FCC Web Documents citing 51.315

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2942A1.pdf
  • Central Vermont Communications, Inc., Datapage, Inc., Northeast Paging and Rinker's Communications (collectively the "Paging Coalition") filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling. The petition requests that the Commission find termination of the Type 3A interconnection service currently provided by Verizon to the Paging Coalition companies to be unlawful under sections 332 and 201 of the Communications Act and sections 20.11 and 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules.1 The Paging Coalition members provide paging services in the New England region and, according to the Petition, they have been using Verizon's Type 3A interconnection service for many years to permit the public to page customers of the Coalition with a local call anywhere in a LATA served by a Coalition member. As described by the
• 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
  • 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 ``permit-but-disclose''
• 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
  • 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 network changes: Public notice requirement. 51.327 Notice of network changes: Content of notice. 51.329 Notice
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216244A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216244A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216244A2.txt
  • for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an application only if ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-183A1.txt
  • 99-370 (rel. Nov. 24, 1999) (Supplemental Order). Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-183 2 significant local usage requirements. II. BACKGROUND 2. In the Third Report and Order, we explained that incumbent LECs routinely provide the functional equivalent of combinations of unbundled loop and transport network elements (also referred to as the enhanced extended link) through their special access offerings. Because section 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules precludes the incumbent LECs from separating loop and transport elements that are currently combined, we stated that a requesting carrier could obtain these combinations at unbundled network element prices.3 At the same time, we stated our concern that allowing requesting carriers to use loop-transport combinations solely to provide exchange access service to a customer, without providing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-130A1.txt
  • to the effect that Verizon ``will voluntarily provide [UNE-P] even where the loop and local switching elements comprising the UNE-P do not already exist in combined form for a specific customer in its network,'' but ``that it reserves the right to review this voluntary commitment based on judicial action by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning [47 C.F.R. §] 51.315(c)-(f).'' Id. at 27 (quoting Consolidated Petitions for Arbitration of Interconnection Agreements, DTE/DPU Dkt. Nos. 96-73/74, 96-75, 96-80/81, 96-83, 96-94, Phase 4-P Order at 6 (Jan. 10, 2000) ) (emphasis omitted). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iv). The Commission has defined the loop as a transmission facility between a distribution frame, or its equivalent, in an incumbent LEC central office, and the demarcation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A1.txt
  • an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory . . . .'' Section 251(c)(3) of the Act also requires incumbent LECs to provide unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide a telecommunications service. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. In the Ameritech Michigan Order, the Commission emphasized that the ability of requesting carriers to use unbundled network elements, as well as combinations of unbundled network elements, is integral to achieving Congress' objective of promoting competition in local telecommunications markets. Using combinations
• 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
  • for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an application only if ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.txt
  • for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed the Commission's pricing rules in 1996, the Supreme Court restored the Commission's pricing authority on January 25, 1999, and remanded to the Eighth Circuit for consideration of the merits of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-338A1.txt
  • for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an application only if ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-381A1.txt
  • our First Report and Order in Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``Local Competition Order''), we prescribed rules to implement section 251(c)(3) and specified that local loops and interoffice transmission facilities were among the ``network elements'' that ILECs were required to provided to requesting carriers on an unbundled basis. We also stated in section 51.315(b) that ``an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines.'' The implementation of section 51.315(b) was stayed and the rule was subsequently vacated by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC. The United States Supreme Court reversed in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, thus reinstating section 51.315(b) of our rules. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-118A1.txt
  • and reasonable rates for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for UNEs must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an application only if ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on
• 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
  • and reasonable rates for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for UNEs must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an application only if ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.txt
