FCC Web Documents citing 51.501

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1919A1.txt
  • at 24321, 24325-26, paras. 10, 17-19. CALLS Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 12984, para. 57. Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (Local Competition Order). Id. at 15844-45, para. 675. Id. at 15846, para. 679. Id. at 15848-49, para. 685. See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-51.511. Id. at 15845, 15857-58, paras. 675, 705. Forbearance Petition Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24317, para. 23. Iowa Telecom May 1 Ex Parte Letter; Iowa Telecommunications Service, Inc., Tariff FCC No. 1, Transmittal No. 31, Letter from Gregory J. Vogt, Counsel for Iowa Telecom to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (May 19, 2003) (Iowa Telecom May 19 Ex
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-181A1.txt
  • Arbitration Order); Petition of WorldCom, Inc. Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for Preemption of the Jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission Regarding Interconnection Disputes with Verizon Virginia Inc., and for Expedited Arbitration, CC Docket Nos. 00-218, 00-251, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 19654 (WCB 2002) (Non-Cost Arbitration Approval Order). 3 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq., 51.701 et seq. 4 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.807(b), (d). 5 See Cost Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17727-28, 17991-93, 18002-03, paras. 4, 694-98, 701-02, App. E. Because AT&T and WorldCom jointly filed cost studies and jointly filed most of their supporting testimony and post-hearing briefs, as well as jointly submitted a compliance filing, we generally refer to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2055A1.txt
  • 251(c) also requires incumbent LECs to offer for resale at wholesale rates any telecommunications service provided at retail. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(4). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(2). Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-98, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-56, paras. 672-703 (1996) (Local Competition Order); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-515. See also Verizon Communications, Inc v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467 (2002). Petition at i, 2. Id. at 3. Id. at 4, 6-9, 10-12. Requests of US West Communications, Inc. for Interconnection Cost Adjustment Mechanisms, CC Docket No. 97-90, CCB/CPD File No. 97-12, Reply Comments of US West, Inc. at 7-8 (filed Apr. 28, 1997). At the time of US West's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3020A1.txt
  • NECA Reply at 9-10 (citing Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket Nos. 00-256, 96-45, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4122, 4137-38, para. 31 (2004)). 47 C.F.R. § 51.515(a). 47 C.F.R. § 51.501(b). 47 U.S.C § 251(c)(6). 47 U.S.C. § 205 (authorizing the Commission to establish just and reasonable charges and practices); NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5, § 6.1.3(A)(1), 3rd Revised Page 6-8.1. NECA Tariff F.C.C. No. 5, § 6.1.3(A)(1), 10th Revised Page 6-8, 3rd Revised Page 6-8.1. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-422A1.txt
  • Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for UNEs must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-46, paras. 674-79 (1996); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. A UNE-Platform, or unbundled network element platform, consists of a 2-wire analog loop, an analog switch port, an analog loop-to-switch port cross-connect, and transport. See 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, CC Docket No. 99-295, Memorandum Opinion and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-658A1.txt
  • Id. at 3-4. Verizon further claims that, if the Virginia Commission remains silent at the end of the 90 day review period, the amendment would be deemed approved as a matter of law and that such silence on the part of the Virginia Commission would not constitute a failure to act. Id. (citing 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 51.501(c)). Id. at 4-5 (internal citations omitted). Id. at 6. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128, para. 1285 (``The Commission will not take an expansive view of what constitutes a state's `failure to act.' Instead, the Commission interprets `failure to act' to mean a state's failure to complete its duties in a timely manner. This would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-656A1.txt
  • an issue which BellSouth should raise with the Commission, but it argues that timing concerns alone do not justify repealing the rule at issue. Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) Rules Verizon and USTelecom urge the Commission to eliminate or modify the rules related to Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) pricing for Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs), sections 51.501-51.511. Both parties argue that the rules were adopted in 1996 and do not reflect the state of competition since then. Verizon and USTelecom assert that TELRIC is based on a hypothetical network instead of a real-world network, resulting in artificially low prices for leasing UNEs. Verizon contends that this undermines incentives for all facilities-based competitors to invest in and deploy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1026A1.txt
  • Windstream Order at para. 18. . We disagree with WorldNet's assertion that, because wholesale unbundled network element (UNE) rates are significantly below PRT's retail special access rates, those special access rates should be reduced. See WorldNet Opposition at 4-6. Commission rules require incumbent LECs to price UNEs at total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) rates. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.501 et seq. Those rules do not apply to special access services. Thus, WorldNet does not demonstrate the relevance of that price difference here. Cellular One Comments at 2. Id. at 4 n.10. . AT&T Consolidated Comments at 3-4. AT&T notes that ``no evidence available to AT&T indicates that Consolidated is now engaged in `traffic pumping' and that carrier also has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216244A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216244A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216244A2.txt
  • Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. Bell Atlantic New York Order, id.; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, id. at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). SWBT Texas Order, id.;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.txt
  • surrogate line sharing, are discounts that are altogether separate from and complementary to the surrogate line sharing discounts. See Conditions at para. 25; BlueStar et al. Mar. 1, 2000 Comments at 3, 5-6; CoreComm Mar. 1, 2000 Comments at 31-33. 620 See Covad May 5, 2000 Comments at 17. 621 See Conditions at para. 9. 622 See 47 C.F.R. § 51.501 et seq. (requiring the total element long-run incremental cost standard for the pricing of network elements). 623 See Bell Atlantic/GTE Jan. 27, 2000 Supplemental Filing at 19 (citing SBC/Ameritech Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14866, para. 376). Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-221 128 has deployed xDSL service in that state in at least 20 urban wire centers (to activate the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-130A1.txt
  • 31; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18377, para. 55 & n.102. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3970, para. 59. See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order at para. 39. 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). Id. § 251(c)(3). Id. § 252(d)(1). See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-47, paras. 672-78; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. (1999); see also Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20973-81, paras. 131-57 (concluding that states should set the prices for line sharing as a new network element in the same manner as the states set prices for other UNEs). See Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 109 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 1996), 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804-06 (8th
• 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
  • 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61-62; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at
• 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
  • post notices of premises that have run out of collocation space. See Verizon Communications, Inc., Consent Decree, File No. EB-01-IH-0236, DA-01-2079 (rel. Sept. 14, 2001). Therefore, we believe that the Enforcement Bureau, in its review prior to the issuance of the Consent Decree, has appropriately addressed the concerns raised in the audit. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Pennsylvania Commission Comments at 38-39, 49. Sprint Comments at 19-22. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at Attach. 12. Sprint Comments at 21 n. 36. Id. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 83. Id. at para. 80. Id. at para. 78. Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.txt
  • 3704, para. 15 (UNE Remand Order). 47 U.S.C. § 51.315(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B) (for example, unbundled loops, transport and switching are listed separately as checklist items iv, v and vi). 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-46, paras. 674-679; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. See also In re Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 (Line Sharing Order) (concluding that states should set the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-338A1.txt
  • that are neither designed nor capable of performing those functions. Id.; see also Verizon Connecticut Order, para. 41 (rejecting argument that the telephone company's OSS had to be made available for ordering and provisioning of advanced services). See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18401, para. 101. SWBT Reply at 25. 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-09. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804, 805-06 (8th Cir. 1997). American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). In reaching its decision, the Court acknowledged that section 201(b) ``explicitly grants the FCC jurisdiction to make rules governing matters to which the 1996 Act applies.'' Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-118A1.txt
  • 9-10; SoVerNet Comments at 3. Sprint Comments at 10. . 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). Id. § 251(c)(3). Id. § 252(d)(1). In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-46, paras. 674-79 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. See also Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 (1999) (Line Sharing Order), pets. for review pending sub nom. USTA,
• 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
  • section 271(d)(6). Department of Justice GALA II Evaluation at 20. 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). Id. § 251(c)(3). Id. § 252(d)(1). In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-46, paras. 674-79 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. See also Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 (1999) (Line Sharing Order), pets. for review pending sub nom. USTA,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-16A1.txt
  • equip its network with number portability functionality. Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 11778, para. 146. Id. Id. MCI Petition at 6-7. Id. at 6. Comcast Petition at 2-6. PCIA Petition at 5-7. PCIA Petition at 6-7. See generally Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 11731-32, 11738-41, 11773-79, paras. 53, 68-77, 135-47. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-09. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed the Commission's pricing rules in 1996, Iowa Utils Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804, 805-06 (8th Cir. 1997), the Supreme Court restored the Commission's pricing authority and remanded to the Eighth Circuit for consideration of the challenged rules. AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 385
• 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
  • No. 97-505 (rel. Mar. 20, 2002) (Maine Supp. TELRIC Order). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). Id. § 251(c)(3). Id. § 252(d)(1). In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-46, paras. 674-79 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. See also Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 (1999). USTA v. FCC, 2002 WL 1040574 (D.C. Cir. May 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-219A1.txt
  • 1997), aff'd in part and remanded, AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999), on remand, Iowa Utils Bd. v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000), rev'd in part, Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-869, ¶¶ 672-732; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-51.515. The Supreme Court recently upheld these rules. Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). Supp. Joint Statement at 3, ¶ 8. See Massachusetts 271 Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8989, ¶ 1. Massachusetts 271 Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8999-9000, ¶ 21. See also Supp. Joint Statement at 3, ¶ 10; Complaint at ¶ 17. The Massachusetts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • decisions make clear, a BOC may submit as part of its prima facie case a valid pricing determination from 40 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). 41 See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-47, paras. 674-79 (1996) (Local Competition Order); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-51.515. The Supreme Court has recently upheld the Commission's forward-looking pricing methodology in determining the costs of UNEs. Verizon v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. at 1679 (2002). 42 Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17453, para. 55 (citations omitted); see also Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. FCC, 274 F.3d 549, 556 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("When the Commission adjudicates § 271
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • determination from a state commission.62 In such cases, we will conclude that the BOC meets the TELRIC pricing requirements of section 271,63 unless we 59 See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-47, paras. 674-79 (1996) (Local Competition Order); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-51.515. The Supreme Court has upheld the Commission's forward-looking pricing methodology in determining the costs of UNEs. Verizon v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. at 1679. 60 Application of Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc. for Authorization To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania, CC Docket No. 01-138, Memorandum Opinion
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A3.txt
  • D (2001) (SWBT Arkansas/Missouri Order); Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17508-45, Appendices B & C. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18372, para. 39 (considering April 2000 performance data, when application was filed on April 5, 2000, and comments on the application were due on April 26, 2000). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-09. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804, 805-06 (8th Cir. 1997). American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). In reaching its decision, the Court acknowledged that section 201(b) ``explicitly grants the FCC jurisdiction to make rules governing matters to which the 1996 Act applies.'' Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-224A1.txt
  • paras. 672-703. The Commission also concluded that rates for reciprocal compensation under section 252(d)(2) should be based on the same principles. Id. at 16023, para. 1054. Id. at 15846, para. 679 (``Adopting a pricing methodology based on forward-looking economic costs best replicates, to the extent possible, the conditions of a competitive market.''). Id. at 15848-49, para. 685; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 - 51.511. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15848-49, para. 685 (the assumption of existing wire centers ``mitigates incumbent LECs' concerns that a forward-looking pricing methodology ignores existing network design, while basing prices on efficient new technology that is compatible with existing infrastructure''); 47 C.F.R. § 51.505(b)(1). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15856, para. 703. Id. at
• 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
  • Ehr/Fioretti Supplemental Aff. at para. 129 & n.74. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-47, paras. 674-79 (1996) (Local Competition First Report and Order) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-51.515. Last year the Supreme Court upheld the Commission's forward-looking pricing methodology in determining the costs of UNEs. Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467, 523 (2002). The Commission recently has initiated a proceeding to review its TELRIC rules. Review of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements and the Resale of Service by Incumbent Local Exchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-285A1.txt
  • 271. Id. § 271(d)(3). Id. § 271(c)(1)(B). Id. § 271(d)(3)(A). 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(3)(B). Id. § 271(d)(3)(C). Id. § 271(d)(3). See SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 138 F.3d 410, 413, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). Id. § 251(c)(3). Id. § 252(d)(1). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-46, paras. 674-79; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. See 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, CC Docket No. 99-295, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3953 at 4161-62, para. 423 (1999). Id. at 4161-62, paras. 423-24. ``The Commission may not, by rule or otherwise, limit
