FCC Web Documents citing 51.309

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-52A1.txt
  • of the Surrogate Line Sharing Charge is set forth in the Merger Conditions. 6 Consistent with the Commission's rules, an incumbent LEC's pick-and-choose obligations do not apply when: (1) the cost of providing the target service or element is greater than the costs negotiated in the original interconnection agreement; and (2) technical infeasibility prevents such an arrangement. 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(b). The Commission recently found that certain operational and technical barriers temporarily prevent incumbent LECs from immediately providing line sharing to competing carriers. See Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98- 147, FCC 99-355, para. 161 (rel. Dec. 9, 1999) (establishing requirement to implement line sharing within six months after addressing
• 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
  • Order, WC Docket No. 02-384, 18 FCC Rcd 5212, 5286-87, paras. 123-26 (2003)). Verizon Reply Brief at 35-36. Verizon Brief at 33; Verizon Direct Testimony of Albert Panel at 24; Final Proposed Language at 15-16 (Verizon Proposed § 11.2.15.4). Verizon Brief at 37. 47 C.F.R. § 51.307(e). Cavalier Brief at 45-46. Tr. at 245-46. Id. at 255. 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.309(a)(8)(i), (e)(5)(i). Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17375, para. 638. 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.309(a)(8)(ii), (e)(5)(ii). In light of these newly-adopted rules, Cavalier's need for information thus differs from what it would have needed solely under the Virginia Arbitration Order, contrary to Verizon's claims. Verizon Reply Brief at 30. In that Order, we held that competitive LECs do not have
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2655A1.txt
  • Inc. (``CoreComm'') and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. (``Z-Tel'') (collectively, ``Complainants'') filed a formal complaint pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), against nine incumbent local exchange carriers and their parent corporation, SBC Communications Inc. (collectively, ``Defendants''). In their Complaint, Complainants allege that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 202(a), 251(c)(1), and 251(c)(3) of the Act, Commission rules 51.309(a), 51.309(b), and 51.313(b), and paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions. In the Liability Order, the Commission granted Complainants' claim that defendants Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. violated paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions and, in this regard, section 201(b) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2895A1.txt
  • not be ``impaired'' within the meaning of the Act in any market, and that requiring incumbent LECs to provide SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI with special access circuits at UNE pricing could curtail competition. Qwest further states that forbearance is consistent with the public interest and would not be unreasonably discriminatory. Qwest therefore petitions the Commission to forbear from enforcement of sections 51.309, 51.315, 51.316 and 51.318 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.309, 51.315, 51.316 and 51.318, to the extent those rules require Qwest and other incumbent LECs to convert the existing special access circuits of SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI to UNEs. This Public Notice establishes certain procedural requirements relating to consideration of Qwest's Petition. This matter shall be treated as a
• 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
  • 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 of obtaining interconnection and access to unbundled elements under section 251 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307423A1.pdf
  • Review Re- mand Order did not expressly distinguish between back- ------ 6 The Commission has long recognized that a single facility can be used for different functions and that its regulatory treatment can vary depending on its use. Unbundled network elements, for example, may not be used for the exclusive provision of mobile wireless or long- distance services. 47 CFR §51.309(b) (2010). Similarly, interconnection arrangements may be used for local telephone service but not for long- distance services. §51.305(b). 7 The parties and their amici dispute whether an incumbent LEC has any way of knowing how a competitive LEC is using an entrance facility. This technical factual dispute simply underscores the appro- priateness of deferring to the FCC. So long as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-183A1.txt
  • of section 251(d)(2) is an ongoing exercise in legislative rulemaking authority. The 46 See, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 9-12. 47 47 U.S.C. 251(d)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Along similar lines, Rule 309(a), which we promulgated in 1996, addresses limitations on the use of network elements "that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier" to offer particular services. 47 C.F.R. 51.309(a) (emphasis added). 48 Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3737-38, para. 81 (emphasis in original). 49 See id. at 3745-50, paras. 101-16. 50 AT&T alternatively argues that section 251(c)(3) overrides any suggestion in section 251(d)(2) that we may conduct a market-specific analysis in making our unbundling determinations. AT&T Reply Comments at 10-12. We disagree. Section 251(c)(3) does not
• 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
  • 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 Rcd at 18515-16, para. 325. Similarly, a competing carrier could use unbundled loop and
