FCC Web Documents citing 51.313

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

• 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
  • 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 the Act, but
• 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
  • 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 collocation and virtual collocation. 51.325 Notice of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.txt
  • with respect to negotiated agreements.727 We note, however, that as AT&T points out, pursuant to section 252(e)(2)(A)(i), a state commission may reject a negotiated agreement if it finds that the agreement "discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement."728 Thus, the commission in each state 723 See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), (4)(B) (nondiscrimination requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale); 47 C.F.R. § 51.503(c) (providing that an incumbent's rates shall not vary on the "basis of the class of customers served by the requesting carrier, or the type of services that the requesting carrier purchasing such elements uses them to provide"). See also SBC/Ameritech Order, 14 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-147A1.txt
  • AT&T GALA I Bradbury Decl. at paras. 238-41. Covad GALA II Comments at 10-12. BellSouth GALA II Stacy/Varner/Ainsworth Aff. at paras. 170-79; BellSouth GALA II Ainsworth Reply Aff. at para. 57 (stating that meetings with Covad have been productive and that BellSouth has undertaken several service improvements as a result of the meetings). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(b). BellSouth GALA I Ainsworth Aff. at paras. 127-28. Georgia Commission GALA I Comments at 134-36; Louisiana Commission GALA I Comments at 51-54. BellSouth GALA I Stacy Aff. at paras. 261-66. BellSouth GALA I Ainsworth Aff. at para. 128. BellSouth explains that electronic ordering of EELs has been targeted through the Change Control Process for implementation in May. BellSouth GALA II
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • them.373 366 Pacific Bell Huston/Lawson Reply Aff. at para. 11. See AT&T Comments at 42. 367 AT&T November 27 Young Ex Parte Letter, Willard Supplemental Decl. at para. 39. 368 AT&T November 27 Young Ex Parte Letter, Willard Supplemental Decl. at para. 41. See Pacific Bell Huston/Lawson Reply Aff. at para. 10. 369 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(b). 370 California Commission Order at 34. 371 Pacific Bell Application App. A, Vol. 5, Affidavit of Colleen L. Shannon (Pacific Bell Shannon Affidavit) at para. 84. 372 Pacific Bell Shannon Affidavit at para. 85. 373 Pacific Bell Shannon Affidavit at paras. 86-87. Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-330 60 103. We reject AT&T's claims that Pacific Bell does not comply with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A3.txt
  • 271 application, the Verizon Massachusetts billing systems was applauded. See Z-Tel Comments on the Application by Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks, Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc., for Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania, CC Docket No. 01-138, at 6 (filed Aug. 6, 2001). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(b). Rhode Island Commission Comments at 43. See Appendix D at para. 17. Rhode Island Commission Comments at 33. See, e.g., Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9092-95, 9098, paras. 183-87, 195. See Appendix B. Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, Fourth Report and Order, CC Docket No. 98-147, 16 FCC Rcd 15435 (rel. Aug. 8, 2001) (Collocation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-228A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-228A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-228A4.txt
  • Supplemental Comments at 9; TDS Metrocom Cox Aff. at para. 23. Michigan Bell Alexander Supplemental Reply Aff. at para. 3. Michigan Bell Reply at 50; Michigan Bell Alexander Reply Aff. at para. 13. Verizon Massachusetts Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9102-03, para. 203; Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17478, para. 108. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(b). Michigan Commission Comments at 47. Michigan Bell Application at 27. Id. at 28. Id. at 27-29. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(x). Michigan Commission Comments at 126. Michigan Bell Application at 82-84; Michigan Bell Deere Aff. at paras. 179-213. TSI July 18 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2. Id. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B); see also Michigan Bell July 30 Ex Parte Letter, Attach.
• 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
  • 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 201(b) of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1_Erratum.doc
  • 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 201(b) of the
• 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
  • 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 Z-Tel access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 the Act. 51.323 Standards for physical collocation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.txt
  • loops used to provide advanced services. See Appendix C at Section II (surrogate line sharing discount); Section III (advanced services OSS discount). 900 See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments at 16, App. A at 83-87; CompTel July 19 Comments at 14-18; Focal/Adelphia/McLeod July 26 Reply Comments at 9. 901 See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), (4)(b) (nondiscrimination requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale); 47 C.F.R. § 51.503(c) (providing that an incumbent's rates shall not vary on the "basis of the class of customers served by the requesting carrier, or the type of services that the requesting carrier purchasing such elements uses them to provide."). 902 See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1).
• 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
  • 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 met
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.txt
  • percent for loops used to provide advanced services. See Appendix C at Section II (surrogate line sharing discount); Section III (advanced services OSS discount). See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments at 16, App. A at 83-87; CompTel July 19 Comments at 14-18; Focal/Adelphia/McLeod July 26 Reply Comments at 9. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), (4)(b) (nondiscrimination requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale); 47 C.F.R. § 51.503(c) (providing that an incumbent's rates shall not vary on the ``basis of the class of customers served by the requesting carrier, or the type of services that the requesting carrier purchasing such elements uses them to provide.''). See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). With
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.wp
  • extant statutory and regulatory rules, I would simply have granted them unconditionally, pursuant to traditional notice and comment procedures, without subjecting the applicants to an extra-statutory and most troubling process. _____________________ 1. See generally Comments of AT&T Corp. on Proposed Conditions, CC Docket No. 98-141, at pages. 15-18 & Appendix A at pages. 82-87. 2. See also 47 C.F.R. section 51.313(a). 3. See also id. section 51.603(a). 4. The caps also violate the Commission's own implementation of that provision. See 47 C.F.R. section 51.809(a). 5. See also id. sections 51.809(a), 51.313(a). 6. Moreover, these conditions, by which the FCC takes over aspects of the role granted exclusively to State commissions, create great potential for confusion in the implementation of the conditions.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • 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 regard, section 201(b)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-106A1.html
  • 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 granted Z-Tel
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2655A1.html
  • 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 the Act, but
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 the Act. 51.323 Standards for physical collocation
• 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
  • 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 to
• 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
  • 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 met
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.txt
  • percent for loops used to provide advanced services. See Appendix C at Section II (surrogate line sharing discount); Section III (advanced services OSS discount). See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments at 16, App. A at 83-87; CompTel July 19 Comments at 14-18; Focal/Adelphia/McLeod July 26 Reply Comments at 9. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), (4)(b) (nondiscrimination requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale); 47 C.F.R. § 51.503(c) (providing that an incumbent's rates shall not vary on the ``basis of the class of customers served by the requesting carrier, or the type of services that the requesting carrier purchasing such elements uses them to provide.''). See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). With
• http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.html http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.wp
  • extant statutory and regulatory rules, I would simply have granted them unconditionally, pursuant to traditional notice and comment procedures, without subjecting the applicants to an extra-statutory and most troubling process. _____________________ 1. See generally Comments of AT&T Corp. on Proposed Conditions, CC Docket No. 98-141, at pages. 15-18 & Appendix A at pages. 82-87. 2. See also 47 C.F.R. section 51.313(a). 3. See also id. section 51.603(a). 4. The caps also violate the Commission's own implementation of that provision. See 47 C.F.R. section 51.809(a). 5. See also id. sections 51.809(a), 51.313(a). 6. Moreover, these conditions, by which the FCC takes over aspects of the role granted exclusively to State commissions, create great potential for confusion in the implementation of the conditions.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • 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 regard, section 201(b)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-106A1.html
  • 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 granted Z-Tel
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2655A1.html
  • 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 the Act, but