FCC Web Documents citing 20.11

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf
  • Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the ``Midwest ILECs''), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``PacBell'') and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (``SWBT'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.pdf
  • Opinion and Order, we dismiss in part and otherwise deny the claims alleged in the formal complaint that North County Communications Corp. (``North County'') filed against MetroPCS California, LLC (``MetroPCS'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that MetroPCS violated sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(b)(5) of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.301, and 51.715 of the Commission's rules, by (a) failing to pay North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; (b) failing to establish an interim reciprocal compensation arrangement with North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; and (c) failing to enter into a final interconnection agreement with North
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf
  • its national broadband policy goals to "promote the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely manner."145 3. Rights and Obligations related to Interconnection 66. We clarify that a carrier providing both CMRS and wireless broadband Internet access service has the same rights and obligations regarding interconnection under section 251 of the Act or section 20.11 of the Commission's rules that it would have if it were only providing CMRS.146 67. Section 251 of the Act and section20.11 of the Commission's rules provide mobile radio service providers with a number of rights and obligations involving or related to interconnection.147In the Local Competition Order, the Commission clarified that a carrier providing both a telecommunications service and an
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf
  • County'') challenging one holding of the Bureau Merits Order in this proceeding. We also deny the similar Application for Review filed by MetroPCS California, LLC (``MetroPCS''). In short, according to the parties, the Bureau Merits Order erred by holding that, before North County may seek to enforce whatever right to compensation it may have here at the Commission under rule 20.11, North County must first obtain from the California Public Utilities Commission (``California PUC'') a determination of a reasonable rate for North County's termination of intrastate, intraMTA traffic originated by MetroPCS. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the finding in the Bureau Merits Order that under the current rules as interpreted by Commission precedent, the California PUC is the more
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2166A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. E-98-45 Adopted: September 22, 2000 Released: September 25, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: This matter comes before the Commission on the Motion for Leave to Dismiss Formal Complaint filed by AirTouch Communications (AirTouch). The above-captioned complaint addresses a dispute over whether, pursuant to section 20.11 of the Commission's rules, reciprocal compensation is due for the termination of telecommunications originating on the defendant's network and terminating on the complainant's network. We are satisfied that dismissing this complaint with prejudice will serve the public interest by promoting private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2942A1.pdf
  • 3, 2001, Central Vermont Communications, Inc., Datapage, Inc., Northeast Paging and Rinker's Communications (collectively the "Paging Coalition") filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling. The petition requests that the Commission find termination of the Type 3A interconnection service currently provided by Verizon to the Paging Coalition companies to be unlawful under sections 332 and 201 of the Communications Act and sections 20.11 and 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules.1 The Paging Coalition members provide paging services in the New England region and, according to the Petition, they have been using Verizon's Type 3A interconnection service for many years to permit the public to page customers of the Coalition with a local call anywhere in a LATA served by a Coalition member. As described
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-129A1.txt
  • fall outside the scope of Section 11. They are briefly summarized below. Sections 1.924 and 101.31 rules pertaining to Quiet Zones (and related rule sections). The Commission currently is considering ways in which it can streamline, modify, or eliminate requirements related to Quiet Zones, and has sought comment on these issues in the Quiet Zones Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Section 20.11 rules relating to intercarrier compensation. The Commission currently is exploring ways of reforming its intercarrier compensation rules, including the rules set forth in Section 20.11. It is examining the existing patchwork of interconnection rules and seeking to adopt an approach that minimizes the need for regulatory intervention. Section 20.12(c) rules relating to CMRS carrier ``roaming'' obligations. The Commission is examining
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-129A1_Erratum.doc
  • fall outside the scope of Section 11. They are briefly summarized below. Sections 1.924 and 101.31 rules pertaining to Quiet Zones (and related rule sections). The Commission currently is considering ways in which it can streamline, modify, or eliminate requirements related to Quiet Zones, and has sought comment on these issues in the Quiet Zones Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Section 20.11 rules relating to intercarrier compensation. The Commission currently is exploring ways of reforming its intercarrier compensation rules, including the rules set forth in Section 20.11. It is examining the existing patchwork of interconnection rules and seeking to adopt an approach that minimizes the need for regulatory intervention. Section 20.12(c) rules relating to CMRS carrier ``roaming'' obligations. The Commission is examining
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-129A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-129A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-129A2.txt
  • rule's existence to address carriers' concerns about near-term spectrum capacity constraints in the most constrained urban areas. Comments No comments were filed with respect to this rule. Analysis Because the Commission has already decided to eliminate section 20.6 as of January 1, 2003, further review of the rule is not necessary as part of this Biennial Review. part 20, section 20.11 ( Interconnection to facilities of local exchange carriers Description Section 20.11 codifies section 332(c)(1)(B) of the Act, which was enacted by Congress as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Section 20.11 provides that local exchange carriers (LECs) must provide reasonable interconnection to commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers on request, and that LECs and CMRS providers must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-129A2_Erratum.doc