• 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
  • provide the services it seeks to offer'' would be impaired without access to shared transport); id. at 3842, ¶ 321 (same). (defining ``telecommunications service'' as ``the offering of telecommunications . . .''). See also 47 C.F.R. 51.307(a) (``An incumbent LEC shall provide [UNEs], to a requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service . . .''). 47 C.F.R. 51.309(a) (``[a]n incumbent LEC shall not impose limitations, restrictions, or requirements on requests for, or the use of, unbundled network elements that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier to offer a telecommunications service in the manner the requesting telecommunications carrier intends.'') Where we impose or permit use restrictions on UNEs, we do so explicitly, as we did with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-7A1.txt
  • the routing being requested there by CLECs does in fact meet this definition. See Texas Arbitration Award at 7-9 and Appendix A, which contains diagrams showing explaining that intraLATA calls would be routed using ``option 2'' as set forth at those pages, which consists of routing between end offices and tandems. October 10 Letter at 5-9. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(a), which provides that ``[a]n incumbent LEC shall not impose limitations, restrictions, or requirements on requests for, or the use of, unbundled network elements that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier to offer a telecommunications service in the manner the requesting telecommunications carrier intends.'' July 23 Response at 7-12. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • requires an incumbent LEC to design interconnection facilities to meet the same technical criteria and service standards that are used within the incumbent LEC's network. This obligation is not limited to a consideration of service quality as perceived by end users, and includes, but is not limited to, service quality as perceived by the requesting telecommunications carrier; and ***** Section 51.309 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), and by adding paragraphs (d) through (g) to read as follows: § 51.309 Use of unbundled network elements. (a) Except as provided in § 51.318, an incumbent LEC shall not impose limitations, restrictions, or requirements on requests for, or the use of, unbundled network elements for the service a requesting telecommunications carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1.txt
  • (``SBC'') (collectively, ``Defendants''). Core and Z-Tel state in their complaint that they purchased access to the shared transport unbundled network element (``UNE'') from Defendants, but that Defendants have refused to allow them to use that UNE to transport intraLATA toll traffic. Core and Z-Tel allege that Defendants' refusal violates sections 201(b), 202(a), 251(c)(1), and 251(c)(3) of the Act, Commission rules 51.309(a), 51.309(b), and 51.313(b), and paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions. As discussed below, we grant Core and Z-Tel's claim that Defendants Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, ``Ameritech'') violated paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions, and, in this regard, section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1_Erratum.doc
  • (``SBC'') (collectively, ``Defendants''). Core and Z-Tel state in their complaint that they purchased access to the shared transport unbundled network element (``UNE'') from Defendants, but that Defendants have refused to allow them to use that UNE to transport intraLATA toll traffic. Core and Z-Tel allege that Defendants' refusal violates sections 201(b), 202(a), 251(c)(1), and 251(c)(3) of the Act, Commission rules 51.309(a), 51.309(b), and 51.313(b), and paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions. As discussed below, we grant Core and Z-Tel's claim that Defendants Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, ``Ameritech'') violated paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions, and, in this regard, section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-106A1.txt
  • Reconsideration filed by Z-Tel Communications, Inc. (``Z-Tel'') pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). Z-Tel seeks reconsideration of the Commission's Liability Order insofar as it denies Z-Tel's claim, made in a section 208 formal complaint, that defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``Pacific'') violated sections 201(b), 251(c)(1) and (c)(3) of the Act, and Commission rules 51.309 and 51.313. For the following reasons, we conclude that Z-Tel's Petition lacks merit. II. BACKGROUND Z-Tel is a competitive local exchange carrier (``CLEC''), and Pacific is an incumbent local exchange carrier (``ILEC''). Pursuant to section 252(i) of the Act, Z-Tel opted into an existing section 252 interconnection agreement between Pacific and another CLEC (the ``Pacific Agreement''). The Pacific Agreement granted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.txt
  • the Communications Act for Preemption of the Jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission regarding Interconnection Disputes with Verizon Virginia Inc. and for Expedited Arbitration, CC Docket No. 00-251, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 27039, 27141-42, para. 208 (2002), recon. denied, 18 FCC Rcd 8467 (WCB, 2004)). NECA Direct Case at 25; NECA Rebuttal at 14-15 (noting section 51.309(e)-(g), 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(e)-(g)). NECA Direct Case at 25 (citing Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Service of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket Nos. 00-256, 96-45, 19 FCC Rcd 4122, 4137, para. 31 (2004) (Second MAG
