FCC Web Documents citing 51.319

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-480A1.txt
  • make the high frequency portion of the loop available to competing providers of advanced services. In this Order, we clarify that the Line Sharing Reconsideration Order in no way modified the criteria set forth in the Commission's UNE Remand Order regarding the unbundling of packet switching functionality. Specifically, we clarify that the Line Sharing Reconsideration Order does not alter section 51.319(b)(5) of the Commission's rules, which describes the limited set of circumstances under which an incumbent LEC is required to provide nondiscriminatory access to unbundled packet switching capability. 2. Nonetheless, we note that in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that accompanied the Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, the Commission expressly sought comment on whether its existing packet switching rules are adequate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-511A1.doc
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) Adopted: February 26, 2001 Released: February 27, 2001 By the Chief, Policy and Program Planning Division: 1. On March 14, 2000, NewPath Holdings, Inc. (NewPath) filed a petition for a declaratory ruling on whether an incumbent local exchange carrier is obligated to provide, under the provisions of the Commission's Line Sharing Order and section 51.319(h) of the Commission's rules, nondiscriminatory, unbundled access to the high-frequency portion of a loop on which a competitor is providing resold voice service. Interested parties filed comments in this proceeding on April 26, 2000, and reply comments on May 11, 2000. On January 29, 2001, NewPath filed a letter with the Commission's Secretary, withdrawing its March 14, 2000 petition. 2.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-621A1.txt
  • the forum, please contact: News Media Contact: Michael Balmoris (202) 418-0253, mbalmori@fcc.gov Jessica Office of Engineering and Technology Contact: Jerry Stanshine (202) 418-2417, jstanshi@fcc.gov See Common Carrier Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Announce Public Forum on Competitive Access to Next-Generation Remote Terminals, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 98-147, NSD-L-00-48, DA 00-891 (rel. April 19, 200). See 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(c)(5). ���� ���� Z��� ''��� ���� `��� a��� -��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� T���7f�`;8gK��b���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.txt
  • conditioning of the loop or a line-and-station transfer. See Cavalier Brief at Ex. C9-1. We thus find no evidence that Verizon is misleading customers regarding the availability of xDSL service when provided by Cavalier. To the extent that Verizon regularly performs such activities to provide service to its own customers, it must perform those functions for Cavalier, 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a)(8), and Verizon does. Verizon Brief at 25-26. . See Virginia Arbitration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 27230-32, paras. 397-99; Virginia Cost Issues Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17963-64, paras. 615-18. For example, the Bureau found in the Virginia Cost Issues Arbitration Order that the availability of an alternative tool for loop qualification, Verizon's Loop Facility Assignment and Control System (LFACS),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-42A1.txt
  • deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j), of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i) and 154(j), and sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.91, 0.291, the request of the Public Utility Commission of Oregon for an Extension of the Deadline for Filing a Petition Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(d)(5)(i) IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Maher, Jr. Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98, 98-147, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-7A1.txt
  • 2004 WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON WAIVER PETITION FILED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY BOARD OF PUERTO RICO FOR ENTERPRISE MARKET SWITCHING IMPAIRMENT (CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98 and 98-147) Comments Due: January 30, 2004 Reply Comments Due: February 13, 2004 On December 30, 2003, the Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico (the Board) filed a waiver petition, under section 51.319(d) of the Commission's rules, requesting that the Commission waive its rule exempting Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) from unbundling circuit switching used by competitive local exchange carriers (competitive LECs) to provide service to end users using DS1 capacity and above loops in defined Puerto Rico markets. Specifically, the Board seeks to rebut the Commissions finding in the Triennial Review Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2003A1.txt
  • amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. � 160(c). The XO Coalition seeks forbearance from three Commission rules regarding access to unbundled network elements (UNEs) promulgated pursuant to sections 251(c)(3) and 251(d)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 251(c)(3), (d)(2). First, the XO Coalition seeks forbearance from application of one aspect of the Commission's impairment test for DS1-capacity loops, 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a)(4), for those loops that are used to serve ``predominantly residential'' and ``small office'' buildings. Second, the XO Coalition seeks forbearance from application of the limitation on DS1-capacity transport circuits, 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(e)(2)(ii)(B), when DS1 transport circuits are used as components of DS1-capacity enhanced extended loops (EELs). Third, the XO Coalition seeks forbearance from the UNE eligibility criteria, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2288A1.txt
  • FORBEARANCE OF FONES4ALL CORP. PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) WC Docket No. 05-261 Comments Due: October 14, 2005 Reply Comments Due: November 14, 2005 On July 1, 2005, Fones4All Corp. (Fones4All) filed a petition for forbearance pursuant to section 10(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. � 160(c). Fones4All seeks forbearance from section 51.319(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(d), as it applies to competitive local exchange carriers that use unbundled local switching to provide service to residential customers eligible for federal or state Lifeline services. This Public Notice establishes certain procedural requirements relating to consideration of Fones4All's Petition. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-265A1.txt
  • and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20586-20592, �� 88-101; Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21278-79, �� 93-96 (sections in both orders titled Ability of Carriers to Track Calls From Payphones and not discussing payment obligation). NIP cites to no Commission statement concluding or opining that ``call tracking'' and ``switching capability'' refer to the same functions. See 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(c) (All our C.F.R. references to Part 51 of the Commission's rules refer to the rules in effect during the Relevant Period ). See generally id. NIP's Brief at 8-9. Answer 3, 9-10, 19-20; �� 40-41, 8, 13; Hutchison Affidavit at 2, � 4. NIP's Brief at 3-4. NIP's Brief at 5. Revised Joint Statement at 7-8, � 16; Answer at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1240A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 05-261 ORDER Adopted: June 8, 2006 Released: June 8, 2006 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: In this Order, pursuant to section 10(c)
• 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
  • 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. 51.321 Methods of obtaining interconnection and access to unbundled elements under section 251 of the Act. 51.323 Standards for physical collocation and virtual collocation. 51.325 Notice of network changes: Public notice requirement. 51.327 Notice of network changes: Content of notice. 51.329 Notice of network changes: Methods for providing notice. 51.331 Notice of network changes: Timing of notice.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1869A1.txt
  • to section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requesting that the Commission forbear from applying to Verizon certain obligations in the Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence, and Virginia Beach Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Specifically, according to its Petitions, Verizon seeks forbearance from loop and transport unbundling obligations pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 251(c) (47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e)); Part 61 dominant carrier tariffing requirements (id. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.58, 61.59); Part 61 price cap regulation (id. �� 61.41-61.49); Computer III requirements including CEI and ONA requirements; and dominant carrier requirements arising under section 214 of the Act and Part 63 of the Commission's rules concerning the processes for acquiring lines, discontinuing services, assignment or transfers of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1649A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd 11244 (2001) (Rural Task Force Order); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; High-Cost Universal Service Support, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 05-337, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5514 (2006) (extending Rural Task Force plan). 47 U.S.C. � 160(c). Id. Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, WC Docket No. 05-261, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11125, 11128 n.17 (2006). Id.; see 47 C.F.R. � 0.91(m). See 47 U.S.C. � 155(c). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2291A1.txt
  • section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), requesting that the Commission forbear from applying to Qwest certain obligations in the Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Phoenix, and Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Specifically, according to its Petitions, Qwest seeks forbearance from loop and transport unbundling obligations pursuant to sections 251(c) and 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, and section 51.319(a), (b), (e) of the Commission's rules. For mass market and enterprise services, Qwest also seeks forbearance from Part 61 dominant carrier tariffing requirements (47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.58, 61.59); Part 61 price cap regulation (47 C.F.R. �� 61.41-61.49); Computer III requirements, including CEI and ONA requirements; and dominant carrier requirements arising under section 214 of the Act and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3608A1.txt
  • 6, 2006) (Verizon Virginia Beach Petition) (collectively, Verizon Petitions). 47 U.S.C. � 160(a). See Verizon Boston Petition at 3-4 n.3; Verizon New York Petition at 4 n.3; Verizon Philadelphia Petition at 4 n.3; Verizon Pittsburgh Petition at 3 n.3; Verizon Providence Petition at 3-4 n.3; Verizon Virginia Beach Petition at 3-4 n.3. 47 U.S.C. �� 214, 251(c); 47 C.F.R. �� 51.319(a), (b), (e), 61.32-61.33, 61.41-61.49, 61.58-61.59, 63.03-63.04, 63.60-63.66. 47 U.S.C. � 160(c). See, e.g., Petition of Ameritech Corporation for Forbearance from Enforcement of Section 275(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, CC Docket No. 98-65, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 6415 (CCB 1999). See 47 U.S.C. � 155(c). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3608 Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-927A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. � 251(b)(5). 47 U.S.C. � 160(c). See, e.g., Petition of Ameritech Corporation for Forbearance from Enforcement of Section 275(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 98-65, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 6415 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999). Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, WC Docket No. 05-261, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11125, 11128 n.17 (2006) (Fones4All Forbearance Order). Id.; 47 C.F.R. � 0.91(m). See 47 U.S.C. � 155(c). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-469A1.txt
  • Petition at 1; Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) in the Omaha Metropolitan Statistical Area, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WC Docket No. 04-223, 20 FCC Rcd 19415 (2005), aff'd, Qwest Corp. v. FCC, 482 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order). Verizon Rhode Island Petition at 3 n.4 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e)). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.58, 61.59). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.41-61.49). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 63.03, 63.04, 63.60-63.66). Petition of Verizon New England for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 160 in Rhode Island, WC Docket No. 08-24, First Protective Order, DA 08-470 (WCB, rel. Feb. 27, 2008) (First Protective Order); Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-475A1.txt
  • No. 07-97 (filed April 27, 2007 (Qwest Seattle Petition) (collectively, Qwest Petitions). On May 3, 2007 and August 3, 2007, Qwest filed errata to make certain corrections to its petitions. 47 U.S.C. � 160(a). See, e.g., Qwest Denver Petition at 3; Qwest Minneapolis-St. Paul Petition at 3-4; Qwest Phoenix Petition at 3; Qwest Seattle Petition at 3-4. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e). 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.58, 61.59. 47 C.F.R. �� 61.41-61.49. 47 C.F.R. �� 63.03, 63.04, 63.60-.66. 47 U.S.C. � 160(c). See, e.g., Petition of Ameritech Corporation for Forbearance from Enforcement of Section 275(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, CC Docket No. 98-65, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 6415 (CCB 1999). See 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-878A1.txt
  • 1 n.2. See Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) in the Omaha Metropolitan Statistical Area, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WC Docket No. 04-223, 20 FCC Rcd 19415 (2005) (Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order), aff'd, Qwest Corp. v. FCC, 482 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Verizon Virginia Beach Petition at 3 n.5 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e)). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.58, 61.59). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.41-61.49). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 63.03, 63.04, 63.60-63.66). Petition of the Verizon Telephone Companies for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 160 in Cox's Service Territory in the Virginia Beach Metropolitan Statistical Area, WC Docket No. 08-49, First Protective Order, DA 08-879
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1653A1.txt
  • (filed Mar. 24, 2009) (Qwest Phoenix MSA Petition). See 47 U.S.C. � 160. Qwest Phoenix MSA Petition at 1. Qwest indicates that its request for forbearance is limited to the geographic area that is encompassed by the 64 Qwest wire centers located within the boundaries of the Phoenix MSA. Id. at 1, 11. Id. at 7 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e)). Specifically, Qwest seeks this relief for its wholesale provision of voice-grade, DS1 and DS3 unbundled loop and transport facilities. Id. Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.58, 61.59). Id. at 8 (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.41-61.49). Id. at 10 (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 63.03, 63.04). Id. at 11. Id. at 8. Id. at 8-10. Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-178A1.txt
