FCC Web Documents citing 51.301

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.pdf
  • 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 County
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf
  • formal complaint against MetroPCS pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Count I of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 20.11(b) by failing to pay North County for terminating traffic originated on MetroPCS' network. Count II of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating section 251(b)(5) of the Act and rule 51.301 by failing to negotiate and execute a written interconnection agreement with North County in good faith. Counts III and V of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, respectively, by refusing to enter into a written interconnection agreement with North County. Count IV of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 51.715
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1155A1.txt
  • consistent with those sections. The Bureau determined that preemption pursuant to section 252(e)(5) was not warranted and denied Armstrong's original petition. Because we declined to preempt the Pennsylvania Commission's jurisdiction, we concluded we need not reach Armstrong's additional requests that we direct Citizens to interconnect and engage in good faith negotiations under sections 251(b) and (c) and pursuant to section 51.301 of the Commission's rules. We subsequently issued an order denying Armstrong's first Petition for Reconsideration, finding that Armstrong raised no new facts or arguments that caused us to reach a different result. In the instant Petition for Further Reconsideration, Armstrong asserts that the Bureau failed to address its request for relief with respect to sections 251(b) and (c) of the
• 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
  • tariff. 4. ILEC right to obtain a compensation agreement through negotiation and arbitration Under pre-existing rules and statutory provisions, CMRS providers could request interconnection with an ILEC, and require the ILEC to enter into a process of negotiation and, if necessary, arbitration to reach an agreement on interconnection and compensation terms. 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(c)(1), 252; 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.11, 51.301, 51.703. However, ILECs could not compel negotiation and arbitration with the CMRS provider. Under the new rule, ILECs may also request negotiation to establish an interconnection and compensation agreement. 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(e). If a CMRS provider receives such a request, both parties must negotiate the terms of interconnection and compensation in good faith in the same manner as if
• 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
  • that these rules are necessary to foster a competitive market in the telecommunications industry, and to promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure and other network investment. These rules also ensure that competitors receive prompt and accurate notice of changes that could affect their ability to interconnect with the incumbent's network. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 251, 252. Section Number and Title: 51.301 Duty to Negotiate. 51.303 Preexisting agreements. 51.305 Interconnection. 51.307 Duty to provide access on an unbundled basis to network elements. 51.309 Use of unbundled network elements. 51.311 Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. 51.313 Just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions for the provision of unbundled network elements. 51.315 Combination of unbundled network elements. 51.317 Standards for requiring the unbundling
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1997A1.txt
  • good faith to determine the rates, terms and conditions of the ICA [interconnection agreement]; 2) relief to avoid future damages by the imposition of rates, terms, and conditions under an ICA; and 3) the timing of the review of state commission actions and Qwest's violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith pursuant to 47 Code of Federal Regulations 51.301(c)(6).'' On December 19, 2005, Qwest filed a response to the petition and a motion to dismiss. On December 21, 2005, the Colorado Commission granted Qwest's motion to dismiss Autotel's petition for arbitration, finding that Autotel is seeking to undermine the Colorado Commission's previous decision on interconnection issues. In addition, the Colorado Commission Order notes that Autotel's petition failed to identify
• 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
  • 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 County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-297A1.txt
  • zoning and other state and local requirements, and that the incumbent LEC might exercise some control over an adjacent structure's design or construction parameters.99 We required, however, that "[t]he incumbent LEC must permit the new entrant to construct or otherwise procure such an adjacent 94 See Texas Commission Order No. 51, supra note 41, at 1-2. 95 47 C.F.R. § 51.301(c)(8). 96 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15577-78, ¶ 155. 97 See Bell Atlantic Dec. 17, 1999 Letter, supra note 70, at att., p. 1 98 Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786, ¶ 44; see 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(k)(3). 99 Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-389A1.txt
  • ) File No. EB-00-IH-0134 ) ) Acct. No. X32080035 BellSouth Corporation ) ) ORDER Adopted: October 27, 2000 Released: November 2, 2000 By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth dissenting and issuing a statement. In this Order, we terminate an informal investigation into potential violations by BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) of section 251(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.301 of the Commission's rules, in connection with BellSouth's alleged failure to negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of an amendment to an interconnection agreement with Covad Communications Company (Covad) relating to BellSouth's provision of unbundled copper loops in nine states. The Commission and BellSouth have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the Commission's informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-20A1.txt
  • on Verizon's motion. See Virginia Order at 2. See Verizon Opposition at 8-10. Id. at 2 See 47 U.S.C. § 252(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 252(b)(1). See WorldCom Preemption Petition at 2-5, and Exhibits 1-3 and 5; Verizon Opposition at 2-5, and Exhibits 1-4; WorldCom Reply at 5-7. See WorldCom Reply at 3. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 51.301. See also Verizon Opposition at 8. See supra n. 22. See Verizon Opposition at 10. See WorldCom Preemption Petition, Exhibit 5 (Virginia Arbitration Petition) at 7-25 (setting forth disputed issues and, to the extent known, the parties' positions on those issues). For example, WorldCom identified as Issue 11 whether, for purposes of reciprocal compensation, local traffic should include traffic to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-26A1.txt
  • LEC. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3696, 3936-37, App. C (1999) (UNE Remand Order); 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a)(1). See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20951, para. 80. Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20951, n.182 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 51.301 and noting our intent to ensure that line sharing negotiations proceed ``in good faith and for mutual advantage''). Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20951, para. 80. Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20956, paras. 88-92; 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(h)(6). We pointed out that incumbent LECs are under an independent obligation to provide unbundled access to subloops wherever
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • interpretations of our rules. Periodic Review of National Unbundling Rules. The Commission will evaluate these rules consistent with the biennial review mechanism established in section 11 of the Act. These reviews, however, will not be performed de novo but according to the standards of the biennial review process. Duty To Negotiate in Good Faith. We amend our duty-to-negotiate rule, section 51.301(c)(8)(ii), to make the rule conform to the text of the Local Competition Order. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We open a further notice of proposed rulemaking to seek comment on whether we should modify the Commission's interpretation of section 252(i). The Commission's so-called pick-and-choose rule permits requesting carriers to opt into individual portions of interconnection agreements without accepting all the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-188A1.txt
  • Errata, 18 FCC Rcd 19020 (2003), aff'd in part, remanded in part, vacated in part, United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (USTA II), cert. denied sub nom. National Ass'n Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. United States Telecom Ass'n, 125 S. Ct. 313, 316, 345 (2004). See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.301-19, 51.321, 51.323 (implementing section 251(c)(3)). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(d)(1), (2)(B). For proprietary network elements, the Act directs the Commission to consider whether access to such network elements is ``necessary.'' See id. § 251(d)(2)(A). Almost all network elements have been considered ``non-proprietary'' and analyzed under section 251(d)(2)(B). Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-118A1.txt
  • U.S.C. § 251. Qwest seeks forbearance relief from section 251(c)(1) only to the extent that it requests relief from the other section 251(c) obligations. Qwest does not seek relief from the obligations of section 251(c)(1) as it applies to Qwest's section 251(b) duties. See Qwest Petition at 5. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b), and 251(c)(1)-(6); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.301 (implementing section 251(c)(1)), 51.305 (implementing section 251(c)(2)), 51.301-.319, 51.321, 51.323 (implementing section 251(c)(3)), 51.601-.617 (implementing section 251(c)(4)), 51.325-.335 (implementing section 251(c)(5)), and 51.323 (implementing section 251(c)(6)). The UNE obligations were described in the Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, so we do not repeat that summary here. See Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) in the
• 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
  • formal complaint against MetroPCS pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Count I of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 20.11(b) by failing to pay North County for terminating traffic originated on MetroPCS' network. Count II of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating section 251(b)(5) of the Act and rule 51.301 by failing to negotiate and execute a written interconnection agreement with North County in good faith. Counts III and V of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, respectively, by refusing to enter into a written interconnection agreement with North County. Count IV of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 51.715
• 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
  • 10-11 (advocating a requirement to negotiate in good faith); Letter from Ad Hoc et al. to Hon. Julius Genachowski, Chairman, FCC, et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 06-122, 05-337, CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45, GN Docket No. 09-51 at 10 (filed Aug. 18, 2011) (Ad Hoc Aug. 18, 2011 Ex Parte Letter) (same). . See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 51.301(c) (setting forth a non-exhaustive list of eight specific actions that, if proven, would violate the duty to negotiate in good faith under section 251(c)(1)). See, e.g., Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket 02-55, ET Docket Nos. 00-258, 95-18, RM-9498, RM-10024, Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, 19
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-6 51.3 Applicability to negotiated agreements. 51.5 Terms and definitions. Subpart B - Telecommunications carriers 51.100 General duty. Subpart C - Obligations of all local exchange carriers 51.201 Resale. 51.203 Number portability. 51.219 Access to rights of way. 51.221 Reciprocal compensation. 51.223 Application of additional requirements. Subpart D - Additional obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers 51.301 Duty to negotiate. 51.303 Preexisting agreements. 51.305 Interconnection. 51.307 Duty to provide access on an unbundled basis to network elements. 51.309 Use of unbundled network elements. 51.311 Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. 51.313 Just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions for the provision of unbundled network elements. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-7 51.315 Combination of unbundled network elements. 51.317
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.txt
  • See NorthPoint Reply Comments at 19. 180 See infra Section IV.D.3 for a discussion of digital loop carrier systems. 181 47 U.S.C. § 252. 182 In the Local Competition First Report and Order, we discussed the parties' duty to negotiate in good faith in accordance with section 252 imposed on incumbents by section 251(c)(1). We also established rules, in section 51.301 governing the duty to negotiate, and we interpret these rules in this Order to ensure that line sharing Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-355 41 currently being offered by the incumbents themselves requires the same loop plant that CLECs require to offer shared line xDSL. Accordingly, we believe that the spectrum unbundling requirements we establish in this Order will not infringe
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.txt
  • per se violations of the duty to negotiate in good faith in accordance with Section 325(b)(3)(C). In addition to any other actions or practices, the Commission asked commenters to address whether it would be appropriate to include in any such list provisions similar to the violations of the obligation to negotiate interconnection agreements in good faith set forth in Section 51.301 of the Commission's rules. The Commission acknowledged, however, that the good faith standard of SHVIA is different in significant respects to that contained in Section 51.301 of the Commission's rules. 34. Commenters proposed numerous standards that the Commission should consider in adopting rules to enforce the good faith negotiation requirement. Broadcasters generally argue that, to the extent it does anything,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • Comments at 14-15. See NorthPoint Reply Comments at 19. See infra Section IV.D.3 for a discussion of digital loop carrier systems. 47 U.S.C. § 252. In the Local Competition First Report and Order, we discussed the parties' duty to negotiate in good faith in accordance with section 252 imposed on incumbents by section 251(c)(1). We also established rules, in section 51.301 governing the duty to negotiate, and we interpret these rules in this Order to ensure that line sharing negotiations will proceed in good faith and for mutual advantage. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15569-15578 (1996) (Local Competition First Report and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • 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 County
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • formal complaint against MetroPCS pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"). Count I of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 20.11(b) by failing to pay North County for terminating traffic originated on MetroPCS' network. Count II of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating section 251(b)(5) of the Act and rule 51.301 by failing to negotiate and execute a written interconnection agreement with North County in good faith. Counts III and V of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, respectively, by refusing to enter into a written interconnection agreement with North County. Count IV of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 51.715
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389.txt
  • ) File No. EB-00-IH-0134 ) ) Acct. No. X32080035 BellSouth Corporation ) ) ORDER Adopted: October 27, 2000 Released: November 2, 2000 By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth dissenting and issuing a statement. In this Order, we terminate an informal investigation into potential violations by BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) of section 251(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.301 of the Commission's rules, in connection with BellSouth's alleged failure to negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of an amendment to an interconnection agreement with Covad Communications Company (Covad) relating to BellSouth's provision of unbundled copper loops in nine states. The Commission and BellSouth have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the Commission's informal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389cd.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389cd.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389cd.txt
  • ) ) ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0134 Acct. No. X32080035 I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Communications Commission (the ``Commission'') and BellSouth Corporation (``BellSouth'' or the ``Company'') hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating an informal investigation by Commission staff into whether BellSouth violated section 251(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and section 51.301 of the Commission's rules. The investigation focused on whether BellSouth had negotiated in good faith with Covad Communications Company (``Covad'') over the terms and conditions of an amendment to an interconnection agreement relating to BellSouth's provision of unbundled copper loops. II. BACKGROUND Section 251 of the Act imposes on BellSouth, as an incumbent LEC, several obligations designed to promote competition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1999/fcc99406.doc
  • prohibitions would lend clarity to, and thus expedite, the negotiation process and would do likewise with respect to our enforcement mechanism, where enforcement became necessary. In addition to any other actions or practices, we ask commenters to address whether it would be appropriate to include in any such list provisions similar to the per se violations set forth in Section 51.301 of the Commission's. Although the Section 51.301 process provides a basis for comment in this proceeding, we emphasize that the good faith standard of SHVIA is different in significant respects. We also seek comment on any other specific legal precedent upon which we should rely and any other regulatory approach that might appropriately implement the good faith negotiation requirement of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.txt
  • per se violations of the duty to negotiate in good faith in accordance with Section 325(b)(3)(C). In addition to any other actions or practices, the Commission asked commenters to address whether it would be appropriate to include in any such list provisions similar to the violations of the obligation to negotiate interconnection agreements in good faith set forth in Section 51.301 of the Commission's rules. The Commission acknowledged, however, that the good faith standard of SHVIA is different in significant respects to that contained in Section 51.301 of the Commission's rules. 34. Commenters proposed numerous standards that the Commission should consider in adopting rules to enforce the good faith negotiation requirement. Broadcasters generally argue that, to the extent it does anything,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-6 51.3 Applicability to negotiated agreements. 51.5 Terms and definitions. Subpart B - Telecommunications carriers 51.100 General duty. Subpart C - Obligations of all local exchange carriers 51.201 Resale. 51.203 Number portability. 51.219 Access to rights of way. 51.221 Reciprocal compensation. 51.223 Application of additional requirements. Subpart D - Additional obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers 51.301 Duty to negotiate. 51.303 Preexisting agreements. 51.305 Interconnection. 51.307 Duty to provide access on an unbundled basis to network elements. 51.309 Use of unbundled network elements. 51.311 Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. 51.313 Just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions for the provision of unbundled network elements. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-7 51.315 Combination of unbundled network elements. 51.317
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • Comments at 14-15. See NorthPoint Reply Comments at 19. See infra Section IV.D.3 for a discussion of digital loop carrier systems. 47 U.S.C. § 252. In the Local Competition First Report and Order, we discussed the parties' duty to negotiate in good faith in accordance with section 252 imposed on incumbents by section 251(c)(1). We also established rules, in section 51.301 governing the duty to negotiate, and we interpret these rules in this Order to ensure that line sharing negotiations will proceed in good faith and for mutual advantage. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15569-15578 (1996) (Local Competition First Report and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00297.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00297.txt
  • subject to this requirement. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(1). Id. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(f). See 47 U.S.C. § 252(f)(3). , at 3 (urging that the Commission establish national collocation intervals to be used in circumstances where the state commission has not prescribed intervals). , at att., pp. 2-3. , at 1-2. 47 C.F.R. § 51.301(c)(8). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15577-78, ¶ 155. , at att., p. 1 Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786, ¶ 44; see 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(k)(3). Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786, ¶ 44. 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(k)(3); Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01026.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01026.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01026.txt
  • LEC. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3696, 3936-37, App. C (1999) (UNE Remand Order); 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a)(1). See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20951, para. 80. Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20951, n.182 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 51.301 and noting our intent to ensure that line sharing negotiations proceed ``in good faith and for mutual advantage''). Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20951, para. 80. Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20956, paras. 88-92; 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(h)(6). We pointed out that incumbent LECs are under an independent obligation to provide unbundled access to subloops wherever
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • 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 County
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • formal complaint against MetroPCS pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"). Count I of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 20.11(b) by failing to pay North County for terminating traffic originated on MetroPCS' network. Count II of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating section 251(b)(5) of the Act and rule 51.301 by failing to negotiate and execute a written interconnection agreement with North County in good faith. Counts III and V of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, respectively, by refusing to enter into a written interconnection agreement with North County. Count IV of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 51.715
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389.txt
  • ) File No. EB-00-IH-0134 ) ) Acct. No. X32080035 BellSouth Corporation ) ) ORDER Adopted: October 27, 2000 Released: November 2, 2000 By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth dissenting and issuing a statement. In this Order, we terminate an informal investigation into potential violations by BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) of section 251(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.301 of the Commission's rules, in connection with BellSouth's alleged failure to negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of an amendment to an interconnection agreement with Covad Communications Company (Covad) relating to BellSouth's provision of unbundled copper loops in nine states. The Commission and BellSouth have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the Commission's informal
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389cd.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389cd.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00389cd.txt
  • ) ) ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0134 Acct. No. X32080035 I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Communications Commission (the ``Commission'') and BellSouth Corporation (``BellSouth'' or the ``Company'') hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating an informal investigation by Commission staff into whether BellSouth violated section 251(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and section 51.301 of the Commission's rules. The investigation focused on whether BellSouth had negotiated in good faith with Covad Communications Company (``Covad'') over the terms and conditions of an amendment to an interconnection agreement relating to BellSouth's provision of unbundled copper loops. II. BACKGROUND Section 251 of the Act imposes on BellSouth, as an incumbent LEC, several obligations designed to promote competition