FCC Web Documents citing 61.74

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.txt
  • counterclaim based on the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff. Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff. Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2196A1.txt
  • tariff revisions that had been filed by Tekstar Communications, Inc. (Tekstar) and those tariff revisions were allowed to become effective. On November 5, 2010, Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) filed an application for review of the Bureau Order. In its application, Sprint argues that ``Tekstar's tariff impermissibly cross-referenced its state tariff for local exchange services in clear violation of Section 61.74(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 61.74(a).'' Sprint also argues that ``Tekstar failed to explain why it had not obtained a waiver of the Commission's rules'' which would have allowed the cross-reference. Sprint ``requests that the Commission reverse the Bureau's erroneous decision and find Tekstar's tariff unlawful because it so clearly violates Section 61.74 of the Commission's rules.'' Interested
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • and ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. These rules govern the filing, form, content, public notice periods, and accompanying support materials for tariffs. Need: Section 61.66 was adopted to set forth the carriers to which Part 61, Subpart F applies. Section 61.69 was adopted to detail consequences when the Commission rejects a tariff. Section 61.74 was adopted to assist carriers by detailing the limited instances when a tariff filing entity may make reference to any other tariff, document or instrument in a tariff publication. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205 and 403. Section Number and Title: 61.66 Scope. 61.69 Rejection. 61.74(e), (f) References to other instruments. PART 63-EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 0.08 54.50 Rhode Island Providence Verizon 32.05 0.02 53.85 South Carolina Beaufort Embarq 43.60 29.17 0.12 35.60 Tennessee Memphis AT&T 57.78 46.58 0.10 64.06 Tennessee Nashville AT&T 57.78 46.58 0.10 64.06 Texas Brownsville AT&T 41.07 28.67 0.08 62.03 Texas Corpus Christi AT&T 44.96 32.35 0.08 61.96 Texas Dallas AT&T 56.72 41.96 0.08 62.11 Texas Fort Worth AT&T 49.58 35.64 0.08 61.74 Texas Houston AT&T 52.32 37.70 0.08 61.45 Texas San Antonio AT&T 44.62 31.32 0.08 61.45 Utah Logan Qwest 33.80 27.81 0.08 55.30 Virginia Richmond Verizon 61.59 23.60 0.12 69.88 Virginia Smithfield Verizon 45.51 32.46 0.11 43.20 Washington Everett Verizon 48.34 34.41 0.02 76.05 Washington Seattle Qwest 40.12 30.27 0.07 55.60 West Virginia Huntington Verizon 65.96 33.94 0.16 82.95 Wisconsin Milwaukee
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.txt
  • Atlantic was incurring charges under these Tariff provisions. Accordingly, we concluded that ``Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this [T]ariff when the very applicability of the [T]ariff has yet to be determined.'' 4. Second, we found that Global NAPs' Tariff was not self-contained, but rather impermissibly cross-referenced an external document (i.e., an interconnection agreement), in violation of section 61.74(a) of our rules. Section 61.74 of our rules provides that, in the absence of a waiver, ``no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument.'' 5. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs claims that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-367A1.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 13. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and re-designate paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 14. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(I),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.txt
  • petition for review filed, Docket No. 00-1136 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 24, 2000). Global NAPs I. We found that Global NAPs' First ISP Tariff violated sections 61.2 of our tariffing rules, which requires tariffs to be clear and explicit. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 21 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.2). We also found that the First ISP Tariff violated section 61.74 of our rules, which prohibits federal tariffs from including cross-references to other documents. See, e.g., Global NAPs I at ¶ 24 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.74). Global NAPs I Recon. Second ISP Tariff at 82, Section 7.2; id. at 83.2, Section 7.4. See infra, note 52. See Complaint at Attachment G (attaching Global NAPs invoices). Id. See Joint Statement at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-93A1.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this Chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 14. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 15. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(i),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.txt