  • rule's existence to address carriers' concerns about near-term spectrum capacity constraints in the most constrained urban areas. Comments No comments were filed with respect to this rule. Analysis Because the Commission has already decided to eliminate section 20.6 as of January 1, 2003, further review of the rule is not necessary as part of this Biennial Review. part 20, section 20.11 ( Interconnection to facilities of local exchange carriers Description Section 20.11 codifies section 332(c)(1)(B) of the Act, which was enacted by Congress as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Section 20.11 provides that local exchange carriers (LECs) must provide reasonable interconnection to commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers on request, and that LECs and CMRS providers must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2002A1.txt
  • pursuant to agreement between the carriers. The rules will also facilitate the ability of incumbent local exchange carriers to obtain such agreements if they desire them. See Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, T-Mobile et al. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Incumbent LEC Wireless Termination Tariffs, CC Docket 01-92, Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order, FCC 05-42; 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.11(d), 20.11(e). The compliance requirements these rules impose are discussed below in sections 3 through 5 of the Compliance Guide. 2. Definitions a. Local Exchange Carrier or ``LEC'' The term ``local exchange carrier'' means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. 47 U.S.C. § 153(26). b. Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier or ``ILEC'' The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-20A1.txt
  • services. These efforts include revisions guided by competitive developments contemplated by Section 11 as well as streamlining efforts that fall outside the scope of Section 11. They are briefly summarized below. Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 - The Commission is currently considering proposed revisions to streamline and harmonize various technical rule parts affecting the wireless radio services. Section 20.11 rules relating to intercarrier compensation. The Commission currently is exploring ways of reforming its intercarrier compensation rules, including the rules set forth in Section 20.11. It is examining the existing patchwork of interconnection rules and seeking to adopt an approach that minimizes the need for regulatory intervention. Section 20.12(c) rules relating to CMRS carrier ``roaming'' obligations. The Commission is examining
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.txt
  • RADIO SERVICES Brief Description: This rule specifies that local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers shall comply with applicable provisions of part 51, which establishes interconnection rules. Need: To ensure that carriers, particularly new entrants and small entities, can interconnect on reasonable terms. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 303, and 332. Section Number and Title: 20.11(c) Interconnection to facilities of local exchange carriers. PART 23-INTERNATIONAL FIXED PUBLIC RADIOCOMMUNICATION SERVICES Brief Description: Establishes procedure for filing of applications for special temporary authority involving construction or alteration of antennas where compliance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements may be required. Need: Establishes proper procedure for submitting the correct information to establish compliance with Federal Aviation Administration antenna requirements. Legal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-669A1.txt
  • and recommends that the Commission consider in those proceedings whether the rules are necessary in the public interest, and, if not, to modify or repeal any rule so that it is in the public interest. Relevant pending proceedings include review of Commission rules, rule parts, or portions thereof, which are codified in 47 C.F.R., including: Part 1; Section 20.6; Section 20.11, Section 20.12(c); Part 22; Part 23; Part 24; Part 27; Section 32.26; Part 32; Part 36; Part 43; Part 51; Part 52; Part 53; Part 54; Part 61; Part 63, Part 64, subparts G, I and T; Part 69, Part 80, Part 90. Finally, staff finds that, for reasons other than the development of economic competition between telecommunications service providers,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-674A1.txt
  • of Section 11. They are briefly summarized below. Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90. The Commission is currently considering what kind of mechanisms-such as performance requirements, partitioning and disaggregation, and re-licensing-might further promote the provision of wireless radio services to rural areas as well as to ensure that spectrum ultimately continues to be put to its highest use. Section 20.11 rules relating to intercarrier compensation. The Commission currently is exploring ways of reforming its intercarrier compensation rules, including the rules set forth in Section 20.11. It is examining the existing patchwork of interconnection rules and seeking to adopt an approach that minimizes the need for regulatory intervention. Section 20.12(c) rules relating to CMRS carrier ``roaming'' obligations. The Commission is examining
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.txt
  • Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the ``Midwest ILECs''), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``PacBell'') and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (``SWBT'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.txt
  • Opinion and Order, we dismiss in part and otherwise deny the claims alleged in the formal complaint that North County Communications Corp. (``North County'') filed against MetroPCS California, LLC (``MetroPCS'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that MetroPCS violated sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(b)(5) of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.301, and 51.715 of the Commission's rules, by (a) failing to pay North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; (b) failing to establish an interim reciprocal compensation arrangement with North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; and (c) failing to enter into a final interconnection agreement with North
