FCC Web Documents citing 51.323

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1704A1.txt
  • of the loop will not be offset by signals of opposite sign in the other side, resulting in greater interference than would be the case if the signals were equal and opposite, or balanced. Verizon Ex Parte, April 3, 2001, at 13 (pages unnumbered). Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 256(a)(2). See 47 C.F.R. Part 51, � 51.323. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1704 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1704 O P � � � � � F �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-506A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit f � � � � � � � DA 02-506 Released: March 4, 2002 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS REGARDING RETENTION OF SECTION 51.323(k)(2) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES ON COLLOCATION CC Docket No. 98-147 Comments Due: 15 days after publication in the Federal Register Reply Comments Due: 25 days after publication in the Federal Register In the Advanced Services First Report and Order, the Commission adopted rule 51.323(k)(2), which provides, in pertinent part, that ``[a]n incumbent LEC may not require competitors to use an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3009A1.txt
  • the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability ) ) ) ) ) Adopted: December 6, 2005 Released: December 6, 2005 Before the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: Introduction and background In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), on its own motion, grants a temporary conditional waiver of section 51.323(c) of the Commission's rules to the extent described herein to provide BellSouth the necessary flexibility to most effectively restore communications services in areas affected by the recent hurricanes. Requiring strict compliance with the Safety Standard Provision of this rule under the circumstances could impede restoration efforts and further delay service availability to customers. Accordingly, we grant this conditional waiver for
• 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
  • 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 Changes: Short term notice, objections thereto and objections to retirement of copper loops or copper subloops.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.txt
  • competitors receive prompt and accurate notice of changes that could affect their ability to interconnect with the incumbent's network. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. �� 251(a), 251(c)(2) and (6) and 251(d). Section Number and Title: Significant degradation of services caused by deployment of advanced services. Brief Description: This subsection implements section 251(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 51.323(l) sets forth deadlines within which an incumbent LEC must offer to provide, and provide, all forms of physical collocation, except in circumstances where a state sets its own deadlines or the incumbent LEC has demonstrated to the state commission that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space limitations. Need: These rules are necessary to foster
• 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
  • changes that could affect their ability to interconnect with the incumbent's network. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 251(a), 251(c)(2) and (3) and 251(d). Section Number and Title: 51.321(h), (i) Methods of obtaining interconnection and access to unbundled elements under section 251 of the Act. Brief Description: This subsection generally implements section 251(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 51.323 establishes the standards incumbent LECs must meet in order to comply with their obligation to provide physical and virtual collocation. Paragraph k enumerates the requirements for physical collocation via caged, cageless, and adjacent space arrangements. Need: These rules are necessary to foster a competitive market in the telecommunications industry, and to promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure and other network
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220638A1.txt
  • Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. � 214(a), and section 63.71 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 63.71, to discontinue certain of its domestic telecommunications services. Comments due March 15. Contact: Carmell Weathers at (202) 418-2325 (voice) or Jon Minkoff at (202) 418-2353 (voice), (202) 418-0484 TTY. CC 98-147; PN 03/04/02; DA 02-506 Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Section 51.323(k)(2) of the Commission Rules on Collocation. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should amend or repeal the portion of rule 51.323(k)(2) quoted in the Advanced Services First Report and Order. Comments due 15 days after publication in the Federal Register; replies due 25 days after publication in the Federal Register. Contact: John Adams or Janice Myles at (202) 418-1580
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220889A1.txt
