FCC Web Documents citing 51.305

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-98A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-98A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-98A1.txt
  • 2000 Released: January 19, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 1, 1999, Island Page, Inc. (Island), filed the above-captioned formal complaint against GTE Hawaiian Telephone Company, Inc. (GTE), alleging, among other things, violations of sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252, and part 51.305 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 51.305. Subsequent to that filing, the parties entered into negotiations in an effort to settle the matter in controversy. On January 14, 2000, Island filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint pending against GTE with prejudice. We are satisfied that dismissing the complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-250A1.txt
  • Authorizations and Application to Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing License, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11909 (2000). Although much of the conduct at issue occurred before the merger, we refer to the defendant only as ``Qwest'' in this order. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.703(b) and 51.709(b). Mountain also alleged in its complaint that Qwest violated section 51.305 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 51.305, and sections 201, 251, and 252 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 251, 252, by failing to negotiate an interconnection agreement with Mountain in good faith. See Formal Complaint of Mountain Communications, Inc, File No. EB-00-MD-017, at 12-18 (filed Sep. 11, 2000) (``Mountain Complaint''). However, we previously dismissed these claims without
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.txt
  • a competitive market in the telecommunications industry, and to promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure and other network investment. These rules also ensure that competitors receive prompt and accurate notice of changes that could affect their ability to interconnect with the incumbent's network. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 251, 252. Section Number and Title: 51.301 Duty to Negotiate. 51.303 Preexisting agreements. 51.305 Interconnection. 51.307 Duty to provide access on an unbundled basis to network elements. 51.309 Use of unbundled network elements. 51.311 Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. 51.313 Just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions for the provision of unbundled network elements. 51.315 Combination of unbundled network elements. 51.317 Standards for requiring the unbundling of network elements. 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216244A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216244A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216244A2.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296475A1.pdf
  • interconnection with the incumbent LEC's network: (1) For . . . telephone exchange traffic . . . (2) At any technically feasible point within the [ILEC]'s network . . . (3) That is at a level of quality [used by the ILEC itself] . . . (4) On terms and conditions that are just. . . . 47 C.F.R. § 51.305. The FCC's other pertinent regulation - its counterpart to its "interconnection facility" requirement - is its rule that ILECs are not obligated to provide "entrance facilities": Entrance facilities. An incumbent LEC [i.e., ILEC] is not obligated to provide a requesting carrier [i.e., CLEC] with unbundled access to dedicated transport that does not connect a pair of incumbent LEC wire centers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307423A1.pdf
  • §51.321(a) (2010). 10 TALK AMERICA, INC. v. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE CO. Opinion of the Court 3 Finally, the FCC contends that providing access to the entrance facilities here for interconnection purposes is technically feasible. Under the Commission's regulations, an incumbent LEC bears the burden of showing that a requested method or point of interconnection is technically infeasible. See 47 CFR §§51.305(e), 51.321(d); see also §§51.305(d), 51.321(c) (previously successful intercon- nection is "substantial evidence" of technical feasibility). AT&T does not dispute technical feasibility here.4 C The FCC's interpretation is not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation[s]." Auer, supra, at 461 (internal quotation marks omitted). First, we disagree with AT&T's argument that entrance facilities are not a part of incumbent LECs' networks.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A1.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-269A1.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.txt
  • September, and 0.1% blockage for October. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Oklahoma, No. 70-01 and 70-02 at 271-No. 70-71. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Texas, No. 70-01 and 70-02 at 271-No. 70-71; SWBT Deere Aff. at para. 14. The Commission's rules interpret this obligation to include, among other things, the incumbent LEC's installation time for interconnection service, 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5), and its provisioning of two-way trunking arrangements. Our rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18380-81, para. 63; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-338A1.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-347A1.txt
  • 154(j), 405, and sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.703(b) and 51.709(b), that Answer Indiana's Complaint IS DENIED and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED as of the Release Date of this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary See 47 C.F.R. § 51.703. Answer Indiana also alleged in its complaint that GTE North violated section 51.305 of our rules and sections 201, 251, and 252 of the Communication Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), by failing to negotiate an interconnection agreement with Answer Indiana in good faith. See id. § 51.305; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 251, 252. The good faith negotiation claims, however, were previously dismissed in a Letter Ruling on procedural grounds.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-381A1.txt
  • Communications v. Verizon - Washington, D.C., Joint Statement of the Parties, File No. EB-00-MD-018, at ¶ 1 (filed Dec. 7, 2000) (``Joint Statement''). Net2000 Communications v. Verizon - Washington, D.C., Answer, File No. EB-00-018, at ¶ 6 (filed Nov. 22, 2000) (``Answer''). Complaint at ¶ 6. 47 U.S.C. § 251(h). See Joint Statement at ¶2. See generally, 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.305 - .321. Section 251(c)(3). of the Act provides that ILECs have: The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-118A1.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-147A1.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-234A1.txt
  • 25, 2002 Comments at 1-2. Potential disadvantages include forcing the collocator to incur additional costs for the cabinet, floor space and cabling associated with a POT bay; increasing the risk of installation errors; and increasing the security risks for a collocator if other collocators share the POT bay. Id. at 2. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(a); see also 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(2). See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Bell Atlantic PA, 271 F3.d 491, 517 (3rd Cir. Nov. 2001), petition for cert. filed, 70 U.S.L.W. 3643 (U.S. Apr. 4, 2002) (No. 01-1477) (stating that ``[t]he decision where to interconnect and where not to interconnect must be left to WorldCom subject only to concerns of technical feasibility'') . See Implementation of the Local Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. 44 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 45 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 46 The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. 44 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 45 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 46 The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A3.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98, and 98-147. ***** Section 51.301 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(8)(ii) to read as follows: § 51.301 Duty to negotiate. ***** (c) *** (8) *** (ii) Refusal by an incumbent LEC to furnish cost data that would be relevant to setting rates if the parties were in arbitration. Section 51.305 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(4), redesignating paragraph (a)(5) as paragraph (a)(4), and revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: § 51.305 Interconnection. (a) *** (3) That is at a level of quality that is equal to that which the incumbent LEC provides itself, a subsidiary, an affiliate, or any other party. At a minimum, this requires an incumbent LEC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-96A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-96A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-96A1.txt
  • claim; (iii) comity with state commissions warrants dismissal of the Complaint; and (iv) it interconnected with Core in a timely and otherwise just and reasonable manner. As discussed below, we reject all of the reasons Verizon asserts that we should dismiss Core's Complaint without reaching its merits. Moreover, we find that Verizon violated section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and section 51.305(a)(5) of our rules by failing to provide Core with interconnection ``on rates, terms, and conditions that are just [and] reasonable, ... in accordance with the terms and conditions of [its interconnection] agreement'' with Core. Verizon allowed exhaust in the portion of its network through which Core's traffic had to travel, thereby delaying interconnection by four months. Verizon further aggravated the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-106A1.txt
  • Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (subsequent history omitted) (``Local Competition Report and Order''). Petition at 6 (citing Local Competition Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15565, ¶ 127). 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). Net2000 Communications, Inc. v. Verizon-Washington, D.C., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1150 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. §§51.305 - .321. The Commission found that the circuits at issue did not meet the criteria for conversion prescribed by Commission rules. Net2000 Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd at 1157, ¶ 23, 1160, ¶ 33. Petition at 9. See Liability Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 7572-73, ¶¶ 12-13. TSR Wireless, LLC v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.,15 FCC Rcd 11166 (2000), petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.txt
  • that the following text should be inserted in lieu thereof: ``When a customer has virtually or physically collocated in a Telephone Company premise no entrance facility charge shall apply.'' We also conclude that this language does not adequately address the requirements of the Commission's rules. GCI's language is overbroad and fails to recognize the effects of the limitation in section 51.305(b). Section 51.305(b) provides that ``[a] carrier that requests interconnection solely for the purpose of originating or terminating its interexchange traffic on an incumbent LEC's network and not for the purpose of providing to others telephone exchange service, exchange access service, or both, is not entitled to receive interconnection pursuant to section 251(c)(2) of the Act.'' Collocation is a means of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-118A1.txt
  • seeks forbearance relief from section 251(c)(1) only to the extent that it requests relief from the other section 251(c) obligations. Qwest does not seek relief from the obligations of section 251(c)(1) as it applies to Qwest's section 251(b) duties. See Qwest Petition at 5. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b), and 251(c)(1)-(6); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.301 (implementing section 251(c)(1)), 51.305 (implementing section 251(c)(2)), 51.301-.319, 51.321, 51.323 (implementing section 251(c)(3)), 51.601-.617 (implementing section 251(c)(4)), 51.325-.335 (implementing section 251(c)(5)), and 51.323 (implementing section 251(c)(6)). The UNE obligations were described in the Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, so we do not repeat that summary here. See Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) in the Omaha Metropolitan Statistical Area,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.txt
  • the lengthy delay that Time Warner has already suffered, which is preventing Time Warner from providing upgraded services to its customers, we believe it is necessary to order KCPL to grant the applications and proceed with the make-ready and change-out work''). Other statutory ``just and reasonable'' requirements likewise have been interpreted to preclude unreasonable delay. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(4) (inquiry into whether interconnection is ``just'' and ``reasonable'' includes ``the time within which the incumbent LEC provides such interconnection''); Core v. Verizon, File No. EB-01-MD-007, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 7962, 7975-76, 7978, paras. 32-33, 41 (2003) (finding that Verizon failed to interconnect with Core in a timely manner, and thus violated the section 251(c)(2) obligation to interconnect
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-83A1.txt
  • to retain a significant role for the state commissions, the scope of that role is measured by federal, not state law.''). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2 (``The Commission may . . . on motion or its own motion issue a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty.''). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(a)(1), (b); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.100, 51.305. We note, of course, that carriers might obtain relief from the section 251(b) obligations in some instances pursuant to section 251(f)(2). would compel us to assume too much and ignore altogether the express language of the statute.''). 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(1). See 47 U.S.C. § 251(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(1) (``Subsection (c) of this section shall not apply to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • to negotiated agreements. 51.5 Terms and definitions. Subpart B - Telecommunications carriers 51.100 General duty. Subpart C - Obligations of all local exchange carriers 51.201 Resale. 51.203 Number portability. 51.219 Access to rights of way. 51.221 Reciprocal compensation. 51.223 Application of additional requirements. Subpart D - Additional obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers 51.301 Duty to negotiate. 51.303 Preexisting agreements. 51.305 Interconnection. 51.307 Duty to provide access on an unbundled basis to network elements. 51.309 Use of unbundled network elements. 51.311 Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. 51.313 Just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions for the provision of unbundled network elements. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-7 51.315 Combination of unbundled network elements. 51.317 Standards for identifying network elements to be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.txt
  • at 4798, para. 69. Where the carrier asserts, however, that the technology does conform to existing industry standards or has been approved by an industry standards body, the Commission, or a state commission, the burden rests with the LEC to prove that the deployment does not fall within the presumption of acceptability. 456 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.301(a) and (c)(6), 51.305(e). 457 See Advanced Services First Report and Order and FNPRM, 14 FCC Rcd at 4798, para. 69. 458 See Oklahoma CC Comments at 11 ("the OCC, as the agency which regulates the telecommunications industry in Oklahoma, is the entity most informed about the realities of competition in the local exchange market in Oklahoma"). Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-355 92 Because
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.wp
  • quality to that provided by the local exchange carrier to itself or . . . [to] any other party to which the carrier Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-271 160 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(C). 161 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(D). 162 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15608 (implementing 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)); see also 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(2). 163 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779. 164 Under a physical collocation arrangement, an interconnecting carrier has physical access to space in the LEC central office to install, maintain, and repair its transmission equipment. Under a virtual collocation arrangement, interconnectors are allowed to designate central office transmission equipment dedicated to their use, as well as
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • Rcd at 4798, para. 69. Where the carrier asserts, however, that the technology does conform to existing industry standards or has been approved by an industry standards body, the Commission, or a state commission, the burden rests with the LEC to prove that the deployment does not fall within the presumption of acceptability. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.301(a) and (c)(6), 51.305(e). See Advanced Services First Report and Order and FNPRM, 14 FCC Rcd at 4798, para. 69. See Oklahoma CC Comments at 11 (``the OCC, as the agency which regulates the telecommunications industry in Oklahoma, is the entity most informed about the realities of competition in the local exchange market in Oklahoma''). Compare, e.g., Letter from Lincoln E. Brown, Director -
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • 12 FCC Rcd at 20671-74. Trunk group blockage indicates that end users are experiencing difficulty completing or receiving calls, and may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612; see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Our rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779; see