  • that a contract imposes a payment obligation.''). Moreover, we also reject the argument by Verizon Wireless that IXCs taking service under certain competitive LEC tariffs are somehow bound by these competitive LEC/CMRS agreements. See Verizon Wireless White Paper at 22. Indeed, except in limited circumstances, the Commission's rules specifically prohibit cross-referencing other documents within a tariff. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.74(a). We note that competitive LECs continue to have flexibility in determining the access rate elements and rate structure for the elements and services they provide consistent with the CLEC Access Reform Order. See CLEC Access Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9946, para. 55. For this reason, we reject concerns expressed by some commenters that this constraint would require competitive
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • § 61.72 Public Information Requirements. (a) Issuing carriers must make available accurate and timely information pertaining to rates and regulations subject to tariff filing requirements. (b) Issuing carriers must, at a minimum, provide a telephone number for public inquiries about information contained in its tariffs. This telephone number should be made readily available to all interested parties. 83. Amend Section 61.74 as follows: § 61.74 References to other instruments. * * * (e) Tariffs may reference other F.C.C. tariffs that are in effect and on file with the Commission for purposes of determining mileage, or specifying the operating centers at which a specific service is available. (f) Tariffs may reference technical publications which describe the engineering, specifications, or other technical aspects
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/2000/fcc00367.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/2000/fcc00367.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 13. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and re-designate paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 14. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(I),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3574A1.html
  • based on the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff.2 Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act 3 and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules 4 by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff.5 Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.txt
  • Atlantic was incurring charges under these Tariff provisions. Accordingly, we concluded that ``Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this [T]ariff when the very applicability of the [T]ariff has yet to be determined.'' 4. Second, we found that Global NAPs' Tariff was not self-contained, but rather impermissibly cross-referenced an external document (i.e., an interconnection agreement), in violation of section 61.74(a) of our rules. Section 61.74 of our rules provides that, in the absence of a waiver, ``no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument.'' 5. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs claims that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • petition for review filed, Docket No. 00-1136 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 24, 2000). Global NAPs I. We found that Global NAPs' First ISP Tariff violated sections 61.2 of our tariffing rules, which requires tariffs to be clear and explicit. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 21 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.2). We also found that the First ISP Tariff violated section 61.74 of our rules, which prohibits federal tariffs from including cross-references to other documents. See, e.g., Global NAPs I at ¶ 24 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.74). Global NAPs I Recon. Second ISP Tariff at 82, Section 7.2; id. at 83.2, Section 7.4. See infra, note 52. See Complaint at Attachment G (attaching Global NAPs invoices). Id. See Joint Statement at
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs receives no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement; however, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Massachusetts DTE) has yet to make a final determination whether and how the parties' existing interconnection agreement provides for inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic. Moreover, we conclude that the challenged tariff provisions violate section 61.74(a) of our rules, because they refer to a document other than the Tariff itself, i.e., an interconnection agreement. Accordingly, we hereby grant Bell Atlantic's complaint and hold that Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 are unlawful. II. BACKGROUND A. Events Preceding the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and New
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • § 61.72 Public Information Requirements. (a) Issuing carriers must make available accurate and timely information pertaining to rates and regulations subject to tariff filing requirements. (b) Issuing carriers must, at a minimum, provide a telephone number for public inquiries about information contained in its tariffs. This telephone number should be made readily available to all interested parties. 83. Amend Section 61.74 as follows: § 61.74 References to other instruments. * * * (e) Tariffs may reference other F.C.C. tariffs that are in effect and on file with the Commission for purposes of determining mileage, or specifying the operating centers at which a specific service is available. (f) Tariffs may reference technical publications which describe the engineering, specifications, or other technical aspects