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1269A1.txt
  • Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) - WTB staff reviewed relevant rules in 47 C.F.R. Parts 1, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 80, 90, 95, and 101. Based on its review and in response to comments, WTB staff made several recommendations. First, WTB staff recommended that the Commission should further consider in the pending comprehensive universal service/intercarrier compensation reform proceeding whether section 20.11 is no longer necessary in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic competition, or whether it should be modified so that the rule is in the public interest. Second, WTB staff recommended that the Commission should further consider in its then-pending roaming proceeding whether section 20.12 is no longer necessary in the public interest as a result of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 23.07 23.46 24.53 25.61 29.64 29.88 29.76 Massachusetts Springfield 21.72 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.46 24.53 25.61 29.64 29.88 29.76 Michigan Detroit 19.25 19.55 19.50 19.42 19.42 19.76 22.50 25.99 27.12 27.77 27.39 27.45 27.52 Michigan Grand Rapids 17.19 17.53 18.06 17.95 18.01 18.25 20.08 23.28 24.54 25.47 25.07 24.81 24.81 Michigan Saginaw 18.75 16.93 18.96 20.05 20.05 20.11 19.85 22.99 27.71 28.18 27.52 27.27 27.87 Minnesota Detroit Lakes 19.86 19.84 19.91 19.91 19.63 19.63 19.63 20.57 21.50 22.41 22.42 21.69 21.99 Minnesota Minneapolis 21.64 21.66 21.73 21.73 21.45 21.46 20.61 21.54 22.48 23.38 23.39 22.67 22.97 Mississippi Pascagoula 26.03 26.42 26.42 26.03 26.03 25.26 24.81 25.80 27.05 28.30 28.95 28.73 29.91 Missouri Kansas City 20.40 19.03 18.15 18.15
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • Year* IOWA (CONT.) 351280 A RINGSTED TEL. CO. 7.53 -1.00 8.62 20.36 351282 A ROCKWELL COOP. TEL. ASSN. 7.84 -1.12 9.07 20.78 351283 A ROYAL TEL. CO. 2.98 -5.63 9.12 18.37 351284 A RUTHVEN TEL. EXCH. CO. 6.18 0.60 5.55 11.65 351285 A SAC COUNTY MUTUAL TEL. CO. 4.91 -2.82 7.96 18.88 351291 A SCHALLER TEL. CO. 7.79 -0.34 8.15 20.11 351292 A SEARSBORO TEL. CO. (+ 351407 KILLDUFF) -23.44 -32.22 12.95 -8.84 351293 A SHARON TEL. CO. 3.79 -2.75 6.73 12.55 351294 A SCRANTON TEL. CO. 2.29 -6.01 8.83 19.01 351295 C SHELL ROCK TEL. CO. 4.36 -2.90 7.48 10.96 351297 A HEART OF IOWA COMMUNICATIONS COOP. 6.86 -1.99 9.03 20.03 351298 A SOUTH SLOPE COOP. TEL. CO. 35.01 -0.18
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
  • Year* IOWA (CONT.) 351280 A RINGSTED TEL. CO. 7.53 -1.00 8.62 20.36 351282 A ROCKWELL COOP. TEL. ASSN. 7.84 -1.12 9.07 20.78 351283 A ROYAL TEL. CO. 2.98 -5.63 9.12 18.37 351284 A RUTHVEN TEL. EXCH. CO. 6.18 0.60 5.55 11.65 351285 A SAC COUNTY MUTUAL TEL. CO. 4.91 -2.82 7.96 18.88 351291 A SCHALLER TEL. CO. 7.79 -0.34 8.15 20.11 351292 A SEARSBORO TEL. CO. (+ 351407 KILLDUFF) -23.44 -32.22 12.95 -8.84 351293 A SHARON TEL. CO. 3.79 -2.75 6.73 12.55 351294 A SCRANTON TEL. CO. 2.29 -6.01 8.83 19.01 351295 C SHELL ROCK TEL. CO. 4.36 -2.90 7.48 10.96 351297 A HEART OF IOWA COMMUNICATIONS COOP. 6.86 -1.99 9.03 20.03 351298 A SOUTH SLOPE COOP. TEL. CO. 35.01 -0.18
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271695A6.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271695A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271695A6.txt
  • to apply where a wireless service provider uses the same infrastructure to provide ``personal wireless services'' and wireless broadband Internet access service, as set forth in Section 332(c)(7) of the Act; and Third, a carrier providing both CMRS and wireless broadband Internet access service has the same rights and obligations regarding interconnection under Section 251 of the Act (or section 20.11 of the Commission's rules) that it would have if it were only providing CMRS. Finally, we reiterate the Commission's commitment to enforce the accessibility policy embodied in Section 255 of the Act (regarding persons with disabilities). All Americans, regardless of physical ability, should be able to benefit from competitive broadband Internet service offerings. In sum, effective personal telecommunications should deliver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 29.95 Massachusetts Springfield 21.72 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.46 24.53 25.61 29.64 29.88 29.76 29.80 29.95 Michigan Detroit 19.25 19.55 19.50 19.42 19.42 19.76 22.50 25.99 27.12 27.77 27.39 27.45 27.52 29.32 30.38 Michigan Grand Rapids 17.19 17.53 18.06 17.95 18.01 18.25 20.08 23.28 24.54 25.47 25.07 24.81 24.81 26.52 28.15 Michigan Saginaw 18.75 16.93 18.96 20.05 20.05 20.11 19.85 22.99 27.71 28.18 27.52 27.27 27.87 29.66 30.39 Minnesota Detroit Lakes 19.86 19.84 19.91 19.91 19.63 19.63 19.63 20.57 21.50 22.41 22.42 21.69 21.99 21.85 22.00 Minnesota Minneapolis 21.64 21.66 21.73 21.73 21.45 21.46 20.61 21.54 22.48 23.38 23.39 22.67 22.97 22.82 22.99 Mississippi Pascagoula 26.03 26.42 26.42 26.03 26.03 25.26 24.81 25.80 27.05 28.30 28.95 28.73 29.91 29.84
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • 210338 C QUINCY TEL. CO.-FL DIV. -2.45 -4.30 1.93 -46.12 210339 C GTC, INC. -7.14 -5.70 -1.52 -26.75 210341 C EMBARQ FLORIDA, INC. -3.69 -8.35 5.09 0.00 215191 C SOUTHERN BELL-FL -9.37 -8.12 -1.36 0.00 GEORGIA TOTAL -6.23 -7.00 0.83 -22.31 220324 A VALLEY TELEPHONE CO., LLC 4.97 -8.49 14.71 0.00 220338 C QUINCY TEL. CO.-GA DIV. -1.51 -2.57 1.08 -20.11 220344 C ALMA TEL. CO., INC. -12.38 -1.98 -10.62 0.00 220346 C BLUE RIDGE TEL. CO. 1.21 -4.42 5.88 2.31 220347 C BRANTLEY TEL. CO., INC. -1.47 -2.74 1.31 -14.66 220348 C BULLOCH CNTY. RURAL TEL. COOP., INC. 14.72 -3.31 18.65 72.20 220351 C CAMDEN TEL. & TEL. CO., INC.-GA 0.17 -2.94 3.20 0.00 220354 C CHICKAMAUGA TEL. CORP. 5.84
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • 210338 C QUINCY TEL. CO.-FL DIV. -2.45 -4.30 1.93 -46.12 210339 C GTC, INC. -7.14 -5.70 -1.52 -26.75 210341 C EMBARQ FLORIDA, INC. -3.69 -8.35 5.09 0.00 215191 C SOUTHERN BELL-FL -9.37 -8.12 -1.36 0.00 GEORGIA TOTAL -6.23 -7.00 0.83 -22.31 220324 A VALLEY TELEPHONE CO., LLC 4.97 -8.49 14.71 0.00 220338 C QUINCY TEL. CO.-GA DIV. -1.51 -2.57 1.08 -20.11 220344 C ALMA TEL. CO., INC. -12.38 -1.98 -10.62 0.00 220346 C BLUE RIDGE TEL. CO. 1.21 -4.42 5.88 2.31 220347 C BRANTLEY TEL. CO., INC. -1.47 -2.74 1.31 -14.66 220348 C BULLOCH CNTY. RURAL TEL. COOP., INC. 14.72 -3.31 18.65 72.20 220351 C CAMDEN TEL. & TEL. CO., INC.-GA 0.17 -2.94 3.20 0.00 220354 C CHICKAMAUGA TEL. CORP. 5.84
