Cite as: 524 U. S. 214 (1998)
Opinion of the Court
viz., faster provisioning, the allocation of charges through multilocation billing, and various matters relating to deposits, calling cards, and service support, see 108 F. 3d, at 987- 988—all pertain to subjects that are specifically addressed by the filed tariff. See AT&T Tariff FCC No. 1, § 2.5.10 (provisioning of orders); § 6.2.4 (allocation of charges); § 2.5.6 (deposits); § 2.5.12.B (calling cards); § 6.2.5 (service supports).
The Ninth Circuit agreed that all of respondent's claims except those relating to provisioning and billing would be pre-empted if the filed rate doctrine applied. 108 F. 3d, at 990. But even provisioning and billing are, in the relevant sense, "covered" by the tariff. For example, whereas respondent asks to enforce a guarantee that orders would be provisioned within 30 to 90 days, the tariff leaves it up to petitioner to "establis[h] and confir[m]" a due date for provisioning, requires that petitioner merely make "every reasonable effort" to meet that due date, and if it fails gives the customer no recourse except to "cancel the order without penalty or payment of nonrecurring charges." § 2.5.10(B). Faster, guaranteed provisioning of orders for the same rate is certainly a privilege within the meaning of 47 U. S. C. § 203(c) and the filed rate doctrine. Cf. Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, supra, at 163 (refusing to enforce promise for faster, guaranteed service not included in the tariff). As for billing, whereas respondent claims that, pursuant to the MLB option, petitioner promised to allocate usage and charges accurately among respondent's customers, the tariff provides that petitioner "will not allocate . . . usage or charges" among the locations on the customer's network and "is not responsible for the way that the Customer may allocate usage or charges." AT&T Tariff FCC No. 1, § 6.2.4. Any assurance by petitioner that it would allocate usage and charges and take responsibility for the task would have been in flat contradiction of the tariff. See Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 270 U. S. 260, 266 (1926).
225
Page: Index Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007