FCC Web Documents citing 51.321

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1273A1.txt
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of SBC Communications Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0326a NAL/Acct. No. 200132080015 ORDER OF FORFEITURE Adopted: May 23, 2001 Released: May 24, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, we find that SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) willfully and repeatedly violated section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, requiring incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) promptly to post notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. These violations were discovered through an independent audit of SBC's compliance with the Commission's collocation rules, in which Ernst & Young found material instances of noncompliance with the posting rule. Based on the facts and circumstances before
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-128A1.txt
  • space actually became exhausted in those central offices. Moreover, in several of those instances, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) may have been required to submit a collocation application, only to have the application denied on the ground that no space was available as of the time of the application. As noted above, this is the very result that section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules was designed to avoid. Based on the facts set forth above, we find that SBC is apparently liable for a forfeiture for willful and repeated violation of the Commission's collocation rules and paragraph 37 of the merger conditions. SBC apparently violated the Commission rule requiring ILECs to timely update the document on its Internet site identifying
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2079A1.txt
  • Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) File No. EB-01-IH-0236 Verizon Communications, Inc. ) Acct. No. 200132080058 ) ORDER Adopted: September 10, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt a Consent Decree terminating an investigation into possible violations by Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, in connection with Verizon's posting of notice of exhausted collocation space on its Internet website. The Bureau and Verizon have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the staff's investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and is incorporated by reference. We have reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1770A1.txt
  • Matter of Qwest Communications International, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-IH-0393 NAL/Acct. No. 200232080018 FRN Number 0001-6056-25 Order Adopted: July 22, 2002 Released: July 24, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau In this Order, we adopt a Consent Decree terminating an investigation into possible violations by Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'') of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, in connection with Qwest's posting of notice of exhausted collocation space on its Internet website. The Enforcement Bureau and Qwest have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the staff's investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and is incorporated by reference. We have reviewed the terms of the Consent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1770A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1770A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1770A2.txt
  • of Qwest Communications International, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-IH-0393 NAL/Acct. No. 200232080018 FRN Number 0001-6056-25 CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'') hereby enter into a Consent Decree terminating an informal Bureau investigation into possible violations of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules. The investigation focused on whether Qwest had updated its Internet website listing premises that have exhausted collocation space ``within ten days of the date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space.'' On June 7, 2001 and March 15, 2002, the Bureau sent letters of inquiry to Qwest seeking information on Qwest's space exhaustion
• 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
  • 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 of network changes: Methods for providing notice. 51.331 Notice of network changes: Timing of notice. 51.333 Notice of Network
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • competing concerns of promoting competition, while precluding the abuse of foreign market power by allowing confidential treatment of the contracts. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 154. Section Number and Title: 43.51(f) Contracts and concessions. PART 51-INTERCONNECTION SUBPART D-ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS Brief Description: This subsection generally implements section 251(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 51.321 requires incumbent local exchange carriers to provide any technically feasible method of obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at a particular point upon request by a telecommunications carrier, on terms and conditions that are just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. Paragraph (h) establishes the parameters for the available collocation space reports that incumbent LECs must provide to requesting carriers seeking
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227275A1.txt
  • the Commission's implementing rules by faxing unsolicited advertisements to consumers. Competition Enforcement Actions Verizon Communications, Inc., August 20, 2002: $260,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into compliance with performance reporting conditions imposed in connection with the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Qwest Communications International, Inc., July 24, 2002: $96,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into possible violations of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, which requires incumbent local exchange carriers promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. SBC Communications, Inc., May 28, 2002: $3.6 million consent decree terminating two investigations into potential violations of Commission rules and orders in connection with the submission of inaccurate affidavits in section 271 proceedings.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296475A1.pdf
  • Nos. 07-2469/2473 Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Lark, et al. Page 17 12This assumption is the crux of the dissent's principal argument - that interconnection facilities and entrance facilities are really one and the same because "[e]ntrance facilities come within the ordinary meaning of a `technically feasible method of obtaining interconnection.'" Dis. Op. at ¶ 7 (quoting 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(a)). That is, the dissent "reasons" that because ILECs must "provide . . . any technically feasible method of obtaining interconnection" at cost-based rates, see 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(a), and because entrance facilities are a technically feasible method of obtaining interconnection, the ILECs must therefore provide entrance facilities at cost-based rates. We reject this argument for at least three reasons. First,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307423A1.pdf
  • or regulation, the Court turns to the FCC's interpretation of its regulations in its amicus brief. See, e.g., Chase Bank USA, N. A. v. McCoy, 562 U. S. ___, ___. The FCC proffers a three-step argument why its regulations require AT&T to provide access at cost-based rates to existing entrance facilities for interconnection purposes. Pp. 7­10. (1) Interpreting 47 CFR §51.321(a), the FCC first contends that an incumbent LEC must lease "technically feasible" facilities for in- terconnection. Pp. 8­9. (2) The FCC contends, second, that existing entrance facilities are part of an incumbent LEC's network, 47 CFR §51.319(e), and 3 Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) Syllabus therefore are among the facilities that an incumbent LEC must lease for interconnection,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-297A1.txt
  • that equipment is not the most efficient for providing telecommunications services. We seek comment on whether deployment of equipment that can only be used for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements will necessarily require competitors to provide service of a significantly lower quality than that which could be provided using equipment that incorporates other functions. We note that section 51.321(i) of our rules requires incumbent LECs to remove obsolete unused equipment from their premises in certain circumstances in order to increase the space available for collocation.188 We invite comment on whether we must preclude collocators, including incumbent LEC affiliates, from deploying state-of-the-art equipment in the space made available through the operation of this rule. 78. We invite manufacturers to describe
• 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
  • See Verizon Massachusetts I Application at 33-34; Verizon Massachusetts I Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at paras. 176-79. See Verizon Massachusetts I Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at paras. 31-62, 177-78; see also infra Part V.A.2 (discussing the terms and conditions for access to UNEs through physical and virtual collocation arrangements). See Verizon Massachusetts I Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 55; infra Part V.A.2. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(a), (b); Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20706, para. 170; see also Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15780-81, para. 553. Verizon Massachusetts I Application App. J, vol. 7, Tab 22, Attach. III, at 2 (Interconnection Agreement by and between New England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a Bell Atlantic - Massachusetts and MCImetro Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-132A1.txt
  • initial reciprocal compensation rates with greatly reduced rates that have been established more recently in several states). See, e.g., AT&T ex parte in CC Docket No. 99-68 at 5-6 (filed Aug. 11, 2000). See supra note 7 and accompanying text. Qwest ex parte in CC Docket No. 99-68, Appendix B, at ii (filed Nov. 22, 2000). Id. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321; see also In the Matter of Application by SBC Communications Inc. et al. to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Texas, CC Docket No. 00-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-238 at ¶ 78, n.174 (rel. June 30, 2000). See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 68. See Atkinson-Barnekov, supra note 43, at 13-14 (showing that the incremental cost of interconnection includes internal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-204A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-204A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-204A2.txt
  • 2. § 51.5 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a definition of ``multi-functional equipment'' to read as follows: ***** Multi-functional equipment. Multi-functional equipment is equipment that combines one or more functions that are necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements with one or more functions that would not meet that standard as stand-alone functions. ***** 3. § 51.321 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows: ***** (h) Upon request, an incumbent LEC must submit to the requesting carrier within ten days of the submission of the request a report describing in detail the space that is available for collocation in a particular incumbent LEC premises. This report must specify the amount of collocation space available
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-20. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• 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 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-20. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-20. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • terms and conditions that are "just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory" in accordance with section 47 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 48 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 49 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 50 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • terms and conditions that are "just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory" in accordance with section 47 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 48 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 49 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 50 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-61A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-61A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0326a NAL/Acct. No. 200132080015 FRN Numbers 0004-3051-24 0004-3335-71 0005-1937-01 ORDER ON REVIEW Adopted: February 21, 2002 Released: February 25, 2002 By the Commission: INTRODUCTION In this Order, we affirm the May 24, 2001 Order of Forfeiture issued by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') finding that SBC Communications Inc. (``SBC'') willfully and repeatedly violated section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, which requires incumbent local exchange carriers (``ILECs'') promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. We reduce the amount of the forfeiture from ninety-four thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500) to eighty-four thousand dollars ($84,000). Therefore, we grant SBC's June 25, 2001 Application for Review in so far
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-20. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • access to the subloops is subject to the Commission's collocation rules. This provision was included to facilitate remote terminal access particularly for accessing IDLC loops and copper loop portion for xDSL service. The record indicates that this provision may have been interpreted to require either that a requesting carrier establish collocation as its chosen method of interconnection pursuant to section 51.321 of our rules in order to obtain a subloop, or that the requesting carrier must establish a collocation arrangement at the specific point it accesses the subloop, including those subloops associated with multiunit premises access. The rules we adopt today make clear that no collocation requirement exists with respect to subloops used to access the infrastructure in multiunit premises. Incumbent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-188A1.txt
  • 18 FCC Rcd 19020 (2003), aff'd in part, remanded in part, vacated in part, United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (USTA II), cert. denied sub nom. National Ass'n Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. United States Telecom Ass'n, 125 S. Ct. 313, 316, 345 (2004). See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.301-19, 51.321, 51.323 (implementing section 251(c)(3)). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(d)(1), (2)(B). For proprietary network elements, the Act directs the Commission to consider whether access to such network elements is ``necessary.'' See id. § 251(d)(2)(A). Almost all network elements have been considered ``non-proprietary'' and analyzed under section 251(d)(2)(B). Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-118A1.txt
  • 251(c)(1) only to the extent that it requests relief from the other section 251(c) obligations. Qwest does not seek relief from the obligations of section 251(c)(1) as it applies to Qwest's section 251(b) duties. See Qwest Petition at 5. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b), and 251(c)(1)-(6); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.301 (implementing section 251(c)(1)), 51.305 (implementing section 251(c)(2)), 51.301-.319, 51.321, 51.323 (implementing section 251(c)(3)), 51.601-.617 (implementing section 251(c)(4)), 51.325-.335 (implementing section 251(c)(5)), and 51.323 (implementing section 251(c)(6)). The UNE obligations were described in the Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, so we do not repeat that summary here. See Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) in the Omaha Metropolitan Statistical Area, WC Docket No. 04-223, Memorandum
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-24A1.txt
  • (D.C. Cir. 1961), aff'd 373 U.S. 294 (1963). Bell Atlantic v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Pacific Bell v. FCC, Docket Nos. 94-1547, 94-1548, and 94-1612, slip op. (D.C. Cir., March 22, 1996). See also Pacific Bell v. FCC, 81 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15787-15813, paras. 558-617; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.321, 51.323. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15787, para. 558-617 Id. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6). The Commission has held that collocation pursuant to section 251(c)(6) must be made available at rates based on total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15818, 15844-57, paras. 629, 672-703. Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 authority. 51.403 Carriers eligible for suspension or modification under section 251(f)(2) of the Act. 51.405 Burden of proof. Subpart F
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.txt
  • initial reciprocal compensation rates with greatly reduced rates that have been established more recently in several states). See, e.g., AT&T ex parte in CC Docket No. 99-68 at 5-6 (filed Aug. 11, 2000). See supra note 7 and accompanying text. Qwest ex parte in CC Docket No. 99-68, Appendix B, at ii (filed Nov. 22, 2000). Id. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321; see also In the Matter of Application by SBC Communications Inc. et al. to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Texas, CC Docket No. 00-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-238 at ¶ 78, n.174 (rel. June 30, 2000). See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 68. See Atkinson-Barnekov, supra note 43, at 13-14 (showing that the incremental cost of interconnection includes internal
• 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
  • dedicated to their use, as well as to monitor and control their circuits terminating in the LEC central office. Interconnectors, however, do not pay for the incumbent's floor space under virtual collocation arrangements and have no right to enter the LEC central office. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15784 and n.1361. 165 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15780-81. 166 BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-50. 167 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6). Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection unless the LEC can demonstrate that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space limitations. In
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99048.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99048.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99048.wp
  • all other issues to the Commission. Bell Atlantic v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994). On remand, the Commission adopted rules, which remain in place today, for both special access and switched transport that required LECs to provide either virtual or physical collocation. Virtual Collocation Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5154. 29 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6). 30 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.321, 51.323; see Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15782- 15811, paras. 555-617. These rules were specifically upheld by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 818 (8th Cir. 1997), affirmed in part and reversed in part sub nom, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999). 12 and virtual
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99238.pdf
