Material relating to MCI attempt to make AT&T to recalculate its ENFIA bills for reselled facilities: McGowan's letter to M. Fowler regarding FCC order in docket 78-371 footnote 8 on applicability of ENFIA charges for resellers; AT&T emergency petition for declaratory ruling complaining MCI refusal to pay for usage of local exchange facilities in providing services governed by BSOC 8 tariff; AT&T /MCI correspondence on unpaid bills; FCC MO&O for MCI to pay AT&T for resold facilities under ENFIA agreement.

Materials related to OCCs minutes of use [MOU] for calculating ENFIA rates for the period of April 16, 1983-April 15, 1984: correspondence between MCI, other OCCs, AT&T and FCC discussing calculating methodology of ENFIA rates; AT&T opposition to MCI application for review ENFIA rates; AT&T filing with FCC of the revised 8 tariff, trans. no. 74, March 28, 1983 and MCI petition to reject rate increase, with Cox's handwritten draft; MCI application for review the FCC order of April 15, 1983 to raise ENFIA rates; MCI reply to AT&T and BSOC opposition to application for review.

On June 11, 1980, FCC instituted proceedings in Docket 80-286 to amend the Jurisdictional Separation Manual and convened a Federal-State Joint Board, to develop recommended changes in separations procedures. In March 1983, Joint Board reached an agreement on basic principles of the jurisdictional allocation of non-traffic sensitive (NTS) local exchange plant costs and required additional comments on the issue. MCI proposed establishment of Federal policies to assure that all users of the same service pay the same price. In December 1983, FCC adopted the change of allocation of NTS and traffic sensitive (TS) local exchange costs between the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions.

FCC orders, statements and press release regarding the case; MCI's draft and copies of required comments and reply to comments filed with FCC, with supporting material; draft of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case of Rural Telephone Coalition v. FCC.

The CCSA of America Inc. (CCSA), as manager of Network Service Share Group (NSSG), a group of businesses sharing in the joint use MCI's metered network service, on Fabruary 4, 1981, filed with FCC a complaint against MCI regarding its demand for written guaranties by joint users and a request for immediate declaratory ruling. MCI opposed complaint and request on the basis that by demanding letters of guaranty from existing and perspective members of the NSSG it does not violate its tariff FCC no. 1.

MCI and CCSA filing documents with FCC; correspondence between MCI and CCSA president Philip P. Huber on the delay in CCSA payment to MCI and on dispute of billing differences; internal MCI correspondence on the issue.

Larger set of filing documents than in previous folder, including FCC order to deny CCSA complaint; correspondence between MCI and CCSA and NSSG members on disputed issues.

On January 22, 1982, MCI and Xerox Corporation applied to FCC for its consent to the transfer of control of Xerox's subsidiary WUI Inc. (formerly Western Union International), a provider of international common carrier service, Airsignal International, Inc. et al. Transfer was approved by the Commission on June 22, 1982.

Material concerning MCI acquisition of WUI: correspondence; press clips; FCC documents including drafts of MCI and Xerox application and of letters to FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, Commission's public notice and report, TRT Telecommunications Corporation's and others' petitions to deny the application, further filings on the subject, MO&O approving the application.

MCI’s refusal to pay certain charges under ENFIA for interstate access.

AT&T petition for ruling declaring that MCI's usage of local exchange facilities in providing interstate MTS/WATS-type services is governed by BSOC 8 tariff whether or not such services involve use of facilities leased from other carriers, August 19, 1982; MCI and other companies pleadings; FCC decision.

Filed by GTE Corporation on October 26, 1982 application to acquire Southern Pacific Communications Co. (SPCC) and Southern Pacific Satellite Co.(SPSC) was opposed by MCI which stated to the FCC that proposed merge will jeopardize telecommunications competition.

MCI documents filed with the FCC regarding acquisition of SPC and SPS by GTE; internal MCI memoranda discussing the issue; letter to FCC from former AT&T employee Maxwell Gibson Killoch, recommending to deny merger of GTE and SPC; MCI protest to GTE, SPC and SPS application for merger before the California Public Utility Commission.

On October 19, 1983, FCC delayed from January 1 until April 3, 1984, the effective date of all access and divestiture related tariffs, which were designed to gradually equalize payments made to telephone companies by AT&T and its competitors. AT&T emergency petition requested FCC to reconsider this suspension, on the basis that AT&T's interim arrangements for compensation of its divested operating companies and independent telephone companies would be very costly. The petition was supported by the affidavit of AT&T Assistant Vice President Charles R. Jones. MCI in its turn petitioned for thoroughly probing of factual materials presented, and requested AT&T for additional financial information related to its MTS/WATS/Private Line tariffs. AT&T's request to FCC to impose new long distance charges starting January 1, 1984, was supported by the Justice Department.

MCI preparatory material for filing against BSOC access charges tariffs; FCC order of October 19, 1983, to suspend filed tariffs.

FCC report on its action of delaying access and interexchange tariffs, and press clips on the matter; MCI motion for discovery, request for cost-support information and reply to AT&T's refusal to provide it; preparatory material for Jones's questioning and handwritten notes taken during questioning; Jones's affidavit and deposition; Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies' responses to AT&T emergency petition and MCI request for information.

Bill Correctors Ltd. v. MCI case before the FCC started with Bill Correctors' complaint that MCI overcharged its customers by charging for incomplete calls (busy or unanswered) and for the time lapse between placing the call and answering of the call by the second party. The complainant sought that all such MCI customers would be reimbursed for all investigated overcharges regardless of when they occurred. Later the case was combined with other dockets where Bill Correctors complained against other communications carriers (OCCs), and FCC ordered OCCs to inform the commission of the means by which they advise their customers of the possibility of billing errors and of their credit policies regarding calls of short duration. MCI stated that in its billing practices it used the Asoftware answer supervision@ which allowed, with a high degree of accuracy, to determine the actual beginning of the call. It also emphasized that MCI customers could discuss all calls on dispute with MCI Customer Service and were supplied with information about it.

Formal complaint before FCC by Bill Correctors, Ltd., January 10, 1984; MCI's answer, March 26, 1984; other documents on the ring-no-answer subject sent to FCC by both parties.

Materials regarding MCI charges for calls not completed [short duration calls] from California, Florida, Iowa, New York and Arizona. Documentation includes correspondence with Public Utility and Public Service Commissioners, State Attorney General offices, with numerous drafts of attorneys' letters on behalf of MCI.

Ring-no-answer problem materials including preparation of customer addressed information on billing procedures, MCI briefing papers, Better Business Bureau's report, press reports January-March, 1984 and Washington Consumers' Checkbook press release on the way of measuring length of calls by long-distance companies, March 12, 1984.

Case of Certified Collateral Corp. et al. v. Allnet Communications Services et al., including MCI, originated from a series of class action lawsuits known as long distance telecommunications litigation, MDL no. 598, consolidated and referred to FCC by Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Judge Taylor on June 27, 1985. Complainants claimed that they were overcharged by defendants for unanswered telephone calls, ring time, busy signals and holding time. The defendants acknowledged that the charges could appear on customer's bill, but stated that they developed the refund procedure. FCC dismissed the complains on April 14, 1987.

Documents include initial complaint and motion for waiver of procedural requirements by plaintiffs; separate answers by defendants: MCI, Allnet, Western Union; further motions of both parties and Common Carrier Bureau; FCC memorandum opinion and order to dismiss the complaint.

FCC proposed ways to reduce its regulation of certain basic telecommunications services offered by dominant (having market power) carriers for purposes of competitive carrier policies and required public comments on the matter.

FCC notice of proposed rulemaking, ordering comments and replies on proposed lessening of regulation of services which are subject to substantial competition; separate statement of Commissioner Dawson; AT&T news release of March 6, 1987 announcing its proposed simplified approach to regulating the long distance telecommunication market, and press comments on it; MCI reply comments, with preparatory materials, stating that under conditions when local exchange carriers retain overwhelming market power for all the services they provide in the exchange access, there is no rational basis for the proposed streamlined regulatory treatment.

Policy and rules concerning rates for dominant carriers was the matter of the docket. FCC proposed to replace rate of return regulation for dominant inter-exchange carriers (primarily AT&T) and local exchange carriers (LECs) with a form of price cap regulation defined by price levels, rather than profit levels. MCI supported price caps regulation.

Comments of MCI on the FCC notice of proposed rulemaking; MCI regulatory bulletin on filing its comments; copies of articles from The New York Times and Communications Week on price cap; FCC press release on adopting price cap regulation.

The Open Network Architecture (ONA) plans filed by the Bell Operating Companies were supposed to permit all users of BOCs basic network to interconnect to basic network functions and interfaces on an equal access basis.