  • Forstmann Little of Commission licenses and authorizations held by McLeod DIP and its subsidiaries to provide domestic and international communications services pursuant to parts 22, 63, and 90 of the Commission's rules. Comments/Petitions due March 31; response/oppositions due April 10. Contact: Aaron Goldberger at (202) 418-1580 (voice). CC 98-147; PN 03/04/02; DA 02-506 Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Section 51.323(k)(2) of the Commission Rules on Collocation. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should amend or repeal the portion of rule 51.323(k)(2) quoted in the Advanced Services First Report and Order. Comments due 15 days after publication in the Federal Register; replies due 25 days after publication in the Federal Register. Contact: John Adams or Janice Myles at (202) 418-1580
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-297A1.txt
  • apparent position, ten days means ten calendar days, not ten business days. We are amending our rules to make this clear. 59 We note that a state commission may find a different interval as reasonable as our ten calendar day national default standard based on the specific evidence before it in proceedings on this issue. 60 See 47 C.F.R. � 51.323(f)(1). This deadline would be twenty calendar days after the requesting carrier submits its collocation application if the incumbent LEC advises that carrier of deficiencies in that application on the last day of the ten calendar day period set forth in paragraph 24, supra. 61 See Letter from Norton Cutler, Vice President Regulatory and General Counsel, Bluestar, to Magalie Roman Salas,
• 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
  • is taking to make additional space available for collocation. The incumbent LEC must maintain a publicly available document, posted for viewing on the incumbent LEC's publicly available Internet site, indicating all premises that are full, and must update such a document within ten days of the date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space. ***** 4. � 51.323 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (k) to read as follows: ***** (b) An incumbent LEC shall permit the collocation and use of any equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements. (1) Equipment is necessary for interconnection if an inability to deploy that equipment would, as a practical, economic, or operational
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-234A1.txt
  • that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.'' Any disputes regarding whether an incumbent LEC complies with this standard in evaluating requests to move a virtual arrangement to part of the incumbent LEC's premises where physical collocation is allowed should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Point of Termination Bays In the Advanced Services First Report and Order, the Commission adopted section 51.323(k)(2) of the Commission's rules, which provides that ``[a]n incumbent LEC may not require competitors to use an intermediate interconnection arrangement in lieu of direct connection to the incumbent's network if technically feasible.'' Verizon requests that we clarify that section 51.323(k)(2) does not preclude an incumbent LEC from requiring that collocators connect to the incumbent's network through a POT bay. Verizon
• 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
  • No. 98-147, Comments Sprint Corporation (September 25, 1998)) (``Sprint Comments'') at 18 (citing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at �147). Sprint Comments at 18 (emphasis added). As the Bureau stated in the Forfeiture Order, Sprint states that the Internet posting would be ``current,'' indicating a need to track current space availability. Forfeiture Order at 10965, � 7. See 47 C.F.R. � 51.323(h). See also Sprint Comments at 18 (citing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at �147). SBC overlooks this first reporting requirement despite the fact that Sprint addresses it in the paragraph on which SBC relies for this argument, see Application for Review at 11 (citing Sprint Comments at 18), and despite its inclusion in the same subsection of the collocation rules as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-256A1.txt
  • remaining SBC company, SWBT, which serves five states, BellSouth, and Qwest do not offer physical collocation in their federal tariffs. Verizon Application at 1. Verizon Application at 8-9. See 47 C.F.R. � 63.71(a)(5)(ii). Verizon Application at 2. Verizon will continue to provide cross-connects between collocation arrangements as required by the Commission's rules. Verizon Reply at 4-6. See 47 C.F.R. � 51.323(h). Verizon Application at 5-6. Verizon Application at 4-5. Letter from Joseph Mulieri, Assistant Vice President Federal Regulatory Advocacy, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 02-237 at 1 (July 11, 2003) (Verizon July 11 Ex Parte Letter). Verizon Application at 6. Verizon Application at 6-8; Verizon March 31 Ex Parte Letter at 2. Verizon Application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • feeder/distribution interface. An incumbent LEC shall, upon a site-specific request, provide access to a copper subloop at a splice near a remote terminal. The incumbent LEC shall be compensated for providing this access in accordance with �� 51.501 through 51.515. (ii) Rules for collocation. Access to the copper subloop is subject to the Commission's collocation rules at �� 51.321 and 51.323. (2) Subloops for access to multiunit premises wiring. An incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to the subloop for access to multiunit premises wiring on an unbundled basis regardless of the capacity level or type of loop that the requesting telecommunications carrier seeks to provision for its customer. The subloop for access to multiunit premises
• 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
  • make all network elements available. It requires the Commission to determine on a rational basis which network elements must be made available, taking into account the objectives of the Act and giving some substance to the `necessary' and `impair' requirements.''); see also, e.g., USTA II, 359 F.3d at 570; USTA I, 290 F.3d at 425-26. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 51.323(k)(3) (requiring incumbent LECs to make available adjacent space collocation where physical collocation space is exhausted). See, e.g., Qwest Reply at 76 n.216. USTA I, 290 F.3d at 426. Moreover, the competitive carrier cost-based arguments fail to take into consideration that ``average unit costs are necessarily higher at the outset for any new entrant into virtually any business.'' USTA I, 290
• 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
  • 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 Local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-111A1.txt
  • Cox technicians enter SBC-OK terminals at MTEs, identify UNE Subloops that Cox seeks to use, disconnect those UNE Subloops from the SBC-OK network and connect them to the Cox network by cross-connect procedure.'' Arbitrator's Report at 45. In other contexts, the Commission has expressly barred intermediate arrangements or devices where it has required ``direct access.'' See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 51.323(k)(2) (``Incumbent LECs must permit collocating carriers to have direct access to their equipment. An incumbent LEC may not require competitors to use an intermediate interconnection arrangement in lieu of direct connection to the incumbent's network if technically feasible.''); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the Interconnection of Private Land Mobile Paging Systems with the Public Switched Telephone
• 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
  • 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 Opinion
• 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
  • 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 Capability,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15606, para. 204 (emphasis added)). Under Commission rules, the burden is on the ``incumbent LEC that denies a request for a particular method of interconnection . . . [to] prove to the state commission that the requested method of interconnection . . . is not technically feasible.'' 47 C.F.R. � 51.323(d). Nonetheless, the Commission previously has elected to clarify certain methods of interconnection as technically feasible, and also to identify other categories as presumptively technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. �� 51.323(b), (c). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15602, para. 198. As the Commission further concluded, ``the 1996 Act bars consideration of costs in determining `technically feasible' points
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 - Pricing of interconnection and unbundled elements 51.501 Scope. 51.503 General pricing standard. 51.505 Forward-looking economic
• 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
  • 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 collocation27
• 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 16. SWBT's physical collocation tariff contained a 50 square foot minimum space requirement for shared cage collocation. However, our rules provide that an ILEC must make shared collocation space available in single-bay increments or their equivalent, i.e., a competing carrier can purchase space in increments small enough to collocate a single rack, or bay, of equipment. 47 CFR � 51.323 (k)(1). We note that SWBT eliminated the minimum space requirement and notified competitive LECs through an Accessible Letter of February 29, 2000 that it had removed the minimum space requirement. See SWBT Accessible Letter of February 29, 2000 ``Clarification of minimum cage size for Caged and Shared Cage collocation Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas ,'' No. CLEC00-050. SWBT Texas I Application
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/LoTelComp/collocation.html
  • March 31, 1999, the Commission issued additional collocation rules in the Advanced Services First Report and Order (``the Order''). The Order requires, among other things, that incumbent LECs offer cageless collocation arrangements, whereby a competing LEC obtains physical collocation space without having to build a protective cage around its own equipment. The Commission codified the cageless collocation requirement at section 51.323(k) of its rules, 47 C.F.R. 51.323(k). Section 51.323(k) became effective on June 1, 1999. Competing LECs filed numerous applications for cageless collocation arrangements with GTE. FCC/GTE Consent Decree Later in 1999, the Enforcement Bureau received information from competing LECs alleging that GTE had refused to allow them to collocate using a cageless arrangement until August 1, 1999, two months after