  • and reasonable rates for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for UNEs must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an application only if ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Texas, CC Docket No. 00-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18372 at para. 39 (2000) (SWBT Texas Order). 38 47 U.S.C. § 271(B)(ii). Overturning a 1997 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 13, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld sections 51.315(c)-(f) of the Commission's rules, which, subject to certain limitations, require incumbent LECs to provide combinations of UNEs "not ordinarily combined in the incumbent LEC's network" and to "combine unbundled network elements with the elements possessed by the requesting telecommunications carrier." Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646, 1665 (2002) (Verizon v. FCC). In a prior decision, the Supreme
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02-307 at 2-3 (filed Oct. 25, 2002) (BellSouth Oct. 25 Ex Parte Letter ­ #2); BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 27-40. 56 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). Overturning a 1997 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 13, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld sections 51.315(c)-(f) of the Commission's rules, which, subject to certain limitations, require incumbent LECs to provide combinations of unbundled network elements "not ordinarily combined in the incumbent LEC's network" and to "combine unbundled network elements with the elements possessed by the requesting telecommunications carrier." Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). In a prior decision, the Supreme Court upheld
• 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
  • and reasonable rates for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for UNEs must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an application only if ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • determined that TELRIC-based rates for UNEs should not include embedded or historical costs, opportunity costs or universal service subsidies. Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC. On review in 1997, the Eighth Circuit vacated many of the rules adopted in the Local Competition Order as beyond the Commission's jurisdiction, which it viewed as limited to interstate matters. The court also vacated section 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules, which barred incumbent LECs from separating UNEs before providing them to competitors, on the ground that ``unbundled'' means ``not combined.'' In addition, the court vacated sections 51.315(c)-(f), which required incumbent LECs to combine elements on behalf of competitive LECs on request, on the ground that section 251(c)(3) does not require incumbent LECs to combine elements on
• 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
  • decision, we dismiss as moot the petition for waiver filed on February 2, 2004 by BellSouth asking the Commission to grant a temporary waiver of our EELs unbundling rules until state completion of the proceedings described in the Triennial Review Order. See BellSouth Corporation Petition for Waiver, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98, 98-147 (filed Feb. 11, 2004). 47 C.F.R. § 51.315, aff'd Verizon Communications v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467, 528-38 (2002). Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17210-11, paras. 376-77. See id. We note that the Commission, in the Triennial Review Order, did not require incumbent LECs to unbundle OCn capacity transport facilities. Triennial Review Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17219-21, paras. 388-89. The D.C. Circuit did not address this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-85A1.txt
  • conclude that the Commission's actions in the Triennial Review Order address the issues raised in the Fifth Further Notice in CC Docket 96-98, and therefore we terminate that proceeding. BACKGROUND A. Supplemental Order Clarification In the UNE Remand Order, the Commission required incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to loop-transport combinations, known as enhanced extended links (EELs), pursuant to section 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules. Shortly after the release of that decision, the Commission issued the Supplemental Order that limited competitive LEC access to EELs to where they provide a ``significant amount of local exchange service'' to a particular customer. Subsequently, in the June 2, 2000 Supplemental Order Clarification, the Commission clarified the ``significant local usage'' requirement by establishing three safe
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 and virtual collocation. Subpart E - Exemptions, suspensions, and modifications of requirements of section 251 of the Act. 51.401 State
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-70A1.txt
  • consistent with the 1996 Act: (1) the Commission's interpretation of "network element," as including operator services and directory assistance, operational support systems, and vertical switching functions such as caller I.D., call forwarding, and call waiting within the features and services that must be provided to competitors, is reasonable; (2) the Commission reasonably omitted a facilities-ownership requirement; (3) the Commission's rule 51.315(b), which forbids incumbents to separate already-combined network elements before leasing them to competitors, reasonably interprets section 251(c)(3) of the 1996 Act; and (4) the Commission's "pick and choose" rule that requires an incumbent LEC to make available to any requesting carrier any individual interconnection, service, or network element arrangement contained in any state-approved agreement "upon the same rates, terms, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9066.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9066.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9066.txt
