FCC Web Documents citing 51.303

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

• 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
  • 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 of network elements. 51.319
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 Standards for identifying network
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 Standards for identifying network
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • language and structure of the Act combined with the operation of section 2(b) indicate that the provision of federal district court review contained in subsection 252(e)(6) is the exclusive means of obtaining review of state commission determinations under the Act and that state commissions are vested with the power to enforce the terms of the agreements they approve. E. Rule 51.303-Review of Preexisting Agreements Some petitioners challenge the FCC's conclusion that subsection 252(a)(1) requires preexisting interconnection agreements that were negotiated before the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, including agreements between neighboring noncompeting LECs, to be submitted for state commission approval. See First Report and Order, 165, 166, 169; 47 C.F.R. 51.303 (stating FCC's interpretation of subsection 252(a)(1)). While clearly
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • language and structure of the Act combined with the operation of section 2(b) indicate that the provision of federal district court review contained in subsection 252(e)(6) is the exclusive means of obtaining review of state commission determinations under the Act and that state commissions are vested with the power to enforce the terms of the agreements they approve. E. Rule 51.303-Review of Preexisting Agreements Some petitioners challenge the FCC's conclusion that subsection 252(a)(1) requires preexisting interconnection agreements that were negotiated before the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, including agreements between neighboring noncompeting LECs, to be submitted for state commission approval. See First Report and Order, 165, 166, 169; 47 C.F.R. 51.303 (stating FCC's interpretation of subsection 252(a)(1)). While clearly
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.wp
  • to displace that explicit authority. We hold, therefore, that the Commission has jurisdiction to design a pricing methodology. For similar reasons, we reverse the Court of Appeals' determinations that the Commission had no jurisdiction to promulgate rules regarding state review of pre-existing interconnection agreements between incumbent LECs and other carriers, regarding rural exemptions, and regarding dialing parity. See 47 CFR 51.303, 51.405, and 51.205-51.215 (1997). None of the statutory provisions that these rules interpret displaces the Commission's general rulemaking authority. While it is true that the 1996 Act entrusts state commissions with the job of approving interconnection agreements, 47 U. S. C. 252(e) (1994 ed., Supp. II), and granting exemptions to rural LECs, 251(f), these assignments, like the rate-establishing assignment just
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.html
  • prior opinion. In our prior opinion, Iowa Utils. Bd. v. F.C.C., 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), we concluded, in relevant part, that (1) the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating various pricing rules; (2) the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating 47 C.F.R. § 51.405, regarding rural exemptions; (3) the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating 47 C.F.R. § 51.303, regarding preexisting agreements; and (4) various unbundling rules, including the superior quality rules and the combination of network elements rule, were contrary to the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. See AT & T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). The Supreme Court reversed that part of our opinion pertaining to