  • to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-98, (filed Aug. 10, 1999) (MCI WorldCom Aug. 10, 1999 Ex Parte.) (stating that unbundling is feasible at either end of a copper loop; and that manufacturers are introducing new DLC and DSL multiplexing equipment that will allow local exchange carriers to share common shelves). 425 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.321-323; MGC July 23, 1999 Ex Parte at 2. Pursuant to our recent Advanced Services First Report and Order and FNPRM, an incumbent LEC may not refuse to permit collocation of equipment on the grounds that it does not satisfy certain Bellcore Network Equipment and Building Specifications (NEBS) performance requirements, and an incumbent may not impose on a collocating competitor safety
• 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
  • wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779; see Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82; see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-50. Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41;
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981016.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981016.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981016.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981016.wp
  • Methods (e.g., Direct Access, Electronic Methods, Combinations Provided by the BOC for a Separate Charge) -- Legal, Economic, and Technical Issues * Which of these methods are technically feasible? * If one or more of these methods are technically feasible, what is the BOC obligated to provide to satisfy checklist item (ii) in light of the Commission's rule in section 51.321 that an incumbent LEC must provide any technically feasible method of obtaining access to unbundled network elements? * Does the Eighth Circuit's decision require physical separation of network elements? * What are the network reliability and security concerns associated with direct access and electronic methods? * Do methods other than collocation (e.g., direct access, electronic combination of elements) constitute an
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-20. 47 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 48 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 49 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 50 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011273.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011273.html
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of SBC Communications Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0326a NAL/Acct. No. 200132080015 ORDER OF FORFEITURE Adopted: May 23, 2001 Released: May 24, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, we find that SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) willfully and repeatedly violated section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, requiring incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) promptly to post notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. These violations were discovered through an independent audit of SBC's compliance with the Commission's collocation rules, in which Ernst & Young found material instances of noncompliance with the posting rule. Based on the facts and circumstances before
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01128.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01128.html
  • space actually became exhausted in those central offices. Moreover, in several of those instances, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) may have been required to submit a collocation application, only to have the application denied on the ground that no space was available as of the time of the application. As noted above, this is the very result that section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules was designed to avoid. Based on the facts set forth above, we find that SBC is apparently liable for a forfeiture for willful and repeated violation of the Commission's collocation rules and paragraph 37 of the merger conditions. SBC apparently violated the Commission rule requiring ILECs to timely update the document on its Internet site identifying
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012079.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012079.html
  • Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) File No. EB-01-IH-0236 Verizon Communications, Inc. ) Acct. No. 200132080058 ) ORDER Adopted: September 10, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt a Consent Decree terminating an investigation into possible violations by Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, in connection with Verizon's posting of notice of exhausted collocation space on its Internet website. The Bureau and Verizon have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the staff's investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and is incorporated by reference. We have reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1770A1.html
  • of ) ) Qwest Communications ) File No. EB-01-IH-0393 International, Inc. ) ) NAL/Acct. No. 200232080018 ) ) FRN Number 0001-6056-25 ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 22, 2002 Released: July 24, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau 1. In this Order, we adopt a Consent Decree terminating an investigation into possible violations by Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'') of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, in connection with Qwest's posting of notice of exhausted collocation space on its Internet website. 2. The Enforcement Bureau and Qwest have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the staff's investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and is incorporated by reference. 3. We have reviewed the terms of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1770A2.html
  • ) ) Qwest Communications ) File No. EB-01-IH-0393 International, Inc. ) ) NAL/Acct. No. 200232080018 ) ) FRN Number 0001-6056-25 ) ) CONSENT DECREE 1. The Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'') hereby enter into a Consent Decree terminating an informal Bureau investigation into possible violations of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules. The investigation focused on whether Qwest had updated its Internet website listing premises that have exhausted collocation space ``within ten days of the date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space.''1 On June 7, 2001 and March 15, 2002, the Bureau sent letters of inquiry to Qwest seeking information on Qwest's space exhaustion
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-61A1.html
  • No. 200132080015 Forfeiture ) ) FRN Numbers 0004-3051-24 ) 0- ) 004-3335-71 0- 005-1937-01 ORDER ON REVIEW Adopted: February 21, 2002 Released: February 25, 2002 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we affirm the May 24, 2001 Order of Forfeiture1 issued by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') finding that SBC Communications Inc. (``SBC'') willfully and repeatedly violated section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules,2 which requires incumbent local exchange carriers (``ILECs'') promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. We reduce the amount of the forfeiture from ninety-four thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500) to eighty-four thousand dollars ($84,000). Therefore, we grant SBC's June 25, 2001 Application for Review in so far