  • the obligations are consistent with the requirements of section 251 and the national policy framework instituted in this Order. The Order further concludes that the goals of the Act will better be served if network elements are not removed from the unbundling obligations of the Act on a state-by-state basis, at this time. Combinations of Network Elements. Pursuant to section 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules, incumbent LECs are required to provide access to combinations of loop, multiplexing/concentrating equipment and dedicated transport if they are currently combined. The Order does not address whether an incumbent LEC must combine network elements that are not already combined in the network, because that issue is pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Further Notice:
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.wp
  • consistent with the 1996 Act: (1) the Commission's interpretation of "network element," as including operator services and directory assistance, operational support systems, and vertical switching functions such as caller I.D., call forwarding, and call waiting within the features and services that must be provided to competitors, is reasonable; (2) the Commission reasonably omitted a facilities-ownership requirement; (3) the Commission's rule 51.315(b), which forbids incumbents to separate already-combined network elements before leasing them to competitors, reasonably interprets section 251(c)(3) of the 1996 Act; and (4) the Commission's "pick and choose" rule that requires an incumbent LEC to make available to any requesting carrier any individual interconnection, service, or network element arrangement contained in any state- approved agreement "upon the same rates, terms,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.pdf
  • that the Commission's rulemaking authority extends to sections 251 and 252. The Court further found that: (1) the Commission's interpretation of "network element," as including operator services and directory assistance, operational support systems, and vertical switching functions such as caller I.D., call forwarding, and call waiting, is reasonable; (2) the Commission reasonably omitted a facilities-ownership requirement; (3) the Commission's rule 51.315(b), which forbids incumbents from separating already-combined network elements before leasing them to competitors, reasonably interprets section 251(c)(3) of the 1996 Act; and (4) the Commission's "pick and choose" rule that requires an incumbent LEC to make available to any requesting carrier any individual interconnection, service, or network element arrangement contained in any state-approved agreement "upon the same rates, terms, and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • periods of either 4 or 6 years, depending on whether the central office is located in Zone 1 or Zone 2. See Pre-Filing Statement of Bell Atlantic New York at 9-10, Case 97-C-0271 (PSC filed Apr. 6, 1998). See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 50-51; TRA Comments at 19-20; RCN Comments at 6-8. The Supreme Court also reinstated the Commission's Rule 51.315 (b) (prohibiting incumbents from separating preassembled combinations of network elements) which, along with rules 51315(c)-(f) (requiring incumbents' to combine non-preassembled combinations of elements for requesting carriers), had been overturned by the Eighth Circuit. AT&T Corp v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999). In light of the reasoning set forth in that decision, the Commission has asked the Eighth Circuit
• 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
  • just and reasonable rates for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for UNEs must be based on the total element long run incremental cost of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. Starting in September 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed and then vacated the Commission's pricing rules, and in 1997 it vacated Rule 51.315(b) The Supreme Court restored these rules, however, on January 25, 1999. SWBT's initial application
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed the Commission's pricing rules in 1996, the Supreme Court restored the Commission's pricing authority on January 25, 1999, and remanded to the Eighth Circuit for consideration of the merits of the
• 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
  • for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an application only if ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • follow - Additional interconnection points provided if [§251(c)(6)] evolutionary growth path. technically feasible [I.A.2] - Sale of UNEs at technically feasible- Accommodates entrants having - additional elements via bona fide request points [§251(c)(3)] different initial strategic assets. [II.A] - Resale of retail services [§251(c)(4)] - Offer local loop transmission, local - Combine UNEs [§251(c)(3), 47 transport, local switching, signaling, CFR §51.315] operating support systems, dark fiber [II.B] - Unbundle local loops [IV.A] and subloops [IV.B] - Three transport elements plus requests for additional elements [V] - Three local switching options, plus requests for additional options and "selective routing" [VI.A] Increase Size and - Removal of cable-telco cross- - Raises likelihood of inviting efficient- Available to any CLEC certified by SCPSC Diversity
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • payment under its own tariffs and other written commitments.158 Verizon claims, however, that CTC has misrepresented the facts and misinterpreted its federal tariff.159 CTC's claim does not suggest a systemic failure, but instead appears to be a carrier- specific dispute concerning Verizon's conduct. On or about August 2001, Verizon made available its 151 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii); 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(b). 152 See Verizon Application App. A, Vol. 1, Declaration of Paul A. Lacouture and Virginia P. Ruesterholz at paras. 233-43 (Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl.). We take note of the recent opinion of the Vermont Supreme Court affirming the Vermont Board's requirement, based on state law, that Verizon make available combinations of network elements that are ordinarily combined, but not currently physically
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-381A1.html