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-61A1.html
  • No. 98-147, Comments Sprint Corporation (September 25, 1998)) (``Sprint Comments'') at 18 (citing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 147). 49 Sprint Comments at 18 (emphasis added). As the Bureau stated in the Forfeiture Order, Sprint states that the Internet posting would be ``current,'' indicating a need to track current space availability. Forfeiture Order at 10965, 7. 50 See 47 C.F.R. 51.323(h). See also Sprint Comments at 18 (citing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 147). 51 SBC overlooks this first reporting requirement despite the fact that Sprint addresses it in the paragraph on which SBC relies for this argument, see Application for Review at 11 (citing Sprint Comments at 18), and despite its inclusion in the same subsection of the collocation rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281.txt
  • In the Matter of ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0113 ) ) Acct. No. X32080012 GTE Service Corporation ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 31, 2000 Released: August 1, 2000 By the Commission: The Commission has been conducting an informal investigation into potential violations by GTE Service Corporation (GTE) of section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.323(k) of the Commission's rules, in connection with GTE's failure to include cageless collocation in its physical collocation offering during the period June 1, 1999 to August 1, 1999. The Commission and GTE have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the Commission's informal investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and is incorporated by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281cd.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281cd.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281cd.txt
  • ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0113 Acct. No. X32080012 I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or the ``Commission'') and GTE Service Corporation (``GTE'' or the ``Company'') hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating an informal investigation by Commission staff into whether GTE violated section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.323(k) of the Commission's rules. The investigation focused on whether GTE had failed to offer cageless collocation arrangements as part of its physical collocation offering during the period June 1, 1999 through August 1, 1999. II. BACKGROUND Section 251 of the Communications Act imposes on GTE, as an incumbent local exchange carrier (``ILEC''), several obligations designed to promote competition in local
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 - Pricing of interconnection and unbundled elements 51.501 Scope. 51.503 General pricing standard. 51.505 Forward-looking economic
• 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
  • 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 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
  • 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 collocation27
• 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 16. SWBT's physical collocation tariff contained a 50 square foot minimum space requirement for shared cage collocation. However, our rules provide that an ILEC must make shared collocation space available in single-bay increments or their equivalent, i.e., a competing carrier can purchase space in increments small enough to collocate a single rack, or bay, of equipment. 47 CFR � 51.323 (k)(1). We note that SWBT eliminated the minimum space requirement and notified competitive LECs through an Accessible Letter of February 29, 2000 that it had removed the minimum space requirement. See SWBT Accessible Letter of February 29, 2000 ``Clarification of minimum cage size for Caged and Shared Cage collocation Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas ,'' No. CLEC00-050. SWBT Texas I Application
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00297.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00297.txt
  • land owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by an incumbent LEC that is adjacent to these structures. This definition, of course, excludes land and buildings in which the incumbent LEC has no interest. In that circumstance, the incumbent LEC and its competitors have an equal opportunity to obtain space within which to locate their equipment. We also clarify that under section 51.323(k)(3) of our rules, an incumbent LEC must make available collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures, to the extent technically feasible, at premises where physical collocation space is legitimately exhausted, even if virtual collocation space is not exhausted. This approach is consistent with the language of section 251(c)(6), which permits an incumbent LEC to substitute virtual collocation for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00336.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00336.txt
