FCC Web Documents citing 51.311

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
  • 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 the Act. 51.323 Standards for physical
• 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
  • 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 transport
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-361A1.txt
  • the method and degree of regulation, and how sections 201 and 202 of the Act or other statutory provisions provide authority for such regulation. We seek comment on whether any specific quality or variation of a ``network element'' provided by an incumbent LEC to itself, to its customers or other carriers should be considered ``superior'' under the now invalidated Rule 51.311(c). There is very little evidence in CC Docket No. 96-98 concerning specific examples of ``superior'' network elements or ``superior'' access to network elements, and the Eighth Circuit opinion invalidating the rule also does not refer to specific examples. We seek comment on whether the quality of a network element could be found to be something other than ``superior'' if it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • to an unbundled network element or a combination of unbundled network elements on the grounds that one or more of the elements: (1) Is connected to, attached to, linked to, or combined with, a facility or service obtained from an incumbent LEC; or (2) Shares part of the incumbent LEC's network with access services or inputs for non-qualifying services. Section 51.311 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), removing paragraph (c), redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: § 51.311 Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. (a) The quality of an unbundled network element, as well as the quality of the access to the unbundled network element, that an incumbent LEC provides to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 unbundled elements under section 251 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.txt
  • requirements. * * * * * (h) High Frequency Portion of the Loop. (1) The high frequency portion of the loop network element is defined as the frequency range above the voiceband on a copper loop facility that is being used to carry analog circuit- switched voiceband transmissions. (2) An incumbent LEC shall provide nondiscriminatory access in accordance with section 51.311 of these rules and section 251(c)(3) of the Act to the high frequency portion of a loop to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service conforming with section 51.230 of these rules. Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-355 B-2 (3) An incumbent LEC shall only provide a requesting carrier with access to the high frequency portion 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
  • does not currently bill terminating intrastate access associated with the toll calls it carriers," BellSouth does not argue that it is not required to provide such data to competitors. Id. at 40. 536 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). 537 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). 538 Id. 539 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15658; see 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.311(b), 51.313(b). 540 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779; 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b)(1). 100 BellSouth does not currently provide competitors with billing data for intrastate access services. Although BellSouth commits to provide such records by October 31, 1998, and to "work with [competitive] LECs to develop an alternative compensation process" in the meantime, BellSouth has not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.pdf
  • Eighth Circuit's decision to invalidate rules 51.315(b) ­ (f) was its understanding that incumbents "would rather grant their competitors access to their facilities" than combine elements on behalf 965 See 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). 966 Iowa Utils. Bd., 119 S.Ct at 737. See also Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. at 15658, para. 312; 47 C.F.R. § 51.311(b). 967 ALTS Reply Comments at 53; GTE Comments at 85. 968 See, e.g., GTE Comments at 85; ALTS Reply Comments at 53. 969 Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 813. 970 Iowa Utils. Bd., 119 S. Ct. at 737. 971 Id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-238 218 of requesting carriers.972 Experience over the last year demonstrates that incumbent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • § 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. * * * * * High Frequency Portion of the Loop. The high frequency portion of the loop network element is defined as the frequency range above the voiceband on a copper loop facility that is being used to carry analog circuit-switched voiceband transmissions. An incumbent LEC shall provide nondiscriminatory access in accordance with section 51.311 of these rules and section 251(c)(3) of the Act to the high frequency portion of a loop to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service conforming with section 51.230 of these rules. (3) An incumbent LEC shall only provide a requesting carrier with access to the high frequency portion of the loop if the incumbent LEC
• 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 Decl. at para. 9; Department of Justice Texas I Evaluation at 33. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4104, para. 291. AT&T Texas II Comments at 28 n.34. Indeed, AT&T appears to overlook the significance of the lack of a retail analogue in this context. It appears to rely, for example, on the language of section 51.311(b) of the Commission's rules, which requires an incumbent LEC, ``to the extent technically feasible,'' to afford new entrants with a ``quality of access'' to network elements that is ``at least equal in quality to that which the incumbent LEC provides to itself.'' 47 C.F.R. § 51.311(b). But the ``equality'' standard of this rule, which varies in application from incumbent to
• 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
  • 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 transport
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • are nondiscriminatory and may include a reasonable profit. 68. Section 251(c)(2)(C) requires incumbent LECs to provide interconnection "that is at least equal in quality to that provided by the local exchange carrier to itself....". 69. Requirements of the FCC's First Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98, Taking Into Consideration the Eighth Circuit Court's July 18, 1997 Decision Rule 51.311 in the FCC's First Order states that the quality of an unbundled access element, as well as the quality of access to the unbundled element, must be the same for all telecommunications carriers and at least equal, and to the extent that it is technically feasible, superior to the quality an ILEC provides itself. In its July 18, 1997 decision,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 unbundled elements under section 251 of
• 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
  • 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 due
• 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