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Our rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • September, and 0.1% blockage for October. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Oklahoma, No. 70-01 and 70-02 at 271-No. 70-71. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Texas, No. 70-01 and 70-02 at 271-No. 70-71; SWBT Deere Aff. at para. 14. The Commission's rules interpret this obligation to include, among other things, the incumbent LEC's installation time for interconnection service, 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5), and its provisioning of two-way trunking arrangements. Our rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18380-81, para. 63; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • affiliate of the ILEC. Section 252(d)(1) of the Act specifies the pricing standards of such interconnection. In essence, rates are to be considered just and reasonable when they are based on the cost of providing the interconnection, are nondiscriminatory and may include a reasonable profit. 44. Requirements of the FCC's First Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98 Rule 51.305 requires that an ILEC, such as BellSouth, must provide, for the facilities and equipment of any requesting telecommunications carrier, interconnection with the ILEC's and exchange access at any technically feasible point within the ILEC's network. The points of interconnection within the ILEC's network will include, at a minimum, the line- a tandem switch, central office cross-connect points, out-of-band signaling transfer
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • configuration.52 To show compliance with its collocation obligations, a BOC must have processes and procedures in place 44 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 45 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 46 The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two- way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.pdf
  • 405, and sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. 51.703(b) and 51.709(b), that Answer Indiana's Complaint IS DENIED and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED as of the Release Date of this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary _________________________ 1 See 47 C.F.R. 51.703. 2 Answer Indiana also alleged in its complaint that GTE North violated section 51.305 of our rules and sections 201, 251, and 252 of the Communication Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), by failing to negotiate an interconnection agreement with Answer Indiana in good faith. See id. 51.305; see also 47 U.S.C. 201, 251, 252. The good faith negotiation claims, however, were previously dismissed in a Letter Ruling on procedural grounds. See Letter
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-250A1.html
  • and Application to Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing License, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11909 (2000). Although much of the conduct at issue occurred before the merger, we refer to the defendant only as ``Qwest'' in this order. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 51.703(b) and 51.709(b). 3 Mountain also alleged in its complaint that Qwest violated section 51.305 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 51.305, and sections 201, 251, and 252 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 201, 251, 252, by failing to negotiate an interconnection agreement with Mountain in good faith. See Formal Complaint of Mountain Communications, Inc, File No. EB-00-MD-017, at 12-18 (filed Sep. 11, 2000) (``Mountain Complaint''). However, we previously dismissed these claims without prejudice on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-381A1.html
  • (``Complaint''); Net2000 Communications v. Verizon - Washington, D.C., Joint Statement of the Parties, File No. EB-00-MD-018, at 1 (filed Dec. 7, 2000) (``Joint Statement''). 3Net2000 Communications v. Verizon - Washington, D.C., Answer, File No. EB-00-018, at 6 (filed Nov. 22, 2000) (``Answer''). 4 Complaint at 6. 5 47 U.S.C. 251(h). See Joint Statement at 2. 6 See generally, 47 C.F.R. 51.305 - .321. Section 251(c)(3). of the Act provides that ILECs have: The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-96A1.html
  • (iii) comity with state commissions warrants dismissal of the Complaint;67 and (iv) it interconnected with Core in a timely and otherwise just and reasonable manner.68 21. As discussed below, we reject all of the reasons Verizon asserts that we should dismiss Core's Complaint without reaching its merits. Moreover, we find that Verizon violated section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and section 51.305(a)(5) of our rules by failing to provide Core with interconnection ``on rates, terms, and conditions that are just [and] reasonable, ... in accordance with the terms and conditions of [its interconnection] agreement''69 with Core. Verizon allowed exhaust in the portion of its network through which Core's traffic had to travel, thereby delaying interconnection by four months. Verizon further aggravated the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-106A1.html
  • of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (subsequent history omitted) (``Local Competition Report and Order''). 27 Petition at 6 (citing Local Competition Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15565, 127). 28 47 U.S.C. 252(a)(1). 29 Net2000 Communications, Inc. v. Verizon-Washington, D.C., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1150 (2002). 30 See 47 C.F.R. 51.305 - .321. 31 The Commission found that the circuits at issue did not meet the criteria for conversion prescribed by Commission rules. Net2000 Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd at 1157, 23, 1160, 33. 32 Petition at 9. 33 See Liability Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 7572-73, 12-13. 34 TSR Wireless, LLC v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.,15 FCC Rcd 11166 (2000),
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • to negotiated agreements. 51.5 Terms and definitions. Subpart B - Telecommunications carriers 51.100 General duty. Subpart C - Obligations of all local exchange carriers 51.201 Resale. 51.203 Number portability. 51.219 Access to rights of way. 51.221 Reciprocal compensation. 51.223 Application of additional requirements. Subpart D - Additional obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers 51.301 Duty to negotiate. 51.303 Preexisting agreements. 51.305 Interconnection. 51.307 Duty to provide access on an unbundled basis to network elements. 51.309 Use of unbundled network elements. 51.311 Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. 51.313 Just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions for the provision of unbundled network elements. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-7 51.315 Combination of unbundled network elements. 51.317 Standards for identifying network elements to be
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.wp
  • quality to that provided by the local exchange carrier to itself or . . . [to] any other party to which the carrier Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-271 160 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(C). 161 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(D). 162 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15608 (implementing 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)); see also 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(2). 163 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779. 164 Under a physical collocation arrangement, an interconnecting carrier has physical access to space in the LEC central office to install, maintain, and repair its transmission equipment. Under a virtual collocation arrangement, interconnectors are allowed to designate central office transmission equipment dedicated to their use, as well as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • Rcd at 4798, para. 69. Where the carrier asserts, however, that the technology does conform to existing industry standards or has been approved by an industry standards body, the Commission, or a state commission, the burden rests with the LEC to prove that the deployment does not fall within the presumption of acceptability. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.301(a) and (c)(6), 51.305(e). See Advanced Services First Report and Order and FNPRM, 14 FCC Rcd at 4798, para. 69. See Oklahoma CC Comments at 11 (``the OCC, as the agency which regulates the telecommunications industry in Oklahoma, is the entity most informed about the realities of competition in the local exchange market in Oklahoma''). Compare, e.g., Letter from Lincoln E. Brown, Director -
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • 12 FCC Rcd at 20671-74. Trunk group blockage indicates that end users are experiencing difficulty completing or receiving calls, and may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612; see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Our rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779; see
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Our rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • September, and 0.1% blockage for October. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Oklahoma, No. 70-01 and 70-02 at 271-No. 70-71. See SWBT Aggregated Performance Data, Texas, No. 70-01 and 70-02 at 271-No. 70-71; SWBT Deere Aff. at para. 14. The Commission's rules interpret this obligation to include, among other things, the incumbent LEC's installation time for interconnection service, 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5), and its provisioning of two-way trunking arrangements. Our rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18380-81, para. 63; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.txt
  • or receiving calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • calls, which may have a direct impact on the customer's perception of a competitive LEC's service quality. 44 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 45 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 46 The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • affiliate of the ILEC. Section 252(d)(1) of the Act specifies the pricing standards of such interconnection. In essence, rates are to be considered just and reasonable when they are based on the cost of providing the interconnection, are nondiscriminatory and may include a reasonable profit. 44. Requirements of the FCC's First Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98 Rule 51.305 requires that an ILEC, such as BellSouth, must provide, for the facilities and equipment of any requesting telecommunications carrier, interconnection with the ILEC's and exchange access at any technically feasible point within the ILEC's network. The points of interconnection within the ILEC's network will include, at a minimum, the line- a tandem switch, central office cross-connect points, out-of-band signaling transfer
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000098.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000098.txt
  • 2000 Released: January 19, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On November 1, 1999, Island Page, Inc. (Island), filed the above-captioned formal complaint against GTE Hawaiian Telephone Company, Inc. (GTE), alleging, among other things, violations of sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252, and part 51.305 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 51.305. Subsequent to that filing, the parties entered into negotiations in an effort to settle the matter in controversy. On January 14, 2000, Island filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint pending against GTE with prejudice. We are satisfied that dismissing the complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • configuration.52 To show compliance with its collocation obligations, a BOC must have processes and procedures in place 44 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15612, para. 218; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65. 45 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 46 The Commission's rules require an incumbent LEC to provide two-way trunking upon request, wherever two- way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3978-79, para. 65; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.pdf