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs receives no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement; however, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Massachusetts DTE) has yet to make a final determination whether and how the parties' existing interconnection agreement provides for inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic. Moreover, we conclude that the challenged tariff provisions violate section 61.74(a) of our rules, because they refer to a document other than the Tariff itself, i.e., an interconnection agreement. Accordingly, we hereby grant Bell Atlantic's complaint and hold that Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 are unlawful. II. BACKGROUND A. Events Preceding the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and New
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • Fort Dodge 35.62 36.45 36.45 37.04 37.31 37.31 37.31 44.68 45.11 44.05 47.23 47.27 Kentucky Louisville 89.46 92.72 92.95 93.23 93.23 81.56 76.42 75.57 56.49 56.55 58.97 58.29 Louisiana Baton Rouge 80.39 78.87 79.04 77.39 74.29 75.28 73.36 72.97 64.59 64.34 64.27 65.33 Louisiana New Orleans 85.15 85.86 85.30 82.57 75.89 75.89 71.98 72.86 64.24 64.24 64.18 64.18 Maine Portland 61.74 62.33 62.33 62.33 62.35 58.75 58.95 60.26 65.08 67.57 67.18 67.38 Maryland Baltimore 44.79 45.47 47.87 46.31 46.20 46.20 46.25 46.52 43.06 46.35 46.33 45.16 Massachusetts Boston 40.45 46.82 57.69 54.14 48.40 48.27 48.27 48.18 50.70 50.58 47.02 43.35 Massachusetts Hyannis 49.12 48.97 66.05 72.06 72.87 73.17 73.17 75.64 78.16 78.04 73.62 73.62 Massachusetts Springfield 38.85 40.69 42.48 54.14 48.40
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 36.45 37.04 37.31 37.31 37.31 44.68 45.11 44.05 47.23 47.97 51.73 Kentucky Louisville 89.46 92.72 92.95 93.23 93.23 81.56 76.42 75.57 56.49 56.55 58.97 57.47 51.08 Louisiana Baton Rouge 80.39 78.87 79.04 77.39 74.29 75.28 73.36 72.97 64.59 64.34 64.27 66.35 66.44 Louisiana New Orleans 85.15 85.86 85.30 82.57 75.89 75.89 71.98 72.86 64.24 64.24 64.18 64.73 64.56 Maine Portland 61.74 62.33 62.33 62.33 62.35 58.75 58.95 60.26 65.08 67.57 67.18 70.66 69.79 Maryland Baltimore 44.79 45.47 47.87 46.31 46.20 46.20 46.25 46.52 43.06 46.35 46.33 45.55 45.05 Massachusetts Boston 40.45 46.82 57.69 54.14 48.40 48.27 48.27 48.18 50.70 50.58 47.02 43.95 42.88 Massachusetts Hyannis 49.12 48.97 66.05 72.06 72.87 73.17 73.17 75.64 78.16 78.04 73.62 74.22 73.15 Massachusetts Springfield 38.85
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • 66.22 65.80 64.94 64.00 Indiana Terre Haute 69.72 70.32 70.32 70.32 70.41 70.41 70.37 70.37 Iowa Fort Dodge 35.62 36.45 36.45 37.04 37.31 37.31 37.31 37.31 Kentucky Louisville 89.46 92.72 92.95 93.23 93.23 81.56 76.42 75.57 Louisiana Baton Rouge 80.39 78.87 79.04 77.39 74.29 75.28 73.36 72.97 Louisiana New Orleans 85.15 85.86 85.30 82.57 75.89 75.89 71.98 72.86 Maine Portland 61.74 62.33 62.33 62.33 62.35 58.75 58.95 60.26 Maryland Baltimore 44.79 45.47 47.87 46.31 46.20 46.20 46.25 46.52 Massachusetts Boston 40.45 46.82 57.69 54.14 48.40 48.27 48.27 48.18 Massachusetts Hyannis 49.12 48.97 66.05 72.06 72.87 73.17 73.17 75.64 Massachusetts Springfield 38.85 40.69 42.48 54.14 48.40 44.37 44.37 44.29 Michigan Detroit 37.83 36.09 38.08 39.66 40.39 41.18 44.26 43.42 Michigan Grand Rapids
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • Terre Haute 69.72 70.32 70.32 70.32 70.41 70.41 70.37 70.37 70.37 Iowa Fort Dodge 35.62 36.45 36.45 37.04 37.31 37.31 37.31 44.68 45.11 Kentucky Louisville 89.46 92.72 92.95 93.23 93.23 81.56 76.42 75.57 56.74 Louisiana Baton Rouge 80.39 78.87 79.04 77.39 74.29 75.28 73.36 72.97 68.70 Louisiana New Orleans 85.15 85.86 85.30 82.57 75.89 75.89 71.98 72.86 68.61 Maine Portland 61.74 62.33 62.33 62.33 62.35 58.75 58.95 60.26 63.36 Maryland Baltimore 44.79 45.47 47.87 46.31 46.20 46.20 46.25 46.52 46.20 Massachusetts Boston 40.45 46.82 57.69 54.14 48.40 48.27 48.27 48.18 48.40 Massachusetts Hyannis 49.12 48.97 66.05 72.06 72.87 73.17 73.17 75.64 75.64 Massachusetts Springfield 38.85 40.69 42.48 54.14 48.40 44.37 44.37 44.29 48.40 Michigan Detroit 37.83 36.09 38.08 39.66 40.39 41.18
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00107.doc
  • Atlantic was incurring charges under these Tariff provisions. Accordingly, we concluded that ``Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this [T]ariff when the very applicability of the [T]ariff has yet to be determined.'' 4. Second, we found that Global NAPs' Tariff was not self-contained, but rather impermissibly cross-referenced an external document (i.e., an interconnection agreement), in violation of section 61.74(a) of our rules. Section 61.74 of our rules provides that, in the absence of a waiver, ``no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument.'' 5. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs claims that
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00383.doc