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • 20.59 0.00 TOTAL PUERTO RICO -22.23 -8.49 -15.02 0.00 633200 C P R T C - CENTRAL -19.32 -7.82 -12.48 0.00 633201 C PUERTO RICO TEL CO -22.74 -8.60 -15.48 0.00 TOTAL RHODE ISLAND 9.55 -8.84 20.18 0.00 585114 C VERIZON RHODE ISLAND 9.55 -8.84 20.18 0.00 TOTAL SOUTH CAROLINA -3.72 -7.67 4.28 2.21 240479 C FRONTIER CAROLINA-SC -30.33 -12.80 -20.11 -100.00 240506 C UTC OF THE CAROLINAS -0.16 -6.35 6.62 0.00 240512 C BLUFFTON TEL. CO. 13.00 -3.75 17.40 38.61 240515 A CHESNEE TEL CO -6.25 -5.76 -0.52 0.00 240516 A CHESTER TEL CO - SC -5.28 -5.28 0.00 0.00 240517 C WINDSTREAM SC -4.47 -4.41 -0.07 0.00 240520 C FARMERS TEL COOP -0.64 -5.96 5.65 -4.85 240521 C FORT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • 20.59 0.00 TOTAL PUERTO RICO -22.23 -8.49 -15.02 0.00 633200 C P R T C - CENTRAL -19.32 -7.82 -12.48 0.00 633201 C PUERTO RICO TEL CO -22.74 -8.60 -15.48 0.00 TOTAL RHODE ISLAND 9.55 -8.84 20.18 0.00 585114 C VERIZON RHODE ISLAND 9.55 -8.84 20.18 0.00 TOTAL SOUTH CAROLINA -3.72 -7.67 4.28 2.21 240479 C FRONTIER CAROLINA-SC -30.33 -12.80 -20.11 -100.00 240506 C UTC OF THE CAROLINAS -0.16 -6.35 6.62 0.00 240512 C BLUFFTON TEL. CO. 13.00 -3.75 17.40 38.61 240515 A CHESNEE TEL CO -6.25 -5.76 -0.52 0.00 240516 A CHESTER TEL CO - SC -5.28 -5.28 0.00 0.00 240517 C WINDSTREAM SC -4.47 -4.41 -0.07 0.00 240520 C FARMERS TEL COOP -0.64 -5.96 5.65 -4.85 240521 C FORT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-306658A1.pdf
  • 05/17/2011 Page 1 of 8 2 M. Armstrong III, Associate General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, entered appearances. Before: BROWN, GRIFFITH and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH. GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: Providers of commercial mobile radio services must exchange carriers for traffic that starts with the provider and ends in the network. 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(b)(2). The question in this case is whether the Federal Communications Commission erred in allowing a state agency to determine this rate for traffic that is wholly intrastate. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the FCC acted within its discretion and deny the petition for review. I Petitioner MetroPCS California, LLC, is a provider of commercial mobile radio
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310692A1.txt
  • existing ambiguity. We adopt bill-and-keep as the default methodology for all non-access CMRS-LEC traffic. To provide rate-of-return LECs time to adjust to bill-and-keep, we adopt an interim transport rule for rate-of-return carriers to specify LEC transport obligations under the default bill-and-keep framework for non-access traffic exchanged between these carriers. We also clarify the relationship between the compensation obligations in section 20.11 of the Commission's rules and the reciprocal compensation framework, thus addressing growing concerns about arbitrage related to rates set without federal guidance. Further, in response to disputes, we make clear that a call is considered to be originated by a CMRS provider for purposes of the intraMTA rule only if the calling party initiating the call has done so through
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312315A1.txt
  • 1556, delete quotation mark before ``(B)''. In footnote 1566, replace ``NECA et al. Section XV Comments'' with ``Rural Associations Section XV Comments''. In paragraph 828, in the second sentence, delete the space from ``in to''. Footnotes 1575 and 1576 are corrected to read as follows: ``Id. at 4863-64, para. 14.'' ``Id. at 4863-65, paras. 14-16. See also 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(e).'' In paragraph 831, in the fourth sentence, delete the ``s'' from the word ``Procedures''. In footnote 1578, add ``(RCA Petition)'' at the end of the citation. Footnote 1579 is corrected to read as ``Id. at 6-10.'' In footnote 1587, replace ``emph.'' with ``emphasis''. Footnote 1591 is corrected to read as ``Id. at 1497, 1498, paras. 229, 235.'' In footnote 1592,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312315A1_Erratum.doc
  • 1556, delete quotation mark before ``(B)''. In footnote 1566, replace ``NECA et al. Section XV Comments'' with ``Rural Associations Section XV Comments''. In paragraph 828, in the second sentence, delete the space from ``in to''. Footnotes 1575 and 1576 are corrected to read as follows: ``Id. at 4863-64, para. 14.'' ``Id. at 4863-65, paras. 14-16. See also 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(e).'' In paragraph 831, in the fourth sentence, delete the ``s'' from the word ``Procedures''. In footnote 1578, add ``(RCA Petition)'' at the end of the citation. Footnote 1579 is corrected to read as ``Id. at 6-10.'' In footnote 1587, replace ``emph.'' with ``emphasis''. Footnote 1591 is corrected to read as ``Id. at 1497, 1498, paras. 229, 235.'' In footnote 1592,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.txt
  • that the Commission's decision to exclude the spectrum auctioned in the 700 MHz band from the spectrum cap is inconsistent given the Commission's understanding that the 700 MHz band ``may be used for mobile services and comparable to the cellular broadband PCS and SMR spectrum for which the CMRS spectrum cap was devised.'' Recommendation See initial recommendation. part 20, section 20.11 ( Interconnection to facilities of local exchange carriers Description The Section 20.11 rule codifies section 332(c)(1)(B) of the Act, which was enacted by Congress as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Section 20.11 provides that local exchange carriers (LECs) must provide reasonable interconnection to commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers on request, and that LECs and CMRS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-194A1.txt
  • Released: July 6, 2001 By the Commission: Commissioner Abernathy not participating. I. INTRODUCTION In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant in part and deny in part the complaint filed by AirTouch Cellular (``AirTouch'') against Pacific Bell pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In its complaint, AirTouch alleges that Pacific Bell violated section 20.11 of the Commission's rules because Pacific Bell did not pay mutual compensation to AirTouch, nor did the Interconnection Agreement between AirTouch and Pacific Bell contain any provisions for mutual compensation. We find that Pacific Bell violated section 20.11 of the rules when it failed to pay mutual compensation to AirTouch in connection with terminating traffic that originated on Pacific Bell's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-203A1.txt
  • whether CMRS providers should impose access charges that mirror those of the LECs with which they connect, or impose their own access charges. Id. It also asked whether to retain the policy of forbearing from regulating CMRS providers' access charges. Id. In contrast, the Commission's rules affirmatively require LECs to pay reciprocal compensation to CMRS carriers. See 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(b)(1). Section 69.5(b) of the Commission's rules enables local exchange carriers to impose access charges on IXCs, but CMRS carriers do not provide service subject to Part 69 of the Commission's rules because their access services are detariffed and the rates are not regulated. See CMRS Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1480, ¶ 179. 47 U.S.C. §§ 203-205.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-42A1.txt
  • In addition, we amend our rules to clarify that an incumbent LEC may request interconnection from a CMRS provider and invoke the negotiation and arbitration procedures set forth in section 252 of the Act. Our finding that tariffed arrangements were permitted under the existing rules is based on the fact that neither the Commission's reciprocal compensation rules, nor the section 20.11 mutual compensation rules adopted prior to the 1996 Act, specify the types of arrangements that trigger a compensation obligation. Because the existing compensation rules are silent as to the type of arrangement necessary to trigger payment obligations, we find that it would not have been unlawful for incumbent LECs to assess transport and termination charges based upon a state tariff.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.txt
  • commitment to its national broadband policy goals to ``promote the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely manner.'' Rights and Obligations related to Interconnection We clarify that a carrier providing both CMRS and wireless broadband Internet access service has the same rights and obligations regarding interconnection under section 251 of the Act or section 20.11 of the Commission's rules that it would have if it were only providing CMRS. Section 251 of the Act and section 20.11 of the Commission's rules provide mobile radio service providers with a number of rights and obligations involving or related to interconnection. In the Local Competition Order, the Commission clarified that a carrier providing both a telecommunications service and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A6.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A6.txt
  • to apply where a wireless service provider uses the same infrastructure to provide ``personal wireless services'' and wireless broadband Internet access service, as set forth in Section 332(c)(7) of the Act; and Third, a carrier providing both CMRS and wireless broadband Internet access service has the same rights and obligations regarding interconnection under Section 251 of the Act (or section 20.11 of the Commission's rules) that it would have if it were only providing CMRS. Finally, we reiterate the Commission's commitment to enforce the accessibility policy embodied in Section 255 of the Act (regarding persons with disabilities). All Americans, regardless of physical ability, should be able to benefit from competitive broadband Internet service offerings. In sum, effective personal telecommunications should deliver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.txt
  • County'') challenging one holding of the Bureau Merits Order in this proceeding. We also deny the similar Application for Review filed by MetroPCS California, LLC (``MetroPCS''). In short, according to the parties, the Bureau Merits Order erred by holding that, before North County may seek to enforce whatever right to compensation it may have here at the Commission under rule 20.11, North County must first obtain from the California Public Utilities Commission (``California PUC'') a determination of a reasonable rate for North County's termination of intrastate, intraMTA traffic originated by MetroPCS. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the finding in the Bureau Merits Order that under the current rules as interpreted by Commission precedent, the California PUC is the more
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.txt
  • charges paid to wireless carriers, or paid by wireless carriers-including charges that otherwise would be subject to intrastate access charges. We seek comment on whether the Commission should address all wireless termination charges or whether we must or should leave wireless intrastate access charges within the states' jurisdiction. We also seek comment on whether wireless termination charges-whether arising under section 20.11 of the Commission's rules, the access charge regimes, or reciprocal compensation-should be separately dealt with in the transition process. We note that, today, there is some dispute regarding certain wireless termination charges. If wireless termination charges are subject to their own transition, would it still be necessary or appropriate to clarify those issues? The overall timing for the Commission to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • existing ambiguity. We adopt bill-and-keep as the default methodology for all non-access CMRS-LEC traffic. To provide rate-of-return LECs time to adjust to bill-and-keep, we adopt an interim transport rule for rate-of-return carriers to specify LEC transport obligations under the default bill-and-keep framework for non-access traffic exchanged between these carriers. We also clarify the relationship between the compensation obligations in section 20.11 of the Commission's rules and the reciprocal compensation framework, thus addressing growing concerns about arbitrage related to rates set without federal guidance. Further, in response to disputes, we make clear that a call is considered to be originated by a CMRS provider for purposes of the intraMTA rule only if the calling party initiating the call has done so through
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-189A1.txt
  • they have already been designated that existed prior to the USF/ICC Transformation Order for a defined period of time. This will allow the Commission the opportunity to take further action with respect to the ``own facilities'' requirement for such providers in the context of the low-income program. We also conclude that good cause exists to make the revisions to sections 20.11(e), 51.705(a), and 51.709(c) effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. As discussed above, allowing the rules subject to this Order to go into effect on December 29, 2011 may potentially result in a significant financial impact on LECs exchanging non-access LEC-CMRS traffic pursuant to interconnection agreements, contrary to the Commission's initial assumptions. Thus, we find good cause to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • negotiate agreed-upon rates, we direct states, when arbitrating disputes under section 252(d)(2), to establish rates for the termination of traffic by paging providers based on the forward-looking economic costs of such termination to the paging provider. The paging provider seeking termination fees must prove to the state commission the costs of terminating local Federal Communications Commission 96-325 47 C.F.R. § 20.11. 2631 See, e.g., Centennial comments in Docket 95-185 at 8-9 (states that it does not receive compensation for terminating 2632 LEC-originated traffic in any of its 28 cellular markets, and is charged by the LEC to terminate LEC-originated calls in many of those markets); Century Cellunet comments in Docket 95-185 (states that it does not receive compensation from LECs to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.txt
  • Docket No. 97-82, which held that the spectrum cap would apply to the C and F Block auction. Recommendation As noted above, the Commission has stated that the spectrum cap will be reviewed as part of the 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review. The staff plans to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Commission consideration later this year. part 20, section 20.11 ( Interconnection to facilities of local exchange carriers Description Section 20.11 provides that local exchange carriers (LECs) must provide reasonable interconnection to commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers on request, and that LECs and CMRS providers must each reasonably compensate the other for terminating traffic that originates on their respective facilities. This rule codifies section 332(c)(1)(B) of the Act, which
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01194.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01194.html
  • Released: July 6, 2001 By the Commission: Commissioner Abernathy not participating. I. INTRODUCTION In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant in part and deny in part the complaint filed by AirTouch Cellular (``AirTouch'') against Pacific Bell pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In its complaint, AirTouch alleges that Pacific Bell violated section 20.11 of the Commission's rules because Pacific Bell did not pay mutual compensation to AirTouch, nor did the Interconnection Agreement between AirTouch and Pacific Bell contain any provisions for mutual compensation. We find that Pacific Bell violated section 20.11 of the rules when it failed to pay mutual compensation to AirTouch in connection with terminating traffic that originated on Pacific Bell's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-23A1.html
  • sexual references do not have the effect of a ``verbal shock treatment.'' See, e.g., FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 757 (1978)(Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). In this regard, the material is of less concern than all of the examples mentioned in the Indecency Policy Statement in connection with this factor. See id. at 20.11 12. Consequently, based on our review of Citadel's response in light of the applicable case law, we conclude that Citadel did not violate the statute or the Commission's indecency rule through its broadcast of the ``radio edit'' version of ``The Real Slim Shady.'' IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the "Midwest ILECs"), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("PacBell") and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. ("SWBT") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • Opinion and Order, we dismiss in part and otherwise deny the claims alleged in the formal complaint that North County Communications Corp. ("North County") filed against MetroPCS California, LLC ("MetroPCS") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In short, the Complaint alleges that MetroPCS violated sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(b)(5) of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.301, and 51.715 of the Commission's rules, by (a) failing to pay North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; (b) failing to establish an interim reciprocal compensation arrangement with North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; and (c) failing to enter into a final interconnection agreement with North
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • County") challenging one holding of the Bureau Merits Order in this proceeding. We also deny the similar Application for Review filed by MetroPCS California, LLC ("MetroPCS"). In short, according to the parties, the Bureau Merits Order erred by holding that, before North County may seek to enforce whatever right to compensation it may have here at the Commission under rule 20.11, North County must first obtain from the California Public Utilities Commission ("California PUC") a determination of a reasonable rate for North County's termination of intrastate, intraMTA traffic originated by MetroPCS. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the finding in the Bureau Merits Order that under the current rules as interpreted by Commission precedent, the California PUC is the more
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002166.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002166.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. E-98-45 Adopted: September 22, 2000 Released: September 25, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: This matter comes before the Commission on the Motion for Leave to Dismiss Formal Complaint filed by AirTouch Communications (AirTouch). The above-captioned complaint addresses a dispute over whether, pursuant to section 20.11 of the Commission's rules, reciprocal compensation is due for the termination of telecommunications originating on the defendant's network and terminating on the complainant's network. We are satisfied that dismissing this complaint with prejudice will serve the public interest by promoting private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/rss/index.htm?job=ainf&id=65
  • commercial licenses in the 800 MHz band in the three alternative band configurations. Licenses in only one of these mutually incompatible band configurations will be awarded. Qualified Bidders: 9 Rounds Completed: 4 Bidding Days: 1 Results for Round 4 Gross Revenue: $3,949,000.00 - Dollar Change: 189000.00 - % Change: 5.03 Net Revenue: $2,961,750.00 - Dollar Change: -745750.00 - % Change: -20.11 New Bids: 7 Withdrawn Bids: 0 Proactive Waivers: 0 Bidders that Reduced Eligibility: 1 Licenses with PWBs*: 2 FCC Held Licenses: 0 Eligible Bidders: 8 (of 9 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=65W ed, 10 May 2006 21:41:12 GMTThe short-form application in Auction No. 65 filed by AirCell, Inc. on March 24, 2006, is dismissed.http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=release&id=4 1&y=2006Wed, 10
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • negotiate agreed-upon rates, we direct states, when arbitrating disputes under section 252(d)(2), to establish rates for the termination of traffic by paging providers based on the forward-looking economic costs of such termination to the paging provider. The paging provider seeking termination fees must prove to the state commission the costs of terminating local Federal Communications Commission 96-325 47 C.F.R. § 20.11. 2631 See, e.g., Centennial comments in Docket 95-185 at 8-9 (states that it does not receive compensation for terminating 2632 LEC-originated traffic in any of its 28 cellular markets, and is charged by the LEC to terminate LEC-originated calls in many of those markets); Century Cellunet comments in Docket 95-185 (states that it does not receive compensation from LECs to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.46 24.16 Massachusetts Springfield 14.79 18.44 19.65 21.72 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.46 24.16 Michigan Detroit 19.07 19.04 19.21 19.25 19.55 19.50 19.42 19.42 19.76 22.50 25.99 26.68 Michigan Grand Rapids 17.07 17.06 17.22 17.19 17.53 18.06 17.95 18.01 18.25 20.08 23.28 24.35 Michigan Saginaw 16.34 16.31 16.48 18.75 16.93 18.96 20.05 20.05 20.11 19.85 22.99 27.30 Minnesota Detroit Lakes 19.74 19.83 19.83 19.86 19.84 19.91 19.91 19.63 19.63 19.63 20.57 21.16 Minnesota Minneapolis 21.09 21.19 21.19 21.64 21.66 21.73 21.73 21.45 21.46 20.61 21.54 22.14 Mississippi Pascagoula 25.91 26.34 26.15 26.03 26.42 26.42 26.03 26.03 25.26 24.81 25.80 26.52 7 Table 1.4 Monthly Residential Telephone Rates in the Sample Cities - Continued* (As
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 23.07 23.46 24.53 25.71 Massachusetts Springfield 14.79 18.44 19.65 21.72 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.46 24.53 25.71 Michigan Detroit 19.07 19.04 19.21 19.25 19.55 19.50 19.42 19.42 19.76 22.50 25.99 27.12 27.59 Michigan Grand Rapids 17.07 17.06 17.22 17.19 17.53 18.06 17.95 18.01 18.25 20.08 23.28 24.54 24.97 Michigan Saginaw 16.34 16.31 16.48 18.75 16.93 18.96 20.05 20.05 20.11 19.85 22.99 27.71 28.16 Minnesota Detroit Lakes 19.74 19.83 19.83 19.86 19.84 19.91 19.91 19.63 19.63 19.63 20.57 21.50 21.76 Minnesota Minneapolis 21.09 21.19 21.19 21.64 21.66 21.73 21.73 21.45 21.46 20.61 21.54 22.48 22.74 Mississippi Pascagoula 25.91 26.34 26.15 26.03 26.42 26.42 26.03 26.03 25.26 24.81 25.80 27.05 28.16 Missouri Kansas City 20.27 20.33 20.33 20.40 19.03 18.15 18.15
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • Massachusetts Hyannis 20.43 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.46 24.53 25.61 29.64 Massachusetts Springfield 21.72 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.46 24.53 25.61 29.64 Michigan Detroit 19.25 19.55 19.50 19.42 19.42 19.76 22.50 25.99 27.12 27.77 27.39 Michigan Grand Rapids 17.19 17.53 18.06 17.95 18.01 18.25 20.08 23.28 24.54 25.47 25.07 Michigan Saginaw 18.75 16.93 18.96 20.05 20.05 20.11 19.85 22.99 27.71 28.18 27.52 Minnesota Detroit Lakes 19.86 19.84 19.91 19.91 19.63 19.63 19.63 20.57 21.50 22.41 22.42 Minnesota Minneapolis 21.64 21.66 21.73 21.73 21.45 21.46 20.61 21.54 22.48 23.38 23.39 Mississippi Pascagoula 26.03 26.42 26.42 26.03 26.03 25.26 24.81 25.80 27.05 28.30 28.95 Missouri Kansas City 20.40 19.03 18.15 18.15 19.53 19.53 18.25 19.21 20.68 20.33 20.25 Missouri
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.46 24.53 25.61 29.64 29.88 Massachusetts Springfield 21.72 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.07 23.46 24.53 25.61 29.64 29.88 Michigan Detroit 19.25 19.55 19.50 19.42 19.42 19.76 22.50 25.99 27.12 27.77 27.39 27.45 Michigan Grand Rapids 17.19 17.53 18.06 17.95 18.01 18.25 20.08 23.28 24.54 25.47 25.07 25.11 Michigan Saginaw 18.75 16.93 18.96 20.05 20.05 20.11 19.85 22.99 27.71 28.18 27.52 27.27 Minnesota Detroit Lakes 19.86 19.84 19.91 19.91 19.63 19.63 19.63 20.57 21.50 22.41 22.42 21.69 Minnesota Minneapolis 21.64 21.66 21.73 21.73 21.45 21.46 20.61 21.54 22.48 23.38 23.39 22.67 Mississippi Pascagoula 26.03 26.42 26.42 26.03 26.03 25.26 24.81 25.80 27.05 28.30 28.95 28.73 Missouri Kansas City 20.40 19.03 18.15 18.15 19.53 19.53 18.25 19.21
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • 20.30 21.24 21.13 21.13 21.13 Ohio Cleveland 21.29 21.29 21.29 21.29 21.29 20.00 19.44 18.87 Ohio Columbus 21.29 21.29 21.29 21.29 21.29 20.00 19.85 18.87 Ohio Toledo 21.29 21.29 21.29 21.29 21.29 20.00 19.85 18.87 Oregon Corvallis 19.31 19.21 19.08 19.02 18.21 18.73 19.65 19.66 Oregon Portland 21.65 21.44 21.22 21.42 18.36 22.07 23.02 21.22 Pennsylvania Johnstown 18.67 19.25 18.98 20.11 21.95 21.78 20.31 17.48 Pennsylvania Ellwood City 14.76 14.76 14.76 15.07 15.07 16.72 16.76 16.60 Pennsylvania Allentown 16.10 16.10 16.10 17.70 17.70 17.59 17.63 21.95 Pennsylvania New Castle 14.76 14.76 14.76 15.07 15.58 14.97 15.01 14.90 Pennsylvania Philadelphia 17.44 17.44 17.44 20.09 20.09 19.98 18.72 18.56 Pennsylvania Scranton 16.10 16.10 16.10 16.41 16.41 17.59 17.63 18.56 Pennsylvania Pittsburgh 17.44 17.44
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • Atlantic 19.70 47.21 1.95 Maryland Baltimore Bell Atlantic 24.67 28.62 0.8000 48.00 1.25 Massachusetts Boston Bell Atlantic 23.07 15.24 0.0900 38.92 1.95 Massachusetts Hyannis Bell Atlantic 23.07 15.24 0.0900 38.92 1.95 Massachusetts Springfield Bell Atlantic 23.07 15.24 0.0900 38.92 1.95 Michigan Detroit Ameritech 19.76 16.42 0.0620 44.52 2.99 Michigan Grand Rapids Ameritech 18.25 15.88 0.0620 44.52 2.99 Michigan Saginaw Ameritech 20.11 17.76 0.0620 44.52 2.99 Minnesota Detroit Lakes US West 19.63 14.77 0.0900 19.54 2.99 Minnesota Minneapolis US West 21.46 15.95 0.0900 19.63 2.99 Mississippi Pascagoula BellSouth 25.26 17.11 0.0600 49.22 3.95 Missouri Kansas City SBC 19.53 15.32 0.0800 42.47 3.50 Missouri Mexico SBC 17.26 14.56 0.0800 41.88 3.50 Missouri St. Louis SBC 18.18 13.70 0.0800 43.06 3.50 Montana Butte US
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ror02.pdf
  • 8.89 20.07 79.26 3.65 10.51 15Texas ALLTEL, Inc. 11.04 11.80 4.56 12.91 14.87 13.41 16Western Reserve Telephone Company 10.76 11.80 8.07 11.03 (6,091.24) 15.44 11.93 17C-R Telephone Company 9.48 14.94 101.41 3.38 (21.80) (10.76) 18CenturyTel of Midwest-Michigan, Inc./CenturyTel of MI., Inc 15.73 11.25 24.58 27.74 19CenturyTel of Ohio, Inc. 18.43 17.47 18.16 19.55 20CenturyTel of Wisconsin, Inc. 19.24 11.25 25.02 20.11 21Chillicothe Telephone Company, The 15.34 11.25 36.26 11.60 2.81 7.43 22Coastal Untilities, Inc. 11.56 13.03 13.84 9.04 22.13 10.65 23Concord Telephone Co. 16.51 11.78 44.49 14.69 181.82 14.67 14.90 24El Paso Telephone Co. 17.75 9.82 88.57 12.06 14.01 12.20 25Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc 11.48 11.78 14.97 7.07 10.08 8.86 26Fort Bend Telephone Co. dba TXU Communications 12.38 12.65 15.54 13.01
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ror96.pdf
  • 11.14 72GTE NORTH INCORPORATED - INDIANA 11.14 11.95 8.54 10.76 (78.46) 12.67 11.06 73GTE NORTH INCORPORATED - IOWA 10.93 11.96 8.46 9.43 (129.86) 10.82 9.67 74GTE NORTH INCORPORATED - MICHIGAN 12.18 11.95 13.46 13.23 (108.13) 11.76 12.29 75GTE NORTH INCORPORATED - MINNESOTA 13.64 11.97 7.37 17.19 (477.00) 19.68 17.18 76GTE NORTH INCORPORATED - MISSOURI 15.47 11.96 23.04 15.99 (161.93) 42.02 20.11 77GTE NORTH INCORPORATED - NEBRASKA 13.29 11.94 10.94 17.75 (19.21) 10.37 15.73 78GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED - ID/MT 12.08 11.95 1.96 14.46 (4.99) 12.90 13.60 79GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED - WA/OR/CA(WC) 12.19 11.96 3.35 14.88 (54.03) 12.97 14.12 80GTE NORTH INCORPORATED - OHIO 9.96 11.95 9.21 9.13 (54.24) 3.98 7.63 81GTE NORTH INCORPORATED - PENNSYLVANIA 10.44 11.95 7.32 8.95 (106.79) 11.31 9.29