  • does not currently bill terminating intrastate access associated with the toll calls it carriers," BellSouth does not argue that it is not required to provide such data to competitors. Id. at 40. 536 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). 537 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). 538 Id. 539 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15658; see 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.311(b), 51.313(b). 540 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779; 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b)(1). 100 BellSouth does not currently provide competitors with billing data for intrastate access services. Although BellSouth commits to provide such records by October 31, 1998, and to "work with [competitive] LECs to develop an alternative compensation process" in the meantime, BellSouth has not
• 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
  • Rcd at 15648, para. 296. GTE Reply Comments at 84-85; SBC Reply Comments at 28. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15689-93, 15718, paras. 377-85, 440. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). Iowa Utils. Bd., 119 S.Ct at 737. See also Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. at 15658, para. 312; 47 C.F.R. § 51.311(b). ALTS Reply Comments at 53; GTE Comments at 85. See, e.g., GTE Comments at 85; ALTS Reply Comments at 53. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 813. Iowa Utils. Bd., 119 S. Ct. at 737. Id. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 813. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 141-42. We note that we held previously in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • § 51.319 Specific unbundling requirements. * * * * * High Frequency Portion of the Loop. The high frequency portion of the loop network element is defined as the frequency range above the voiceband on a copper loop facility that is being used to carry analog circuit-switched voiceband transmissions. An incumbent LEC shall provide nondiscriminatory access in accordance with section 51.311 of these rules and section 251(c)(3) of the Act to the high frequency portion of a loop to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service conforming with section 51.230 of these rules. (3) An incumbent LEC shall only provide a requesting carrier with access to the high frequency portion of the loop if the incumbent LEC
• 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 Decl. at para. 9; Department of Justice Texas I Evaluation at 33. See Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4104, para. 291. AT&T Texas II Comments at 28 n.34. Indeed, AT&T appears to overlook the significance of the lack of a retail analogue in this context. It appears to rely, for example, on the language of section 51.311(b) of the Commission's rules, which requires an incumbent LEC, ``to the extent technically feasible,'' to afford new entrants with a ``quality of access'' to network elements that is ``at least equal in quality to that which the incumbent LEC provides to itself.'' 47 C.F.R. § 51.311(b). But the ``equality'' standard of this rule, which varies in application from incumbent to
• 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
  • 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 transport
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • are nondiscriminatory and may include a reasonable profit. 68. Section 251(c)(2)(C) requires incumbent LECs to provide interconnection "that is at least equal in quality to that provided by the local exchange carrier to itself....". 69. Requirements of the FCC's First Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98, Taking Into Consideration the Eighth Circuit Court's July 18, 1997 Decision Rule 51.311 in the FCC's First Order states that the quality of an unbundled access element, as well as the quality of access to the unbundled element, must be the same for all telecommunications carriers and at least equal, and to the extent that it is technically feasible, superior to the quality an ILEC provides itself. In its July 18, 1997 decision,
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • or the cost of providing the service rises as a result of a requesting carrier's inability to gain access to a network element, then the requesting carrier's ability to provide the service has been made worse. The FCC's interpretation of the "impairment" standard is reasonable, and we give it deference. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. e. Superior Quality-Rules 51.305(a)(4), 51.311(c) Another source of disagreement between the petitioners and the FCC arises over the Agency's decision to require incumbent LECs to provide interconnection, unbundled network elements, and access to such elements at levels of quality that are superior to those levels at which the incumbent LECs provide these services to themselves, if requested to do so by competing carriers. See 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • or the cost of providing the service rises as a result of a requesting carrier's inability to gain access to a network element, then the requesting carrier's ability to provide the service has been made worse. The FCC's interpretation of the "impairment" standard is reasonable, and we give it deference. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. e. Superior Quality-Rules 51.305(a)(4), 51.311(c) Another source of disagreement between the petitioners and the FCC arises over the Agency's decision to require incumbent LECs to provide interconnection, unbundled network elements, and access to such elements at levels of quality that are superior to those levels at which the incumbent LECs provide these services to themselves, if requested to do so by competing carriers. See 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.html
  • that the FCC had jurisdiction to (1) design a pricing methodology; (2) promulgate rules pertaining to rural exemptions; and (3) promulgate rules regarding preexisting agreements. The Supreme Court also reversed our decision to vacate 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(b). The Supreme Court did not address the part of our opinion vacating the superior quality rules, 47 C.F.R. § § 51.305(a)(4) and 51.311(c), and the additional combination of network elements rule, 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(c)-(f). On remand we must now review on the merits the FCC's forward-looking pricing methodology, proxy prices, and wholesale pricing provisions. The petitioners also request that the court vacate 47 C.F.R. § 51.317, regarding the identification of additional unbundled network elements, and that the court reaffirm its previous decision
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-1538.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-1538.html
  • that is technically and commercially feasible." Appellants' Br. at 45. Appellants derive this standard in the following way. They begin with Rule 311(b), which governs functions having retail analogues: "to the extent technically feasible," the rule says, BOCs must provide access to network elements at the same level of quality as they provide to their own customers. 47 C.F.R. § 51.311(b). Appellants argue that Rule 311(b) applies to hot cuts because the FCC said in the order approving Bell Atlantic's application that the standard for compliance absent retail analogues (as in the case of hot cuts) is no weaker than the standard where there are retail analogues. Accordingly, they argue, the meaningful opportunity to compete standard employed in the former scenario