  • our First Report and Order in Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``Local Competition Order''),10 we prescribed rules to implement section 251(c)(3) and specified that local loops11 and interoffice transmission facilities12 were among the ``network elements'' that ILECs were required to provided to requesting carriers on an unbundled basis. We also stated in section 51.315(b) that ``an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines.''13 The implementation of section 51.315(b) was stayed and the rule was subsequently vacated by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC.14 The United States Supreme Court reversed in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, thus reinstating section 51.315(b) of our rules.15 The
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Comments/access_reform/samples/COMcta.htm
  • reach the competing provider's operator services using the "0" and "0 plus" dialing patterns. 9. ^7 See Second Report and Order, CC Docket 96-98 ( 151), which concludes that "... permitting non-discriminatory access to 411 and 555-1212 dialing arrangements is technically feasible, and there is no evidence in the record that these dialing arrangements will cease." 10. ^8 47 C.F.R. 51.315(b) states that "[e]xcept upon request, an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines." 11. ^9 The Georgia PSC concluded that AT&T should pay rates based on avoided costs when it combines network elements to offer services identical to BellSouth's retail services. It defined "identical" to apply in situations where AT&T is not using
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9066.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9066.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9066.txt
  • the obligations are consistent with the requirements of section 251 and the national policy framework instituted in this Order. The Order further concludes that the goals of the Act will better be served if network elements are not removed from the unbundling obligations of the Act on a state-by-state basis, at this time. Combinations of Network Elements. Pursuant to section 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules, incumbent LECs are required to provide access to combinations of loop, multiplexing/concentrating equipment and dedicated transport if they are currently combined. The Order does not address whether an incumbent LEC must combine network elements that are not already combined in the network, because that issue is pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Further Notice:
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99070.wp
  • consistent with the 1996 Act: (1) the Commission's interpretation of "network element," as including operator services and directory assistance, operational support systems, and vertical switching functions such as caller I.D., call forwarding, and call waiting within the features and services that must be provided to competitors, is reasonable; (2) the Commission reasonably omitted a facilities-ownership requirement; (3) the Commission's rule 51.315(b), which forbids incumbents to separate already-combined network elements before leasing them to competitors, reasonably interprets section 251(c)(3) of the 1996 Act; and (4) the Commission's "pick and choose" rule that requires an incumbent LEC to make available to any requesting carrier any individual interconnection, service, or network element arrangement contained in any state- approved agreement "upon the same rates, terms,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 and virtual collocation. Subpart E - Exemptions, suspensions, and modifications of requirements of section 251 of the Act. 51.401 State
• 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
  • the Local Competition Order, this language in section 251(c)(3) 807 "bars incumbent LECs from imposing limitations, restrictions, or requirements on requests for, or the sale or use of, unbundled elements that would impair the ability of requesting carriers to offer telecommunications services in the manner they intend." Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15646. See also 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(b) ("Except upon request, an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines"); Iowa Utils. Bd., 1997 WL 403401, at *32 (affirming 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(b)). 159 because Ameritech offers "switched transport" as a service, rather than a network element, it does not permit requesting carriers that use "switched transport" to collect access charges for
• 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
  • allowed to substitute such combinations of elements for existing, regulated special access services. According to incumbent LECs, allowing this substitution would either force them to increase local rates or undermine universal service. Enhanced Extended Link Background In the Local Competition Order, the Commission identified loops and transport as network elements subject to the unbundling obligation of section 251(c)(3). In rule 51.315(b), the Commission prohibited incumbents from separating network elements that are currently combined. In addition, the Commission adopted rules 51.315(c) - (f) requiring incumbent LECs to combine unbundled network elements in any manner, even if those elements are not currently combined. The Eighth Circuit overturned a number of the Commission's rules, including rules 51.315(b) - (f). Rule 51.315(b), however, was reinstated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • periods of either 4 or 6 years, depending on whether the central office is located in Zone 1 or Zone 2. See Pre-Filing Statement of Bell Atlantic New York at 9-10, Case 97-C-0271 (PSC filed Apr. 6, 1998). See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 50-51; TRA Comments at 19-20; RCN Comments at 6-8. The Supreme Court also reinstated the Commission's Rule 51.315 (b) (prohibiting incumbents from separating preassembled combinations of network elements) which, along with rules 51315(c)-(f) (requiring incumbents' to combine non-preassembled combinations of elements for requesting carriers), had been overturned by the Eighth Circuit. AT&T Corp v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999). In light of the reasoning set forth in that decision, the Commission has asked the Eighth Circuit
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00183.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00183.txt
  • conduct limited audits by an independent third party to verify the carrier's compliance with the significant local usage requirements. Background In the Third Report and Order, we explained that incumbent LECs routinely provide the functional equivalent of combinations of unbundled loop and transport network elements (also referred to as the enhanced extended link) through their special access offerings. Because section 51.315(b) of the Commission's rules precludes the incumbent LECs from separating loop and transport elements that are currently combined, we stated that a requesting carrier could obtain these combinations at unbundled network element prices. At the same time, we stated our concern that allowing requesting carriers to use loop-transport combinations solely to provide exchange access service to a customer, without providing
• 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
  • just and reasonable rates for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for UNEs must be based on the total element long run incremental cost of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. Starting in September 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed and then vacated the Commission's pricing rules, and in 1997 it vacated Rule 51.315(b) The Supreme Court restored these rules, however, on January 25, 1999. SWBT's initial application
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed the Commission's pricing rules in 1996, the Supreme Court restored the Commission's pricing authority on January 25, 1999, and remanded to the Eighth Circuit for consideration of the merits of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.txt
  • to the effect that Verizon ``will voluntarily provide [UNE-P] even where the loop and local switching elements comprising the UNE-P do not already exist in combined form for a specific customer in its network,'' but ``that it reserves the right to review this voluntary commitment based on judicial action by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning [47 C.F.R. §] 51.315(c)-(f).'' Id. at 27 (quoting Consolidated Petitions for Arbitration of Interconnection Agreements, DTE/DPU Dkt. Nos. 96-73/74, 96-75, 96-80/81, 96-83, 96-94, Phase 4-P Order at 6 (Jan. 10, 2000) ) (emphasis omitted). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(iv). The Commission has defined the loop as a transmission facility between a distribution frame, or its equivalent, in an incumbent LEC central office, and the demarcation
• 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
  • for network elements shall be based on the cost of providing the network elements, shall be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Commission has determined that prices for unbundled network elements (UNEs) must be based on the total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) of providing those elements. The Commission also promulgated rule 51.315(b), which prohibits incumbent LECs from separating already combined elements before providing them to competing carriers, except on request. The Commission has previously held that it will not conduct a de novo review of a state's pricing determinations and will reject an application only if ``basic TELRIC principles are violated or the state commission makes clear errors in factual findings on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02-307 at 2-3 (filed Oct. 25, 2002) (BellSouth Oct. 25 Ex Parte Letter ­ #2); BellSouth Varner Reply Aff. at paras. 27-40. 56 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). Overturning a 1997 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 13, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld sections 51.315(c)-(f) of the Commission's rules, which, subject to certain limitations, require incumbent LECs to provide combinations of unbundled network elements "not ordinarily combined in the incumbent LEC's network" and to "combine unbundled network elements with the elements possessed by the requesting telecommunications carrier." Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). In a prior decision, the Supreme Court upheld
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da000735.doc
  • to establish at least three deaveraged rate zones for the pricing of interconnection and unbundled network elements (UNEs). The Commission promulgated section 51.507(f), along with other local pricing rules, in the August 1996 Local Competition Order. Starting in September 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed and then vacated the Commission's local pricing rules, including Rule 51.315(b), on the grounds that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over local pricing. On January 25, 1999, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's decision with regard to the Commission's local pricing authority. Because the section 251 pricing rules had not been in force for more than two years, the Commission delayed the effectiveness of section 51.507(f) until May 1,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da000778.doc