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • Unseparated Number NTS Revenue Loop Support Area NTS Revenue of Requirement Payments in Code Type Study Area Name Requirement Loops per Loop Later Year* TOTAL: NEVADA 3.90 0.94 2.93 1.73 552220 C FILER MUTUAL TELEPHONE COMPANY - NV 39.68 -4.98 46.99 0.00 552223 C CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM STATE-NV 9.18 -5.16 15.12 23.54 552233 C RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY - NV 20.11 -5.18 26.67 34.54 552284 C BEEHIVE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., NV 39.76 -27.27 92.17 78.84 552302 C VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC.-NV 9.39 2.46 6.76 0.00 552348 C CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY - NEVADA 3.78 1.76 1.99 0.00 552349 C CHURCHILL COUNTY TEL. DBA CC COMMUNICATIONS -0.33 -2.24 1.96 -3.79 552351 C LINCOLN COUNTY TELEPHONE SYSTEM INC. 12.69 -2.21 15.24 INFINITE 552353 C MOAPA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • SKYLINE TELECOM 12.02 2.67 9.11 106.90 502284 C BEEHIVE TELEPHONE CO., INC., UT 67.32 8.54 54.15 113.48 502286 C SOUTH CENTRAL UTAH TEL. ASSN. INC. 2.87 -0.17 3.04 59.49 502287 C UINTAH BASIN TEL. ASSN. INC. DBA UBTA COMMUN. 10.68 8.02 2.46 14.46 502288 C ALL WEST COMMUNICATIONS-UT 33.60 3.80 28.70 169.85 503032 C BEAR LAKE COMMUNICATIONS 10.15 5.70 4.21 20.11 504429 C CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF UTAH 14.48 1.52 12.77 69.86 504449 C NAVAJO COMMUNICATIONS CO INC-UT 0.44 11.08 -9.58 -2.46 505107 C QWEST CORPORATION - UT (US WEST) 9.20 3.16 5.85 0.00 TOTAL: VERMONT -1.60 2.30 -3.81 41.86 140053 A FRANKLIN TEL. CO.-VT 11.90 2.84 8.81 156.97 140058 C LUDLOW TEL. CO. 3.42 1.86 1.53 0.00 140061 C NORTHFIELD
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002166.doc
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. E-98-45 Adopted: September 22, 2000 Released: September 25, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: This matter comes before the Commission on the Motion for Leave to Dismiss Formal Complaint filed by AirTouch Communications (AirTouch). The above-captioned complaint addresses a dispute over whether, pursuant to section 20.11 of the Commission's rules, reciprocal compensation is due for the termination of telecommunications originating on the defendant's network and terminating on the complainant's network. We are satisfied that dismissing this complaint with prejudice will serve the public interest by promoting private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01194.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01194.html
  • Released: July 6, 2001 By the Commission: Commissioner Abernathy not participating. I. INTRODUCTION In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant in part and deny in part the complaint filed by AirTouch Cellular (``AirTouch'') against Pacific Bell pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In its complaint, AirTouch alleges that Pacific Bell violated section 20.11 of the Commission's rules because Pacific Bell did not pay mutual compensation to AirTouch, nor did the Interconnection Agreement between AirTouch and Pacific Bell contain any provisions for mutual compensation. We find that Pacific Bell violated section 20.11 of the rules when it failed to pay mutual compensation to AirTouch in connection with terminating traffic that originated on Pacific Bell's
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-23A1.html
  • sexual references do not have the effect of a ``verbal shock treatment.'' See, e.g., FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 757 (1978)(Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). In this regard, the material is of less concern than all of the examples mentioned in the Indecency Policy Statement in connection with this factor. See id. at 20.11 12. Consequently, based on our review of Citadel's response in light of the applicable case law, we conclude that Citadel did not violate the statute or the Commission's indecency rule through its broadcast of the ``radio edit'' version of ``The Real Slim Shady.'' IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • Opinion and Order, we dismiss in part and otherwise deny the claims alleged in the formal complaint that North County Communications Corp. ("North County") filed against MetroPCS California, LLC ("MetroPCS") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In short, the Complaint alleges that MetroPCS violated sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(b)(5) of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.301, and 51.715 of the Commission's rules, by (a) failing to pay North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; (b) failing to establish an interim reciprocal compensation arrangement with North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; and (c) failing to enter into a final interconnection agreement with North
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • County") challenging one holding of the Bureau Merits Order in this proceeding. We also deny the similar Application for Review filed by MetroPCS California, LLC ("MetroPCS"). In short, according to the parties, the Bureau Merits Order erred by holding that, before North County may seek to enforce whatever right to compensation it may have here at the Commission under rule 20.11, North County must first obtain from the California Public Utilities Commission ("California PUC") a determination of a reasonable rate for North County's termination of intrastate, intraMTA traffic originated by MetroPCS. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the finding in the Bureau Merits Order that under the current rules as interpreted by Commission precedent, the California PUC is the more
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002166.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002166.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. E-98-45 Adopted: September 22, 2000 Released: September 25, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: This matter comes before the Commission on the Motion for Leave to Dismiss Formal Complaint filed by AirTouch Communications (AirTouch). The above-captioned complaint addresses a dispute over whether, pursuant to section 20.11 of the Commission's rules, reciprocal compensation is due for the termination of telecommunications originating on the defendant's network and terminating on the complainant's network. We are satisfied that dismissing this complaint with prejudice will serve the public interest by promoting private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources