FCC Web Documents citing 51.307

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1853A1.txt
  • Reply Comment Date: September 17, 2002 The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on ACS of Fairbanks, Inc.'s (ACS-F) Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Other Relief, which was filed on July 24, 2002. ACS-F requests the Commission to declare that no competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (CETC) that provides supported services using loops purchased as unbundled network elements (UNEs) pursuant to Section 51.307 of the Commission's rules shall receive high-cost loop support under Sections 36.601, et seq., and 54.307, unless the UNE price for the loop exceeds 115 percent of the national average loop cost calculated pursuant to Section 36.631. ACS-F also asks the Commission to declare that no CETC whose loop costs are below this threshold will receive high-cost loop support, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.txt
  • request a field survey if it seeks additional information about a dark fiber inquiry. Moreover, Verizon notes that it already searches for alternative routes to meet Cavalier's requests for dark fiber, rendering the detailed information sought by Cavalier unnecessary. Verizon also states that the cost of providing the information sought by Cavalier is not included in its rates. Discussion Section 51.307(e) of the Commission's rules requires incumbent LECs to ``provide to a requesting telecommunications carrier technical information about the incumbent LEC's network facilities sufficient to allow the requesting carrier to achieve access to unbundled network elements consistent with the requirements of this section.'' We adopt Cavalier's proposed section 11.2.15.4, modified as discussed below, to require Verizon to provide additional information in
• 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
  • 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 Specific unbundling requirements. 51.321 Methods
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299052A1.txt
  • UNE-L obtained from ILECs. Note, however, that a CLEC might use UNE-L only to provide broadband Internet access connections. 12 CLECs (as opposed to non-ILECs more generally) have certain regulatory rights to obtain ILEC local loops at cost-based UNE rates, which the CLEC may use to provide retail switched access lines or retail broadband Internet access connections. See C.F.R. § 51.307. U.S. Federal Communications Commission Local Telephone Competition: Status as of December 31, 2008 11 The reasons for the differences summarized in Figure 7 are not entirely clear. Inconsistent adherence to the Form 477 instructions, particular for reporting UNE-P, may be factor. It is also possible that CLECs acquired by ILECs are not uniformly following Form 477 instructions to report, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301310A1.txt
  • UNE-L obtained from ILECs. Note, however, that a CLEC might use UNE-L only to provide broadband Internet access connections. 10 CLECs (as opposed to non-ILECs more generally) have certain regulatory rights to obtain ILEC local loops at cost-based UNE rates, which the CLEC may use to provide retail switched access lines or retail broadband Internet access connections. See C.F.R. § 51.307. U.S. Federal Communications Commission Local Telephone Competition: Status as of June 30, 2009 11 Possible reasons for the differences summarized in Figure 7 include inconsistent adherence to the Form 477 instructions for reporting UNE-P and for reporting affiliated-ILEC lines or UNEs that CLECs use to provide retail switched access lines. We are working with Form 477 filers to resolve these
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304054A1.txt
  • range of methods: equipping ILEC UNE loops ("UNE-L") as CLEC switched access lines,11 reselling services (for example, reselling ILEC 11 CLECs (as opposed to non-ILECs more generally) have certain regulatory rights to obtain ILEC local loops at cost-based UNE rates, which the CLEC may use to provide retail switched access lines or retail broadband Internet access connections. See C.F.R. § 51.307. U.S. Federal Communications Commission Local Telephone Competition: Status as of December 31, 2009 11 switched access lines obtained at wholesale rates or reselling ILEC lines obtained under commercial agreements that replaced the UNE-Platform ("UNE-P")), equipping leased ILEC special access circuits as switched access lines, and equipping local loops that the CLEC owns. At year-end 2009, CLECs reported using several methods
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305297A1.txt
  • range of methods: equipping ILEC UNE loops ("UNE-L") as CLEC switched access lines,6 reselling services (for example, reselling ILEC 6 CLECs (as opposed to non-ILECs more generally) have certain regulatory rights to obtain ILEC local loops at cost-based UNE rates, which the CLEC may use to provide retail switched access lines or retail broadband Internet access connections. See C.F.R. § 51.307. U.S. Federal Communications Commission Local Telephone Competition: Status as of June 30, 2010 10 switched access lines obtained at wholesale rates or reselling ILEC lines obtained under commercial agreements that replaced the UNE-Platform ("UNE-P")), equipping leased ILEC special access circuits as switched access lines, and equipping local loops that the CLEC owns. CLECs reported using several methods to provide their
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310264A1.txt
  • range of methods: equipping ILEC UNE loops ("UNE-L") as CLEC switched access lines,6 reselling services (for example, reselling ILEC 6 CLECs (as opposed to non-ILECs more generally) have certain regulatory rights to obtain ILEC local loops at cost-based UNE rates, which the CLEC may use to provide retail switched access lines or retail broadband Internet access connections. See C.F.R. § 51.307. U.S. Federal Communications Commission Local Telephone Competition: Status as of December 31, 2010 9 switched access lines obtained at wholesale rates or reselling ILEC lines obtained under commercial agreements that replaced the UNE-Platform ("UNE-P")), equipping leased ILEC special access circuits as switched access lines, and equipping local loops that the CLEC owns. CLECs reported using several methods to provide their
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-204A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-204A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-204A2.txt
  • unbundled network element). See WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 246 F.3d 690, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (noting relationship between collocation obligations and obligations under sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3)); Corecomm Comments at 13; RCN Comments at 7. E.g., RCN Comments at 7; Joint Commenters Reply at 8-9; 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(C)-(D). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(c); see, e.g., UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3772-73, para. 167 (defining an unbundled local loop as including all the features, functions, and capabilities of the transmission facilities between an incumbent LEC's central office and the loop demarcation point at the customer premises); see also DSLnet Comments at 28-29 (arguing that a requesting carrier must be able to employ
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A1.txt
  • which an incumbent LEC is required to provide non-discriminatory access to unbundled switching capability. Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket Nos. 98-147 and 96-98, Order Clarification, 16 FCC Rcd 4628 (2001). See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-29 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.307(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element.''). See Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9088, para. 174; SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-269A1.txt
  • voice grade level. Id. See also Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9106, para. 210. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 275 and Attach. 68. The weighted average was based on missed installation appointments occurring between February and April 2001. Broadslate Joint Comments at 5-7; Capsule Joint Comments at 4-5. Broadslate Joint Comments at 7-11. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.307, 51.311, 51.319; UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3841-42, paras. 318-321. In the state proceeding, Cavalier noted that Verizon's current ordering system prevents CLECs from ordering dark fiber while collocation arrangements are being built or augmented. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 298. Sprint's comments also raise this issue with respect to transport facilities in general, noting that Verizon's
• 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
  • and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long Distance Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Texas, CC Docket No. 00-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18354, 18515, para. 324 (2000) (Texas 271 Order). Texas 271 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515, para. 324. 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(c); Texas 271 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-16, para. 325. 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(a). 47 U.S.C. § 153(29). See Texas 271 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-16, para. 325; see also Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20948, n.163 (contemplating arrangements with two competing carriers providing voice and data service on a single line). Texas 271 Order, 15 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-282A1.txt
  • own transmission facilities with their in-region, interexchange services affiliates). An incumbent LEC's long distance network must be independent from its local networks, and, therefore, as a practical matter, competitive LECs cannot use the shared transport UNE to transit traffic beyond the LATA boundary. SBC Response at 10-16, 19-25. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). This provision was codified almost verbatim at section 51.307(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(a). . (emphasis added). Rule 51.319 was promulgated in the UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3936-51. 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(d) (emphasis added). See UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3864, ¶ 374 (finding a requesting carrier's ability ``to provide the services it seeks to offer'' would be impaired without access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-106A1.txt
  • - Universal Service Subpart D - Universal Service Support for High Cost Areas 1. Section 54.307(a)(2) is revised by amending the second sentence to read as follows: § 54.307 Support to a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (a) * * * (2) * * * A competitive eligible telecommunications carrier that uses loops purchased as unbundled network elements pursuant to § 51.307 of this chapter to provide the supported services shall receive the lesser of the unbundled network element price for the loop or the incumbent LEC's per-line payment from the high-cost loop support, LTS, and Interstate Common Line Support mechanisms, if any. * * * Subpart K -- Interstate Common Line Support Mechanism for Rate-of- Return Carriers 2. Section 54.902 is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • of dark fiber, the extent to which incumbent LECs must allow or perform splicing and other preparatory work, and access to dark fiber transport that traverses through intermediate central offices where the competitive LEC is not collocated. We recognize the hard work of the state commissions to make dark fiber meaningfully available and endorse such efforts here. We retain rule 51.307(e) which establishes an incumbent LEC's obligation to provide technical information about the incumbent LEC's network facilities. DS3 Capacity Transport We conclude on a nationwide basis that requesting carriers are impaired on a route-specific basis without access to unbundled DS3 transport. We make this determination based on the high fixed and sunk costs associated with self-providing transport and the lack of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-248A1.txt
  • that are providing voice, video and data services). Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17145, para. 278. We note that the evidence available to date indicates that we were correct in our prediction. See supra, n.53. See, e.g., Allegiance et al. Comments at 10; NuVox et al. Comments at 5, 9. BellSouth Reply at 6. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(e) (``An incumbent LEC shall provide to a requesting telecommunications carrier technical information about the incumbent LEC's network facilities sufficient to allow the requesting carrier to achieve access to unbundled network elements consistent with the requirements of this section.''); see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 elements to be made available.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.txt
  • element definition in section 153(29) and the reasonableness of our earlier decisions). In this Order, we identify the high frequency portion of the loop as a separate network element because a competitor need not access the entire loop to Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-355 13 for xDSL or other applications meet the definition of a "network element." 18. Specifically, sections 51.307(d) and 51.309(c) of our rules address the requesting carrier's right to loop access. These rules provide, respectively, that an incumbent LEC must provide competitors with "access to the facility or functionality of a requested network element separate from access to the facility or functionality of other network elements." The rules also state that a requesting carrier is "entitled to exclusive
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • ``features, functions, and capabilities, that are provided by means of such facility or equipment.'' As discussed in detail below, the frequencies above those used for analog voice services on any loop are a capability of that loop. Therefore, those otherwise unused frequencies that can be used for xDSL or other applications meet the definition of a ``network element.'' Specifically, sections 51.307(d) and 51.309(c) of our rules address the requesting carrier's right to loop access. These rules provide, respectively, that an incumbent LEC must provide competitors with ``access to the facility or functionality of a requested network element separate from access to the facility or functionality of other network elements.'' The rules also state that a requesting carrier is ``entitled to exclusive
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.txt
  • Reply Comments at 8-9; IP Communications Texas II Comments at 14; AT&T Texas II Pfau/Chambers Decl. at paras. 40-42; IP Communications Texas I Comments at 5. AT&T Texas II Pfau/Chambers Decl. at paras. 29-42. Department of Justice Texas II Evaluation at 7 n.17. Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20941, para. 13; 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(h)(3). 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(c). We note, however, that nothing in our rules prohibits an incumbent LEC from voluntarily providing the splitter in this line splitting situation. SWBT June 6 Ex Parte Letter at 2. SWBT June 6 Ex Parte Letter at 2. For instance, when the UNE platform is part of a DLC or exceeds distance limitations for xDSL service, such loops would not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.txt
  • voice grade level. Id. See also Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9106, para. 210. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 275 and Attach. 68. The weighted average was based on missed installation appointments occurring between February and April 2001. Broadslate Joint Comments at 5-7; Capsule Joint Comments at 4-5. Broadslate Joint Comments at 7-11. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.307, 51.311, 51.319; UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3841-42, paras. 318-321. In the state proceeding, Cavalier noted that Verizon's current ordering system prevents CLECs from ordering dark fiber while collocation arrangements are being built or augmented. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 298. Sprint's comments also raise this issue with respect to transport facilities in general, noting that Verizon's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-282A1.html
  • transmission facilities with their in-region, interexchange services affiliates). An incumbent LEC's long distance network must be independent from its local networks, and, therefore, as a practical matter, competitive LECs cannot use the shared transport UNE to transit traffic beyond the LATA boundary. 36 SBC Response at 10-16, 19-25. 37 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(3). This provision was codified almost verbatim at section 51.307(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 51.307(a). 38 See 47 U.S.C. 153(29) (a ``network element'' is ``a facility or equipment used in the provision of a telecommunications service . . . .''). 39 47 C.F.R. 51.319(d)(iii) (emphasis added). Rule 51.319 was promulgated in the UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3936-51. 40 47 C.F.R. 51.319(d) (emphasis added). 41 See
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Comments/access_reform/samples/COMcta.htm
  • -- 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(1); * every feature the switch is capable of providing, including customer calling, CLASS functionality, and Centrex --51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(2); * software-controlled systems which transfer customers to a new local provider in the same interval as the ILEC transfers customers between interexchange carriers^[7]^(7) --51.319(c)(1)(ii); * establishes the unbundled local switching purchaser as the provider of local exchange and exchange access service --51.307(c), 51.309(a), and 51.309(b); * use of the ILEC's signaling and call-related data base systems in the same manner as the ILECs use such systems themselves -- 51.319(e)(1)(ii) and 51.319(c)(2)(iii); and * access to the entrant's operator services by dialing "0" or "0 plus" the desired telephone number,^[8]^(8) with a similar obligation for access to directory services using the 411 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 elements to be made available.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97298.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97298.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97298.wp
  • elements to pay access charges or restrict the ability of carriers to use network elements to provide originating and terminating access). The Commission's rules require incumbent LECs to provide unbundled network elements "in a manner 839 that allows the requesting telecommunications carrier to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element." 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(c). Moreover, the rules implementing section 251(c)(3) define unbundled network elements "as providing purchasers with the ability to provide originating and terminating interexchange access to themselves and to be the sole access provider to" themselves or unaffiliated providers. Id. §§ 51.307(c); 51.309(b)). See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15706. 840 See AT&T Comments at 12-13. 841 Local Competition Order, 11
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98188.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98188.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98188.wp
  • central office to the customer, provided a properly qualified, and sufficiently short, copper pair is available. Third, other competitive LECs, seeking to provide high-speed data access via xDSL technologies, may want to access the unbundled loop at the remote terminal. Access to the remote terminal implicates the sub-loop unbundling issues considered infra at ¶¶ 173-176. 326 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.307, 51.311, 51.313. 76 regarded as the means by which DLC-delivered loops can be made xDSL-compatible,323 may not always provide an xDSL-compatible loop, because customers served by digital loop carrier may be located far from the central office, and xDSL-based services are distance sensitive. Other methods, such as allowing the competitive LEC to collocate at the remote terminal may pose problems
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • ``features, functions, and capabilities, that are provided by means of such facility or equipment.'' As discussed in detail below, the frequencies above those used for analog voice services on any loop are a capability of that loop. Therefore, those otherwise unused frequencies that can be used for xDSL or other applications meet the definition of a ``network element.'' Specifically, sections 51.307(d) and 51.309(c) of our rules address the requesting carrier's right to loop access. These rules provide, respectively, that an incumbent LEC must provide competitors with ``access to the facility or functionality of a requested network element separate from access to the facility or functionality of other network elements.'' The rules also state that a requesting carrier is ``entitled to exclusive
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00238.txt
  • Reply Comments at 8-9; IP Communications Texas II Comments at 14; AT&T Texas II Pfau/Chambers Decl. at paras. 40-42; IP Communications Texas I Comments at 5. AT&T Texas II Pfau/Chambers Decl. at paras. 29-42. Department of Justice Texas II Evaluation at 7 n.17. Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20941, para. 13; 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(h)(3). 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(c). We note, however, that nothing in our rules prohibits an incumbent LEC from voluntarily providing the splitter in this line splitting situation. SWBT June 6 Ex Parte Letter at 2. SWBT June 6 Ex Parte Letter at 2. For instance, when the UNE platform is part of a DLC or exceeds distance limitations for xDSL service, such loops would not
• 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
  • and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long Distance Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Texas, CC Docket No. 00-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18354, 18515, para. 324 (2000) (Texas 271 Order). Texas 271 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515, para. 324. 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(c); Texas 271 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-16, para. 325. 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(a). 47 U.S.C. § 153(29). See Texas 271 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-16, para. 325; see also Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20948, n.163 (contemplating arrangements with two competing carriers providing voice and data service on a single line). Texas 271 Order, 15 FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01204.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01204.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01204.txt
  • unbundled network element). See WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 246 F.3d 690, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (noting relationship between collocation obligations and obligations under sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3)); Corecomm Comments at 13; RCN Comments at 7. E.g., RCN Comments at 7; Joint Commenters Reply at 8-9; 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(C)-(D). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(c); see, e.g., UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3772-73, para. 167 (defining an unbundled local loop as including all the features, functions, and capabilities of the transmission facilities between an incumbent LEC's central office and the loop demarcation point at the customer premises); see also DSLnet Comments at 28-29 (arguing that a requesting carrier must be able to employ
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01269.txt
  • voice grade level. Id. See also Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9106, para. 210. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 275 and Attach. 68. The weighted average was based on missed installation appointments occurring between February and April 2001. Broadslate Joint Comments at 5-7; Capsule Joint Comments at 4-5. Broadslate Joint Comments at 7-11. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.307, 51.311, 51.319; UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3841-42, paras. 318-321. In the state proceeding, Cavalier noted that Verizon's current ordering system prevents CLECs from ordering dark fiber while collocation arrangements are being built or augmented. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 298. Sprint's comments also raise this issue with respect to transport facilities in general, noting that Verizon's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-8.pdf
  • 1996 1,143.637 1,495.924 2,639.561 18.955 53.689 72.645 1,162.592 1,549.613 2,712.206 FEB 1996 1,119.167 1,485.991 2,605.158 20.838 56.169 77.008 1,140.005 1,542.160 2,682.166 MAR 1996 1,126.406 1,490.796 2,617.203 21.103 56.664 77.768 1,147.509 1,547.460 2,694.971 APR 1996 1,147.546 1,536.997 2,684.543 19.402 54.390 73.793 1,166.948 1,591.387 2,758.336 MAY 1996 1,116.635 1,494.877 2,611.512 19.978 54.977 74.955 1,136.613 1,549.854 2,686.467 JUN 1996 1,145.537 1,527.166 2,672.704 18.867 51.307 70.174 1,164.404 1,578.473 2,742.878 JUL 1996 1,197.860 1,590.115 2,787.975 18.049 49.639 67.689 1,215.909 1,639.754 2,855.664 AUG 1996 1,231.810 1,650.708 2,882.519 16.871 46.007 62.878 1,248.681 1,696.715 2,945.397 SEP 1996 1,194.298 1,603.313 2,797.612 16.070 43.903 59.973 1,210.368 1,647.216 2,857.585 OCT 1996 1,199.059 1,617.430 2,816.489 14.997 41.184 56.181 1,214.056 1,658.614 2,872.670 NOV 1996 1,212.009 1,628.072 2,840.081 14.676 41.264 55.941 1,226.685 1,669.336 2,896.022 DEC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-8.pdf
  • TOTAL ORIGINATINGTERMINATING TOTAL ORIGINATINGTERMINATING TOTAL Jan-96 1,143.637 1,495.924 2,639.561 18.955 53.689 72.645 1,162.592 1,549.613 2,712.206 Feb-96 1,119.167 1,485.991 2,605.158 20.838 56.169 77.008 1,140.005 1,542.160 2,682.166 Mar-96 1,126.406 1,490.796 2,617.203 21.103 56.664 77.768 1,147.509 1,547.460 2,694.971 Apr-96 1,147.546 1,536.997 2,684.543 19.402 54.390 73.793 1,166.948 1,591.387 2,758.336 May-96 1,116.635 1,494.877 2,611.512 19.978 54.977 74.955 1,136.613 1,549.854 2,686.467 Jun-96 1,145.537 1,527.166 2,672.704 18.867 51.307 70.174 1,164.404 1,578.473 2,742.878 Jul-96 1,197.860 1,590.115 2,787.975 18.049 49.639 67.689 1,215.909 1,639.754 2,855.664 Aug-96 1,231.810 1,650.708 2,882.519 16.871 46.007 62.878 1,248.681 1,696.715 2,945.397 Sep-96 1,174.217 1,565.340 2,739.557 16.070 43.903 59.973 1,190.287 1,609.243 2,799.530 Oct-96 1,177.948 1,579.707 2,757.656 14.971 41.125 56.097 1,192.919 1,620.832 2,813.753 Nov-96 1,190.743 1,589.082 2,779.825 14.655 41.217 55.872 1,205.398 1,630.299 2,835.697 Dec-96 1,200.898 1,595.340 2,796.238 14.960 40.191
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/sbc/sbcbrief.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/sbc/sbcbrief.wp
  • or Commission rules or would impair a CLEC's ability to provide telecommunications service in the manner it intends. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(a); Deere Aff. ¶¶ 35-56; Kaeshoefer Aff. ¶¶ 28, 37. SWBT provides access to the facilities or functionality of an unbundled network element separately from access to other elements and for a separate charge as directed by section 51.307(d) of the Commission's rules. See Kaeshoefer Aff. ¶ 27; Deere Aff. ¶ 40. While allowing CLECs to obtain exclusive use of an unbundled network facility and to use the features, functions, or capabilities for a set period of time, Deere Aff. ¶ 43; Kaeshoefer Aff. ¶ 29, SWBT nevertheless retains the obligation to maintain, repair, or replace unbundled network elements.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-282A1.html
  • transmission facilities with their in-region, interexchange services affiliates). An incumbent LEC's long distance network must be independent from its local networks, and, therefore, as a practical matter, competitive LECs cannot use the shared transport UNE to transit traffic beyond the LATA boundary. 36 SBC Response at 10-16, 19-25. 37 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(3). This provision was codified almost verbatim at section 51.307(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 51.307(a). 38 See 47 U.S.C. 153(29) (a ``network element'' is ``a facility or equipment used in the provision of a telecommunications service . . . .''). 39 47 C.F.R. 51.319(d)(iii) (emphasis added). Rule 51.319 was promulgated in the UNE Remand Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3936-51. 40 47 C.F.R. 51.319(d) (emphasis added). 41 See