  • 405, and sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. 51.703(b) and 51.709(b), that Answer Indiana's Complaint IS DENIED and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED as of the Release Date of this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary _________________________ 1 See 47 C.F.R. 51.703. 2 Answer Indiana also alleged in its complaint that GTE North violated section 51.305 of our rules and sections 201, 251, and 252 of the Communication Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), by failing to negotiate an interconnection agreement with Answer Indiana in good faith. See id. 51.305; see also 47 U.S.C. 201, 251, 252. The good faith negotiation claims, however, were previously dismissed in a Letter Ruling on procedural grounds. See Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-250A1.html
  • and Application to Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing License, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11909 (2000). Although much of the conduct at issue occurred before the merger, we refer to the defendant only as ``Qwest'' in this order. 2 See 47 C.F.R. 51.703(b) and 51.709(b). 3 Mountain also alleged in its complaint that Qwest violated section 51.305 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 51.305, and sections 201, 251, and 252 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 201, 251, 252, by failing to negotiate an interconnection agreement with Mountain in good faith. See Formal Complaint of Mountain Communications, Inc, File No. EB-00-MD-017, at 12-18 (filed Sep. 11, 2000) (``Mountain Complaint''). However, we previously dismissed these claims without prejudice on
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-381A1.html
  • (``Complaint''); Net2000 Communications v. Verizon - Washington, D.C., Joint Statement of the Parties, File No. EB-00-MD-018, at 1 (filed Dec. 7, 2000) (``Joint Statement''). 3Net2000 Communications v. Verizon - Washington, D.C., Answer, File No. EB-00-018, at 6 (filed Nov. 22, 2000) (``Answer''). 4 Complaint at 6. 5 47 U.S.C. 251(h). See Joint Statement at 2. 6 See generally, 47 C.F.R. 51.305 - .321. Section 251(c)(3). of the Act provides that ILECs have: The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-96A1.html
  • (iii) comity with state commissions warrants dismissal of the Complaint;67 and (iv) it interconnected with Core in a timely and otherwise just and reasonable manner.68 21. As discussed below, we reject all of the reasons Verizon asserts that we should dismiss Core's Complaint without reaching its merits. Moreover, we find that Verizon violated section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and section 51.305(a)(5) of our rules by failing to provide Core with interconnection ``on rates, terms, and conditions that are just [and] reasonable, ... in accordance with the terms and conditions of [its interconnection] agreement''69 with Core. Verizon allowed exhaust in the portion of its network through which Core's traffic had to travel, thereby delaying interconnection by four months. Verizon further aggravated the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-106A1.html
  • of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (subsequent history omitted) (``Local Competition Report and Order''). 27 Petition at 6 (citing Local Competition Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15565, 127). 28 47 U.S.C. 252(a)(1). 29 Net2000 Communications, Inc. v. Verizon-Washington, D.C., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1150 (2002). 30 See 47 C.F.R. 51.305 - .321. 31 The Commission found that the circuits at issue did not meet the criteria for conversion prescribed by Commission rules. Net2000 Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd at 1157, 23, 1160, 33. 32 Petition at 9. 33 See Liability Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 7572-73, 12-13. 34 TSR Wireless, LLC v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.,15 FCC Rcd 11166 (2000),
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • declines or the cost of providing the service rises as a result of a requesting carrier's inability to gain access to a network element, then the requesting carrier's ability to provide the service has been made worse. The FCC's interpretation of the "impairment" standard is reasonable, and we give it deference. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. e. Superior Quality-Rules 51.305(a)(4), 51.311(c) Another source of disagreement between the petitioners and the FCC arises over the Agency's decision to require incumbent LECs to provide interconnection, unbundled network elements, and access to such elements at levels of quality that are superior to those levels at which the incumbent LECs provide these services to themselves, if requested to do so by competing carriers. See
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • declines or the cost of providing the service rises as a result of a requesting carrier's inability to gain access to a network element, then the requesting carrier's ability to provide the service has been made worse. The FCC's interpretation of the "impairment" standard is reasonable, and we give it deference. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. e. Superior Quality-Rules 51.305(a)(4), 51.311(c) Another source of disagreement between the petitioners and the FCC arises over the Agency's decision to require incumbent LECs to provide interconnection, unbundled network elements, and access to such elements at levels of quality that are superior to those levels at which the incumbent LECs provide these services to themselves, if requested to do so by competing carriers. See
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.html
  • and held that the FCC had jurisdiction to (1) design a pricing methodology; (2) promulgate rules pertaining to rural exemptions; and (3) promulgate rules regarding preexisting agreements. The Supreme Court also reversed our decision to vacate 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(b). The Supreme Court did not address the part of our opinion vacating the superior quality rules, 47 C.F.R. § § 51.305(a)(4) and 51.311(c), and the additional combination of network elements rule, 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(c)-(f). On remand we must now review on the merits the FCC's forward-looking pricing methodology, proxy prices, and wholesale pricing provisions. The petitioners also request that the court vacate 47 C.F.R. § 51.317, regarding the identification of additional unbundled network elements, and that the court reaffirm its