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/reports/FY2002.pdf
  • implementing rules by faxing unsolicited advertisements to consumers. Competition Enforcement Actions · Verizon Communications, Inc., August 20, 2002: $260,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into compliance with performance reporting conditions imposed in connection with the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. · Qwest Communications International, Inc., July 24, 2002: $96,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into possible violations of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, which requires incumbent local exchange carriers promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. · SBC Communications, Inc., May 28, 2002: $3.6 million consent decree terminating two investigations into potential violations of Commission rules and orders in connection with the submission of inaccurate affidavits in section 271
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/reports/yearthree.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/reports/yearthree.pdf
  • implementing rules by faxing unsolicited advertisements to consumers. Competition Enforcement Actions * Verizon Communications, Inc., August 20, 2002: $260,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into compliance with performance reporting conditions imposed in connection with the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. * Qwest Communications International, Inc., July 24, 2002: $96,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into possible violations of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, which requires incumbent local exchange carriers promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. * SBC Communications, Inc., May 28, 2002: $3.6 million consent decree terminating two investigations into potential violations of Commission rules and orders in connection with the submission of inaccurate affidavits in section 271
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.txt
  • initial reciprocal compensation rates with greatly reduced rates that have been established more recently in several states). See, e.g., AT&T ex parte in CC Docket No. 99-68 at 5-6 (filed Aug. 11, 2000). See supra note 7 and accompanying text. Qwest ex parte in CC Docket No. 99-68, Appendix B, at ii (filed Nov. 22, 2000). Id. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321; see also In the Matter of Application by SBC Communications Inc. et al. to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Texas, CC Docket No. 00-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-238 at ¶ 78, n.174 (rel. June 30, 2000). See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 68. See Atkinson-Barnekov, supra note 43, at 13-14 (showing that the incremental cost of interconnection includes internal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 authority. 51.403 Carriers eligible for suspension or modification under section 251(f)(2) of the Act. 51.405 Burden of proof. Subpart F
• 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
  • n.1359. 216 Bell Atlantic v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 217 Virtual Collocation Order, supra, 9 FCC Rcd 5154; see also Pacific Bell v. FCC, 81 F.3d at 1147 (remanding the Virtual Collocation Order to the Commission to consider the impact of the 1996 Act on the collocation rules). 218 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6). 219 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.321, 51.323; see also Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15782-15811, ¶¶ 555- 617. These rules were specifically upheld by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 818 (8th Cir. 1997) (Iowa Utilities Board), cert. granted sub nom, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 118 S.Ct. 879 (1998). 54 transport transmission facilities at LEC premises.215
• 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
  • dedicated to their use, as well as to monitor and control their circuits terminating in the LEC central office. Interconnectors, however, do not pay for the incumbent's floor space under virtual collocation arrangements and have no right to enter the LEC central office. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15784 and n.1361. 165 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15780-81. 166 BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-50. 167 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6). Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection unless the LEC can demonstrate that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space limitations. In
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99048.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99048.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99048.wp
  • all other issues to the Commission. Bell Atlantic v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994). On remand, the Commission adopted rules, which remain in place today, for both special access and switched transport that required LECs to provide either virtual or physical collocation. Virtual Collocation Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5154. 29 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6). 30 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.321, 51.323; see Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15782- 15811, paras. 555-617. These rules were specifically upheld by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 818 (8th Cir. 1997), affirmed in part and reversed in part sub nom, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999). 12 and virtual
• 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
  • WorldCom, to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-98, (filed Aug. 10, 1999) (MCI WorldCom Aug. 10, 1999 Ex Parte.) (stating that unbundling is feasible at either end of a copper loop; and that manufacturers are introducing new DLC and DSL multiplexing equipment that will allow local exchange carriers to share common shelves). 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.321-323; MGC July 23, 1999 Ex Parte at 2. Pursuant to our recent Advanced Services First Report and Order and FNPRM, an incumbent LEC may not refuse to permit collocation of equipment on the grounds that it does not satisfy certain Bellcore Network Equipment and Building Specifications (NEBS) performance requirements, and an incumbent may not impose on a collocating competitor safety
• 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
  • wherever two-way trunking arrangements are technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(f); see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20642; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779; see Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82; see also Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41; BellSouth South Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-50. Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41;
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00297.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00297.txt
  • that equipment is not the most efficient for providing telecommunications services. We seek comment on whether deployment of equipment that can only be used for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements will necessarily require competitors to provide service of a significantly lower quality than that which could be provided using equipment that incorporates other functions. We note that section 51.321(i) of our rules requires incumbent LECs to remove obsolete unused equipment from their premises in certain circumstances in order to increase the space available for collocation. We invite comment on whether we must preclude collocators, including incumbent LEC affiliates, from deploying state-of-the-art equipment in the space made available through the operation of this rule. We invite manufacturers to describe their
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.txt
  • See Verizon Massachusetts I Application at 33-34; Verizon Massachusetts I Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at paras. 176-79. See Verizon Massachusetts I Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at paras. 31-62, 177-78; see also infra Part V.A.2 (discussing the terms and conditions for access to UNEs through physical and virtual collocation arrangements). See Verizon Massachusetts I Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 55; infra Part V.A.2. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(a), (b); Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20706, para. 170; see also Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15780-81, para. 553. Verizon Massachusetts I Application App. J, vol. 7, Tab 22, Attach. III, at 2 (Interconnection Agreement by and between New England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a Bell Atlantic - Massachusetts and MCImetro Access
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01204.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01204.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01204.txt
  • 2. § 51.5 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a definition of ``multi-functional equipment'' to read as follows: ***** Multi-functional equipment. Multi-functional equipment is equipment that combines one or more functions that are necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements with one or more functions that would not meet that standard as stand-alone functions. ***** 3. § 51.321 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows: ***** (h) Upon request, an incumbent LEC must submit to the requesting carrier within ten days of the submission of the request a report describing in detail the space that is available for collocation in a particular incumbent LEC premises. This report must specify the amount of collocation space available
• 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
  • at 20642, para. 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-220. 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • terms and conditions that are "just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory" in accordance with section 47 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 48 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 49 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 50 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981016.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981016.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981016.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981016.wp
  • Methods (e.g., Direct Access, Electronic Methods, Combinations Provided by the BOC for a Separate Charge) -- Legal, Economic, and Technical Issues * Which of these methods are technically feasible? * If one or more of these methods are technically feasible, what is the BOC obligated to provide to satisfy checklist item (ii) in light of the Commission's rule in section 51.321 that an incumbent LEC must provide any technically feasible method of obtaining access to unbundled network elements? * Does the Eighth Circuit's decision require physical separation of network elements? * What are the network reliability and security concerns associated with direct access and electronic methods? * Do methods other than collocation (e.g., direct access, electronic combination of elements) constitute an
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • 65; Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15612-13, paras. 219-20. 47 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a)(5). 48 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779, paras. 549-50; see Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61. 49 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(b); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15779-82, paras. 549-50; see also Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 62. 50 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011273.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011273.html
  • Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of SBC Communications Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0326a NAL/Acct. No. 200132080015 ORDER OF FORFEITURE Adopted: May 23, 2001 Released: May 24, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Forfeiture Order, we find that SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) willfully and repeatedly violated section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, requiring incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) promptly to post notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. These violations were discovered through an independent audit of SBC's compliance with the Commission's collocation rules, in which Ernst & Young found material instances of noncompliance with the posting rule. Based on the facts and circumstances before
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01128.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da01128.html
