In New Hampshire, Order No. 22,662, Docket # DE 97-075, the Commission went against an old Community of Interest tradition. It said, "...we will no longer apply the old EAS guidelines which quantified [the] community of interest as an average of three or more calls per customer per month with 40% of the customers making at least two calls per month." This was based on the FCC's universal service Order (see below) decision.

In CC Docket No. 96-45, In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, FCC 97-157 (released May 8, 1997), the FCC provides a definition of community of interest. Elaborating, the FCC found that merely determining the number of subscribers to which one has access for local service in a local calling area is insufficient to determine that the calling area reflects the community of interest. The Joint Board recommended that the calling area reflects the pertinent "community of interest" by allowing subscribers to call hospitals, schools, and other essential services without incurring a toll charge. According to Petric the Commission, its Staff, and the Office of People's Counsel have refused to accept the FCC's definition in CC Docket No. 96-45.

The EAS information (see Sect 5, specifically line # 114) is available on the FCC web site at:

http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/universal_service/fcc97157/sec05.html
http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/universal_service/fcc97157/sec03.html
http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/universal_service/section2.html
http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/universal_service/fcc97157/sec04.html

Lastly, the rate reduction that the PSC was supposed to also have considered was retroactivity for 10 years. They have not done so. So, I again asked the PSC to reconsider their decision, as in each previous request (you can read this case on line in my response to the PSC dated 12/28/2000. Click on Item # 198. Ivan 'John' Petric - Response to Verizon Maryland Inc.'s Appeal of Proposed Order on Expanded Calling Areas, et. al., and Request for Reconsideration. Case No. 8772. See more.)

If you are dissatisfied with Verizon's response, you may submit a complaint to the Public Service Commission by telephone (1-800-492-0474) as option 1, fax (410-333-6844) or online at:
http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/Capa/complaintnotes.cfm

I would file a formal online request for investigation at:
http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/Capa/complaintnotes.cfm.
or call them at 1-800-492-0474) as option 1.

According to Mr. Harris, everybody is supposed to pass Verizon's FX test in order to get a lower rate. Those responsible for our problems are doing the FX test. :-(( How do you verify what they determine? Especially, when the FCC has already ruled that what is being considered by Verizon, the PSC, and the Office of People's Counsel is not the correct definition of a community of interest.

As you know, the PSC has continued to ignore the pleas in our case, and that issue was under appeal in Verizon's reconsideration request, but died.

Regards,

Ivan (John) Petric

---SAMPLE LETTER-----

Date:

Mr. Robert G. Harris
Assistant Manager for External Relations
Maryland Public Service Commission
6 St. Paul Street, 16th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202-6806

Subject: Investigation of Verizon Maryland's Telephone Problems

Dear Mr. Harris:

I am a resident of ...., and have a foreign exchange (FX) telephone.

The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC), in Case # 8772, Order No. 76537, dated November 2, 2001, states that "the foreign exchange (FX) service purchased by customers is to drop from $14.50 per month to $2.00 per month effective January 1, 2001".

As you know, the Hearing Examiner's original Order, dated July 30, 1999, said that "These changes would take effect on January 1, 2000." Further, the PSC's FINAL Order also states, "And that Bell Atlantic [Verizon] shall review all other foreign exchange area data to determine whether such areas are eligible for reprised foreign exchange service based on the FX-subscription test. Bell Atlantic [Verizon] shall propose reprising FX service based on such determinations immediately."

Unfortunately my rate has not been reduced at all, and I continue to pay the higher rate for no reason whatsoever. Please investigate.

Your expedited cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone #

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Telephone Bill
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001, 07:22:59-0500
From: Penny Ann Schossler <[email protected]>
To: Ivan 'John' Petric <[email protected]>

HOORAY

I got my March telephone bill and was so surprised to see a credit for the period of Jan 1st through March 3rd and a notice that the FX rate charged would now be $2.00 a month. It should not be anything, but that's a start. Thanks for keeping me informed on things. Never got a reply from all our elected Maryland leaders that I last e-mailed, but I didn't expect to. Thanks again.

Patricia Schossler

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Notice - Verizon foreign exchange {FX) service rate drops
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001, 17:59:27-0500
From: Mike Smith <[email protected]>
To: Ivan 'John' Petric <[email protected]>

John---

Again, thanks for all your hard work on our behalf... This appears to be a small "WIN" on the long trail of beating Verizon at their game.

Mike

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: Notice - Verizon foreign exchange {FX) service rate drops
Date:	Tue, 27 Mar 2001, 18:07:54-0500
From:	Tom & Jody Carmany <[email protected]>
To:	Ivan 'John' Petric <[email protected]

Dear Mr. Petric,
An overdue thank you from the Carmany household also....we have two 855 telephone numbers and I just paid my bills today. With the retroactive changes applied, the amount of one was a little over $13.00 and the other was a grand total of $1.59. While I realize the next bills will be more reflective of my account, I thank you for all your effort as you have saved us a total of $24.00 a month on our two bills. Now if you only had any pull with Comcast...I still don't understand why Calvert County has to have fiber optic capability in order to receive the basic channels other counties have been enjoying for years with theregular cable lines.... [sounds like we're never satisfied...]

Gratefully yours,

Jody Carmany

--------Original Message --------

Subject:	RE: Notice - Verizon foreign exchange {FX) service rate drops
Date:	Tue, 27 Mar 2001, 20:48:54-0500
From:	Anita Jazwinski <[email protected]>
To:	Ivan 'John' Petric <[email protected]>

Dear John:
Thank you for all the very hard work you have put into this battle against the unfair business practices with Verizon regarding the outrageous costs of telephone service for our 855 telephone number. We have been paying these inflated costs since January 1980. For a very long time it was long distance for us to telephone our daughter in St. Leonard. She finally got a 257 exchange (more expensive for her) so that our family calls, 22 miles away, weren?t long distance. Several years ago our second daughter moved to Lusby and also got a more expensive 257 number for the same reason.
It seems that we are still living in the ?stone age? regarding the costs of local telephone service in Calvert County. Your efforts to remedy this situation, over many years, is very appreciated. I remember signing your petition at least 4-5 years ago. Many people owe you a debt of gratitude.

Sincerely yours,

Anita L. Jazwinski Dunkirk

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Not receiving Verizon discount on FX rate
Date:	Wed, 4 Apr 2001, 08:15:13-0400
From:	David Hale <[email protected]>
Organization:	David Hale Associates, Inc.
To:	Ivan Petric <[email protected]>

Ivan,
I am still being charged $14.50/month/FX line. My bill dated 3/4/01 contains these charges.
Dave Hale

1785 W Mount Harmony Rd
Owings, MD 20736
301-855-3415 or 2974

On November 2, 2000, more than 15 months after our Appeal [MSWord] was filed on the (See item # 164) Hearing Examiners Division - Proposed Order, Case No. 8772, (PO) of the Chief Hearing Examiner from the Public Service Commission (PSC) in Case #8772, "Expansion of Local Telephone Calling Areas", the Commission did nothing more than to affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision in the said Order, # 76537, [Order#76537.pdf], e.g., lowering FX rates to $2.00 but effective on January 1, 2001, rather than on August 1999. As a result, Verizon changed its mind from the original Joint Proposal it had submitted with the Commission's Staff and thus appealed the Order. Verizon stated that it had a better deal for consumers, that it would voluntarily lower the FX fees to $8.35 on January 1, 2001, and then substantially reduce the rates again the following year. We opposed this action as it was nothing more than another red herring. [See Appeal in MSWord dated 8-29-99] [or in PDF] and requested that the Commission reconsider its own decision by changing the FX rate to the original $.50 that was requested, and to also expand the local telephone calling areas, as that was the original request as docketed by Order # 73658 on August 17, 1997. See also the letter from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to Congressman Steny Hoyer to Ivan Petric indicating that a state Public Service Commission can change the LATA boundaries if necessary when [it is] for the Public good. However, it appears that the Maryland PSC does not think that the public good deserves a fix from the overcharges conducted by the Bell monopoly.

Dear Commissioner Ivey,

I would like to know what the status of this case is and of the previous requests? Another three (3) months have gone by and still nothing to-date has been said or done by anyone. It is now June 1st. In two (2) more months it will be a year since the appeal was filed. A total of 9 months now. The former Chief Hearing Examiner, Mr. Ray Bourland, has held the longest record. Please, Maryland consumers are paying exorbitant fees daily and there is no excuse for this delay to continue. Could you please give electric deregulation a back seat in order for this case to obtain a hearing on this matter.

Your expedited cooperation is appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ivan (John) Petric

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Case # 8772, Expanded Local Telephone Calling Areas
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000, 10:49:21-0400
From: Ivan (John) Petric <[email protected]>
To: Chairman Glenn Ivey
CC: Delegate George Owings <[email protected]>, Senator Mike Miller <[email protected]>

Dear Commissioner Ivey,

I would like to know what the status is of this request? Another two (2) months have gone by and to date nothing has been said or done by anyone (A total of 9 months now). I even called your office, and left a message with your secretary wanting to speak with you.

Your expedited cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Thank you.

Ivan

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Case # 8772, Expanded Local Telephone Calling Areas
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000, 13:00:50-0500
From: Ivan (John) Petric <[email protected]>
To: Chairman Glenn Ivey
CC: Senator Mike Miller <[email protected]>

Chairman Glenn F. Ivey Public Service Commission of Maryland 6 St. Paul Street, 16th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202-6806

Dear Chairman Ivey,

I have been waiting since January 13, 2000, when I expressed a concern that more than 3 months had passed and that we still had not heard anything on case # 8772. You apparently realized that a considerable period of time had passed and indicated that, " OUCH! Point well taken. No promises, but let me revisit our current schedule of outstanding matters."

As of this writing, now more than 7 months have passed since this case was appealed to the Public Service Commission (PSC) of Maryland. Petitioners are constantly asking me what is the status of the case before the PSC?

Also, on August 13, 1999, I asked that:

"Based on our previous conversation, will you be opening a Phase II to make additional modifications."

"I would like to have the 'reduction in FX rates' take place while additional modifications and appeals are considered, since many issues were omitted by the Hearing Examiner. Please let me know something in either event. Thanks."

Your expedited cooperation in helping to resolve this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ivan (John) Petric

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Appeal in Case # 8772 - Status...
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000, 10:36:12-0500
From: Chairman Glenn Ivey
To: Ivan (John) Petric <[email protected]>

Ivan,

OUCH! Point well taken. No promises, but let me revisit our current schedule of outstanding matters.

gfi

The first hearing, on Senate Bill 498 was held on Tuesday, March 7th, at 1:00 pm, before the Senate Finance Committee, and House Bill 56 was on Thursday, March 9th at 1:00 pm, before the Environmental Matters Committee. I testified before both. I appreciate everyone's utmost support in ensuring that Marylanders have the best calling areas available to them which have been denied to them for so long by Verizon, (aka the Bell-Atlantic monopoly) and the PSC.

On August 29, 1999, an Appeal [MSWord] was filed on the Proposed Order (See item # 164 - Hearing Examiners Division - Proposed Order, Case No. 8772,(PO) of the Chief Hearing Examiner from the Public Service Commission (PSC) in Case #8772, "Expansion of Local Telephone Calling Areas" by Ivan Petric, Ron Isaacson, et.al., the PSC's Staff Counsel, and AT&T.

While this PO is a small victory for citizens in our immediate area, reducing the FX metro rate to $2.00, I regret to say that the Order does not go far enough, nor does it address numerous motions that were made by me in the original request and subsequent pleading(s), or that were requested by numerous elected officials and consumers to the PSC.

Therefore, an appeal was filed to ensure that a Phase II is instituted and the more than 15,000 petition signatures from the surrounding communities and telephone exchanges in the various counties are not ignored or left dangling without any further recourse.

Please note that the Hearing Examiner's PO only mirrored the Verizon/PSC's Staff proposal to lower the current FX rates to $2.00 per month, rather than lower the requested 50 cents FX rate that is currently enjoyed by Northern Virginia or failed to suggest improvements on how to fix the calling areas current lay-out that has been stagnant for the last 30 years by Verizon.

Verizon's proposal stated that this would "avoid certain 'complications,' such as the need for current FX subscribers located in the area to be enlarged to change their local telephone numbers from the foreign exchange [FX] to the home exchange. Verizon also raises the possibility that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Virginia and Washington, D.C. regulatory commissions may have problems with Maryland enlarging some of its local calling areas to include portions of Virginia and the District. For example, Verizon states that Virginia and the District presently do not allow their customers reciprocal local calling into the proposed revised Maryland areas. Making the changes in Maryland without coordination with Virginia and the District would create compensation differences between the jurisdictions. Verizon also contends that the Joint Proposal obviates the need to request a local access and transport area (LATA) boundary change from the FCC." However, this problem has never existed for DC or Virginia, so how can the Hearing Examiner blindly accept the Verizon proposal and ignore our requests is pure speculation.

If the PO went through, it would mean that all other townships and jurisdictions with exchanges outside of the North Beach (301-855/812 or 410-257/286) and Poolesville exchanges will have to file additional requests for expanded calling areas in a Phase II Hearing, something which I have strongly objected too since the beginning.

I will continue to work with our legislators to change this decision that continues to favor the Verizon monopoly, and maintains the status quo for Verizon by keeping the community of interest test intact, and as Verizon has defined.

Lastly, it appears that Mr. Bourland considers the signing of a petition by consumers nothing more than "regulatory heavy-handedness at a time developing markets require a lighter touch." Once again, Verizon seems to get its way, at the expense of consumers. Our local telephone bills keep on going up, and the PSC could care less.

Verizon observes that Maryland's existing local calling areas already are very large and that, no matter how large a local calling area is, there always will be a customer who wants it a little larger. Finally, Verizon defends the existing community of interest test, contending that it provides a rational method of assessing the existence of a community of interest."

It continues to appear, even in this PO, that the PSC is more concerned with how much revenue will be lost by big business, e.g., Verizon, rather than what consumers are being blindly being charged by big business without proper evidence or supporting documentation, e.g., "...that Verizon and the IXCs will lose substantial toll revenues if the Commission were to adopt LATA-wide local calling. Verizon also would lose access revenues from the IXCs for intraLATA toll calls placed with IXCs..."

Not helping this matter is the charges that the FCC has allowed the tele-communications industry to pass on to consumers as part of this Universal Service. Now a simple telephone line instead of costing an average of $10 per line, is now costing anywhere from $15-20 plus additional "add-on's"... This Order only allows for the Gaithersburg FX service purchased by Poolesville customers and Marlboro FX service purchased by North Beach (Dunkirk's exchange) customers to qualify for a $2.00 monthly FX rate. (All other exchanges as requested in the original complaint have again been ignored by the Hearing Examiner).

The PO would become a Final Order of the Commission on August 31, 1999, unless before that date an appeal was noted with the Commission by any party to this proceeding as provided in Section 3-113(d)(2) of The Public Utility Companies Article, or the Commission modified or reversed the Proposed Order or initiated further proceedings in this matter as provided in Section 3-114(c)(2)(ii) of The Public Utilities Companies Article." The Commission did not "initiate" any further proceedings on its own as it has for other cases.

Thanks to all of those persons who made their concerns known immediately. We certainly appreciated your expedited cooperation in this matter. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ivan (John) Petric

Subject: Update from the PSC on Expansion of Local Calling Areas Case # 8772
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999, 09:01:28-0400
From: Ivan (John) Petric <[email protected]>
To: All Concerned

FYI - I received a brief response from the Chief Hearing Examiner (see below) of the Public Service Commission to my request for an update on our case to expand the local telephone calling areas. Please spread the word.

Once again, thanks to all of you for your continued support.

Yours,

Ivan (John) Petric

Subject: Re: Updated Response on Expansion of Calling Areas, Case # 8772
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999, 15:26:11-0400
From: Ray Bourland
To: Ivan Petric <[email protected]>
cc: Glenn Ivey

I've committed to put electric restructuring on the back burner enough to get the PO [Proposed Order] out by the end of this month.

Ray Bourland
[Chief Hearing Examiner]

Subject: Re: Updated Response on Case # 8772
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999, 14:39:52-0400
From: Ivan Petric <[email protected]>
To: Van T Mitchell <[email protected]>

Thanks.

Charles County Delegation wrote:

Mr. Petric,
I have forwarded this email in its entirety to Delegate Mitchell.
Connie Ruohomaki
District 28 Legislative Aide

Subject: Updated Response on Case # 8772

Dear Mr. Bourland,

Four months have now passed since I asked for the status of the case, and surely as the turtle races the hare, shouldn't we be reaching closure on this matter. If anything, please put electrical restructuring on the back burner for 3 months.

I and the rest of our citizens are in no hurry to see this issue before us anytime soon. It reminds us of the "Bell" break-up. It's only good for big business. Not the little guy.

Your expedited response is appreciated. Thanks.

Ivan (John) Petric

Mr. Petric -- I have written part of the Proposed Order, but its completion has been delayed due to an extremely heavy influx of work as a result of electric restructuring. Recent staffing departures at the Commission have exacerbated this situation. I am working 60-70 hour weeks on that subject alone, and have had to turn over my other responsibilities to my deputy. Unfortunately, I cannot delegate the issuing of a decision in one of my cases (i.e., local calling) to another Hearing Examiner. It just wouldn't be fair to the parties.

Please be assured that I will turn my attention to the Proposed Order as soon as I get the chance. I have been working on it in increments of time of as little as 10 minutes over the last few months but, unfortunately, that doesn't add up to a lot of time. I really will get back to the Proposed Order as soon as I can.

Ray Bourland
Chief Hearing Examiner

Note to Readers: There are two bills in Annapolis, put in by a Senator and a Delegate on their own initiatives (i.e., without PSC request) to help address the staffing shortages.

Subject: Response to request on case # 8772?

Dear Chairman Ivey,

I have not heard from you or anyone else on this request or on the status of the other case. It seems that it is more than 3 months overdue. Thank you.
IP

Dear Chairman Ivey,

As part of my original filing in Case # 8772, I complained about Verizon Maryland's rounding-up of telephone toll-charges to the next higher minute. Please note that over the years this rounding up has and continues to cost consumers millions of dollars.

In this era of high technological advancements and computers, this rounding-up is unnecessary and not cost effective for consumers. Most companies, i.e., LCI, measure calls in 6 second increments.

As the PSC is supposed be protecting consumers against un-necessary overcharges I would like to know what the PSC is going to do about this continued problem that has fallen on deaf ears at the PSC, and it appears that it may also not be considered by the Chief Hearing Examiner, Ray Bourland, in making his decision regarding the Expansion of Local Calling Areas, Case # 8772, as requested in my original complaint.

Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ivan (John) Petric

All hearings began at 7:00 p.m. Written comments were to be submitted to the Commission by mailing them to the Commission's Executive Secretary at 6 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, on or before July 1, 1998.

Where ever the word reached, people showed their support by ATTENDING THE PUBLIC HEARING(s) and Testified about the atrocious local calling area conditions and high phone rates, i.e., incurring high per-minute toll charges rounded to the next higher minute or having to pay high additional monthly foreign exchange ("FX") access charges for a Metro line ... thus creating a perceived added 'telephone tax' of $15.25 for those customers requiring accessibility to the Metro calling areas versus the 50 cents that is paid by Virginia consumers.

It appears that the PSC's Counsel has been more concerned with how to recoup any losses that Verizon may incur, rather than with investigating other area telephone exchanges on the expansion of calling areas and savings for residents of Southern Maryland. In a comment to the Hearing Examiner, dated 12/30/97, the PSC's Counsel stated that "Dunkirk, located in Calvert County, is in the Baltimore LATA and in the North Beach exchange. This exchange has two originating prefixes. To determine if expansion of North Beach's local calling area to Washington and Annapolis is warranted ... That accumulating, reviewing, and analyzing this data will be a difficult, time consuming, complicated, and an expensive undertaking. If the purpose of the petitions is to expand this investigation to include other exchanges throughout Maryland, the Hearing Examiner should decline to do so."

Consumers have expressed their feelings to the Hearing Examiner that this is not what was requested of the PSC, and that Counsel's self serving comments to protect Verizon's assets is a conflict of interest and is out of line.

On January 10, 1998, the petitioner sent a rebuttal to the PSC Counsel's comments requesting a broader investigation for all surrounding communities.

On January 22, 1998, the Chief Hearing Examiner (CHE) accepted the PSC Counsel's and OPC's recommendation, and issued an order to keep the investigation narrowed to the North Beach Exchange.

On January 26, 1998, the CHE asked for Comments. Persons opposing this action needed to respond by February 6, 1998.

The following procedural dates were set for this proceeding:

• Carriers to file call data - March 2, 1998 (No Hearing)
• All Parties to file written initial testimony - April 15, 1998
• All Parties to file written reply testimony - May 27, 1998
• Hearings for cross-examination - June 15-19, 1998

On January 28, 1998, Murray D. Levy, President, Charles County Commissioners, requested that Commissioner Russell Frisby, Jr., give full consideration to the initial Petition / Complaint filed by the petitioner for the Southern Maryland counties.

On March, 1, 1998, Russell Frisby, the Commission's Chairman resigned from the PSC to become president of the Competitive Telecommunications Association in Washington, D.C.

On Friday, March 14, 1998, Glenn F. Ivey, a top aide to Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle of South Dakota, was selected by Governor Parris Glendening to take over as chairman of the five-member PSC.

On April 15, 1998, the parties to the case filed their testimony.

On April 28, 1998, Ivan Petric, Steve Molnar (PSC), and BA provided responses to questions from the Calvert County Commissioners. At that time, Mr. Molnar confirmed that based on the data provided by Verizon, i.e., more than 50% of the consumers had FX service from the Upper Marlboro exchange towards the DC metro area, that the North Beach exchange qualified for expanded local calling to the metro area (what a surprise!). However, the same data did not show that there was a sufficient number to the Annapolis area.

Also, Verizon confirmed that effective April 1, 1998, FX metro mileage rates were lowered to approximately $45 throughout Southern Maryland. (Check your bills--some say $45, others say $55). While Verizon claims they are doing this voluntarily, it was a rate reduction order approved by the House of Delegates and the Senate.

On April 28, 1998, Verizon filed a Motion to Strike the testimony of David Hirsch, for the Teleport Communications Group (TCG), Inc., in that it did not address the issues set forth by the Commission's order, but rather it dealt with the economics of reciprocal compensation by establishing a LATA-wide termination rate.

On May 1, 1998, the Chief Hearing Examiner, directed that the parties respond on or before Friday, May 8, 1998, in order to be able to prepare their reply testimony that is due on May 27, 1998.

On May 6, 1998, the Office of the People's Counsel requested that the Chief Hearing Examiner schedule the anticipated Public Hearings in the three areas under consideration: Dunkirk, Kent Island, and Northern Montgomery County, and consider scheduling additional public hearings in other areas of the state so that others would have the opportunity to express their views on the record. Specifically in Western Maryland and the Baltimore suburbs. This would give Verizon the necessary time to prepare bill inserts as the best means of providing NOTIFICATION to Maryland's consumers.

On May 7, 1998, Verizon requested that Ivan Petric specifically address and provide documentation to support the testimony of April 15, 1998. (22 questions) The funny thing is that they already have over 80% of it (However, they also wanted copies of the more than 16,000 petition signatures). [These were provided to the CHE at the Public hearing.]

On May 8, 1998, Ivan Petric filed a Motion to Deny Verizon's Request to Strike the testimony of Mr. Hirsch, wherein he raised some valid points dealing with the fact that the PSC could bring competition to a new level by dissolving the artificial local calling area boundaries by which the Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) are bound, and that Verizon would not voluntarily alter the existing local calling area boundaries. The Hearing Examiner denied Verizon's request and allowed the testimony to stand.

On June 15, 1998, Verizon, joined by the PSC staff, placed a proposal on the table that stated: "When the level of residence subscription to a specific FX offering equals or exceeds 50% in a given exchange, the price for that specific offering should be reduced. The incremental costs and lost revenues associated with this action should be recovered as an exogenous change through an increase in the dial tone line rate for all customers in the state. The price decrease and cost/revenue recovery should occur concomitantly in the next annual price cap filing.

Effective 1/1/2000, Verizon would reprise the Marlboro FX purchased by North Beach customers and the Gaithersburg FX purchased by Poolesville customers. The monthly rate for these FX customers would be reduced from $14.50 per line to $2.00 per line [vs. the .50 cents paid by Northern Virginia Consumers.]

• According to Verizon, the annual revenue impact of this change, including "projected" lost FX, toll, and access revenues is estimated to be $1,561,680. Therefore Verizon wants to recover this revenue from all dial tone lines in the state by increasing the telephone rates by approximately $.04/line/month. [The people said NO, since DC-VA suffers no loss at .50 cents].

• Also, according to BA, the impact to the network is still being assessed, but is expected to be minimal. [In other words, having FX service from North Beach vs. Upper Marlboro exchange.]

• This proposal will make the requested local calling areas inexpensively available and yet avoid all of the previously identified problems related to actually modifying local calling areas."

June 24 to July 1, Public hearings were heard by the PSC. The testimony from consumers to Bell Atlantic was to break down the narrow and limited telephone calling areas, and lower rates. The public's answer to Verizon and the PSC proposal was to "take that proposal and shove it." In other words they did not want it.

Final Testimony on the Verizon and PSC proposal was filed on July 20th. Rebuttal testimony was filed on August 3, 1998. The CHE has reviewed the case, and issued a decision. While his decision is a favorable one for some consumers, it did not do what it was supposed to. The people and elected representatives now need to pass legislation to remedy the problems that the PSC has failed to act upon.

To read copies of the various REBUTTAL TESTIMONY to the PSC against Verizon in a Word format document
April 15, 1998, May 27, 1998,July 20, 1998, August 3, 1998, and July 29, 1999, PSC Proposed Order; Appeal of PO August 29, 1999. November 2, 2000, PSC Final Order; Reconsider/Verizon Appeal [Reconsider.PDF]December 28, 2000, Circuit Court Appeal Rebuttal to Verizon November 20, 2001.
To read copies of the text version, select the appropriate date April 15, 1998, May 27, 1998, July 20, 1998, August 3, 1998, and July 29, 1999, Proposed Order Appeal August 29, 1999, Circuit Court Appeal Rebuttal to Verizon November 20, 2001.

NOTICE: To read the original Petition and Complaint information, please follow the links at the bottom of the page. Thanks.

For best viewing in windows -- download a free copy of or higher now.

---

Sign My GuestbookView My Guestbook

---

County Commissioners Support Expanded Local Calling Area Expansion
Congress Supports Expanded Local Calling Area Expansion
Bay Country Estates Homeowners Association
Bay Country - More Info
Petition and Complaint

---

Copyright © 1998 www.PetricEnterprises.com


This document was last updated on: , 10/11/00