  • SBC commits to providing the engineering controlled splice in the most cost-effective manner possible. See SBC August 2, 2000 Ex Parte at 10 (describing Proposed Modification Commitment 10). We note that, through the collaborative process proposed by SBC, participants may identify a more efficient process for facilitating collocation at remote terminals than an engineering controlled splice. See 47 C.F.R. � 51.323(f) (3) (requiring incumbent LECs to account for projected demand when planning renovations or constructing new facilities). SBC intends to upgrade certain existing remote terminals according to a schedule posted on its Internet site. See (listing SBC's planned deployment of NGDLC systems into remote terminals). See, e.g., Jato July 24, 2000 Ex Parte at 4-5 (proposing alternative method for
• 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
  • is taking to make additional space available for collocation. The incumbent LEC must maintain a publicly available document, posted for viewing on the incumbent LEC's publicly available Internet site, indicating all premises that are full, and must update such a document within ten days of the date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space. ***** 4. � 51.323 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (k) to read as follows: ***** (b) An incumbent LEC shall permit the collocation and use of any equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements. (1) Equipment is necessary for interconnection if an inability to deploy that equipment would, as a practical, economic, or operational
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fc00281a.doc
  • ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0113 Acct. No. X32080012 I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or the ``Commission'') and GTE Service Corporation (``GTE'' or the ``Company'') hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating an informal investigation by Commission staff into whether GTE violated section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.323(k) of the Commission's rules. The investigation focused on whether GTE had failed to offer cageless collocation arrangements as part of its physical collocation offering during the period June 1, 1999 through August 1, 1999. II. BACKGROUND Section 251 of the Communications Act imposes on GTE, as an incumbent local exchange carrier (``ILEC''), several obligations designed to promote competition in local
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00281.doc
  • In the Matter of ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0113 ) ) Acct. No. X32080012 GTE Service Corporation ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 31, 2000 Released: August 1, 2000 By the Commission: The Commission has been conducting an informal investigation into potential violations by GTE Service Corporation (GTE) of section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.323(k) of the Commission's rules, in connection with GTE's failure to include cageless collocation in its physical collocation offering during the period June 1, 1999 to August 1, 1999. The Commission and GTE have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the Commission's informal investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and is incorporated by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2002/dd020305.html
  • & BERGEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT. Denied Greco's petition. Action by: Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted: 03/04/2002 by ORDER. (DA No. 02-511). WTB [49]DA-02-511A1.doc [50]DA-02-511A1.pdf [51]DA-02-511A1.txt ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED MARCH 4, 2002, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 42: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Released: 03/04/2002. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON SECTION 51.323(K)(2) OF THE COMMISSION RULES ON COLLOCATION. (DA No. 02-506). (Dkt No 98-147). Comments Due: 03/25/2002. Reply Comments Due: 04/02/2002. CCB. Contact: John Adams or Janice Myles at (202) 418-1580, email: jkadams@fcc.gov or jmyles@fcc.gov [52]DA-02-506A1.doc [53]DA-02-506A1.pdf [54]DA-02-506A1.txt Released: 03/04/2002. COMMON CARRIER BUREAU ANNOUNCES RELEASE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTING WORKSHEET (FCC FORM 499-A) FOR APRIL 1, 2002 FILING BY ALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS. (DA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2005/dd051206.html
  • TTY: 202/418-2555 December 6, 2005 __________________________________________________________________ THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Report No: 46125 Released: 12/06/2005. BROADCAST ACTIONS. MB [1]DOC-262554A2.txt [2]DOC-262554A1.pdf Report No: 26125 Released: 12/06/2005. BROADCAST APPLICATIONS. MB [3]DOC-262553A2.txt [4]DOC-262553A1.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- DEPLOYMENT OF WIRELINE SERVICES OFFERING ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY. Granted a temporary conditional waiver of Section 51.323(c) of the Commission's rules to the extent described to provide BellSouth the necessary flexibility to most effectively restore communications services in areas affected by recent hurricanes. (Dkt No. 98-147). Action by: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 12/06/2005 by ORDER. (DA No. 05-3009). WCB [5]DA-05-3009A1.doc [6]DA-05-3009A1.pdf [7]DA-05-3009A1.txt ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED DECEMBER 5, 2005, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/LoTelComp/collocation.html