  • space actually became exhausted in those central offices. Moreover, in several of those instances, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) may have been required to submit a collocation application, only to have the application denied on the ground that no space was available as of the time of the application. As noted above, this is the very result that section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules was designed to avoid. Based on the facts set forth above, we find that SBC is apparently liable for a forfeiture for willful and repeated violation of the Commission's collocation rules and paragraph 37 of the merger conditions. SBC apparently violated the Commission rule requiring ILECs to timely update the document on its Internet site identifying
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012079.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da012079.html
  • Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) File No. EB-01-IH-0236 Verizon Communications, Inc. ) Acct. No. 200132080058 ) ORDER Adopted: September 10, 2001 Released: September 14, 2001 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt a Consent Decree terminating an investigation into possible violations by Verizon Communications, Inc. (``Verizon'') of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, in connection with Verizon's posting of notice of exhausted collocation space on its Internet website. The Bureau and Verizon have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the staff's investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and is incorporated by reference. We have reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1770A1.html
  • of ) ) Qwest Communications ) File No. EB-01-IH-0393 International, Inc. ) ) NAL/Acct. No. 200232080018 ) ) FRN Number 0001-6056-25 ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 22, 2002 Released: July 24, 2002 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau 1. In this Order, we adopt a Consent Decree terminating an investigation into possible violations by Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'') of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, in connection with Qwest's posting of notice of exhausted collocation space on its Internet website. 2. The Enforcement Bureau and Qwest have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the staff's investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and is incorporated by reference. 3. We have reviewed the terms of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1770A2.html
  • ) ) Qwest Communications ) File No. EB-01-IH-0393 International, Inc. ) ) NAL/Acct. No. 200232080018 ) ) FRN Number 0001-6056-25 ) ) CONSENT DECREE 1. The Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'') hereby enter into a Consent Decree terminating an informal Bureau investigation into possible violations of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules. The investigation focused on whether Qwest had updated its Internet website listing premises that have exhausted collocation space ``within ten days of the date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space.''1 On June 7, 2001 and March 15, 2002, the Bureau sent letters of inquiry to Qwest seeking information on Qwest's space exhaustion
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-61A1.html
  • No. 200132080015 Forfeiture ) ) FRN Numbers 0004-3051-24 ) 0- ) 004-3335-71 0- 005-1937-01 ORDER ON REVIEW Adopted: February 21, 2002 Released: February 25, 2002 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we affirm the May 24, 2001 Order of Forfeiture1 issued by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') finding that SBC Communications Inc. (``SBC'') willfully and repeatedly violated section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules,2 which requires incumbent local exchange carriers (``ILECs'') promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. We reduce the amount of the forfeiture from ninety-four thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500) to eighty-four thousand dollars ($84,000). Therefore, we grant SBC's June 25, 2001 Application for Review in so far
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/reports/FY2002.pdf
  • implementing rules by faxing unsolicited advertisements to consumers. Competition Enforcement Actions · Verizon Communications, Inc., August 20, 2002: $260,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into compliance with performance reporting conditions imposed in connection with the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. · Qwest Communications International, Inc., July 24, 2002: $96,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into possible violations of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, which requires incumbent local exchange carriers promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. · SBC Communications, Inc., May 28, 2002: $3.6 million consent decree terminating two investigations into potential violations of Commission rules and orders in connection with the submission of inaccurate affidavits in section 271
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/reports/yearthree.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/reports/yearthree.pdf
  • implementing rules by faxing unsolicited advertisements to consumers. Competition Enforcement Actions * Verizon Communications, Inc., August 20, 2002: $260,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into compliance with performance reporting conditions imposed in connection with the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. * Qwest Communications International, Inc., July 24, 2002: $96,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into possible violations of section 51.321(h) of the Commission's rules, which requires incumbent local exchange carriers promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space. * SBC Communications, Inc., May 28, 2002: $3.6 million consent decree terminating two investigations into potential violations of Commission rules and orders in connection with the submission of inaccurate affidavits in section 271
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/02-1255-011604.pdf
  • incur a toll. Though Mountain services all three local calling areas, it uses a single point of interconnection (POI) with Qwest, as it is entitled by statute. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(B) (providing that LECs must provide interconnection facilities with other carriers ``at any technically feasible point within the [incum- bent local exchange] carrier's network''); see also 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(a); In re: Developing a Unified Intercarrier Com- pensation Regime, 16 FCCR 9610, 9650­51 ¶ 112 (2001). The POI is located in Pueblo. Customers in each of the three calling areas have pager numbers associated with their indi- vidual local calling areas. It is therefore the paging custom- er's residence that correlates with the paging number, and a call from a