7) TELECOPIER (51 7) August 28, 1998

TELEPHONE ( 5 1 7 ) 3 7 4 - 9 1 0 0 TELECOPIER ( 5 1 7 ) 3 7 4 - 9 1 9 1

August 28, 1998

Ms. Dorothy Wideman Executive Secretary

Michigan Public Service Commission P.O. Box 30221

Lansing, MI 48909

MICHIGAN

P:!ELlr:

SERVICE

Ce)uMs:;:;[{Jg\J

Al

i ! :

.

,;;yjB

Re; Case No. U-11756

MPTA, et a1 v Ameritech and GTE MCI Petition for Leave to Intervene Dear Ms. Wideman:

Enclosed please find original and fifteen copies of MCI Telecommunications Corporation Petition for Leave to Intervene in the above referenced matter. Also enclosed is Proof of Service upon the Parties of Record.

If there are any questions or comments, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC Albert Ernst AE/j m b Enclosures cc: Jim Denniston Parties of Record

@OMMI!;Sl(iN

I

STATE OF MICHIGAN

_A\jr;

₅

_'!998

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

//

The Michigan Pay Telephone Association, et a1

₁

)

I/

Complainants,

i

t. 0 t.

-

v. ) (1 m )

5

Michigan Bell Telephone Company

1

₎ 5 d/b/a Ameritech Michigan, a Michigan corporation, ₎

?

and ) )

ci ) Case No. U-11756

f GTE North Incorporated, a Wisconsin corporation, ₎

z _h

>

Respondents.

i

LL

LU

6

Complaint pursuant to Sections 203,204 and 318 ) ₎

=

of the Michigan Telecommunications Act to compel ₎

2

respondents to comply with Section 276 of the

5

Federal Communications Act. ) ₎

Z

Z )

P

MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION PETITION FOR LEAVE T O INTERVENE

t

0 0

Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, R 460.17201,

m

MCI Telecommunications Corporation ("MCIJ> petitions for leave to intervene in the above

W

captioned matter. In support, the following is stated:

d

f

X _{1. In its orders in Cases Nos. U-7853 and U-8946, dated April 23, 1985 and December} W

0

u

22, 1987, respectively, the Commission authorized MCI to provide interLATA and intraLATA toll telecommunication services.

ul ul 0

u _{2. In its orders in Case No. U-10138, dated February 24, 1994 and July 19, 1994, the}

Q 2

Commission granted MCI authority to provide 1

+

intraLATA message toll service on a dialing parity

n

I

basis with Ameritech Michigan ("Ameritech '> and GTE North Incorporated ("GTE1>.

ll

3. MCI has intervened or actively participated in the vast majority of proceedings before

11

this Commission relating to the transition from a monopoly to competitive telecommunications environment.

4. MCI has intervened or actively participated in a large number of complaint

11

proceedings before this Commission, e.g., the MCI intraLATA dialingparity complaintproceeding,

I1

Case No. U-10138; the Sprint billing insert complaint, Case No. U-11138; the AT&T access

/I

degradation complaint, Case No. U- 1 1240, etc.

I 1

5. MCI has intervened or actively participated in dockets concerning Ameritech

b 0

$ Michigan's and GTE's total service long run incremental costs and the prices of unbundled

m

m

cn

q network elements, interconnection services, resold services, and basic local exchange services in

Z

$

Cases Nos. U-11280 and U-11281, among others.

0

Z

ci 6. MCI intervened in In the matter of the petition of the MICHIGANPAY TELEPHONE

z

5

ASSOCIATION to initiate an investigation to determine whether Michigan Bell Telephone Company 5 d/b/a Ameritech Michigan and GTE North Incorporated are in compliance with the Michigan

z

F

Telecommunications Act and Section 276 of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended, Case

Z

g

No. U-11410. The cost studies produced in that case are a focus of the present proceeding.

z

P 7. MCI islwas a party in a number of appeals of Commission orders to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

0 0 al

8. MCI is a competitor of Ameritech and GTE in the provision of intrastate intraLATA

t

L

toll service.

(1

t

rn 9. As competitors of Ameritech and GTE , MCI is directly affected by the issues set

!

forth in the MPTA complaint/application. I _

<

o 10. Ameritech Michigan and GTE are required to restructure their operations to provide m

cost based (i.e., in conformance with the New Services Test) and nondiscriminatory rates for

a

noncompetitive services, and Ameritech's and GTE's competitive pay phone operations are required

C

lii

to not be subsidized from noncompetitive ratepayers as set forth in paragraphs 74 through 76 of the

0

complaint/application. They were required to do this by April 15, 1997. To the best of MCI's

Y

>

"

knowledge, Ameritech Michigan and GTE have not demonstrated compliance with the

II

11

Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the FCC's requirements. MCI should not be required to pay any

to recover more than cost and more than a reasonable amount of their common expenses, thus adversely affecting MCI.

12. MCI's substantial interests are affected by the potential recovery by Ameritech

, I

11

Michigan and GTE of pay phone costs and subsidies from exchange access services.

1 1

a

0

11. Rates charged by Ameritech and GTE, as set forth in the complaint/application seek

r-

0

r

.7 13. To the extent that Ameritech Michigan and GTE continue to also recover or charge

1 1

m

m

5

for the costs associated with their pay phones through their excessive access charges assessed to

1 1

z

$

MCI, Ameritech Michigan and GTE are in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and

2

H

FCC regulations.

5

z

4 14. The Commission needs to require that Arneritech and GTE provide the Commission

; with evidence and studies that were required to have been provided by April 15, 1997, i.e., to

3

f

;i establish that all expenses associated with payphone operations have been removed from the total

Z

service long run incremental costs associated with exchange and exchange access service; that

Z

2

required imputation tests have been passed; and that Ameritech be required to comply with the

I

-

L

nonstructural safeguards required by Section 3 18 of the MTA, as described in the FCC's orders in

0 0 m Docket No. 96-128. > 2 k

0 15. The present quality, general availability, or conditions for the regulated service (the

>

provision of pay telephone service by Ameritech and GTE) are adverse to the public interest.

0

2 16. As a competitor of Ameritech and GTE, MCI meets the "zone of interests " test. See,

5

0

85

103 and 305 of the MTA.

W

0 17. As a purchaser of telecommunications services from Ameritech and GTE, MCI meets

a

Q

the "zone of interests " test. C

LU

Lo

(I) 18. If the Commission allows Ameritech and GTE to continue the actions cited in this

0 0

2 docket, without firther review and analysis, MCI will be adversely affected and unable to effectively

Y

>

"

_{compete. Thus, MCI meets the "injury in fact" test.}

19. Even if it is determined that MCI does not meet the two-pronged test for standing, the Commission should allow permissive intervention as a matter of discretion. Significant policy

/I

matters are at issue, the evolving competitive telecommunications market is affected, and MCI is in

1

position to provide useful and unique information to the Commission.

I/

20. No other party to this proceeding can adequately represent MCI's interests in this

11

docket.

I/

21. MCI represents that its intervention will not unduly delay the resolution of this matter.

r.

0

r-

-

_{WHEREFORE, MCI respectfully request that its intervention be allowed, that it be granted} m

m

the rights of a full party in interest, and that it be allowed to participate in this proceeding.

Z a I? Respectfully submitted, i 0 Dated: August 28, 1998 0 u

MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION By:

DYKEMA GOSSETT

PLLC

800 Michigan National Tower Lansing, Michigan 48933 (517) 374-91 55

MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

'405 North Michigan

venue'

Suite 3700

Chicago, Illinois 60601 (3 12) 470-653 1

STATE O F MICHIGAN

II

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

/I

The Michigan Pay Telephone Association, d a1

1

!I

Complainants, t.

j

0 t .F v.

1

m m

$

Michigan Bell Telephone Company

$ d/b/a Ameritech Michigan, a Michigan corporation, ₎

c7 \

-

5

and

i

0 Case No. U-11756

f GTE North Incorporated, a Wisconsin corporation, ₎

z

4

Respondents.

1

LY W

5

Complaint pursuant to Sections 203,204 and 318

:

of the Michigan Telecommunications Act to compel ₎

2

respondents to comply with Section 276 of the

_{~ ~ I C ~ I G A N}

_{PUBLIC S E ~ !}

'tz::

5

Federal Communications Act.

z 1

F I L E D

m STATE OF MICHIGAN ) > z ) ss. COUNTY OF INGHAM ) 0

PROOF O F SERVICE

AVG

2

8

1998

m

Susan Vandersloot, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 28th day of August,

0

W

f 1998, she caused to be served upon the parties listed on the attached Service List, copies of MCI

i

6

t

Telecommunications Corporation Petition for Leave to Intervene in the above-captioned matter by

0

:

United States first class mail.

5

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

"

28th day of August, 1998

II

1@am County, MichiGn

My commission expires: 611 9/01

SERVICE LIST Henry T. Kelly

O'Keefe Ashenden Lyons & Ward 30 North LaSalle, Suite 41 00 Chicago, IL 60602

I/

Michael Holmes Ameritech Michigan

$ 444 Michigan Avenue, Room 1750

$ Detroit, MI 48226 0, 4) t William Keating GTE North

$

100 Executive Drive

"

Marion, OH 43302 Z z 4 LA\39343.1 5 ID\ AE 3 P