  • March 31, 1999, the Commission issued additional collocation rules in the Advanced Services First Report and Order (``the Order''). The Order requires, among other things, that incumbent LECs offer cageless collocation arrangements, whereby a competing LEC obtains physical collocation space without having to build a protective cage around its own equipment. The Commission codified the cageless collocation requirement at section 51.323(k) of its rules, 47 C.F.R. 51.323(k). Section 51.323(k) became effective on June 1, 1999. Competing LECs filed numerous applications for cageless collocation arrangements with GTE. FCC/GTE Consent Decree Later in 1999, the Enforcement Bureau received information from competing LECs alleging that GTE had refused to allow them to collocate using a cageless arrangement until August 1, 1999, two months after
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-61A1.html
  • No. 98-147, Comments Sprint Corporation (September 25, 1998)) (``Sprint Comments'') at 18 (citing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 147). 49 Sprint Comments at 18 (emphasis added). As the Bureau stated in the Forfeiture Order, Sprint states that the Internet posting would be ``current,'' indicating a need to track current space availability. Forfeiture Order at 10965, 7. 50 See 47 C.F.R. 51.323(h). See also Sprint Comments at 18 (citing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 147). 51 SBC overlooks this first reporting requirement despite the fact that Sprint addresses it in the paragraph on which SBC relies for this argument, see Application for Review at 11 (citing Sprint Comments at 18), and despite its inclusion in the same subsection of the collocation rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281.txt
  • In the Matter of ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0113 ) ) Acct. No. X32080012 GTE Service Corporation ) ) ORDER Adopted: July 31, 2000 Released: August 1, 2000 By the Commission: The Commission has been conducting an informal investigation into potential violations by GTE Service Corporation (GTE) of section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.323(k) of the Commission's rules, in connection with GTE's failure to include cageless collocation in its physical collocation offering during the period June 1, 1999 to August 1, 1999. The Commission and GTE have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would terminate the Commission's informal investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and is incorporated by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281cd.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281cd.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00281cd.txt
  • ) ) File No. EB-00-IH-0113 Acct. No. X32080012 I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or the ``Commission'') and GTE Service Corporation (``GTE'' or the ``Company'') hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating an informal investigation by Commission staff into whether GTE violated section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.323(k) of the Commission's rules. The investigation focused on whether GTE had failed to offer cageless collocation arrangements as part of its physical collocation offering during the period June 1, 1999 through August 1, 1999. II. BACKGROUND Section 251 of the Communications Act imposes on GTE, as an incumbent local exchange carrier (``ILEC''), several obligations designed to promote competition in local
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • 467 U.S. at 844. Consequently, we stand by our earlier determinations upholding several of the Commission's unbundling rules in light of the Act's terms, and we also find that the Commission's rules and policies regarding the incumbent LECs' duty to provide for physical collocation of equipment to be consistent with the Act's terms contained in subsection 251(c)(6). See 47 C.F.R. 51.323(f); First Report and Order, 585 (requiring, among other things, incumbent LECs to take account of projected demand for collocation of equipment when planning renovations or new constructions).[38]^(38) H. The Scope of Incumbent LECs' Resale Obligations-Rule 51.613 One petitioner objects to the FCC's determination that discounted and promotional offerings are "telecommunication service[s]" that are subject to the resale requirement of subsection
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • 467 U.S. at 844. Consequently, we stand by our earlier determinations upholding several of the Commission's unbundling rules in light of the Act's terms, and we also find that the Commission's rules and policies regarding the incumbent LECs' duty to provide for physical collocation of equipment to be consistent with the Act's terms contained in subsection 251(c)(6). See 47 C.F.R. 51.323(f); First Report and Order, 585 (requiring, among other things, incumbent LECs to take account of projected demand for collocation of equipment when planning renovations or new constructions).[38]^(38) H. The Scope of Incumbent LECs' Resale Obligations-Rule 51.613 One petitioner objects to the FCC's determination that discounted and promotional offerings are "telecommunication service[s]" that are subject to the resale requirement of subsection