  • 2009. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Julie A. Veach Deputy Chief Wireline Competition Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 160(c). See Petition of Verizon New England for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) in Rhode Island, WC Docket No. 08-24 (filed Feb. 14, 2008) (Verizon Rhode Island Petition). 47 U.S.C. � 160(a). Verizon Rhode Island Petition at 3 n.4 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e)). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.58, 61.59). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.41-61.49). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 63.03, 63.04, 63.60-63.66). 47 U.S.C. � 160(c). See, e.g., Petition of Ameritech Corporation for Forbearance from Enforcement of Section 275(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, CC Docket No. 98-65, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 6415
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-533A1.txt
  • the following counties and independent cities located wholly within the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA: Virginia Beach City; Norfolk City; Chesapeake City; Newport News City; Hampton City; Portsmouth City; York County; James City County; Gloucester County; Poquoson City; and Williamsburg City. See Verizon Virginia Beach Petition at 1 n.2. Verizon Virginia Beach Petition at 3 n.5 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e)). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.58, 61.59). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.41-61.49). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 63.03, 63.04, 63.60-63.66). 47 U.S.C. � 160(c). See, e.g., Petition of Ameritech Corporation for Forbearance from Enforcement of Section 275(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, CC Docket No. 98-65, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 6415
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1576A1.txt
  • Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers, Letter from Sharon E. Gillett, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, to Paul Margie, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, 26 FCC Rcd 6571 (2011) (supplementing the Second Protective Order). See Special Access Facilities Data Public Notice, supra note 7. See supra, note 8. See 47 U.S.C. �251; see also 47 C.F.R. �51.5 (defining network element), �51.319 (outlining specific unbundling requirements). See 47 C.F.R. �61.3(g) (defining ``base period'' for carriers subject to price cap regulation). For the default time period as per Instruction II.1 of this Public Notice. Provide this information as of the default time period in Instruction II.1 of this Public Notice. Wire center, for purposes of all parts of Question III.B.3, means wire center,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253831A1.txt
  • BellSouth IS'' with the words ``petitions for reconsideration filed by BellSouth and SureWest ARE''. On the first page of Appendix B listing the final rules, in the main heading for Part 51, we replace the words ``SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING BELL OPERATING COMPANIES'' with the word ``INTERCONNECTION''. On the first page of Appendix B listing the final rules, in rule section 51.319(a)(3)(ii), titled ``New builds'', we replace the words ``a residential unit'' with the words ``an end user's customer premises.'' On the first page of Appendix B listing the final rules, in rule section 51.319(a)(3)(iii), titled ``Overbuilds'', we insert the word ``a'' between the words ``access to'' and the words ``fiber-to-the-home loop''. On the first page of Appendix B listing the final
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267678A1.txt
  • In an Order adopted today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) denied a petition filed by Fones4All Corporation (Fones4All) requesting that the Commission expand incumbent local exchange carriers' (LECs) unbundling obligations by forbearing from specific aspects of the FCC's unbundling rules under section 251(d)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). The FCC concluded that forbearance from rule 51.319(d) would not give Fones4All the relief it seeks, and therefore denied the Petition as procedurally defective. The FCC also concluded that the Petition did not meet the three prongs of the section 10 forbearance test. Action by the Commission, September 28, 2006, by Memorandum Opinion and Order. Chairman Martin and Commissioner Tate, with Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring, and Commissioner
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267678A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267678A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267678A2.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS Re: Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WC Docket No. 05-261 (Sept. 28, 2006). This Commission makes its most difficult decisions when two important and conflicted interests must be balanced. In the case before us, the petitioner seeks
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267678A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267678A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267678A3.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ! CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN Re: Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WC Docket No. 05-261 (Sept. 28, 2006). In this Order, the Commission denies the petitioner's request that we forbear from applying our rules so that the petitioner may use unbundled network
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287377A1.pdf
  • bent Local Exchange Carriers, 70 F.R. 8940, 8942 (2005). Thus most CLECs had become competitively viable and no longer needed unbundled access. The goal of viable market competition between CLECs and ILECs had been achieved; it was no longer necessary for ILECs to provide unbundled access to CLECs because, generally, CLECs could provide their own. Accordingly, the FCC amended regulation �51.319(d) to terminate mandatory unbundling of mass mar- ket switching. InCovad Communications Co. v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit reviewed the TRRO and upheld the FCC's actions, including the FCC's adoption of regulation �51.319(d). 450 F.3d 528. It is that regulation that Fones4All now challenges in this pro- ceeding, because it wants to continue enjoying low-cost access provided by the ILECs. Regulation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296475A1.pdf
  • 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 [i.e., an `entrance facility']. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(e)(2)(i). Recall that "[b]undling is about lease pricing," and "[t]o provide a network element `on an unbundled basis' is to lease the element . . . to a requesting carrier at a stated price [i.e., TELRIC rates] specific to that element." Verizon Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467, 531 (2002). So, this provision could be rewritten as: an ILEC is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299052A1.txt
  • switched access lines (which the CLECs do report). 2 UNE-P was the combination of ILEC loop UNE, switching UNE, and transport UNE. The Commission directed CLECs to migrate their retail customers served by UNE-P to an alternative arrangement within 12 months of the effective date of the Triennial Regulatory Review Order, that is, by March 11, 2006. See C.F.R. � 51.319(d)(2)(ii). 3 ILECs report the number of UNE-L they provide to CLECs but do not convert any high-capacity UNE-L, such as DS1 UNE loops, into voice-grade equivalents. By contrast, CLECs report the number of switched access lines their retail customers purchase which the CLEC provisioned over UNE-L obtained from ILECs. Note, however, that a CLEC might use UNE-L only to provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301310A1.txt
  • switched access lines (which the CLECs do report). 2 UNE-P was the combination of ILEC loop UNE, switching UNE, and transport UNE. The Commission directed CLECs to migrate their retail customers served by UNE-P to an alternative arrangement within 12 months of the effective data of the Triennial Review Remand Order, that is, by March 11, 2006. See C.F.R. � 51.319(d)(2)(ii). 3 ILECs report the number of UNE-L they provide to CLECs but do not convert any high-capacity UNE-L, such as DS1 UNE loops, into voice-grade equivalents. By contrast, CLECs report the number of switched access lines their retail customers purchase which the CLEC provisioned over UNE-L obtained from ILECs. Note, however, that a CLEC might use UNE-L only to provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
  • with ILEC switching, including the combination of ILEC loop UNE, switching UNE, and transport UNE, collectively referred to as the UNE-Platform ("UNE-P"). The Commission directed CLECs to migrate their retail customers served by these methods to an alternative arrangement by March 11, 2006, i.e., within 12 months of the effective data of the Triennial Review Remand Order. See C.F.R. � 51.319(d)(2)(ii). Source: Industry Analysis & Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Local Telephone Competition: Status as of December 31, 2008 (June 2010). 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Dec 1999 Jun 2000 Dec 2000 Jun 2001 Dec 2001 Jun 2002 Dec 2002 Jun 2003 Dec 2003 Jun 2004 Dec 2004 Jun 2005 Dec 2005 Jun 2006 Dec
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304054A1.txt
  • switched access lines (which the CLECs do report). 2 UNE-P was the combination of ILEC loop UNE, switching UNE, and transport UNE. The Commission directed CLECs to migrate their retail customers served by UNE-P to an alternative arrangement within 12 months of the effective data of the Triennial Review Remand Order, that is, by March 11, 2006. See C.F.R. � 51.319(d)(2)(ii). 3 ILECs report the number of UNE-L they provide to CLECs but do not convert any high-capacity UNE-L, such as DS1 UNE loops, into voice-grade equivalents. By contrast, CLECs report the number of switched access lines their retail customers purchase which the CLEC provisioned over UNE-L obtained from ILECs. Note, however, that a CLEC might use UNE-L only to provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305297A1.txt
  • switched access lines (which the CLECs do report). 2 UNE-P was the combination of ILEC loop UNE, switching UNE, and transport UNE. The Commission directed CLECs to migrate their retail customers served by UNE-P to an alternative arrangement within 12 months of the effective data of the Triennial Review Remand Order, that is, by March 11, 2006. See C.F.R. � 51.319(d)(2)(ii). 3 ILECs report the number of UNE-L they provide to CLECs but do not convert any high-capacity UNE-L, such as DS1 UNE loops, into voice-grade equivalents. By contrast, CLECs report the number of switched access lines their retail customers purchase which the CLEC provisioned over UNE-L obtained from ILECs. Note, however, that a CLEC might use UNE-L only to provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307423A1.pdf
  • its regulations require AT&T to provide access at cost-based rates to existing entrance facilities for interconnection purposes. Pp. 7�10. (1) Interpreting 47 CFR �51.321(a), the FCC first contends that an incumbent LEC must lease "technically feasible" facilities for in- terconnection. Pp. 8�9. (2) The FCC contends, second, that existing entrance facilities are part of an incumbent LEC's network, 47 CFR �51.319(e), and 3 Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) Syllabus therefore are among the facilities that an incumbent LEC must lease for interconnection, if technically feasible. P. 9. (3) Third, says the FCC, it is technically feasible to provide ac- cess to the particular entrance facilities at issue in these cases-a point AT&T does not dispute. P. 10. (c) Contrary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310264A1.txt
  • switched access lines (which the CLECs do report). 2 UNE-P was the combination of ILEC loop UNE, switching UNE, and transport UNE. The Commission directed CLECs to migrate their retail customers served by UNE-P to an alternative arrangement within 12 months of the effective data of the Triennial Review Remand Order, that is, by March 11, 2006. See C.F.R. � 51.319(d)(2)(ii). 3 ILECs report the number of UNE-L they provide to CLECs but do not convert any high-capacity UNE-L, such as DS1 UNE loops, into voice-grade equivalents. By contrast, CLECs report the number of switched access lines their retail customers purchase which the CLEC provisioned over UNE-L obtained from ILECs. Note, however, that a CLEC might use UNE-L only to provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-139A1.txt
  • requires incumbent LECs to provide requesting telecommunications carriers 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. 4. On January 25, 1999, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") released an opinion in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board in which it vacated section 51.319 of the Commission's rules.7 Section 51.319, which was adopted in the Local Competition First Report and Order, set forth the minimum number of network elements that incumbent LECs must make available on an unbundled basis to requesting carriers pursuant to section 251(c)(3). The Supreme Court found that the Commission, in determining which network elements must be unbundled pursuant to section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-297A1.txt
  • facilities, an incumbent LEC must take into account projected demand for collocation of equipment"). 230See Remote Terminal Forum, supra note 228, at 16-21. 231See part V.D, supra. Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-297 48 also ask what effect any such amendments to our collocations rules would have upon the obligation of incumbent LECs to unbundle packet switching capability under Commission rule 51.319(c)(5). Additionally, we ask whether incumbent LECs should be required to provide requesting carriers with demographic and other information regarding particular remote terminals similar to the information available regarding incumbent LEC central offices. 108. We ask the commenters to suggest potential solutions for the collocation space shortages within remote terminals. We invite comment on whether we should require incumbent LECs to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-355A1.txt
  • Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), Docket No. 20828, Final Decision, 77 FCC2d 384 (1980) (Computer II); Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry), CC Docket No. 85-229, Report and Order, 104 FCC2d 958 (1986) (Computer III). See UNE Remand Order at � 306; 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(c)(3). See AT&T/TCI Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 3197-98 � 75; AT&T/MediaOne Order at �� 114-15. AT&T/TCI Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 3207 � 96. AT&T/MediaOne Order at �� 116-23. See also Applications of America Online, Inc. and Time Warner Inc. for Transfers of Control, CS Docket No. 00-30 (filed February 11, 2000; amended March 21, 2000). We note that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-366A1_Erratum.pdf
  • 109Id. 110 OnepetitionrequestedthattheCommissionclarifythatitintendedtogiveonlyprospectiveeffecttoits interpretationofthedemarcationpointdefinitioninthe1997DemarcationPointOrder.BellAtlanticPetitionfor (continued....) 23004 FederalCommunicationsCommission FCC00-366 thataddressedissuesregardingtheenhancedwirequalitystandardsraisedinpetitionsrelatingtothe1997 DemarcationPointOrder.!II However,theorderdeferredconsiderationoftheremainingdemarcation pointissuesraisedinthetwopetitionsforclarificationandreconsiderationtotheCompetitiveNetworks proceeding. 47.Asnotedabove,thecurrentinsidewiringrulesdonotspecificallycontemplatethenewand complexissuesinvolvedwithcompetitioninthemarketforlocaltelecommunicationsservices.Tothis end,inthecontextofpromotingcompetitionfortheprovisionoftelecommunicationsserviceinMTEs, theCompetitiveNetworksNPRMrequestedcommentonhowtheCommission'sexistingrulesgoverning thelocationofthedemarcationpointimpactcompetitiveprovideraccesstoinsidewiringinMTEs.112 In particular,theCompetitiveNetworksNPRMaskedcommenterstoconsiderwhethertheCommission shouldadoptauniformdemarcationpointforpurposesofcompetitiveaccess,eitherattheMPOEorat someotherpoint,forallorsomeclassofmultiple-unitpremisesowners. Inaddition,theCompetitive NetworksNPRM askedcommenterstoconsiderwhetherthepersonwhocontrolswireandrelated facilitiesforpurposesofinstallationandmaintenancemustnecessarilybethesamepersonwhoexercises controlforpurposesofcompetitiveaccess,and,ifnot,whetherweshouldapplydifferentstandardsfor eachofthesepurposes. 48.TheCompetitiveNetworksNPRMalsosoughtcommentonthepotentialtreatmentofinside wiringownedorcontrolledbyanincumbentLECasanunbundlednetworkelementunderSection 251(c)(3)oftheCommunicationsAct.ll3 InNovember,1999,theCommissionissuedtheUNERemand Order,114 whichestablishedasanunbundlednetworkelementthe"insidewire"sub-loop.Thatorder definedtheloopelementasterminatingatthedemarcationpointandrequiredincumbentstomake availableonanunbundledbasisanyportionofthelocalloopasasubloopelement,includingthatportion betweenthepropertylineandthedemarcationpoint.TheUNERemandOrderfurtherrequired incumbentLECstoallowinterconnectionatanyaccessibleterminal,andtoestablishasinglepointof interconnection(SPO!)uponarequestfromacompetitiveproviderwheresuchapointdoesnotalready exist. (Continuedfrompreviouspage)------------ ClarificationandReconsiderationofthe1997 DemarcationPointOrder(BellAtlanticPetition)at2.Theother petitionrequestedthattheCommissionclarifythatitsstatementinfootnote104doesnotauthorizeunilateralchanges bythepremisesownertodemarcationpointlocation.BellSouthPetitionforClarificationandReconsiderationofthe 1997DemarcationPointOrder(BellSouthPetition)at3-4. !I! ReviewofSections68.104and68.213oftheCommission'sRulesConcerningConnectionofSimpleInside WiringtotheTelephoneNetwork,CCDocketNo.88-57, ThirdReportandOrder,15FCCRcd927(2000)(2000 DemarcationPointThirdReportandOrder). 112SeeCompetitiveNetworksNPRM,14FCCRcdat12708, 65. 113 See47U.S.c.�251(c)(3)(requiringincumbentLECstoproviderequestingtelecommunicationscarriers unbundledaccesstoelementsoftheirnetworksonjust,reasonable,andnondiscriminatoryterms).In1996,pursuant toCongress'mandateinSection251,theCommissionpromulgatedrulesestablishingunbundlednetworkelements (UNEs),anddirectedincumbentLECstomakethemavailabletocompetitors. LocalCompetitionFirstReportand Order,11FCCRcdat15697-99, 392-397;see47C.F.R.�51.319(b).Theruleswerechallengedandremandedto theCommissionforclarificationofthestandardsbywhichlINEsweredefmed. IowaUtilitiesBoard,525U.S.366. InApril,1999,theCommissionsoughtcommentonthesestandards. SeeSecondFurtherNoticeofProposed Rulemaking,CCDocketNo.96-98,14FCCRcd8694(1999). 114SeeUNERemandOrder. 23005 FederalCommunicationsCommission 2. Discussion FCC00-366 a. ApplicationofDemarcationPointRulestotheProvisionof CompetitiveTelecommunicationsService 49.Asdiscussedabove,theCommission'sPart68demarcationpointrulesweredesignedto enablethecreationofacompetitivemarketintheinstallationandmaintenanceofinsidewiring,anddid notcontemplatetheuseofthatwiringtoprovidecompetitivelocaltelecommunicationsservice.Inlight ofthedevelopingcompetitionspawnedbythe1996Act,andthesubsequentneedforcompetitive providerstogainaccesstoinsidewiring,wewillapplyourdemarcationpointrulestofacilitateaccessto insidewiringforthepurposeofprovidingcompetitivelocaltelecommunicationsservice.Thus,we clarifythattheCommission'sdemarcationpointrules,includingtherevisionsadoptedbelow,governthe controlofinsidewiringandrelatedfacilitiesforpurposesofcompetitiveaccess,aswellasthecontrolof thesefacilitiesforpurposesofinstallationandmaintenance.Inthesectionsbelow,weadoptseveral revisionstoourdemarcationpointrulesthatwebelievewillfostercompetitioninthelocal telecommunicationsmarketinMTEs,whilemaintainingthecompetitiveframeworkfortheinstallation andmaintenanceofinsidewiring. b. LocationoftheDemarcationPoint 50.Anumberofcommenterscontendthatuniformlyestablishingthedemarcationpointatthe minimumpointofentrywouldpromotefacilities-basedcompetitiveaccesstoMTEs.J15Asdiscussed above,thereisevidenceintherecordthatincumbentLECsinmanyinstancesareusingtheircontrolover on-premiseswiringtoobstructordelaycompetitiveaccess.]J6Placingthedemarcationpointatthe MPOEwouldeliminatethepotentialforsuchabusesbypermittingcompetitivecarrierstoobtainaccess toinsidewirebydealingsolelywiththepremisesowner.Whileourunbundlingrulesadoptedinthe UNERemandOrder providerequestingcarrierswitharightofnon-discriminatoryaccesstoinsidewire ownedorcontrolledbyincumbentLECs,requestingcarriersclaimtheycontinuetofacedifficulty gainingaccesstoMTEsduetoincumbentobstruction.Movingthedemarcationpoint,theystate,would allowallfacilities-basedcarrierstointerconnectwiththeinsidewiring,whichwouldbecontrolledbythe . h . d h 117 premIsesowner,attesamepomtanontesameterms. 51.Therecordindicates,however,thatestablishingthedemarcationpointattheMPOEwould disadvantagethosecompetitiveLECsthatrelyonleasingunbundledloops,includingmostDSLIJ8 providers,bylimitingtheavailabilityoftheinsidewireaspartoftheloopelement.]J9Currently,where thedemarcationpointisatornearthecustomer'sunit,competitiveLECsmayobtainaccesstothe incumbentLEe'sexistingwiringinsidethebuildingaspartoftheunbundledloop(orasaseparate subloopelement).RelocationofthedemarcationpointtotheMPOE,however,wouldresultina IJ5 SeeALTSCommentsat22;AT&TReplyCommentsat25;WinStarreplyCommentsat61;seealsoGTE Commentsat7-8. 116 SeeSectionIV.A,supra. 117 SeeTeligentCommentsat80. J18
• 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
  • and loop conditioning are among the features, functions and capabilities of the loop). SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18480-81, para. 248; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4095, para. 269; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20712, para. 185. See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20924-27, paras. 20-27. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(h)(1). Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2106-07, para. 10. The Commission subsequently clarified that the Line Sharing Reconsideration Order in no way modified the Commission's packet switching rules, which describe the limited set of circumstances under which an incumbent LEC is required to provide non-discriminatory access to unbundled switching capability. Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability
• 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
  • level. Id. See also Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9106, para. 210. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 275 and Attach. 68. The weighted average was based on missed installation appointments occurring between February and April 2001. Broadslate Joint Comments at 5-7; Capsule Joint Comments at 4-5. Broadslate Joint Comments at 7-11. See 47 C.F.R. �� 51.307, 51.311, 51.319; UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3841-42, paras. 318-321. In the state proceeding, Cavalier noted that Verizon's current ordering system prevents CLECs from ordering dark fiber while collocation arrangements are being built or augmented. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 298. Sprint's comments also raise this issue with respect to transport facilities in general, noting that Verizon's transport ordering
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-26A1.txt
  • voluntary deployment of industry standards while limiting the ability of any class of carriers to impose unilateral and potentially anti-competitive spectrum management or compatibility rules on other xDSL providers. The Line Sharing Order addressed standards-setting, spectrum compatibility, binder group management, and the disposition of interfering technologies. DISCUSSION Line Sharing Issues Definition of High Frequency Portion of the Loop Background Section 51.319(h)(1) of our rules defines the high frequency portion of the loop as ``the frequency range above the voiceband on a copper loop facility that is being used to carry analog circuit-switched voiceband transmissions.'' Where an incumbent LEC chooses to migrate its customers to fiber loop facilities, the xDSL provider may be required to forego access to the high frequency portion
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-361A1.txt
  • Standards Notice. See Letter from Thomas Jones, Counsel for Allegiance Telecom, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at 1, in Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98 (filed Jan. 30, 2001). UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3772, 3789, 3801, paras. 165, 205, 232; see 47 C.F.R. �� 51.319(a)-(b). 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a)(1). The subloop is defined as ``any portion of the loop that is technically feasible to access at terminals in the incumbent LEC's outside plant.'' 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a)(2). UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3776-77, paras. 174, 176. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(b). To the extent necessary, we seek comment on whether we need to clarify
• 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
  • was subsequently vacated by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC. The United States Supreme Court reversed in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, thus reinstating section 51.315(b) of our rules. The Supreme Court, however, also determined that the Commission did not apply the appropriate criteria, in accordance with section 251(d)(2) of the Act, in specifying in section 51.319 the minimum ``network elements'' that must be provided to requesting carriers by ILECs. It therefore vacated section 51.319 and remanded this issue to the Commission for its reevaluation using appropriate criteria. On remand, we issued the UNE Remand Order and reinstated section 51.315(b). There we concluded that ILECs were required to provide requesting carriers access to combinations of loops and
• 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
  • finding of noncompliance. We note that, in Louisiana, during the only months with competitive LEC data reported (December and January), BellSouth achieved parity. US LEC/XO GALA II Comments at 3-5. See discussion of checklist item 2, supra. DIRECTV Broadband GALA II Comments at 6. See discussion of the public interest analysis, infra. 47 U.S.C. � 271(c)(2)(B)(vi). See 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(c)(4); see also SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18520-22, paras. 336-38. BellSouth GALA I Application at 116-21; BellSouth GALA I Milner Aff. at paras. 169-93; BellSouth GALA I Application at 116-120; BellSouth GALA I Milner Aff. at paras. 169-93; BellSouth Application App. A, Vol. 6a, Tab Q, Joint Affidavit of John A. Ruscilli and Cynthia K. Cox (BellSouth GALA
• 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
  • and 2.76% for Verizon retail and 6.98% and 8.78%, for competitive LECs in November 2001 and February 2002, respectively. See PR 6-01-3200 (Percent Installation Troubles Reported Within 30 Days). . . In Maine, for MR 2-02-3200, Verizon states that during November 2001-March 2002, the percentages have generally been under 2%. See Lacouture/Ruesterholz Reply Decl. at para. 27. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(h); see Maine Commission Comments at 33-48. See supra n.20. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Reply Decl. at para. 62. See PR 4-05-3343 (Percent Missed Appointments - No Dispatch); PR 6-01-3343 (Percent Installation Troubles Reported Within 30 Days); MR 2-02-3343 (Network Trouble Report Rate - Loop); MR 2-03-3343 (Network Trouble Report Rate - Central Office); MR 3-02-3343 (Percent Missed Repair Appointment - Central
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-282A1.txt
  • network elements, ``to any requesting carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service.'' In implementing section 251(d)(2) and (c)(3), we identified the network elements - that is, the physical facilities and their ``features, functions and capabilities'' - that the incumbent LEC must provide to the requesting carrier, not the purposes for which a CLEC may use those facilities. Specifically, rule 51.319(d) defines shared transport as ``transmission facilities shared by more than one carrier, including the incumbent LEC, between end office switches, between end office switches and tandem switches, and between tandem switches, in the incumbent LEC network.'' This definition requires incumbent LECs to provide these shared transport facilities ``to any requesting telecommunications carrier . . . for the provision of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-42A1.txt
  • of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 7492 (1999), reconsideration granted in part, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 6023 (2000); Errata, 15 FCC Rcd 16544 (Com. Carr. Bur. 2000). 47 U.S.C. � 255. 47 U.S.C. �� 201, 202. Incumbent LEC Broadband Notice, FCC 01-360 at para. 5. 47 U.S.C. �� 251, 252. 47 U.S.C. � 153(29). See 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(h) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide non-discriminatory access to the high frequency portion of the loop in accordance with Commission rules); see also Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147 and Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.txt
  • id. See AOL Time Warner Jan. 22, 2002 Ex Parte at 5. Destination-based routing sends packets of information from the subscriber's PC to the cable network to locations on the Internet based on the best match of the destination address (for each packet) at each router. See id.; AT&T Dec. 15, 2000 Ex Parte, Attachment. See generally 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(g) (``Operations support system functions consist of pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing functions supported by an incumbent LEC's (local exchange carrier's) databases and information.''); Application by Bell Atlantic New York for Authorization under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in the State of New York, 15 FCC Rcd 3953, 3989-3990 � 83 (``Incumbent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-7A1.txt
  • the Commission was reviewing and finalizing the text of the conditions. May 2 Response at Exhibit C, page 4. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 12460 at Appendix A, rule 51.319 (1997) (emphasis added). See 47 C.F.R. � 51.319. The Texas Arbitration Award makes clear that the routing being requested there by CLECs does in fact meet this definition. See Texas Arbitration Award at 7-9 and Appendix A, which contains diagrams showing explaining that intraLATA calls would be routed using ``option 2'' as set forth at those pages, which consists of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-108A1.txt
  • prior rules concerning payphone compensation. See In the Matter of Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., File No. E-98-49, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 15918, 15919, para. 1 (rel. Aug. 14, 2002). Fifth Reconsideration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 21291, para. 54. See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 2-3; Excel Comments at 3. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(c) (defining ``switching capability'' in the context of specific LEC unbundling requirements). First Reconsideration Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21277, para. 92. See RBOC/GTE Payphone Coalition Reply at 3 (arguing that debit cards and credit cards use similar platforms). Flying J Referral Order at 13. See id. In APCC v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit ultimately affirmed the Commission's payphone dial-around compensation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-228A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-228A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-228A4.txt
  • Wisconsin, WC Docket No. 03-167, Department of Justice Evaluation at 8-15 (filed Aug. 26, 2003) (Department of Justice 4-State Evaluation). In order to comply with the requirements or checklist item 2, a BOC must show that it is offering ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of section 251(c)(3). 47 U.S.C. � 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). See 47 C.F.R. � 51.319; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 3696 (1999) (UNE Remand Order); Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket Nos. 98-147, 96-98,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • the portions of the Commission's UNE Remand Order that adopted an interpretation of the ``impair'' standard and established a list of mandatory UNEs, and vacated and remanded as well the Commission's Order requiring that the high-frequency portion of the loop be made available as a UNE. Specifically, it appears that the court reversed rule 51.317(b) (the ``impair'' standard) and rule 51.319 (specific unbundling requirements). As explained below, other rules related to these topics, such as the rules relating to spectrum management and the rule defining the ``necessary'' standard, remain in effect. While recognizing ``the extraordinary complexity of the Commission's task[,]'' the court found the Commission's analysis wanting in a number of respects. At the outset, the court criticized what it characterized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1.txt