  • to establish at least three deaveraged rate zones for the pricing of interconnection and unbundled network elements (UNEs). The Commission promulgated section 51.507(f), along with other local pricing rules, in the August 1996 Local Competition Order. Starting in September 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stayed and then vacated the Commission's local pricing rules, including Rule 51.315(b), on the grounds that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over local pricing. On January 25, 1999, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's decision with regard to the Commission's local pricing authority. Because the section 251 pricing rules had not been in force for more than two years, the Commission delayed the effectiveness of section 51.507(f) until May 1,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • follow - Additional interconnection points provided if [§251(c)(6)] evolutionary growth path. technically feasible [I.A.2] - Sale of UNEs at technically feasible- Accommodates entrants having - additional elements via bona fide request points [§251(c)(3)] different initial strategic assets. [II.A] - Resale of retail services [§251(c)(4)] - Offer local loop transmission, local - Combine UNEs [§251(c)(3), 47 transport, local switching, signaling, CFR §51.315] operating support systems, dark fiber [II.B] - Unbundle local loops [IV.A] and subloops [IV.B] - Three transport elements plus requests for additional elements [V] - Three local switching options, plus requests for additional options and "selective routing" [VI.A] Increase Size and - Removal of cable-telco cross- - Raises likelihood of inviting efficient- Available to any CLEC certified by SCPSC Diversity
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • payment under its own tariffs and other written commitments.158 Verizon claims, however, that CTC has misrepresented the facts and misinterpreted its federal tariff.159 CTC's claim does not suggest a systemic failure, but instead appears to be a carrier- specific dispute concerning Verizon's conduct. On or about August 2001, Verizon made available its 151 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(ii); 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(b). 152 See Verizon Application App. A, Vol. 1, Declaration of Paul A. Lacouture and Virginia P. Ruesterholz at paras. 233-43 (Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl.). We take note of the recent opinion of the Vermont Supreme Court affirming the Vermont Board's requirement, based on state law, that Verizon make available combinations of network elements that are ordinarily combined, but not currently physically
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-01-381A1.html
  • our First Report and Order in Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``Local Competition Order''),10 we prescribed rules to implement section 251(c)(3) and specified that local loops11 and interoffice transmission facilities12 were among the ``network elements'' that ILECs were required to provided to requesting carriers on an unbundled basis. We also stated in section 51.315(b) that ``an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines.''13 The implementation of section 51.315(b) was stayed and the rule was subsequently vacated by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC.14 The United States Supreme Court reversed in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, thus reinstating section 51.315(b) of our rules.15 The
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • on the incumbent LECs. Therefore, we conclude that sections 51.305(a)(4) and 51.311(c) cannot stand in light of the plain terms of the Act.[33]^(33) f. Combination of Network Elements We also believe that the FCC's rule requiring incumbent LECs, rather than the requesting carriers, to recombine network elements that are purchased by the requesting carriers on an unbundled basis, 47 C.F.R. 51.315(c)-(f), cannot be squared with the terms of subsection 251(c)(3). The last sentence of subsection 251(c)(3) reads, "An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service." 47 U.S.C.A. 251(c)(3) (emphasis added). This sentence unambiguously indicates that requesting carriers will combine the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • on the incumbent LECs. Therefore, we conclude that sections 51.305(a)(4) and 51.311(c) cannot stand in light of the plain terms of the Act.[33]^(33) f. Combination of Network Elements We also believe that the FCC's rule requiring incumbent LECs, rather than the requesting carriers, to recombine network elements that are purchased by the requesting carriers on an unbundled basis, 47 C.F.R. 51.315(c)-(f), cannot be squared with the terms of subsection 251(c)(3). The last sentence of subsection 251(c)(3) reads, "An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service." 47 U.S.C.A. 251(c)(3) (emphasis added). This sentence unambiguously indicates that requesting carriers will combine the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.wp
  • the capability to provide telecommunications service completely through access to the unbundled elements of an incumbent LEC's network.' 120 F. 3d, at 814. Given the sweep of the 'all elements' rule, however, the Eighth Circuit thought that the FCC went too far in its Rule 315(b), which forbids incumbents to separate network elements before leasing them to competitors. 47 CFR 51.315(b) (1997). Taken together, the two rules allowed requesting carriers to lease the incumbent's entire, preassembled network. The Court of Appeals believed that this would render the resale provision of the statute a dead letter, because by leasing the entire network rather than purchasing and reselling service offerings, entrants could obtain the same product--finished service--at a cost-based, rather than wholesale, rate.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.html
  • Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). The Supreme Court reversed that part of our opinion pertaining to jurisdiction and held 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-511.pdf
  • on the use of the most efficient telecommunications technology currently available and the lowest cost network configuration, given the existing location of the incumbent[ís] wire centers.î ß51.505(b)(1). The regulations also contain so-called ìcombinationî rules requiring an incumbent, upon request and compensation, to perform the functions necessary to combine network elements for an entrant, unless the combination is not technically feasible. ßß51.315(b)ñ(f). Challenges to the regula- tions, mostly by incumbent carriers and state commissions, were con- solidated in the Eighth Circuit, which initially held, inter alia, that the FCC had no authority to control state commissionsí ratesetting methodology and that the FCC misconstrued ß251(c)(3)ís plain lan- guage in implementing the combination rules. Reversing in large part in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities