BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


MCI Telecommunications Corporation and AT&T Communications of the Pacific 
Northwest, Inc.,

                                            Complainants,

            vs.

U S WEST Communications, Inc., GTE Northwest, Inc. and United Telephone Company 
of the Northwest,

                                            Respondents.	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)	
		
		Docket No. UT-970658
		
		U S WEST’s Submission of Supplemental Authority to Support its Right to 
Payphone Compensation Without Certification 

 U S WEST Communications, Inc. (“U S WEST”), submits the following supplemental 
authority to contravene the assertion of MCI Telecommunications Corporation 
(“MCI”) and AT&T Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. (“AT&T”) that 
state or federal certification is required before U S WEST is entitled to 
compensation for use of its payphones.  
 1. MCI and AT&T initiated this proceeding ostensibly to have the Commission 
determine whether U S WEST, among others, has removed any and all subsidies 
from its payphone service.  Without such a determination from the Commission, 
MCI and AT&T asserted that U S WEST was not eligible for payphone 
compensation.  In their Formal Complaint, AT&T and MCI requested the Commission 
to:
Inform the FCC, based on the Commission’s review of the payphone requirements, 
whether U S WEST, GTE, and United are eligible or receive payphone compensation.

(Formal Complaint and Petition for Declaratory Order to Remove Payphone 
Investment from Access Rates at 8).
 2. U S WEST moved to dismiss the Formal Complaint on the grounds, among other 
things, that a finding by the Commission was not necessary to entitle U S WEST 
to payphone compensation.  That is, U S WEST’s own certification to MCI and 
AT&T that payphone subsidies have been removed is sufficient.  U S WEST’s 
motion to dismiss was denied.
 3. Subsequent events have vindicated U S WEST’s position.  After the hearings 
in this docket were held, on March 9, 1998, the FCC issued its Memorandum 
Decision and Order in Docket No. 96-128, which stated, in pertinent part:
As required in the Payphone Orders and the Second Report and Order, absent a 
negotiated agreement, IXCs must pay per-call compensation of $0.284, for all 
calls they receive from payphones not otherwise compensated.  Payments must be 
remitted at least on a quarterly basis.  The payment for the October 1997 
through December 31, 1997 period must be paid no later than April 1, 1998.  
LECs that have certified to the IXC that they comply with the requirements of 
the Payphone Order must receive per-call compensation.  There are no state or 
federal certification requirements.

(Memorandum Decision and Order, CC Docket No. 96-128 at ¶ 4) (emphasis added; 
pertinent portions attached).
 4. It is beyond dispute that U S WEST has certified to both MCI and AT&T that 
it has met the requirements of the Payphone Orders.  (See Testimony of Barbara 
Wilcox (Exh. T-38) at 30:11-17).  Accordingly, U S WEST is entitled to receive 
payments from MCI and AT&T for its payphones on April 1, 1998.  Moreover, MCI 
and AT&T’s contention that state certification is a necessary condition must be 
rejected.
 5. U S WEST further notes that MCI and AT&T may still contest the existence of 
a subsidy for U S WEST’s payphone service as of the date of deregulation.  No 
such subsidy exists; however, this question is entirely irrelevant to U S WEST’
s right to compensation.  The subsidy issue will be addressed in U S WEST’s 
post-hearing briefs, which have been previously scheduled.
 Respectfully submitted on March 31, 1998.
 
      U S WEST Communications, Inc.


           By_____________________________
 Peter J. Butler, Attorney
 Lisa A. Anderl, WSBA # 13236