  • collateral attacks on state arbitration decisions. I hope that if the Commission is presented with such an effort to supplant the statutory scheme, we squarely hold that our jurisdiction under section 208 does not authorize such actions. . . . . (``SBC/Ameritech Merger Order'' or ``Merger Order'' ) at Appendix C (``Conditions''). 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(3). 47 C.F. R. � 51.319(d)(1)(iii). 47 U.S.C. � 252. 47 U.S.C. � 252(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. �� 252(b), 252(c)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 252(i). 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). 47 U.S.C. � 202(a). 47 U.S.C. �� 214, 310. Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14716, � 2. Merger Order Conditions, 14 FCC Rcd at 15023-4, � 56. Revised Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, File No. EB-01-MD-017 (filed Nov.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1_Erratum.doc
  • collateral attacks on state arbitration decisions. I hope that if the Commission is presented with such an effort to supplant the statutory scheme, we squarely hold that our jurisdiction under section 208 does not authorize such actions. . . . . (``SBC/Ameritech Merger Order'' or ``Merger Order'' ) at Appendix C (``Conditions''). 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(3). 47 C.F. R. � 51.319(d)(1)(iii). 47 U.S.C. � 252. 47 U.S.C. � 252(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. �� 252(b), 252(c)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 252(i). 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). 47 U.S.C. � 202(a). 47 U.S.C. �� 214, 310. Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14716, � 2. Merger Order Conditions, 14 FCC Rcd at 15023-4, � 56. Revised Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, File No. EB-01-MD-017 (filed Nov.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-191A1.txt
  • Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates NASUCA Nextel Communications Qwest Communications Qwest SBC Communications, Inc. SBC SureWest Communications SureWest Telecommunications Research and Action Center et.al. T-Mobile USA, Inc. Verizon Communications, Inc. APPENDIX B FINAL RULES PART 51 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 51 - SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING BELL OPERATING COMPANIES Section 51.319 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) as follows: � 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. (a) *** (3) Fiber-to-the-home loops. A fiber-to-the-home loop is a local loop consisting entirely of fiber optic cable, whether dark or lit, serving an end user's customer premises or, in the case of predominantly residential multiple dwelling units (MDUs), a fiber optic cable, whether dark or lit,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-248A1.txt
  • Marconi Corporation Marconi National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates NASUCA Nextel Communications Qwest Communications Qwest SBC Communications, Inc. SBC SureWest Communications SureWest Telecommunications Research and Action Center et.al. T-Mobile USA, Inc. Verizon Communications, Inc. APPENDIX B - FINAL RULES PART 51 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 51 - INTERCONECTION Section 51.319 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) as follows: � 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. (a) *** (3) Fiber loops. (i) Definitions. (A) Fiber-to-the-home loops. A fiber-to-the-home loop is a local loop consisting entirely of fiber optic cable, whether dark or lit, serving an end user's customer premises or, in the case of predominantly residential multiple dwelling units (MDUs), a fiber optic
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-266A1.txt
  • carrier. Residential lines: Lines provided to residential end user premises. Also includes any lines the filer provides to a shared-tenant service provider in an apartment building or similar residential setting. UNE-Platform: The combination of unbundled network elements (UNEs) consisting of loop UNE, switching UNE, and transport UNE. (Unbundled network elements are defined in the FCC Rules. See 47 C.F.R � 51.319.) Voice-grade equivalent: Generally, the number of DS0 (64 kbps) lines/channels in a higher-capacity circuit. In the specific context of Part II of Form 477, see "Note for reporting channelized service" in the detailed instructions, above. Voice telephone service: Local exchange or exchange access services that allow end users to originate and/or terminate local telephone calls on the public switched network,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-290A1.txt
  • outside the incumbent LEC's network, including elements self-provisioned by the requesting carrier or acquired as an alternative from a third-party supplier, lack of access to that element poses a barrier or barriers to entry, including operational and economic barriers, that are likely to make entry into a market by a reasonably efficient competitor uneconomic. * * * * * Section 51.319 is amended by: removing paragraphs (a)(7) and (e)(4); redesignating paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9) as (a)(7) and (a)(8), respectively; redesignating paragraph (e)(5) as (e)(4); and revising paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) to read as follows: � 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. (a) * * * (4) DS1 loops. (i) Subject to the cap described in paragraph (a)(4)(ii), an incumbent LEC shall provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-116A1.txt
  • VoIP Providers, Press Release (rel. May 16, 2005) . See 47 U.S.C. � 251(a)(1) (requiring all telecommunications carriers ``to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers''); 47 U.S.C. � 251(c) (requiring incumbent LECs, other than those exempted by section 251(f), to make available unbundled network elements to requesting telecommunications carriers); 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(f) (``An incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 databases on an unbundled basis, in accordance with section 251(c)(3) of the Act . . . .''); Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.txt
  • the distribution plant. By ``FTTH loop,'' we mean a local loop consisting entirely of fiber optic cable (and the attached electronics), whether lit or dark fiber, that connects a customer's premises with a wire center (i.e., from the demarcation point at the customer's premises to the central office). Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17475-17501, Appendix B (adopting section 51.319 of the Commission's rules). The deployment of hybrid loops allows an incumbent LEC to deploy DSLAMs in remote terminals and thus reduce the distance between a DSLAM and an end user's premises to one that can accommodate DSL service. See, e.g., Collocation Remand Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 15460-61, para. 46 (recognizing that in order to provide DSL service, a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.txt
  • phase out plan. See Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17137-41, paras. 264-69. Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2109-14, paras. 14-25. The Commission readopted and clarified in its Triennial Review Order the requirement that incumbent LECs enable line splitting between competing carriers. See Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17130-31, paras. 251-52; 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a)(1)(ii). Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2114, para. 26. We note that unlike in the Triennial Review Order, the Commission did not undertake an impairment analysis specific to the LFPL in the Line Sharing Order and Line Sharing Reconsideration Order. Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2114, para. 26. Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-145A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit d Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 05-261 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 28, 2006 Released: September 29, 2006 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring and issuing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-145A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-145A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-145A2.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS Re: Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WC Docket No. 05-261 (Sept. 28, 2006). This Commission makes its most difficult decisions when two important and conflicted interests must be balanced. In the case before us, the petitioner seeks
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-145A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-145A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-145A3.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN Re: Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WC Docket No. 05-261 (Sept. 28, 2006). In this Order, the Commission denies the petitioner's request that we forbear from applying our rules so that the petitioner may use unbundled network
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-188A1.txt
  • has constructed substantial competing last-mile facilities capable of providing telecommunications services is not consistent with the public interest and likely would lead to a substantial reduction in the retail competition that today is benefiting customers in the Anchorage study area. We conditionally grant ACS forbearance from its obligation to provide unbundled access to copper subloops as provided for in section 51.319(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, but deny ACS's Petition to the extent it seeks forbearance from the section 51.319(b)(2) obligation to provide unbundled subloops for access to multiunit premises wiring and from the section 51.319(c) obligation to provide unbundled access to NIDs. We find that in wire center service areas where GCI satisfies our coverage threshold test, granting ACS forbearance from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-111A1.txt
  • Petition at 2-3. An inside wire subloop is defined as ``all loop plant owned or controlled by the incumbent LEC at a multiunit customer premises between the minimum point of entry as defined in � 68.105 of this chapter and the point of demarcation of the incumbent LEC's network as defined in � 68.3 of this chapter.'' 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(b)(2). Petition at i. Although Cox uses the term MTEs, the Commission uses the term ``multiunit premises'' in the inside wire subloop rule. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(b)(2). See Petition at 2 (citing Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Deployment of Wireline Services Offering
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-129A1.txt
  • public interest.'' Id. 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(g); 47 U.S.C. � 155(c)(5) (``In passing upon applications for review [of orders issued on delegated authority], the Commission may grant, in whole or in part, or deny such applications without specifying any reasons therefore.''). See Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) To Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, WC Docket No. 05-261, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11125, 11128, para 6 (2006) (Fones4All Forbearance Order). Core Application at 1, 3. Fones4All Forbearance Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 11128, para. 6. Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-142A1.txt
  • time is necessary to develop an appropriate forward-looking cost mechanism for rural carriers). See 47 C.F.R. � 54.305(b). . 47 C.F.R. �� 36.601-36.631. 47 C.F.R. � 54.309. 47 C.F.R. �� 36.611, 36.612. 47 C.F.R. � 54.309(a)(4). 47 C.F.R. �� 54.313, 54.314. See Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, WC Docket No. 05-261, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11125, 11130, para. 9 (2006) (The Commission denied forbearance because ``[f]orbearing from the rule . . . would simply create a vacuum rather than
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.txt
  • Internet Access Services Order framework struck the proper public interest balance, including both the relief granted and its identification of the cost allocation concerns that must be addressed, we find that deviation from that framework would not be in the public interest. Fones4all Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, WC Docket No. 05-261, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11125, 11132-22, para. 14 (2006) (concluding that it would not be in the public interest for the Commission to forbear from its unbundling rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.txt
  • lines, discontinuing services, assignment or transfers of control, and acquiring affiliations. 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.41-61.49, 61.58, 61.59, 63.03, 63.04, 63.60-63.66. See, e.g., Letter from Joseph Jackson, Associate Director, Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 06-172 at 7 (filed June 13, 2007) (Verizon June 13, 2007 Ex Parte Letter). 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e). (discussing Computer Inquiry III requirements). See 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.41-61.49, 61.58, 61.59, 63.03, 63.04. 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(3). Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19417-22, paras. 3-11. Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), 77 FCC 2d 384 (1980) (Computer II Final Decision), recon., 84 FCC 2d
• 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
  • 14, 2008). Verizon sought forbearance from the following: tariffing requirements, price cap regulation, and dominant carrier requirements concerning the processes for acquiring lines, discontinuing services, assignment or transfers of control, and acquiring affiliations. 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.41-.49, 61.58, 61.59, 63.03, 63.04, 63.60-.66. See Verizon 6 MSA Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 21924, para. 1. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e). Verizon 6 MSA Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 21307-11, paras. 27-34. Id. Id. at 21307-08, para. 27. Id. at 21312, para. 36. Id. at 21318-19, para. 45. See Petition of Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for Order Declaring it to be an Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier in Terry, Montana Pursuant to Section 251(h)(2), WC Docket No. 02-78, Report and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.txt
  • 3, 2007) (correcting the Denver, Phoenix, and Seattle petitions); Letters from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President - Federal Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-97 (filed Aug. 3, 2007) (filing two separate letters correcting the Denver and Seattle petitions). See Appendix A for a list of commenters. 47 U.S.C. � 160. . 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a), (b), (e). 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.58, 61.59. 47 C.F.R. �� 61.41-49. 47 C.F.R. �� 63.03, 63.04. In its petitions, Qwest requested forbearance from Sections 63.60-66 of the Commission's rules, but subsequently withdrew this aspect of its petitions; therefore, we do not include those rule sections in our analysis below. See Qwest June 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-3A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-3A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-3A1.txt
  • or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access'' from the reciprocal compensation regime). This is not the first time the Commission has denied forbearance when a grant would not have brought the petitioner the relief it sought. See Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users Eligible for State or Federal Lifeline Service, WC Docket No. 05-261, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 11125 (2006) (Fones4All Forbearance Order) (concluding that forbearance as requested would not give the petitioner the relief it sought and therefore denying the petition),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • Qwest has sought relief, simply as ``the Phoenix MSA.'' Qwest Petition at 7 (citing 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)). Qwest seeks this relief for its wholesale provision of voice-grade, DS1, and DS3 unbundled loop and transport facilities. Id. Qwest also seeks forbearance from the congruent loop and transport unbundling obligations of 47 U.S.C. � 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). Id. Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 51.319(a), 51.319(b), and 51.319(e)). Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.32, 61.33, 61.38, 61.58, and 61.59). Qwest asserts that if it is granted forbearance relief from these dominant carrier tariffing requirements, it would willingly accept, as a condition of such relief, being subject to the permissive tariffing rules that apply to competitive LECs. Id. at 7-8 (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 61.18-61.26). Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-129A1.txt
  • For example, today's report has no impact on which entities are classified as interconnected VoIP providers or what facilities must be provided on an unbundled basis. See 47 C.F.R. � 9.3 (defining interconnected VoIP service in relevant part as a service that ``[r]equires a broadband connection from the user's location''); 47 C.F.R. � 51.5 (defining ``advanced services''); 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a)(2) (setting forth UNE obligations for hybrid loops). This report also does not prejudge the outcome of possible changes to the Universal Service Fund (USF) or other Commission proceedings. See, e.g., National Broadband Plan at 140-51; Connect America Fund, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, High-Cost Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 10-90, GN Docket No. 09-51, WC Docket No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-78A1.txt
  • Commission action. For example, today's report has no impact on which entities are classified as interconnected VoIP providers or what facilities must be provided on an unbundled basis. See 47 C.F.R. � 9.3 (defining interconnected VoIP service in relevant part as a service that ``[r]equires a broadband connection from the user's location''); id. � 51.5 (defining ``advanced services''); id. � 51.319(a)(2) (setting forth unbundled network element (UNE) obligations for hybrid loops). This report also does not prejudge the outcome of USF reform or other Commission proceedings. See, e.g., National Broadband Plan at 140-51; Connect America Fund NPRM; Connect America Fund, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, High-Cost Universal Service Support, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 made available. 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. 51.321 Methods of obtaining interconnection and access to unbundled elements under section 251 of the Act. 51.323 Standards for physical collocation and virtual collocation. Subpart E - Exemptions, suspensions, and modifications of requirements of section 251 of the Act. 51.401 State authority. 51.403 Carriers eligible for suspension or modification under section 251(f)(2) of the Act. 51.405 Burden
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.txt
  • the offerings, and SBC/Ameritech will respond to their inquiries within 10 days. To this end, SBC/Ameritech will notify all carriers operating in the state when 50 percent and 80 percent of the maximum lines in that state are reached. 498. Offering of UNEs. Several commenters criticize SBC and Ameritech for not committing to provide indefinitely the UNEs described in section 51.319 of the Commission's rules, regardless of the outcome of the UNE Remand proceeding.907 Certain cellular carriers also ask that the condition explicitly recognize extended local calling area arrangements, commonly 903 47 U.S.C. � 252(a)(1). See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15528, paras. 54, 58 (stating that "parties that voluntarily negotiate agreements need not comply with the requirements we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.txt
  • list of unbundled network elements adopted in the Local Competition Third Report and Order include: (1) local loops, including dark fiber and high-capacity loops; (2) subloops; (3) network interface devices; (4) local switching, except under certain conditions; (5) interoffice transport; (6) signaling and call-related databases; (7) operations support systems; and (8) in very limited situations, packet switching. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319; Local Competition Third Report and Order, at paras. 163-465. 44 A list of parties that filed comments relating to spectrum unbundling in response to Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC No. 99-70 (rel. Apr. 16, 1999) (Local Competition Second FNPRM) is provided in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-70A1.txt
  • States Supreme Court upheld all but one of the Commission's local competition rules that had been challenged before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Eighth Circuit). The Supreme Court rejected, in part, the Commission's implementation of the network element unbundling obligations set forth in section 251(c)(3) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,1 and concluded that section 51.319 of the Commission's rules should be vacated.2 Section 51.319, which was adopted in the Local Competition First Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-98,3 sets forth the minimum set of network elements that incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) must make available on an unbundled basis to requesting carriers pursuant to sections 251(c)(3) and 251(d)(2). The Supreme Court found that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf
  • This commitment shall not limit the ability of the AT&T and BellSouth ILECs and any other telecommunications carrier to agree voluntarily to any different UNE or collocation rates. 2. AT&T/BellSouth shall recalculate its wire center calculations for the number of business lines and fiber-based collocations and, for those that no longer meet the non-impairment thresholds established in 47 CFR �� 51.319(a) and (e), provide appropriate loop and transport access. In identifying wire centers in which there is no impairment pursuant to 47 CFR �� 51s319(a) and (e), the merged entity shall exclude the following: (i) fiber-based collocation arrangements established by AT&T or its affiliates; (ii) entities that do not operate (i.e., own or manage the optronics on the fiber) their own
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.wp
  • States Supreme Court upheld all but one of the Commission's local competition rules that had been challenged before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Eighth Circuit). The Supreme Court rejected, in part, the Commission's implementation of the network element unbundling obligations set forth in section 251(c)(3) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,1 and concluded that section 51.319 of the Commission's rules should be vacated.2 Section 51.319, which was adopted in the Local Competition First Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-98,3 sets forth the minimum set of network elements that incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) must make available on an unbundled basis to requesting carriers pursuant to sections 251(c)(3) and 251(d)(2). The Supreme Court found that the
• 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
  • or "subsequent partial migrations." See e.g., AT&T Hassebrock Aff. at para. 22. 482 See AT&T Hassebrock Aff. at para. 47. 483 MCI Comments at 50; MCI Green Aff. at para. 152. In its comments, MCI claims that it expects to begin ordering UNEs through EDI in September 1998. 484 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at 24. 485 See 47 CFR � 51.319(e)(3)(v)(f)(1). 486 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20618-19. 92 customer's lines to a competing carrier) must be ordered manually.481 143.AT&T states that it currently must fax orders for "split accounts" and that this "substantially hinders AT&T's market entry" for ADL service.482 MCI estimates that "split accounts" could amount to more than 50 percent of its orders when its begins
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.txt
  • service and residential Basic Rate Interface ISDN service. The promotional UNE platform may be used to provide exchange access services in combination with these services. For purposes of this Paragraph, the promotional UNE platform is a combination of all network elements used to provide residential POTS service and residential Basic Rate Interface ISDN service and available under 47 C.F.R. � 51.319, as in effect on January 24, 1999. a. SBC/Ameritech shall be under no obligation under this condition to provide the promotional UNE platform unless the promotional UNE platform is ordered after the Merger Closing Date and during the Offering Window with a requested installation date of no later than 30 days after the close of the Offering Window. SBC/Ameritech shall
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.pdf
  • worse; diminish in value."23 The Commission also determined that a requesting carrier's ability to offer service is "impaired" or "diminished in value" if "the quality of the service the entrant can offer, absent access to the requested element, declines" or if "the cost of providing the service rises."24 18. After addressing the "necessary" and "impair" standards, the Commission adopted rule 51.319, which sets forth the network elements that incumbent LECs were required to make available to requesting carriers on an unbundled basis.25 Section 51.319 of the Commission's rules required incumbent LECs to offer unbundled access to the 20 Certain rural telephone companies may be exempt from the unbundling provisions of section 251. See 47 U.S.C. � 251(f). 21 47 U.S.C. �
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.txt
  • in the offerings, and SBC/Ameritech will respond to their inquiries within 10 days. To this end, SBC/Ameritech will notify all carriers operating in the state when 50 percent and 80 percent of the maximum lines in that state are reached. Offering of UNEs. Several commenters criticize SBC and Ameritech for not committing to provide indefinitely the UNEs described in section 51.319 of the Commission's rules, regardless of the outcome of the UNE Remand proceeding. Certain cellular carriers also ask that the condition explicitly recognize extended local calling area arrangements, commonly known as reverse billing arrangements, in order to prevent the merged firm from terminating Ameritech's existing extended local calling area arrangements. We emphasize that this condition has practical effect only in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • follows: � 51.5 Terms and definitions. * * * * * Binder or binder group. Copper pairs bundled together, generally in groups of 25, 50 or 100. * * * * * Known disturber. An advanced services technology that is prone to cause significant interference with other services deployed in the network. * * * * * 3. In Section 51.319, paragraph (h) is added, to read as follows: � 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. * * * * * High Frequency Portion of the Loop. The high frequency portion of the loop network element is defined as the frequency range above the voiceband on a copper loop facility that is being used to carry analog circuit-switched voiceband transmissions. An incumbent LEC
• 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
  • Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission established a list of seven UNEs which incumbent LECs were obliged to provide: (1) local loops; (2) network interface devices; (3) local and tandem switching; (4) interoffice transmission facilities; (5) signaling networks and call-related databases; (6) operations support systems; and (7) operator services and directory assistance. This obligation was codified in section 51.319 of the Commission's rules (``rule 319''). In January 1999, the Supreme Court vacated rule 319 and instructed the Commission to revise the standards under which the unbundling obligation is determined and to reevaluate the network elements subject to the unbundling requirement. Although the former rule 319 was not in force at the time Bell Atlantic filed its application in this
• 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
  • This includes such rules that have taken effect since the date SWBT filed its application, such as the new unbundling rules that became effective on May 18, 2000. In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission established a list of seven unbundled network elements (UNEs) which incumbent LECs were obliged to provide. This obligation was codified in section 51.319 of the Commission's rules (rule 319). In January 1999, the Supreme Court vacated rule 319 and instructed the Commission to revise the standards under which the unbundling obligation is determined and to reevaluate the network elements subject to the unbundling requirement. On November 5, 1999, we released the UNE Remand Order, in which we reevaluated the unbundling obligations of incumbent
• 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
  • level. Id. See also Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9106, para. 210. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 275 and Attach. 68. The weighted average was based on missed installation appointments occurring between February and April 2001. Broadslate Joint Comments at 5-7; Capsule Joint Comments at 4-5. Broadslate Joint Comments at 7-11. See 47 C.F.R. �� 51.307, 51.311, 51.319; UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3841-42, paras. 318-321. In the state proceeding, Cavalier noted that Verizon's current ordering system prevents CLECs from ordering dark fiber while collocation arrangements are being built or augmented. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 298. Sprint's comments also raise this issue with respect to transport facilities in general, noting that Verizon's transport ordering
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • the Local Interconnection Order, the Commission BellSouth, September 30, 1997, South Carolina -38- adopted rules that require BellSouth to make interconnection available for unbundled access to, at a minimum, the following independent network elements: local loops; the network interface device; switching; interoffice transmission facilities; signaling networks and call-related databases; OSS functions; and operator services and directory assistance. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319. The SCPSC found that BellSouth's Statement "provides CLECs with nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of the Act." Compliance Order at 40. The Statement provides nondiscriminatory access to all network elements identified in the Commission's rules on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point. Statement � II & Attach. C; Varner Aff. �� 67-80; Milner
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Notices/2000/fcc00355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Notices/2000/fcc00355.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Notices/2000/fcc00355.txt
  • Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), Docket No. 20828, Final Decision, 77 FCC2d 384 (1980) (Computer II); Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry), CC Docket No. 85-229, Report and Order, 104 FCC2d 958 (1986) (Computer III). See UNE Remand Order at � 306; 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(c)(3). See AT&T/TCI Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 3197-98 � 75; AT&T/MediaOne Order at �� 114-15. AT&T/TCI Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 3207 � 96. AT&T/MediaOne Order at �� 116-23. See also Applications of America Online, Inc. and Time Warner Inc. for Transfers of Control, CS Docket No. 00-30 (filed February 11, 2000; amended March 21, 2000). We note that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/esbc917a.doc
  • Services Equipment shall be deemed to have been transferred during the Grace Period. Such Advanced Services Equipment that may be transferred to the separate affiliate on an exclusive basis is limited to that equipment described in Subparagraph {c} [d] above and does not include any facilities or equipment deemed to be a mandatory unbundled network element under 47 C.F.R. � 51.319 (as in effect on January 24, 1999). f. The separate Advanced Services affiliates may use the incumbent LEC's name, trademarks, or service marks on an exclusive basis. g. Employees of the separate Advanced Services affiliate(s) may, on an exclusive basis, be located within the same buildings and on the same floors as employees of the incumbent LECs. h. For a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.txt
  • entry. In the SBC/Ameritech States, these unprecedented promotions include: (i) resale discounts for residential services starting at 32 percent off of the retail rate established by the relevant state commission; (ii) access to the UNE Platform to serve residential customers under UNE pricing rules in all central offices, without regard to the outcome of the Commission's remand proceedings regarding Rule 51.319; and (iii) discounts on recurring charges for unbundled residential loops that will average 25 percent below the cost-based price set by the relevant state commission. SBC and Ameritech have revised the provisions establishing carrier-to-carrier promotions to ensure that all carriers have an equal chance to obtain any promotional facilities or services that are subject to volume caps, as well as
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99141.pdf
  • formula for determining maximum price for access to conduit under section 224(e)). 111 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(3); see also 47 U.S.C. � 252(d)(1) (establishing basis for State commissions to determine just and reasonable rates in arbitration proceedings). 112 47 U.S.C. � 251(d)(2). 113 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. at 15697-99, �� 392-396; see 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(b) (1997). 26 State is regulating the rates, terms, and conditions of access to facilities and rights-of-way on multiple unit premises within the meaning of this provision.110 3. Access to Unbundled Network Elements. 49. Pursuant to section 251(c)(3) of the Communications Act, an incumbent LEC must make available to any requesting carrier nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.txt
  • telecommunications carriers unbundled access to elements of their networks on just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms). In 1996, pursuant to Congress' mandate in Section 251, the Commission promulgated rules establishing unbundled network elements (UNEs), and directed incumbent LECs to make them available to competitors. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15697-99, �� 392-397; see 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(b). The rules were challenged and remanded to the Commission for clarification of the standards by which UNEs were defined. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366. In April, 1999, the Commission sought comment on these standards. See Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-98, 14 FCC Rcd 8694 (1999). See UNE Remand Order. See ALTS Comments at 22;
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-381A1.html
  • was subsequently vacated by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC.14 The United States Supreme Court reversed in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, thus reinstating section 51.315(b) of our rules.15 The Supreme Court, however, also determined that the Commission did not apply the appropriate criteria, in accordance with section 251(d)(2) of the Act,16 in specifying in section 51.319 the minimum ``network elements'' that must be provided to requesting carriers by ILECs. It therefore vacated section 51.319 and remanded this issue to the Commission for its reevaluation using appropriate criteria.17 6. On remand, we issued the UNE Remand Order and reinstated section 51.315(b). There we concluded that ILECs were required to provide requesting carriers access to combinations of loops
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-282A1.html
  • access to network elements, ``to any requesting carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service.''37 In implementing section 251(d)(2) and (c)(3), we identified the network elements that is, the physical facilities and their ``features, functions and capabilities'' that the incumbent LEC must provide to the requesting carrier, not the purposes for which a CLEC may use those facilities.38 Specifically, rule 51.319(d) defines shared transport as ``transmission facilities shared by more than one carrier, including the incumbent LEC, between end office switches, between end office switches and tandem switches, and between tandem switches, in the incumbent LEC network.''39 This definition requires incumbent LECs to provide these shared transport facilities ``to any requesting telecommunications carrier . . . for the provision of a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-7A1.html
  • was reviewing and finalizing the text of the conditions. 32 May 2 Response at Exhibit C, page 4. 33 Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 12460 at Appendix A, rule 51.319 (1997) (emphasis added). See 47 C.F.R. 51.319. 34 The Texas Arbitration Award makes clear that the routing being requested there by CLECs does in fact meet this definition. See Texas Arbitration Award at 7-9 and Appendix A, which contains diagrams showing explaining that intraLATA calls would be routed using ``option 2'' as set forth at those pages, which consists of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95 and 101 of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14712 (1999) (``SBC/Ameritech Merger Order'' or ``Merger Order'' ) at Appendix C (``Conditions''). 6 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(3). 7 47 C.F. R. 51.319(d)(1)(iii). 8 47 U.S.C. 252. 9 47 U.S.C. 252(a)(1). 10 47 U.S.C. 252(b), 252(c)(1). 11 47 U.S.C. 252(i). 12 47 U.S.C. 201(b). 13 47 U.S.C. 202(a). 14 47 U.S.C. 214, 310. 15 Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14716, 2. 16 Merger Order Conditions, 14 FCC Rcd at 15023-4, 56. 17 Revised Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, File No. EB-01-MD-017 (filed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20586-20592, 88-101; Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21278-79, 93-96 (sections in both orders titled Ability of Carriers to Track Calls From Payphones and not discussing payment obligation). NIP cites to no Commission statement concluding or opining that ``call tracking'' and ``switching capability'' refer to the same functions. 57 See 47 C.F.R. 51.319(c) (All our C.F.R. references to Part 51 of the Commission's rules refer to the rules in effect during the Relevant Period ). 58 See generally id. 59 NIP's Brief at 8-9. Answer 3, 9-10, 19-20; 40-41, 8, 13; Hutchison Affidavit at 2, 4. 60 NIP's Brief at 3-4. 61 NIP's Brief at 5. 62 Revised Joint Statement at 7-8, 16;
• http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf
  • This commitment shall not limit the ability of the AT&T and BellSouth ILECs and any other telecommunications carrier to agree voluntarily to any different UNE or collocation rates. 2. AT&T/BellSouth shall recalculate its wire center calculations for the number of business lines and fiber-based collocations and, for those that no longer meet the non-impairment thresholds established in 47 CFR �� 51.319(a) and (e), provide appropriate loop and transport access. In identifying wire centers in which there is no impairment pursuant to 47 CFR �� 51s319(a) and (e), the merged entity shall exclude the following: (i) fiber-based collocation arrangements established by AT&T or its affiliates; (ii) entities that do not operate (i.e., own or manage the optronics on the fiber) their own
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Comments/access_reform/samples/COMcta.htm
  • substitute for switched access services, promoting competition on a geographically-broad scale, is if multiple carriers can use existing ILEC switches (and, as explained below, loop/switch combinations) to provide exchange and exchange access services. The FCC rules recognize this fact and the Commission has ordered the introduction of an unbundled switching element that includes: * basic switching connecting lines and trunks 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(1); * any capability available to ILEC customers, including telephone numbers, white page listings and dial tone -- 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(1); * every feature the switch is capable of providing, including customer calling, CLASS functionality, and Centrex --51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(2); * software-controlled systems which transfer customers to a new local provider in the same interval as the ILEC transfers customers between interexchange carriers^[7]^(7) --51.319(c)(1)(ii); *
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.wp
  • States Supreme Court upheld all but one of the Commission's local competition rules that had been challenged before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Eighth Circuit). The Supreme Court rejected, in part, the Commission's implementation of the network element unbundling obligations set forth in section 251(c)(3) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,1 and concluded that section 51.319 of the Commission's rules should be vacated.2 Section 51.319, which was adopted in the Local Competition First Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-98,3 sets forth the minimum set of network elements that incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) must make available on an unbundled basis to requesting carriers pursuant to sections 251(c)(3) and 251(d)(2). The Supreme Court found that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 made available. 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. 51.321 Methods of obtaining interconnection and access to unbundled elements under section 251 of the Act. 51.323 Standards for physical collocation and virtual collocation. Subpart E - Exemptions, suspensions, and modifications of requirements of section 251 of the Act. 51.401 State authority. 51.403 Carriers eligible for suspension or modification under section 251(f)(2) of the Act. 51.405 Burden
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97298.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97298.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97298.wp
  • by the incumbent LEC to provide the 327 necessary access to OSS functions to competing carriers. See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15763 (recognizing that "the massive operations support systems employed by incumbent LECs, and the information such systems maintain and update to administer telecommunications networks and services, represent a significant potential barrier to entry"); 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(f)(1) ("operations support systems functions consist of . . . functions supported by an incumbent LEC's databases and information") (emphasis added). See Local Competition Second Reconsideration Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15742-43. 328 See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15763-64. 329 Department of Justice Evaluation, Appendix A at 1; Michigan Commission Consultation at 33. 330 Department of Justice Evaluation,
• 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
  • or "subsequent partial migrations." See e.g., AT&T Hassebrock Aff. at para. 22. 482 See AT&T Hassebrock Aff. at para. 47. 483 MCI Comments at 50; MCI Green Aff. at para. 152. In its comments, MCI claims that it expects to begin ordering UNEs through EDI in September 1998. 484 BellSouth Stacy Reply Aff. at 24. 485 See 47 CFR � 51.319(e)(3)(v)(f)(1). 486 Ameritech Michigan Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 20618-19. 92 customer's lines to a competing carrier) must be ordered manually.481 143.AT&T states that it currently must fax orders for "split accounts" and that this "substantially hinders AT&T's market entry" for ADL service.482 MCI estimates that "split accounts" could amount to more than 50 percent of its orders when its begins
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.txt
  • service and residential Basic Rate Interface ISDN service. The promotional UNE platform may be used to provide exchange access services in combination with these services. For purposes of this Paragraph, the promotional UNE platform is a combination of all network elements used to provide residential POTS service and residential Basic Rate Interface ISDN service and available under 47 C.F.R. � 51.319, as in effect on January 24, 1999. a. SBC/Ameritech shall be under no obligation under this condition to provide the promotional UNE platform unless the promotional UNE platform is ordered after the Merger Closing Date and during the Offering Window with a requested installation date of no later than 30 days after the close of the Offering Window. SBC/Ameritech shall
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99223.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99223.txt
  • Communications Commission FCC 99-223 245 MCI Petition at 32-33. 246 MCI Petition at 33. See CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8162-63, � 138; 47 C.F.R. � 2007(2)(iii). 247 MCI Petition at 21-23, 33-34. 248 CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8126, � 84. 249 CPNI Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8126, � 84 & n.315. 250 47 C.F.R. � 51.319 (1997). 251 AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 119 S.Ct. 721, 736 (1999). 47 MCI's request. 90. Fourth, MCI further argues that if the Commission does not grant any of the relief requested, then it should allow carriers to notify customers that their failure to approve the disclosure of CPNI to a new carrier may disrupt the installation of any
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.txt
  • become worse; diminish in value.'' The Commission also determined that a requesting carrier's ability to offer service is ``impaired'' or ``diminished in value'' if ``the quality of the service the entrant can offer, absent access to the requested element, declines'' or if ``the cost of providing the service rises.'' After addressing the ``necessary'' and ``impair'' standards, the Commission adopted rule 51.319, which sets forth the network elements that incumbent LECs were required to make available to requesting carriers on an unbundled basis. Section 51.319 of the Commission's rules required incumbent LECs to offer unbundled access to the following network elements: (1) local loops; (2) network interface devices; (3) local switching; (4) interoffice transmission facilities; (5) signaling networks and call-related databases; (6)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.txt
  • in the offerings, and SBC/Ameritech will respond to their inquiries within 10 days. To this end, SBC/Ameritech will notify all carriers operating in the state when 50 percent and 80 percent of the maximum lines in that state are reached. Offering of UNEs. Several commenters criticize SBC and Ameritech for not committing to provide indefinitely the UNEs described in section 51.319 of the Commission's rules, regardless of the outcome of the UNE Remand proceeding. Certain cellular carriers also ask that the condition explicitly recognize extended local calling area arrangements, commonly known as reverse billing arrangements, in order to prevent the merged firm from terminating Ameritech's existing extended local calling area arrangements. We emphasize that this condition has practical effect only in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • follows: � 51.5 Terms and definitions. * * * * * Binder or binder group. Copper pairs bundled together, generally in groups of 25, 50 or 100. * * * * * Known disturber. An advanced services technology that is prone to cause significant interference with other services deployed in the network. * * * * * 3. In Section 51.319, paragraph (h) is added, to read as follows: � 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. * * * * * High Frequency Portion of the Loop. The high frequency portion of the loop network element is defined as the frequency range above the voiceband on a copper loop facility that is being used to carry analog circuit-switched voiceband transmissions. An incumbent LEC
• 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
  • Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission established a list of seven UNEs which incumbent LECs were obliged to provide: (1) local loops; (2) network interface devices; (3) local and tandem switching; (4) interoffice transmission facilities; (5) signaling networks and call-related databases; (6) operations support systems; and (7) operator services and directory assistance. This obligation was codified in section 51.319 of the Commission's rules (``rule 319''). In January 1999, the Supreme Court vacated rule 319 and instructed the Commission to revise the standards under which the unbundling obligation is determined and to reevaluate the network elements subject to the unbundling requirement. Although the former rule 319 was not in force at the time Bell Atlantic filed its application in this
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00139.doc
  • requires incumbent LECs to provide requesting telecommunications carriers 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. . On January 25, 1999, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") released an opinion in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board in which it vacated section 51.319 of the Commission's rules. Section 51.319, which was adopted in the Local Competition First Report and Order, set forth the minimum number of network elements that incumbent LECs must make available on an unbundled basis to requesting carriers pursuant to section 251(c)(3). The Supreme Court found that the Commission, in determining which network elements must be unbundled pursuant to section
• 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
  • This includes such rules that have taken effect since the date SWBT filed its application, such as the new unbundling rules that became effective on May 18, 2000. In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission established a list of seven unbundled network elements (UNEs) which incumbent LECs were obliged to provide. This obligation was codified in section 51.319 of the Commission's rules (rule 319). In January 1999, the Supreme Court vacated rule 319 and instructed the Commission to revise the standards under which the unbundling obligation is determined and to reevaluate the network elements subject to the unbundling requirement. On November 5, 1999, we released the UNE Remand Order, in which we reevaluated the unbundling obligations of incumbent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00297.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00297.txt
  • the placement of competitive LEC and incumbent LEC equipment within the same racks or bays in remote locations, even if we do not require that incumbents allow this practice in central offices. We also ask what effect any such amendments to our collocations rules would have upon the obligation of incumbent LECs to unbundle packet switching capability under Commission rule 51.319(c)(5). Additionally, we ask whether incumbent LECs should be required to provide requesting carriers with demographic and other information regarding particular remote terminals similar to the information available regarding incumbent LEC central offices. We ask the commenters to suggest potential solutions for the collocation space shortages within remote terminals. We invite comment on whether we should require incumbent LECs to make
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc99405.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc99405.txt
  • promote the availability of competitive broadband . . . services, especially to residential and small business customers). The local loop is defined as the transmission facility between a distribution frame (or its equivalent) in an incumbent LEC central office and the loop demarcation point at an end-user customer premises, including inside wire owned by the incumbent LEC. 47 U.S.C. � 51.319(a)(1). Common Carrier Bureau Will Hold Fora on Deregulation/Privatization of Equipment Registration and Telephone Network Connection Rules, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 99-216, DA 99-1108, rel. June 10, 1999. Petitions were filed by AT&T, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CAPUC), Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (Cincinnati Bell), GTE Service Corporation
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010480.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010480.txt
  • make the high frequency portion of the loop available to competing providers of advanced services. In this Order, we clarify that the Line Sharing Reconsideration Order in no way modified the criteria set forth in the Commission's UNE Remand Order regarding the unbundling of packet switching functionality. Specifically, we clarify that the Line Sharing Reconsideration Order does not alter section 51.319(b)(5) of the Commission's rules, which describes the limited set of circumstances under which an incumbent LEC is required to provide nondiscriminatory access to unbundled packet switching capability. 2. Nonetheless, we note that in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that accompanied the Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, the Commission expressly sought comment on whether its existing packet switching rules are adequate
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01026.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01026.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01026.txt
  • voluntary deployment of industry standards while limiting the ability of any class of carriers to impose unilateral and potentially anti-competitive spectrum management or compatibility rules on other xDSL providers. The Line Sharing Order addressed standards-setting, spectrum compatibility, binder group management, and the disposition of interfering technologies. DISCUSSION Line Sharing Issues Definition of High Frequency Portion of the Loop Background Section 51.319(h)(1) of our rules defines the high frequency portion of the loop as ``the frequency range above the voiceband on a copper loop facility that is being used to carry analog circuit-switched voiceband transmissions.'' Where an incumbent LEC chooses to migrate its customers to fiber loop facilities, the xDSL provider may be required to forego access to the high frequency portion
• 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
  • level. Id. See also Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9106, para. 210. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 275 and Attach. 68. The weighted average was based on missed installation appointments occurring between February and April 2001. Broadslate Joint Comments at 5-7; Capsule Joint Comments at 4-5. Broadslate Joint Comments at 7-11. See 47 C.F.R. �� 51.307, 51.311, 51.319; UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3841-42, paras. 318-321. In the state proceeding, Cavalier noted that Verizon's current ordering system prevents CLECs from ordering dark fiber while collocation arrangements are being built or augmented. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 298. Sprint's comments also raise this issue with respect to transport facilities in general, noting that Verizon's transport ordering
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da000678.doc
  • ON SCOPE OF UNBUNDLED ACCESS OF HIGH-FREQUENCY PORTION OF LOOPS CC Docket No. 00-50 Released: March 24, 2000 On March 14, 2000, NewPath Holdings, Inc. (NewPath) filed a petition for declaratory ruling that an incumbent local exchange carrier's obligation to provide nondiscriminatory, unbundled access to the high-frequency or data portion of a loop under the Line Sharing Order and section 51.319(h) of the Commission's rules applies to resale loops. Interested parties may file comments regarding the NewPath petition no later than April 26, 2000, with the Secretary, FCC at 445 12th Street, SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Oppositions or responses to these comments may be filed with the Secretary, FCC no later than May 11, 2000. All pleadings are to reference
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da001141.doc
  • May 17, 2000, The Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) filed a petition pursuant to section 1.2 of the Commissions Rules, submits this petition for declaratory ruling. ALTS requests that the Commission clarify, interpret and modify its rules governing crucial aspects of loop provisioning by incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). Specifically ALTS states that the Commission should: Hold the Rule 51.319 requires ILECs to provide high-capacity loops, including (DS-1 and DS-3 level loops, to any requesting CLEC on an unbundled and nondiscriminatory basis; Hold that rules 51.319 requires ILECs to provide entire loops to CLECs providing integrated voice and data services over a shared line; Adopt maximum intervals for provisioning of UNE loops; Require ILECs to provide access to subloops wherever
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2001/da010621.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2001/da010621.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2001/da010621.txt
  • the forum, please contact: News Media Contact: Michael Balmoris (202) 418-0253, mbalmori@fcc.gov Jessica Office of Engineering and Technology Contact: Jerry Stanshine (202) 418-2417, jstanshi@fcc.gov See Common Carrier Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Announce Public Forum on Competitive Access to Next-Generation Remote Terminals, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 98-147, NSD-L-00-48, DA 00-891 (rel. April 19, 200). See 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(c)(5). ���� ���� Z��� ''��� ���� `��� a��� -��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� T���7f�`;8gK��b���PNG (c)|)Q��@0����� �~.� � �-c���"Pg� �c)�0O��) b�"c�� ��-� �!|} 2 ����un�''...��� }^�;u������.l ��jX��F�D�r� qvW�C�`��K]L����q���b##}J@j!-�ыp�=܈ �7�Z�"�NzKZߌE�� F���)%3{�Rg*w��/�yD߂z,���](n��2/cmL� \A% �g�@}�� W/ x">46/��^���aУR �M(c)tmR�X��F� ���-6 2[u �� s t2�99b~Z��t Sma�p|)l ˏ 0 `8{ N�� U� ��S n��J(��շ �r.V�����2�� �� p{��A�"�8)W~V�8 �;'' � #�''_ ;� ?fԜ _ ە�4 ��>�� ;Ez�]� �Ee�
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • the Local Interconnection Order, the Commission BellSouth, September 30, 1997, South Carolina -38- adopted rules that require BellSouth to make interconnection available for unbundled access to, at a minimum, the following independent network elements: local loops; the network interface device; switching; interoffice transmission facilities; signaling networks and call-related databases; OSS functions; and operator services and directory assistance. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319. The SCPSC found that BellSouth's Statement "provides CLECs with nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of the Act." Compliance Order at 40. The Statement provides nondiscriminatory access to all network elements identified in the Commission's rules on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point. Statement � II & Attach. C; Varner Aff. �� 67-80; Milner
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/sbc/sbcbrief.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/sbc/sbcbrief.wp
  • rules interpreting the 19 interconnection requirements of section 251(c)(2). These rules require SWBT to make interconnection available for unbundled access to, at a minimum, the following independent network elements: local loops; the network interface device ("NID"); switching; interoffice transmission facilities; signaling networks and call-related databases; operations support systems ("OSS") functions; and operator services and directory assistance facilities. 47 C.F.R. � 51.319. 1. SWBT's Statement satisfies sections 251(c)(2), 251(c)(3), and 252(d)(1) and applicable Commission regulations by offering local interconnection, of equal quality, at any technically feasible point, at cost-based rates. Section II.B of the Statement provides several alternative methods of interconnection, including physical collocation, virtual collocation, and SONET-based interconnection. SWBT Southwestern Bell, April 11, 1997, Oklahoma To the extent that the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Notices/2000/fcc00355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Notices/2000/fcc00355.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Notices/2000/fcc00355.txt
  • Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), Docket No. 20828, Final Decision, 77 FCC2d 384 (1980) (Computer II); Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry), CC Docket No. 85-229, Report and Order, 104 FCC2d 958 (1986) (Computer III). See UNE Remand Order at � 306; 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(c)(3). See AT&T/TCI Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 3197-98 � 75; AT&T/MediaOne Order at �� 114-15. AT&T/TCI Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 3207 � 96. AT&T/MediaOne Order at �� 116-23. See also Applications of America Online, Inc. and Time Warner Inc. for Transfers of Control, CS Docket No. 00-30 (filed February 11, 2000; amended March 21, 2000). We note that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/esbc917a.doc
  • Services Equipment shall be deemed to have been transferred during the Grace Period. Such Advanced Services Equipment that may be transferred to the separate affiliate on an exclusive basis is limited to that equipment described in Subparagraph {c} [d] above and does not include any facilities or equipment deemed to be a mandatory unbundled network element under 47 C.F.R. � 51.319 (as in effect on January 24, 1999). f. The separate Advanced Services affiliates may use the incumbent LEC's name, trademarks, or service marks on an exclusive basis. g. Employees of the separate Advanced Services affiliate(s) may, on an exclusive basis, be located within the same buildings and on the same floors as employees of the incumbent LECs. h. For a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.txt
  • entry. In the SBC/Ameritech States, these unprecedented promotions include: (i) resale discounts for residential services starting at 32 percent off of the retail rate established by the relevant state commission; (ii) access to the UNE Platform to serve residential customers under UNE pricing rules in all central offices, without regard to the outcome of the Commission's remand proceedings regarding Rule 51.319; and (iii) discounts on recurring charges for unbundled residential loops that will average 25 percent below the cost-based price set by the relevant state commission. SBC and Ameritech have revised the provisions establishing carrier-to-carrier promotions to ensure that all carriers have an equal chance to obtain any promotional facilities or services that are subject to volume caps, as well as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99141.pdf
  • formula for determining maximum price for access to conduit under section 224(e)). 111 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(3); see also 47 U.S.C. � 252(d)(1) (establishing basis for State commissions to determine just and reasonable rates in arbitration proceedings). 112 47 U.S.C. � 251(d)(2). 113 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. at 15697-99, �� 392-396; see 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(b) (1997). 26 State is regulating the rates, terms, and conditions of access to facilities and rights-of-way on multiple unit premises within the meaning of this provision.110 3. Access to Unbundled Network Elements. 49. Pursuant to section 251(c)(3) of the Communications Act, an incumbent LEC must make available to any requesting carrier nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.txt
  • telecommunications carriers unbundled access to elements of their networks on just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms). In 1996, pursuant to Congress' mandate in Section 251, the Commission promulgated rules establishing unbundled network elements (UNEs), and directed incumbent LECs to make them available to competitors. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15697-99, �� 392-397; see 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(b). The rules were challenged and remanded to the Commission for clarification of the standards by which UNEs were defined. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366. In April, 1999, the Commission sought comment on these standards. See Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-98, 14 FCC Rcd 8694 (1999). See UNE Remand Order. See ALTS Comments at 22;
• http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/voip911order.pdf
  • Providers, Press Release (rel. May 16, 2005) . 128 See 47 U.S.C. � 251(a)(1) (requiring all telecommunications carriers "to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers"); 47 U.S.C. � 251(c) (requiring incumbent LECs, other than those exempted by section 251(f), to make available unbundled network elements to requesting telecommunications carriers); 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(f) ("An incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 databases on an unbundled basis, in accordance with section 251(c)(3) of the Act . . . ."); Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of Wireline
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-381A1.html
  • was subsequently vacated by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC.14 The United States Supreme Court reversed in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, thus reinstating section 51.315(b) of our rules.15 The Supreme Court, however, also determined that the Commission did not apply the appropriate criteria, in accordance with section 251(d)(2) of the Act,16 in specifying in section 51.319 the minimum ``network elements'' that must be provided to requesting carriers by ILECs. It therefore vacated section 51.319 and remanded this issue to the Commission for its reevaluation using appropriate criteria.17 6. On remand, we issued the UNE Remand Order and reinstated section 51.315(b). There we concluded that ILECs were required to provide requesting carriers access to combinations of loops
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-282A1.html
  • access to network elements, ``to any requesting carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service.''37 In implementing section 251(d)(2) and (c)(3), we identified the network elements that is, the physical facilities and their ``features, functions and capabilities'' that the incumbent LEC must provide to the requesting carrier, not the purposes for which a CLEC may use those facilities.38 Specifically, rule 51.319(d) defines shared transport as ``transmission facilities shared by more than one carrier, including the incumbent LEC, between end office switches, between end office switches and tandem switches, and between tandem switches, in the incumbent LEC network.''39 This definition requires incumbent LECs to provide these shared transport facilities ``to any requesting telecommunications carrier . . . for the provision of a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-7A1.html
  • was reviewing and finalizing the text of the conditions. 32 May 2 Response at Exhibit C, page 4. 33 Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 12460 at Appendix A, rule 51.319 (1997) (emphasis added). See 47 C.F.R. 51.319. 34 The Texas Arbitration Award makes clear that the routing being requested there by CLECs does in fact meet this definition. See Texas Arbitration Award at 7-9 and Appendix A, which contains diagrams showing explaining that intraLATA calls would be routed using ``option 2'' as set forth at those pages, which consists of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95 and 101 of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14712 (1999) (``SBC/Ameritech Merger Order'' or ``Merger Order'' ) at Appendix C (``Conditions''). 6 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(3). 7 47 C.F. R. 51.319(d)(1)(iii). 8 47 U.S.C. 252. 9 47 U.S.C. 252(a)(1). 10 47 U.S.C. 252(b), 252(c)(1). 11 47 U.S.C. 252(i). 12 47 U.S.C. 201(b). 13 47 U.S.C. 202(a). 14 47 U.S.C. 214, 310. 15 Merger Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14716, 2. 16 Merger Order Conditions, 14 FCC Rcd at 15023-4, 56. 17 Revised Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, File No. EB-01-MD-017 (filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-265A1.html
  • First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20586-20592, 88-101; Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21278-79, 93-96 (sections in both orders titled Ability of Carriers to Track Calls From Payphones and not discussing payment obligation). NIP cites to no Commission statement concluding or opining that ``call tracking'' and ``switching capability'' refer to the same functions. 57 See 47 C.F.R. 51.319(c) (All our C.F.R. references to Part 51 of the Commission's rules refer to the rules in effect during the Relevant Period ). 58 See generally id. 59 NIP's Brief at 8-9. Answer 3, 9-10, 19-20; 40-41, 8, 13; Hutchison Affidavit at 2, 4. 60 NIP's Brief at 3-4. 61 NIP's Brief at 5. 62 Revised Joint Statement at 7-8, 16;
• http://www.fcc.gov/form477/inst.htm
  • physical location of an end user. See 47 C.F.R. 9.3. Residential lines: Lines provided to residential end user premises. Also includes any lines the filer provides to a shared-tenant service provider in an apartment building or similar residential setting. UNE-Platform: The combination of loop UNE, switching UNE, and transport UNE. (UNEs are defined in the FCC Rules. See 47 C.F.R 51.319.) UNE-P no longer exists as a required unbundling obligation. Voice-grade equivalent: Generally, the number of DS0 (64 kbps) lines/channels in a higher-capacity circuit. In the context of Part II of Form 477, see Note for reporting channelized service in the detailed instructions, above. Voice telephone service: Local exchange or exchange access services that allow end users to originate and/or terminate
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/filings/2004/BrandX.pet.app.final.pdf
  • id. 85See AOL Time Warner Jan. 22, 2002 Ex Parte at 5. Destination-based routing sends packets of information from the subscriber's PC to the cable network to locations on the Internet based on the best match of the destination address (for each packet) at each router. See id.; AT&T Dec. 15, 2000 Ex Parte, Attachment. 86See generally 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(g) ("Operations support system functions consist of pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing functions supported by an incumbent LEC's (local exchange carrier's) databases and infor- mation."); Application by Bell Atlantic New York for Authori- zation under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in the State of New York, 15 FCC Rcd 3953, 3989-3990 �
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • LECs' property. We address these challenges to the FCC's unbundling rules one by one. 1. The Unbundling Rules in Light of the Terms of the Act a. OSS, Operator Services, and Vertical Switching Features Many of the petitioners claim that the FCC's decision to require incumbent LECs to provide competitors with unbundled access to operational support systems (OSS), 47 C.F.R. 51.319 (f), operator services and directory assistance, Id. 51.319 (g), and vertical switching features such as caller I.D., call forwarding, and call waiting, First Report and Order, 263, 413, unduly expands the incumbent LECs' unbundling obligations beyond the statutory requirements. After reviewing the relevant provisions of the Act, we believe that the FCC reasonably concluded that these features qualify as network
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • LECs' property. We address these challenges to the FCC's unbundling rules one by one. 1. The Unbundling Rules in Light of the Terms of the Act a. OSS, Operator Services, and Vertical Switching Features Many of the petitioners claim that the FCC's decision to require incumbent LECs to provide competitors with unbundled access to operational support systems (OSS), 47 C.F.R. 51.319 (f), operator services and directory assistance, Id. 51.319 (g), and vertical switching features such as caller I.D., call forwarding, and call waiting, First Report and Order, 263, 413, unduly expands the incumbent LECs' unbundling obligations beyond the statutory requirements. After reviewing the relevant provisions of the Act, we believe that the FCC reasonably concluded that these features qualify as network
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.wp
  • 800. Incumbent LECs also made several challenges, only some of which are relevant here, to the rules implementing the 1996 Act's requirement of unbundled access. See 47 U. S. C. 251(c)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. II). Rule 319, the primary unbundling rule, sets forth a minimum number of network elements that incumbents must make available to requesting carriers. See 47 CFR 51.319 (1997). The LECs complained that, in compiling this list, the FCC had virtually ignored the 1996 Act's requirement that it consider whether access to proprietary elements was 'necessary' and whether lack of access to nonproprietary elements would 'impair' an entrant's ability to provide local service. See 251(d)(2). In addition, the LECs thought that the list included items (like directory assistance
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.html
  • 51.707. D. Unbundling Rules The FCC issued numerous rules to implement the ILECs' duties to provide unbundled access to their network elements under subsection 251(c)(3). Many of these rules were previously challenged. In light of the Supreme Court's opinion, we revisit three of the unbundling rules. 1. Identification of Additional Unbundled Network Elements The Supreme Court vacated 47 C.F.R. � 51.319 which required the ILECs to provide requesting carriers with unbundled access to a minimum of seven network elements so long as access was "necessary" and failure to provide the access would "impair" the competitors' ability to provide services. The Supreme Court vacated 47 C.F.R. � 51.319 because the FCC's interpretation of the "necessary" and "impair" standard was too broad and
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-1538.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-1538.html
  • contended that these use restrictions are unlawful, precluding the Commission's finding that Bell Atlantic provided "nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1)." 47 U.S.C. � 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). The Commission responded in the order approving Bell At- lantic's application: In the wake of the Supreme Court's January 25, 1999 decision vacating the Commission's Rule 51.319 that identified the network elements incumbent LECs are required to provide on an unbundled basis, and prior to adoption of our order reinstating that rule, the incumbents' obligations with regard to offering unbundled network elements or combinations thereof has been unclear. Bell Atlantic, 15 F.C.C.R. at 4080 p 236 (citing Iowa Util. Bd., 119 S. Ct. 721). "Given this vacuum,"
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1012.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1012.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1012.pdf
  • "all features, functions and capabilities of the transmission facilities, including dark fiber and attached electronics (except those used for the provision of advanced services, such as DSLAMs [DSL Access Multiplexers]) owned by the incumbent LEC, between an incumbent LEC's central office and the loop demarcation point at the customer premises." 15 FCC Rcd at 3772, p 167; 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a)(1). The Commission also required that incumbent LECs "condition" loops so as to allow CLECs to offer advanced services. 15 FCC Rcd at 3775, p 172; 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(a)(3). Conditioning, for these purposes, means removing devices such as bridge taps, low-pass filters, range extenders, etc., that improve voice transmission but may decrease a loop's advanced services capabilities. Id. . Subloops,
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-511.pdf
  • provided that �an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines,� �51.315(b). 120 F. 3d, at 813. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals accepted the FCC�s view that the Act required no thresh- old ownership of facilities by a requesting carrier, First Report and Order 328�340, and upheld Rule 319, 47 CFR �51.319 (1997), which read �network elements� broadly, to require incumbent carriers to provide not only equipment but also services and functions, such as operations support systems (e.g., billing databases), �51.319(f)(1), operator services and directory assistance, �51.319(g), and vertical switching features like call- waiting and caller I. D., First Report and Order 263, 413. 120 F. 3d, at 808�810. This Court affirmed
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/03-1118-070604.pdf
  • as ``defined by the Commission.'' Id. � 10. At the time of the Shared Transport Order, the Commission defined ``shared transport'' as ``the transmission facilities shared by more than one carrier, in- cluding the incumbent LEC, between end office switches, between end office switches and tandem switches, and be- tween tandem switches, in the incumbent LEC's network.'' 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(d)(1)(ii) (1997); see also Merger Order � 396 n.741 (defining ``shared transport'' the same way). That definition includes intraLATA toll shared-transport service, as intraLATA toll service uses ILECs' end office switches, tandem switches, etc. It is irrelevant that scattered passages in the Shared Transport Order referred to shared transport in the context of discussing the provision of local telephone 13 service.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2005/03-1147-051305.pdf
  • of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15,499, 15,718, � 440 (1996). "Shared transport is defined as the transmission facilities shared by more than one carrier, including the incumbent LEC, between end office switches, between end office switches and tandem switches, and between tandem switches in the incumbent LEC network." 47 C.F.R. � 51.319(d)(4)(i)(C) (2004). The SBC-Ameritech merger required FCC approval, to be granted only if the Commission found that the attendant license transfers would serve "the public interest, convenience, and necessity." 47 U.S.C. � 310(d). The Commission approved the merger subject to conditions aimed at mitigating certain potential anticompetitive effects. See In re Applications of Ameritech Corp. and SBC Communications 4 Inc., 14
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/archives/whatsnewarchive06.html
  • Martin Statement: [196]Word | [197]Acrobat Copps Statement: [198]Word | [199]Acrobat Adelstein Statement: [200]Word | [201]Acrobat Tate Statement: [202]Word | [203]Acrobat McDowell Statement: [204]Word | [205]Acrobat 09/29/2006 Notice of Domestic Section 214 Authorization Granted. WC Docket No. 06-165. Public Notice: [206]Word | [207]Acrobat 09/29/2006 Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users. WC Docket No. 05-261 Memorandum Opinion and Order: [208]Word | [209]Acrobat News Release (9/28/06): [210]Word | [211]Acrobat Copps Statement: [212]Word | [213]Acrobat Adelstein Statement: [214]Word | [215]Acrobat 09/26/2006 DOMESTIC SECTION 214 APPLICATION FILED FOR THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF OPERATOR SERVICE COMPANY,
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/archive/2006ord.html
  • [164]Acrobat 10/02/06 PUBLIC NOTICE: Domestic Section 214 Application filed for the Transfer of Control of the Germantown Independent Telephone Company to MJD Ventures, Inc. WC Dkt No. 06-177. DA 06-1977. Comments Due: 10/16/06. Replies Due: 10/23/06 [165]Word | [166]Acrobat 09/29/06 MO & O: Fones4All Corp. Petition for Expedited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 160(c) and Section 1.53 from Application of Rule 51.319(d) to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Using Unbundled Local Switching to Provide Single Line Residential Service to End Users. WC Docket No. 05-261. FCC 06-145. [167]Word | [168]Acrobat News Release (9/28/06): [169]Word | [170]Acrobat Copps Statement: [171]Word | [172]Acrobat Adelstein Statement: [173]Word | [174]Acrobat 09/29/06 PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of Domestic Section 214 Authorization Granted for the Transfer of Control of One