  • petition for review filed, Docket No. 00-1136 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 24, 2000). Global NAPs I. We found that Global NAPs' First ISP Tariff violated sections 61.2 of our tariffing rules, which requires tariffs to be clear and explicit. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 21 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.2). We also found that the First ISP Tariff violated section 61.74 of our rules, which prohibits federal tariffs from including cross-references to other documents. See, e.g., Global NAPs I at ¶ 24 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.74). Global NAPs I Recon. Second ISP Tariff at 82, Section 7.2; id. at 83.2, Section 7.4. See infra, note 52. See Complaint at Attachment G (attaching Global NAPs invoices). Id. See Joint Statement at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/2000/fcc00367.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/2000/fcc00367.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 13. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and re-designate paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 14. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(I),
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/2001/fcc01093.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/2001/fcc01093.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this Chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 14. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 15. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(i),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3574A1.html
  • based on the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff.2 Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act 3 and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules 4 by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff.5 Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.txt
  • Atlantic was incurring charges under these Tariff provisions. Accordingly, we concluded that ``Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this [T]ariff when the very applicability of the [T]ariff has yet to be determined.'' 4. Second, we found that Global NAPs' Tariff was not self-contained, but rather impermissibly cross-referenced an external document (i.e., an interconnection agreement), in violation of section 61.74(a) of our rules. Section 61.74 of our rules provides that, in the absence of a waiver, ``no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument.'' 5. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs claims that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • petition for review filed, Docket No. 00-1136 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 24, 2000). Global NAPs I. We found that Global NAPs' First ISP Tariff violated sections 61.2 of our tariffing rules, which requires tariffs to be clear and explicit. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 21 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.2). We also found that the First ISP Tariff violated section 61.74 of our rules, which prohibits federal tariffs from including cross-references to other documents. See, e.g., Global NAPs I at ¶ 24 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.74). Global NAPs I Recon. Second ISP Tariff at 82, Section 7.2; id. at 83.2, Section 7.4. See infra, note 52. See Complaint at Attachment G (attaching Global NAPs invoices). Id. See Joint Statement at
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs receives no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement; however, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Massachusetts DTE) has yet to make a final determination whether and how the parties' existing interconnection agreement provides for inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic. Moreover, we conclude that the challenged tariff provisions violate section 61.74(a) of our rules, because they refer to a document other than the Tariff itself, i.e., an interconnection agreement. Accordingly, we hereby grant Bell Atlantic's complaint and hold that Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 are unlawful. II. BACKGROUND A. Events Preceding the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and New
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.pdf
  • and regulations" must be "just and reasonable." 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). Carriers must publish rate tariffs before they go into effect. Published tariffs "must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations." 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (a). Tariffs may not "make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument." Id. at § 61.74(a). Tariffs filed by nondominant carriers, such as GNAPs, take effect on only one day's notice. Such tariffs receive streamlined review and are presumed lawful by the Commission. Failure to comply with the relevant regulatory provisions "may be grounds for rejection" of the tariff. Id. at § 61.1(b). B. Relevant Facts GNAPs is a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") in several
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3574A1.txt
  • counterclaim based on the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff. Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff. Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2196A1.txt
  • tariff revisions that had been filed by Tekstar Communications, Inc. (Tekstar) and those tariff revisions were allowed to become effective. On November 5, 2010, Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) filed an application for review of the Bureau Order. In its application, Sprint argues that ``Tekstar's tariff impermissibly cross-referenced its state tariff for local exchange services in clear violation of Section 61.74(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 61.74(a).'' Sprint also argues that ``Tekstar failed to explain why it had not obtained a waiver of the Commission's rules'' which would have allowed the cross-reference. Sprint ``requests that the Commission reverse the Bureau's erroneous decision and find Tekstar's tariff unlawful because it so clearly violates Section 61.74 of the Commission's rules.'' Interested
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • and ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. These rules govern the filing, form, content, public notice periods, and accompanying support materials for tariffs. Need: Section 61.66 was adopted to set forth the carriers to which Part 61, Subpart F applies. Section 61.69 was adopted to detail consequences when the Commission rejects a tariff. Section 61.74 was adopted to assist carriers by detailing the limited instances when a tariff filing entity may make reference to any other tariff, document or instrument in a tariff publication. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205 and 403. Section Number and Title: 61.66 Scope. 61.69 Rejection. 61.74(e), (f) References to other instruments. PART 63-EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 0.08 54.50 Rhode Island Providence Verizon 32.05 0.02 53.85 South Carolina Beaufort Embarq 43.60 29.17 0.12 35.60 Tennessee Memphis AT&T 57.78 46.58 0.10 64.06 Tennessee Nashville AT&T 57.78 46.58 0.10 64.06 Texas Brownsville AT&T 41.07 28.67 0.08 62.03 Texas Corpus Christi AT&T 44.96 32.35 0.08 61.96 Texas Dallas AT&T 56.72 41.96 0.08 62.11 Texas Fort Worth AT&T 49.58 35.64 0.08 61.74 Texas Houston AT&T 52.32 37.70 0.08 61.45 Texas San Antonio AT&T 44.62 31.32 0.08 61.45 Utah Logan Qwest 33.80 27.81 0.08 55.30 Virginia Richmond Verizon 61.59 23.60 0.12 69.88 Virginia Smithfield Verizon 45.51 32.46 0.11 43.20 Washington Everett Verizon 48.34 34.41 0.02 76.05 Washington Seattle Qwest 40.12 30.27 0.07 55.60 West Virginia Huntington Verizon 65.96 33.94 0.16 82.95 Wisconsin Milwaukee
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-107A1.txt
  • Atlantic was incurring charges under these Tariff provisions. Accordingly, we concluded that ``Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this [T]ariff when the very applicability of the [T]ariff has yet to be determined.'' 4. Second, we found that Global NAPs' Tariff was not self-contained, but rather impermissibly cross-referenced an external document (i.e., an interconnection agreement), in violation of section 61.74(a) of our rules. Section 61.74 of our rules provides that, in the absence of a waiver, ``no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument.'' 5. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs claims that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-367A1.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 13. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and re-designate paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 14. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(I),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-383A1.txt
  • petition for review filed, Docket No. 00-1136 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 24, 2000). Global NAPs I. We found that Global NAPs' First ISP Tariff violated sections 61.2 of our tariffing rules, which requires tariffs to be clear and explicit. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 21 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.2). We also found that the First ISP Tariff violated section 61.74 of our rules, which prohibits federal tariffs from including cross-references to other documents. See, e.g., Global NAPs I at ¶ 24 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.74). Global NAPs I Recon. Second ISP Tariff at 82, Section 7.2; id. at 83.2, Section 7.4. See infra, note 52. See Complaint at Attachment G (attaching Global NAPs invoices). Id. See Joint Statement at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-93A1.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this Chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 14. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 15. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(i),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.txt
  • that a contract imposes a payment obligation.''). Moreover, we also reject the argument by Verizon Wireless that IXCs taking service under certain competitive LEC tariffs are somehow bound by these competitive LEC/CMRS agreements. See Verizon Wireless White Paper at 22. Indeed, except in limited circumstances, the Commission's rules specifically prohibit cross-referencing other documents within a tariff. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.74(a). We note that competitive LECs continue to have flexibility in determining the access rate elements and rate structure for the elements and services they provide consistent with the CLEC Access Reform Order. See CLEC Access Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9946, para. 55. For this reason, we reject concerns expressed by some commenters that this constraint would require competitive
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • § 61.72 Public Information Requirements. (a) Issuing carriers must make available accurate and timely information pertaining to rates and regulations subject to tariff filing requirements. (b) Issuing carriers must, at a minimum, provide a telephone number for public inquiries about information contained in its tariffs. This telephone number should be made readily available to all interested parties. 83. Amend Section 61.74 as follows: § 61.74 References to other instruments. * * * (e) Tariffs may reference other F.C.C. tariffs that are in effect and on file with the Commission for purposes of determining mileage, or specifying the operating centers at which a specific service is available. (f) Tariffs may reference technical publications which describe the engineering, specifications, or other technical aspects
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/2000/fcc00367.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/2000/fcc00367.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 13. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and re-designate paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 14. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(I),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3574A1.html
  • based on the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff.2 Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act 3 and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules 4 by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff.5 Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.txt
  • Atlantic was incurring charges under these Tariff provisions. Accordingly, we concluded that ``Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this [T]ariff when the very applicability of the [T]ariff has yet to be determined.'' 4. Second, we found that Global NAPs' Tariff was not self-contained, but rather impermissibly cross-referenced an external document (i.e., an interconnection agreement), in violation of section 61.74(a) of our rules. Section 61.74 of our rules provides that, in the absence of a waiver, ``no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument.'' 5. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs claims that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • petition for review filed, Docket No. 00-1136 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 24, 2000). Global NAPs I. We found that Global NAPs' First ISP Tariff violated sections 61.2 of our tariffing rules, which requires tariffs to be clear and explicit. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 21 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.2). We also found that the First ISP Tariff violated section 61.74 of our rules, which prohibits federal tariffs from including cross-references to other documents. See, e.g., Global NAPs I at ¶ 24 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.74). Global NAPs I Recon. Second ISP Tariff at 82, Section 7.2; id. at 83.2, Section 7.4. See infra, note 52. See Complaint at Attachment G (attaching Global NAPs invoices). Id. See Joint Statement at
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs receives no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement; however, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Massachusetts DTE) has yet to make a final determination whether and how the parties' existing interconnection agreement provides for inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic. Moreover, we conclude that the challenged tariff provisions violate section 61.74(a) of our rules, because they refer to a document other than the Tariff itself, i.e., an interconnection agreement. Accordingly, we hereby grant Bell Atlantic's complaint and hold that Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 are unlawful. II. BACKGROUND A. Events Preceding the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and New
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • § 61.72 Public Information Requirements. (a) Issuing carriers must make available accurate and timely information pertaining to rates and regulations subject to tariff filing requirements. (b) Issuing carriers must, at a minimum, provide a telephone number for public inquiries about information contained in its tariffs. This telephone number should be made readily available to all interested parties. 83. Amend Section 61.74 as follows: § 61.74 References to other instruments. * * * (e) Tariffs may reference other F.C.C. tariffs that are in effect and on file with the Commission for purposes of determining mileage, or specifying the operating centers at which a specific service is available. (f) Tariffs may reference technical publications which describe the engineering, specifications, or other technical aspects
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs receives no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement; however, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Massachusetts DTE) has yet to make a final determination whether and how the parties' existing interconnection agreement provides for inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic. Moreover, we conclude that the challenged tariff provisions violate section 61.74(a) of our rules, because they refer to a document other than the Tariff itself, i.e., an interconnection agreement. Accordingly, we hereby grant Bell Atlantic's complaint and hold that Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 are unlawful. II. BACKGROUND A. Events Preceding the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and New
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • Fort Dodge 35.62 36.45 36.45 37.04 37.31 37.31 37.31 44.68 45.11 44.05 47.23 47.27 Kentucky Louisville 89.46 92.72 92.95 93.23 93.23 81.56 76.42 75.57 56.49 56.55 58.97 58.29 Louisiana Baton Rouge 80.39 78.87 79.04 77.39 74.29 75.28 73.36 72.97 64.59 64.34 64.27 65.33 Louisiana New Orleans 85.15 85.86 85.30 82.57 75.89 75.89 71.98 72.86 64.24 64.24 64.18 64.18 Maine Portland 61.74 62.33 62.33 62.33 62.35 58.75 58.95 60.26 65.08 67.57 67.18 67.38 Maryland Baltimore 44.79 45.47 47.87 46.31 46.20 46.20 46.25 46.52 43.06 46.35 46.33 45.16 Massachusetts Boston 40.45 46.82 57.69 54.14 48.40 48.27 48.27 48.18 50.70 50.58 47.02 43.35 Massachusetts Hyannis 49.12 48.97 66.05 72.06 72.87 73.17 73.17 75.64 78.16 78.04 73.62 73.62 Massachusetts Springfield 38.85 40.69 42.48 54.14 48.40
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 36.45 37.04 37.31 37.31 37.31 44.68 45.11 44.05 47.23 47.97 51.73 Kentucky Louisville 89.46 92.72 92.95 93.23 93.23 81.56 76.42 75.57 56.49 56.55 58.97 57.47 51.08 Louisiana Baton Rouge 80.39 78.87 79.04 77.39 74.29 75.28 73.36 72.97 64.59 64.34 64.27 66.35 66.44 Louisiana New Orleans 85.15 85.86 85.30 82.57 75.89 75.89 71.98 72.86 64.24 64.24 64.18 64.73 64.56 Maine Portland 61.74 62.33 62.33 62.33 62.35 58.75 58.95 60.26 65.08 67.57 67.18 70.66 69.79 Maryland Baltimore 44.79 45.47 47.87 46.31 46.20 46.20 46.25 46.52 43.06 46.35 46.33 45.55 45.05 Massachusetts Boston 40.45 46.82 57.69 54.14 48.40 48.27 48.27 48.18 50.70 50.58 47.02 43.95 42.88 Massachusetts Hyannis 49.12 48.97 66.05 72.06 72.87 73.17 73.17 75.64 78.16 78.04 73.62 74.22 73.15 Massachusetts Springfield 38.85
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • 66.22 65.80 64.94 64.00 Indiana Terre Haute 69.72 70.32 70.32 70.32 70.41 70.41 70.37 70.37 Iowa Fort Dodge 35.62 36.45 36.45 37.04 37.31 37.31 37.31 37.31 Kentucky Louisville 89.46 92.72 92.95 93.23 93.23 81.56 76.42 75.57 Louisiana Baton Rouge 80.39 78.87 79.04 77.39 74.29 75.28 73.36 72.97 Louisiana New Orleans 85.15 85.86 85.30 82.57 75.89 75.89 71.98 72.86 Maine Portland 61.74 62.33 62.33 62.33 62.35 58.75 58.95 60.26 Maryland Baltimore 44.79 45.47 47.87 46.31 46.20 46.20 46.25 46.52 Massachusetts Boston 40.45 46.82 57.69 54.14 48.40 48.27 48.27 48.18 Massachusetts Hyannis 49.12 48.97 66.05 72.06 72.87 73.17 73.17 75.64 Massachusetts Springfield 38.85 40.69 42.48 54.14 48.40 44.37 44.37 44.29 Michigan Detroit 37.83 36.09 38.08 39.66 40.39 41.18 44.26 43.42 Michigan Grand Rapids
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • Terre Haute 69.72 70.32 70.32 70.32 70.41 70.41 70.37 70.37 70.37 Iowa Fort Dodge 35.62 36.45 36.45 37.04 37.31 37.31 37.31 44.68 45.11 Kentucky Louisville 89.46 92.72 92.95 93.23 93.23 81.56 76.42 75.57 56.74 Louisiana Baton Rouge 80.39 78.87 79.04 77.39 74.29 75.28 73.36 72.97 68.70 Louisiana New Orleans 85.15 85.86 85.30 82.57 75.89 75.89 71.98 72.86 68.61 Maine Portland 61.74 62.33 62.33 62.33 62.35 58.75 58.95 60.26 63.36 Maryland Baltimore 44.79 45.47 47.87 46.31 46.20 46.20 46.25 46.52 46.20 Massachusetts Boston 40.45 46.82 57.69 54.14 48.40 48.27 48.27 48.18 48.40 Massachusetts Hyannis 49.12 48.97 66.05 72.06 72.87 73.17 73.17 75.64 75.64 Massachusetts Springfield 38.85 40.69 42.48 54.14 48.40 44.37 44.37 44.29 48.40 Michigan Detroit 37.83 36.09 38.08 39.66 40.39 41.18
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00107.doc
  • Atlantic was incurring charges under these Tariff provisions. Accordingly, we concluded that ``Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this [T]ariff when the very applicability of the [T]ariff has yet to be determined.'' 4. Second, we found that Global NAPs' Tariff was not self-contained, but rather impermissibly cross-referenced an external document (i.e., an interconnection agreement), in violation of section 61.74(a) of our rules. Section 61.74 of our rules provides that, in the absence of a waiver, ``no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument.'' 5. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs claims that
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00383.doc
  • petition for review filed, Docket No. 00-1136 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 24, 2000). Global NAPs I. We found that Global NAPs' First ISP Tariff violated sections 61.2 of our tariffing rules, which requires tariffs to be clear and explicit. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 21 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.2). We also found that the First ISP Tariff violated section 61.74 of our rules, which prohibits federal tariffs from including cross-references to other documents. See, e.g., Global NAPs I at ¶ 24 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.74). Global NAPs I Recon. Second ISP Tariff at 82, Section 7.2; id. at 83.2, Section 7.4. See infra, note 52. See Complaint at Attachment G (attaching Global NAPs invoices). Id. See Joint Statement at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/2000/fcc00367.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/2000/fcc00367.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 13. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and re-designate paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 14. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(I),
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/2001/fcc01093.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/2001/fcc01093.txt
  • support requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this Chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part. 14. Section 61.74 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e). PART 63 - EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 15. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 1, 4(i),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3574A1.html
  • based on the filed rate doctrine. According to the complaint, the District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve the issues concerning the filed rate doctrine and the lawfulness of MCIW's tariff.2 Garin further alleges in the formal complaint that MCIW violated sections 201(b) of the Act 3 and sections 61.25, 61.74, and 61.2 of the Commission's rules 4 by cross-referencing the tariffs of local exchange carriers and by being impermissibly vague in its tariff.5 Subsequent to that filing by Complainants, the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their dispute. On December 17, 2002, Complainant filed a Withdrawal of Formal Complaint, requesting that the Commission allow Garin to simply withdraw
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00107.txt
  • Atlantic was incurring charges under these Tariff provisions. Accordingly, we concluded that ``Global NAPs cannot reasonably bill Bell Atlantic under this [T]ariff when the very applicability of the [T]ariff has yet to be determined.'' 4. Second, we found that Global NAPs' Tariff was not self-contained, but rather impermissibly cross-referenced an external document (i.e., an interconnection agreement), in violation of section 61.74(a) of our rules. Section 61.74 of our rules provides that, in the absence of a waiver, ``no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument.'' 5. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Global NAPs argues that the Order is flawed in several ways. First, Global NAPs claims that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00383.txt
  • petition for review filed, Docket No. 00-1136 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 24, 2000). Global NAPs I. We found that Global NAPs' First ISP Tariff violated sections 61.2 of our tariffing rules, which requires tariffs to be clear and explicit. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 21 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.2). We also found that the First ISP Tariff violated section 61.74 of our rules, which prohibits federal tariffs from including cross-references to other documents. See, e.g., Global NAPs I at ¶ 24 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 61.74). Global NAPs I Recon. Second ISP Tariff at 82, Section 7.2; id. at 83.2, Section 7.4. See infra, note 52. See Complaint at Attachment G (attaching Global NAPs invoices). Id. See Joint Statement at
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • ISP-bound traffic for which Global NAPs receives no compensation from Bell Atlantic under the parties' existing interconnection agreement; however, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Massachusetts DTE) has yet to make a final determination whether and how the parties' existing interconnection agreement provides for inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic. Moreover, we conclude that the challenged tariff provisions violate section 61.74(a) of our rules, because they refer to a document other than the Tariff itself, i.e., an interconnection agreement. Accordingly, we hereby grant Bell Atlantic's complaint and hold that Sections 7 and 7A of Global NAPs' Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 are unlawful. II. BACKGROUND A. Events Preceding the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 15, 1997, Global NAPs and New
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1136.pdf
  • and regulations" must be "just and reasonable." 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). Carriers must publish rate tariffs before they go into effect. Published tariffs "must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations." 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (a). Tariffs may not "make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument." Id. at § 61.74(a). Tariffs filed by nondominant carriers, such as GNAPs, take effect on only one day's notice. Such tariffs receive streamlined review and are presumed lawful by the Commission. Failure to comply with the relevant regulatory provisions "may be grounds for rejection" of the tariff. Id. at § 61.1(b). B. Relevant Facts GNAPs is a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") in several