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • to, a pole or pedestal, the serving area interface, the network interface device, the minimum point of entry, any remote terminal, and the feeder/distribution interface. An incumbent LEC shall, upon a site-specific request, provide access to a copper subloop at a splice near a remote terminal. The incumbent LEC shall be compensated for providing this access in accordance with §§ 51.501 through 51.515. (ii) Rules for collocation. Access to the copper subloop is subject to the Commission's collocation rules at §§ 51.321 and 51.323. (2) Subloops for access to multiunit premises wiring. An incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to the subloop for access to multiunit premises wiring on an unbundled basis regardless of the capacity
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.txt
  • Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15788, para. 567. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a). See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15693, para. 386. 47 C.F.R. § 51.515(a). 47 C.F.R. § 51.501(b). Section 51.509(g) lists collocation as one of the specific elements for which rate structure rules are established. 47 C.F.R. § 509(g). NECA Direct Case at 24. 47 C.F.R. § 69.110(a); NECA Direct Case at 24-25. NECA Direct Case at 25. 47 C.F.R. § 69.110(a). See 47 C.F.R. § 51.509(g). GCI Opposition at 18. See GCI Opposition at 14. GCI also
• 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
  • H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 05-281 at 9-17 (filed Nov. 30, 2006) (ACS Nov. 30, 2006 Ex Parte Letter) (arguing that ``GCI has not met its burden to prove impairment without access to UNEs''). 47 U.S.C. § 160(a) (emphasis added). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(c)(3); 252(d)(1); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.301-19, 51.321, 51.323 (implementing section 251(c)(3)); § 51.501 et seq. (implementing section 252(d)(1)). The Commission's unbundling rules impose unbundling obligations for several loop-types, including DS0s, DS1s, and DS3s. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.319(a)(1) (copper loop, e.g., DS0), 51.319(a)(4) (DS1 loop), 51.319(a)(5) (DS3 loop). See, e.g., GCI Opposition, Declaration of David E. M. Sappington (GCI Sappington Decl.) Exh. D at 9-12 (applying the Department of Justice Horizontal Merger
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 of proof. Subpart F - Pricing of interconnection and unbundled elements 51.501 Scope. 51.503 General pricing standard. 51.505 Forward-looking economic cost. 51.507 General rate structure standard. 51.509 Rate structure standards for specific elements. 51.511 Forward-looking economic cost per unit. 51.513 Proxies for forward-looking economic cost. 51.515 Application of access charges. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-8 Subpart G - Resale 51.601 Scope of resale rules. 51.603 Resale obligation of all local exchange carriers.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.txt
  • centers, meaning those wire centers with the 697 See Texas PUC Aug. 5 Comments at 3 (commenting that the "Texas PUC and other states may wish to more strongly encourage SWBT or Ameritech to provide loop make-up data via electronic means."). 698 See, e.g., NorthPoint Comments at 4-5; Rhythms Net July 19 Comments at 7-9. 699 See 47 C.F.R. § 51.501 et seq. (requiring the total element long-run incremental cost standard for the pricing of network elements). 700 Several commenters objected to the set of uniform interim rates set forth in the Applicants' July proposal that would have applied in each SBC/Ameritech state pending the establishment of state-specific rates for loop conditioning. See, e.g., ALTS July 19 Comments at 14-15 (claiming
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.pdf
  • dark fiber.372 As with other loops, we decline to infer from competitive LEC self-provisioning in certain circumstances that, as a general matter, the expense and delay involved in laying fiber do not impair the ability of 368 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15692, para. 382. 369 47 C.F.R. § 51.507(e). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq.; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15875-15876, paras. 749-751. 370 MGC Reply Comments at 11. 371 Illinois Commission Comments at 15; Iowa Comments at 9; Cable & Wireless Comments at 34; CO Space Comments at 7; GSA Comments at 7; Waller Creek Comments at 17. See also Texas PUC Comments at 16; KMC Comments
• 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
  • loop makeup information); SBC/Ameritech Aug. 27 Ex Parte at 4. See Texas PUC Aug. 5 Comments at 3 (commenting that the ``Texas PUC and other states may wish to more strongly encourage SWBT or Ameritech to provide loop make-up data via electronic means.''). See, e.g., NorthPoint Comments at 4-5; Rhythms Net July 19 Comments at 7-9. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.501 et seq. (requiring the total element long-run incremental cost standard for the pricing of network elements). Several commenters objected to the set of uniform interim rates set forth in the Applicants' July proposal that would have applied in each SBC/Ameritech state pending the establishment of state-specific rates for loop conditioning. See, e.g., ALTS July 19 Comments at 14-15 (claiming proposed
• 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
  • negotiate a point at which one carrier's responsibility for service ends and the other carrier's begins. See id. at 15778, n.1332. Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4783-85, paras. 40-42. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.305(a)(5), 51.321(a)-(b); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para 66. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804, 805-06 (1997). AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). Id. at 380. Id. at 382. Id. at 384. Id. We note that other unbundled network elements are
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • 3704, para. 15 (UNE Remand Order). 47 U.S.C. § 51.315(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B) (for example, unbundled loops, transport and switching are listed separately as checklist items iv, v and vi). 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-46, paras. 674-679; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. See also In re Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 (Line Sharing Order) (concluding that states should set the
• 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
  • post notices of premises that have run out of collocation space. See Verizon Communications, Inc., Consent Decree, File No. EB-01-IH-0236, DA-01-2079 (rel. Sept. 14, 2001). Therefore, we believe that the Enforcement Bureau, in its review prior to the issuance of the Consent Decree, has appropriately addressed the concerns raised in the audit. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Pennsylvania Commission Comments at 38-39, 49. Sprint Comments at 19-22. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at Attach. 12. Sprint Comments at 21 n. 36. Id. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 83. Id. at para. 80. Id. at para. 78. Id.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • public interest requirement, infra part VI. 33 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). 34 Id. § 251(c)(3). 35 Id. § 252(d)(1). 36 In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-46, paras. 674-79 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. See also Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 (1999) (Line Sharing Order), pets. for review pending sub nom. USTA,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-219A1.html
  • Cir. 1997), aff'd in part and remanded, AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999), on remand, Iowa Utils Bd. v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000), rev'd in part, Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). 12 See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-869, 672-732; see also 47 C.F.R. 51.501- 51.515. The Supreme Court recently upheld these rules. Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). 13 Supp. Joint Statement at 3, 8. See Massachusetts 271 Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8989, 1. 14 Massachusetts 271 Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8999-9000, 21. See also Supp. Joint Statement at 3, 10; Complaint at 17. The Massachusetts DTE originally
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 of proof. Subpart F - Pricing of interconnection and unbundled elements 51.501 Scope. 51.503 General pricing standard. 51.505 Forward-looking economic cost. 51.507 General rate structure standard. 51.509 Rate structure standards for specific elements. 51.511 Forward-looking economic cost per unit. 51.513 Proxies for forward-looking economic cost. 51.515 Application of access charges. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-8 Subpart G - Resale 51.601 Scope of resale rules. 51.603 Resale obligation of all local exchange carriers.
• 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
  • at 42-43; Rhythms Reply Comments at 21. See generally Bellcore Notes on the Network, Loop Transmission, ch.7.15, (Telcordia, 1997); Regis J. Bates and Donald Gregory, Voice and Data Communications Handbook Signature Edition, (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997), at 76-77. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15692, para. 382. 47 C.F.R. § 51.507(e). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq.; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15875-15876, paras. 749-751. MGC Reply Comments at 11. Illinois Commission Comments at 15; Iowa Comments at 9; Cable & Wireless Comments at 34; CO Space Comments at 7; GSA Comments at 7; Waller Creek Comments at 17. See also Texas PUC Comments at 16; KMC Comments at 21.
• 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
  • loop makeup information); SBC/Ameritech Aug. 27 Ex Parte at 4. See Texas PUC Aug. 5 Comments at 3 (commenting that the ``Texas PUC and other states may wish to more strongly encourage SWBT or Ameritech to provide loop make-up data via electronic means.''). See, e.g., NorthPoint Comments at 4-5; Rhythms Net July 19 Comments at 7-9. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.501 et seq. (requiring the total element long-run incremental cost standard for the pricing of network elements). Several commenters objected to the set of uniform interim rates set forth in the Applicants' July proposal that would have applied in each SBC/Ameritech state pending the establishment of state-specific rates for loop conditioning. See, e.g., ALTS July 19 Comments at 14-15 (claiming proposed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000956.doc
  • unbundled network elements (UNEs). Background The Commission promulgated certain rules in the August 1996 Local Competition Order to implement section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. One such rule, section 51.507(f), requires each state commission to ``establish different rates for elements in at least three defined geographic areas within the state to reflect geographic cost differences.'' Section 51.501(b) states that ``the term `element' includes network elements, interconnection, and methods of obtaining interconnection and access to unbundled elements.'' A number of parties appealed the Local Competition Order, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed the Commission's section 251 pricing rules in September 1996 pending its consideration of the appeal. In July 1997, the Eighth Circuit
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001566.doc
  • unbundled network elements (UNEs). Background The Commission promulgated certain rules in the August 1996 Local Competition Order to implement section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. One such rule, section 51.507(f), requires each state commission to ``establish different rates for elements in at least three defined geographic areas within the state to reflect geographic cost differences.'' Section 51.501(b) states that ``the term `element' includes network elements, interconnection, and methods of obtaining interconnection and access to unbundled elements.'' A number of parties appealed the Local Competition Order, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed the Commission's section 251 pricing rules in September 1996 pending its consideration of the appeal. In July 1997, the Eighth Circuit
• 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
  • negotiate a point at which one carrier's responsibility for service ends and the other carrier's begins. See id. at 15778, n.1332. Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4783-85, paras. 40-42. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.305(a)(5), 51.321(a)-(b); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para 66. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804, 805-06 (1997). AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). Id. at 380. Id. at 382. Id. at 384. Id. We note that other unbundled network elements are
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • 3704, para. 15 (UNE Remand Order). 47 U.S.C. § 51.315(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B) (for example, unbundled loops, transport and switching are listed separately as checklist items iv, v and vi). 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-46, paras. 674-679; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. See also In re Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 (Line Sharing Order) (concluding that states should set the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.txt
  • 31; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18377, para. 55 & n.102. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3970, para. 59. See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order at para. 39. 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). Id. § 251(c)(3). Id. § 252(d)(1). See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-47, paras. 672-78; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. (1999); see also Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20973-81, paras. 131-57 (concluding that states should set the prices for line sharing as a new network element in the same manner as the states set prices for other UNEs). See Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 109 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 1996), 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804-06 (8th
• 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
  • post notices of premises that have run out of collocation space. See Verizon Communications, Inc., Consent Decree, File No. EB-01-IH-0236, DA-01-2079 (rel. Sept. 14, 2001). Therefore, we believe that the Enforcement Bureau, in its review prior to the issuance of the Consent Decree, has appropriately addressed the concerns raised in the audit. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Pennsylvania Commission Comments at 38-39, 49. Sprint Comments at 19-22. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at Attach. 12. Sprint Comments at 21 n. 36. Id. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 83. Id. at para. 80. Id. at para. 78. Id.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • determination from a state commission.62 In such cases, we will conclude that the BOC meets the TELRIC pricing requirements of section 271,63 unless we 59 See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-47, paras. 674-79 (1996) (Local Competition Order); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-51.515. The Supreme Court has upheld the Commission's forward-looking pricing methodology in determining the costs of UNEs. Verizon v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. at 1679. 60 Application of Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc. for Authorization To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania, CC Docket No. 01-138, Memorandum Opinion
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • public interest requirement, infra part VI. 33 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). 34 Id. § 251(c)(3). 35 Id. § 252(d)(1). 36 In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15844-46, paras. 674-79 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq. See also Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20974, para. 135 (1999) (Line Sharing Order), pets. for review pending sub nom. USTA,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-219A1.html
  • Cir. 1997), aff'd in part and remanded, AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999), on remand, Iowa Utils Bd. v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000), rev'd in part, Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). 12 See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-869, 672-732; see also 47 C.F.R. 51.501- 51.515. The Supreme Court recently upheld these rules. Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). 13 Supp. Joint Statement at 3, 8. See Massachusetts 271 Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8989, 1. 14 Massachusetts 271 Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 8999-9000, 21. See also Supp. Joint Statement at 3, 10; Complaint at 17. The Massachusetts DTE originally
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • a requesting carrier to provide local exchange services, while exchange access is a service that LECs offer to interexchange carriers without providing the interexchange carriers with such direct and pervasive access to the LECs' networks and without enabling the IXCs to provide local telephone service themselves through the use of the LECs' networks. ^21The pricing rules refer to 47 C.F.R. 51.501-51.515 (inclusive, except for section 51.515(b) which we found to be a legitimate interim rate for interstate access charges, see Competitive Telecomm. Ass'n. v. FCC, No. 96-3604, 1997 WL 352284, (8th Cir. June 27, 1997)), 51.601-51.611 (inclusive), 51.701-51.717 (inclusive). Because Congress expressly amended section 2(b) to preclude state regulation of entry of and rates charged by Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • a requesting carrier to provide local exchange services, while exchange access is a service that LECs offer to interexchange carriers without providing the interexchange carriers with such direct and pervasive access to the LECs' networks and without enabling the IXCs to provide local telephone service themselves through the use of the LECs' networks. ^21The pricing rules refer to 47 C.F.R. 51.501-51.515 (inclusive, except for section 51.515(b) which we found to be a legitimate interim rate for interstate access charges, see Competitive Telecomm. Ass'n. v. FCC, No. 96-3604, 1997 WL 352284, (8th Cir. June 27, 1997)), 51.601-51.611 (inclusive), 51.701-51.717 (inclusive). Because Congress expressly amended section 2(b) to preclude state regulation of entry of and rates charged by Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)