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-290A1.txt
  • * * * Wire center. A wire center is the location of an incumbent LEC local switching facility containing one or more central offices, as defined in the Appendix to part 36 of this chapter. The wire center boundaries define the area in which all customers served by a given wire center are located. * * * * * Section 51.309 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (g)(2) to read as follows: § 51.309 Use of unbundled network elements. * * * * * (b) A requesting telecommunications carrier may not access an unbundled network element for the exclusive provision of mobile wireless services or interexchange services. * * * * * (d) A requesting telecommunications carrier that accesses
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.txt
  • February 8, 1996 and is still providing `exchange access' or `telephone exchange service.''') (emphasis omitted). An incumbent LEC's obligations under section 251(c) will remain until the incumbent LEC is either determined not to be an incumbent LEC under section 251(h), or the Commission forbears from section 251 obligations; we have not done either to date. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(b), (d) (allowing a requesting carrier to provide any telecommunications services over a UNE, provided that the UNE is not used exclusively for the provision of mobile wireless services or interexchange services); USTA II, 359 F.3d at 592 (affirming the need to analyze the services that a competing carrier seeks to provide using UNEs); Triennial Review Remand Order, 20 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.txt
  • Communications Inc. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467 (2002); Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996), Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 12460 (1997). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15631, 15635, paras. 258, 268 (emphasis added); 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(c). See generally Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 3696, 3767, para. 154 (1999) (UNE Remand Order), reversed and remanded in part sub nom United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 290 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (USTA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.txt
  • not depend either directly or indirectly on ACS's wholesale special access offerings. See, e.g., ACS June 29, 2007 Ex Parte Letter at Exh. D (stating that ACS provides [REDACTED] DS1 special access circuits in the Anchorage study area to CMRS carriers). Relevant to our analysis is that UNEs are not available solely to provide CMRS service. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(b). See ACS June 29, 2007 Ex Parte Letter at Exh. D. GCI Brown Decl. at 3. We also note that GCI responds that there are only [REDACTED] buildings in Anchorage for which GCI provides all of the facilities. GCI Brown Decl. at 8. GCI Comments at 9-10. GCI goes on to claim that, where its hybrid fiber coaxial plant passes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.txt
  • 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No. 01-338, Order on Remand, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2588 -97, 2625-29, paras. 93-106, 167-73 (2004) (Triennial Review Remand Order), aff'd, Covad Communications Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Triennial Review Remand Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 2553-55, para. 36; 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(b) (``A requesting telecommunications carrier may not access an unbundled network element for the exclusive provision of mobile wireless services or interexchange services.''). Triennial Review Remand Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 2556-57, paras. 38-39; see also id. at 2556, para. 39 n.116. See, e.g., Letter from John T. Nakahata and Stephanie Weiner, Counsel for EarthLink, Inc. & New Edge Networks, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.txt
  • Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No. 01-338, Order on Remand, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2588-96, 2625-29, paras. 93-106, 167-73 (2004) (Triennial Review Remand Order), aff'd, Covad Commc'ns Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Triennial Review Remand Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 2553-55, para. 36; 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(b) (``A requesting telecommunications carrier may not access an unbundled network element for the exclusive provision of mobile wireless services or interexchange services.''). Triennial Review Remand Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 2556-57, paras. 38-39; see also id. at 2556, para. 39 n.116. Some parties suggest that the Commission should analyze ``impairment'' in determining whether to grant forbearance from UNE obligations. See,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • capacity and deliver business-grade Ethernet solutions while avoiding the millions of dollars in up-front capital costs that new fiber deployments may require.'' Id. Cavalier Wainwright Decl. at paras. 10, 12; Cavalier May 7, 2010 Ex Parte Letter at 1; supra note 297. See 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(3). 47 U.S.C. § 160(b). 47 U.S.C. § 160(b). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.100(b), 51.309(b); see also Triennial Review Remand Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2550, para. 29 n.83 (``Although we discard our qualifying services approach, this does not call into question our existing rule that a carrier obtaining access to a UNE for the provision of a telecommunications service for which UNEs are available may use that UNE to provide other services as well.'').
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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. 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. 51.321 Methods of obtaining interconnection and access to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.txt
  • 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 use" of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.wp
  • switching can provide exchange access service to interexchange carriers through the use of the unbundled local switch as contemplated by our Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-271 735 Our rules implementing section 251(c)(3) define unbundled network elements as providing purchasers with the ability "to provide exchange access services to [themselves] in order to provide interexchange services to subscribers." 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(b). The Commission clarified, in the Local Competition First Reconsideration Order, that "a carrier that purchases the unbundled local switching element to serve an end user effectively obtains the exclusive right to provide all features, functions, and capabilities of the switch, including switching for exchange access and local exchange service, for that end user." Local Competition First Reconsideration Order, 11 FCC
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.pdf
  • because exchange access and interexchange services are "telecommunications services."979 Moreover, in the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission found that "the language of section 251(c)(3), which provides that telecommunications carriers may purchase unbundled elements in order to provide a telecommunications service, is not ambiguous."980 This conclusion that the Act does not permit usage restrictions was codified in Rule 51.309(a), which provides that "[a]n incumbent LEC shall not impose limitations, restrictions, or requirements on request for, or the use of, unbundled network elements that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier to offer a telecommunications service in the manner the requesting telecommunications carrier intends." 981 That rule was not challenged in court by any party. 485. Parties have
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • 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 use'' of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • for or use of a UNE that would impair a CLEC's ability to provide a telecommunications service in the manner it intends. See Statement § II.G ("Network elements may be combined in any manner."). CLECs obtain exclusive use of an unbundled network facility and may use features, functions, or capabilities, for a set period of time as required by section 51.309(c) of the Commission's rules. Varner Aff. ¶ 70. BellSouth retains the obligation to maintain, repair, or replace UNEs, also in compliance with section 51.309(c). Id.; see Statement Attach. C. BellSouth, September 30, 1997, South Carolina -39- BellSouth permits CLECs to recombine UNEs on an end-to-end (or any other) basis, thereby creating the equivalent of one of BellSouth's retail services or
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-282A1.html
  • . . .''); 47 U.S.C. 153(44) (defining ``telecommunications carrier'' as ``any provider of telecommunications services''); and 47 U.S.C. 153(46) (defining ``telecommunications service'' as ``the offering of telecommunications . . .''). 43 See also 47 C.F.R. 51.307(a) (``An incumbent LEC shall provide [UNEs], to a requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service . . .''). 44 47 C.F.R. 51.309(a) (``[a]n incumbent LEC shall not impose limitations, restrictions, or requirements on requests for, or the use of, unbundled network elements that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier to offer a telecommunications service in the manner the requesting telecommunications carrier intends.'') Where we impose or permit use restrictions on UNEs, we do so explicitly, as we did with
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-7A1.html
  • routing being requested there by CLECs does in fact meet this definition. See Texas Arbitration Award at 7-9 and Appendix A, which contains diagrams showing explaining that intraLATA calls would be routed using ``option 2'' as set forth at those pages, which consists of routing between end offices and tandems. 35 October 10 Letter at 5-9. 36 See 47 C.F.R. 51.309(a), which provides that ``[a]n incumbent LEC shall not impose limitations, restrictions, or requirements on requests for, or the use of, unbundled network elements that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier to offer a telecommunications service in the manner the requesting telecommunications carrier intends.'' 37 July 23 Response at 7-12. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • ``Defendants'').2 2. Core and Z-Tel state in their complaint that they purchased access to the shared transport unbundled network element (``UNE'') from Defendants, but that Defendants have refused to allow them to use that UNE to transport intraLATA toll traffic. Core and Z-Tel allege that Defendants' refusal violates sections 201(b), 202(a), 251(c)(1), and 251(c)(3) of the Act, 3 Commission rules 51.309(a), 51.309(b), and 51.313(b), 4 and paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions.5 3. As discussed below, we grant Core and Z-Tel's claim that Defendants Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, ``Ameritech'') violated paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions, and, in this
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-106A1.html
  • Reconsideration1 filed by Z-Tel Communications, Inc. (``Z-Tel'') pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 Z-Tel seeks reconsideration of the Commission's Liability Order3 insofar as it denies Z-Tel's claim, made in a section 208 formal complaint, that defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``Pacific'') violated sections 201(b), 251(c)(1) and (c)(3) of the Act, and Commission rules 51.309 and 51.313.4 For the following reasons, we conclude that Z-Tel's Petition lacks merit. II. BACKGROUND 2. Z-Tel is a competitive local exchange carrier (``CLEC''), and Pacific is an incumbent local exchange carrier (``ILEC'').5 Pursuant to section 252(i) of the Act,6 Z-Tel opted into an existing section 252 interconnection agreement between Pacific and another CLEC (the ``Pacific Agreement''). The Pacific Agreement
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2655A1.html
  • Inc. (``CoreComm'') and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. (``Z-Tel'') (collectively, ``Complainants'') filed a formal complaint pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),1 against nine incumbent local exchange carriers and their parent corporation, SBC Communications Inc. (collectively, ``Defendants'').2 In their Complaint, Complainants allege that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 202(a), 251(c)(1), and 251(c)(3) of the Act,3 Commission rules 51.309(a), 51.309(b), and 51.313(b),4 and paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions.5 In the Liability Order,6 the Commission granted Complainants' claim that defendants Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. violated paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions and, in this regard, section 201(b) of
• 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 555-1212
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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. 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. 51.321 Methods of obtaining interconnection and access to
• 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
  • of that facility for a period of time." As we stated in the 216 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-298 Reconsideration Order), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996) (Local Competition Second Reconsideration Order), Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97-295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997) (Local Competition Third Reconsideration Order), further recon. pending; 47 C.F.R. § 51.309. Universal Service Order at para. 158 (citing Black's Law Dictionary 1105 (6th Ed. 1990), and 73 C.J.S. 217 Property § 24 (1972)). Universal Service Order at para. 159. 218 Id. at para. 157; see also Iowa Utils. Bd, 1997 WL 403401, at *19-20 (upholding the Commission's 219 determination that "the term 'network element' includes all of the facilities and equipment
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.wp
  • switching can provide exchange access service to interexchange carriers through the use of the unbundled local switch as contemplated by our Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-271 735 Our rules implementing section 251(c)(3) define unbundled network elements as providing purchasers with the ability "to provide exchange access services to [themselves] in order to provide interexchange services to subscribers." 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(b). The Commission clarified, in the Local Competition First Reconsideration Order, that "a carrier that purchases the unbundled local switching element to serve an end user effectively obtains the exclusive right to provide all features, functions, and capabilities of the switch, including switching for exchange access and local exchange service, for that end user." Local Competition First Reconsideration Order, 11 FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.txt
  • because exchange access and interexchange services are ``telecommunications services.'' Moreover, in the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission found that ``the language of section 251(c)(3), which provides that telecommunications carriers may purchase unbundled elements in order to provide a telecommunications service, is not ambiguous.'' This conclusion that the Act does not permit usage restrictions was codified in Rule 51.309(a), which provides that ``[a]n incumbent LEC shall not impose limitations, restrictions, or requirements on request for, or the use of, unbundled network elements that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier to offer a telecommunications service in the manner the requesting telecommunications carrier intends.'' That rule was not challenged in court by any party. Parties have raised again
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • 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 use'' of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000052.doc
  • Calculation of the Surrogate Line Sharing Charge is set forth in the Merger Conditions. Consistent with the Commission's rules, an incumbent LEC's pick-and-choose obligations do not apply when: (1) the cost of providing the target service or element is greater than the costs negotiated in the original interconnection agreement; and (2) technical infeasibility prevents such an arrangement. 47 C.F.R. § 51.309(b). The Commission recently found that certain operational and technical barriers temporarily prevent incumbent LECs from immediately providing line sharing to competing carriers. See Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147, FCC 99-355, para. 161 (rel. Dec. 9, 1999) (establishing requirement to implement line sharing within six months after addressing technical
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00183.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00183.txt
  • 6. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 153(16) (defining ``exchange access''); 153(47) (defining ``telephone exchange service''). See, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 9-12. 47 U.S.C. 251(d)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Along similar lines, Rule 309(a), which we promulgated in 1996, addresses limitations on the use of network elements ``that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier'' to offer particular services. 47 C.F.R. 51.309(a) (emphasis added). Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3737-38, para. 81 (emphasis in original). See id. at 3745-50, paras. 101-16. AT&T alternatively argues that section 251(c)(3) overrides any suggestion in section 251(d)(2) that we may conduct a market-specific analysis in making our unbundling determinations. AT&T Reply Comments at 10-12. We disagree. Section 251(c)(3) does not speak directly to
• 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
  • 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 Rcd at 18515-16, para. 325. Similarly, a competing carrier could use unbundled loop and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • for or use of a UNE that would impair a CLEC's ability to provide a telecommunications service in the manner it intends. See Statement § II.G ("Network elements may be combined in any manner."). CLECs obtain exclusive use of an unbundled network facility and may use features, functions, or capabilities, for a set period of time as required by section 51.309(c) of the Commission's rules. Varner Aff. ¶ 70. BellSouth retains the obligation to maintain, repair, or replace UNEs, also in compliance with section 51.309(c). Id.; see Statement Attach. C. BellSouth, September 30, 1997, South Carolina -39- BellSouth permits CLECs to recombine UNEs on an end-to-end (or any other) basis, thereby creating the equivalent of one of BellSouth's retail services or
• 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
  • incurred up to cancellation Id. § 2.16.3. As set out in Appendix UNE, SWBT does not impose any limitations, restrictions, or requirements on requests for or use of an unbundled network element that are inconsistent with the Act 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-282A1.html
  • . . .''); 47 U.S.C. 153(44) (defining ``telecommunications carrier'' as ``any provider of telecommunications services''); and 47 U.S.C. 153(46) (defining ``telecommunications service'' as ``the offering of telecommunications . . .''). 43 See also 47 C.F.R. 51.307(a) (``An incumbent LEC shall provide [UNEs], to a requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service . . .''). 44 47 C.F.R. 51.309(a) (``[a]n incumbent LEC shall not impose limitations, restrictions, or requirements on requests for, or the use of, unbundled network elements that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier to offer a telecommunications service in the manner the requesting telecommunications carrier intends.'') Where we impose or permit use restrictions on UNEs, we do so explicitly, as we did with
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-7A1.html
  • routing being requested there by CLECs does in fact meet this definition. See Texas Arbitration Award at 7-9 and Appendix A, which contains diagrams showing explaining that intraLATA calls would be routed using ``option 2'' as set forth at those pages, which consists of routing between end offices and tandems. 35 October 10 Letter at 5-9. 36 See 47 C.F.R. 51.309(a), which provides that ``[a]n incumbent LEC shall not impose limitations, restrictions, or requirements on requests for, or the use of, unbundled network elements that would impair the ability of a requesting telecommunications carrier to offer a telecommunications service in the manner the requesting telecommunications carrier intends.'' 37 July 23 Response at 7-12. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • ``Defendants'').2 2. Core and Z-Tel state in their complaint that they purchased access to the shared transport unbundled network element (``UNE'') from Defendants, but that Defendants have refused to allow them to use that UNE to transport intraLATA toll traffic. Core and Z-Tel allege that Defendants' refusal violates sections 201(b), 202(a), 251(c)(1), and 251(c)(3) of the Act, 3 Commission rules 51.309(a), 51.309(b), and 51.313(b), 4 and paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions.5 3. As discussed below, we grant Core and Z-Tel's claim that Defendants Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, ``Ameritech'') violated paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions, and, in this
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-106A1.html
  • Reconsideration1 filed by Z-Tel Communications, Inc. (``Z-Tel'') pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2 Z-Tel seeks reconsideration of the Commission's Liability Order3 insofar as it denies Z-Tel's claim, made in a section 208 formal complaint, that defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``Pacific'') violated sections 201(b), 251(c)(1) and (c)(3) of the Act, and Commission rules 51.309 and 51.313.4 For the following reasons, we conclude that Z-Tel's Petition lacks merit. II. BACKGROUND 2. Z-Tel is a competitive local exchange carrier (``CLEC''), and Pacific is an incumbent local exchange carrier (``ILEC'').5 Pursuant to section 252(i) of the Act,6 Z-Tel opted into an existing section 252 interconnection agreement between Pacific and another CLEC (the ``Pacific Agreement''). The Pacific Agreement
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2655A1.html
  • Inc. (``CoreComm'') and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. (``Z-Tel'') (collectively, ``Complainants'') filed a formal complaint pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),1 against nine incumbent local exchange carriers and their parent corporation, SBC Communications Inc. (collectively, ``Defendants'').2 In their Complaint, Complainants allege that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 202(a), 251(c)(1), and 251(c)(3) of the Act,3 Commission rules 51.309(a), 51.309(b), and 51.313(b),4 and paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions.5 In the Liability Order,6 the Commission granted Complainants' claim that defendants Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. violated paragraph 56 of the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Conditions and, in this regard, section 201(b) of
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • Several petitioners claim that the FCC's unbundling rules as a whole infringe on the intellectual property rights of third parties[36]^(36) who license their technology to incumbent LECs for use in the LECs' networks. In particular, the petitioners claim that by allowing requesting carriers "exclusive use" of an incumbent LEC's unbundled network element for a limited period of time, see id., 51.309, the FCC's rules could potentially result in violations of license agreements between incumbent LECs and third party manufacturers of software and other telecommunications technology. Additionally, the petitioners argue that such a result would constitute a taking of the third party's intellectual property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. While we are skeptical of the merits of such
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • Several petitioners claim that the FCC's unbundling rules as a whole infringe on the intellectual property rights of third parties[36]^(36) who license their technology to incumbent LECs for use in the LECs' networks. In particular, the petitioners claim that by allowing requesting carriers "exclusive use" of an incumbent LEC's unbundled network element for a limited period of time, see id., 51.309, the FCC's rules could potentially result in violations of license agreements between incumbent LECs and third party manufacturers of software and other telecommunications technology. Additionally, the petitioners argue that such a result would constitute a taking of the third party's intellectual property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. While we are skeptical of the merits of such