FCC Web Documents citing 51.405

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1951A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ? ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ § Ó ÿ ÿ ÿ Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the matter of ACS of Alaska Inc., ACS of Fairbanks, Inc., and ACS of the Northland, Inc. Petition to Amend Section 51.405 of the Commission's Rules to Implement the Eighth Circuit's Decision in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC Regarding the Burden of Proof in Rural Exemption Cases Under Section 251(f)(1) of the Communications Act ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-98 ORDER Adopted: August 27, 2001 Released: August 27, 2001 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1052A1.txt
  • ACS WITHDRAWS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION CC DOCKET NO. 96-98 On April 12, 2004, ACS of Alaska, Inc., ACS of Fairbanks, Inc., and ACS of the Northland, Inc. (ACS) filed a letter withdrawing a petition for reconsideration of the Common Carrier Bureau's August 2001 Rural Exemption Order. In that Order, the Bureau had denied ACS' petition for rulemaking to amend section 51.405 of the Commission's rules to implement the Eighth Circuit's decision in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744, 761-62 (8th Cir. 2000), reversed in part on other grounds, Verizon Communications v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467 (2002), regarding the burden of proof in rural exemption cases under section 251(f)(1) of the Communications Act. On September 26, 2001, ACS sought reconsideration
• 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
  • specifically identify the subscriber line threshold for LEC eligibility for exemptions, suspensions or modifications. Need: These rules ensure appropriate adjustments are made for smaller incumbent LECs in order to avoid applying unduly burdensome requirements. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 251, 252. Section Number and Title: 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 -- G - RESALE Brief Description: The subpart implements section 251(b)(1) and 251(c)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which governs the terms and conditions under which LECs offer telecommunications services to requesting telecommunications carriers for resale. Need: Resale has been an important entry strategy both in the short term for many new entrants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210907A1.txt
  • Communications, Inc., MRFAC, Inc., The American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc., The Land Mobile Communications Council. In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (MM Docket No. 01-05/RM 10028/RM). Counterproposal - Fort Valley State University. In the Matter of Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the In the Matter of Petition to Amend Section 51.405 of the Commission's Rules to Implement the Eighth Circuit's Decision in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC Regarding the Burden of Proof in Rural Exemption Cases Under Section 251(f)(1) of the Communications Act (CC Docket No. 96-98). Petition for Rulemaking - ACS of Alaska, Inc., ACS of Fairbanks, Inc., (f/k/a ``PTI Communications, Inc.), ACS of the Northland, Inc. In the Matter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215546A1.txt
  • X X X CC 01-138 Non-docketed Proceeding 8/16 8/16 Sprint Communications Company L. P. Ofc. of Cmsr. Tristani Ofc. of Cmsr. Abernathy Ofc. of Cmsr. Martin Ofc. of Cmsr. Copps X X X X File No. CCB/CPD- 01-02 8/16 Latham & Watkins et al. Cmsr Abernathy Cmsr. Martin Former Cmsr. Furchtgott-Roth Common Carrier Bureau X X X X Amendment Section 51.405 8/16 Airadigm Communications Cmsr. Copps X DA 00-368 8/16 Request to withhold document from public inspection Leap Wireless Inter- Common Carrier national, Inc. Bureau X Leap's Petition for Waiver of Numbering Resource Utilization of Threshold and Allocation of Numbering Resources et al. -FCC- % - . E ^ _ ` u w y % - . E ^ ^ _
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216601A1.txt
  • Nextel Communications and Chadmoore Wireless Group, Inc. Request for Assignment DA 01-1955 (WT Docket No. 01-193). Opposition - Chadmoore Wireless Group, Inc. In the Matter of 2001 Annual Access Tariff Filings (CC Docket No. 01-206). Opposition - AT&T Corporation. In the Matter of ACS of Alaska, Inc., ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. and ACS of the Northland, Inc./Petition to Amend Section 51.405 of the Commission's Rules to Implement the Eighth Circuit's Decision in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC Regarding the Burden of Proof in Rural Exemption Cases Under Section 251(f)(1) of the Communications Act (CC Docket No. 96-98). Petition for Reconsideration - ACS of Alaska, ACS of Fairbanks, Inc, ACS of the Northland, Inc. -2- In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.txt
  • prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies''). See supra section V.B.4.c. 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16118, para. 1263; 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2). AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. at 385. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.405(b). In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission held that, in petitions under section 251(f)(2), ``a LEC must offer evidence that application of those requirements would be likely to cause undue economic burdens beyond the economic burdens typically associated with efficient competitive entry.'' 11 FCC Rcd at 16118, para. 1262. The Commission also placed the burden of proof
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 cost. 51.507 General rate structure standard. 51.509 Rate structure standards for specific elements. 51.511 Forward-looking economic cost per unit. 51.513 Proxies for forward-looking economic cost. 51.515 Application of access charges. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-8 Subpart G - Resale
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 cost. 51.507 General rate structure standard. 51.509 Rate structure standards for specific elements. 51.511 Forward-looking economic cost per unit. 51.513 Proxies for forward-looking economic cost. 51.515 Application of access charges. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-8 Subpart G - Resale
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99386.doc
  • unduly economically burdensome, is technically feasible, and is consistent with section 254 (other than subsections (b)(7) and (c)(1)(D) thereof)." Id. The summary of section 251 in the text assumes that the telecommunications carrier making the request is not a cable operator. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(1)(C). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16118, ¶ 1262. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.405(c). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16118, ¶ 1263. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.405(a). See also ¶ 0, supra. ACSI Comments (MCI); MCI Petition at 10-13; MCI Reply Comments at 7-8 (MCI). ACSI Comments (MCI); MCI Petition at 11-12, citing Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16118, ¶ 1263; 47 C.F.R. § 51.405. ACSI Comments (MCI); MCI Petition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr97-4.pdf
  • 12,484.383 19,627.957 32,112.341 9.411 45.527 54.939 12,493.794 19,673.484 32,167.280 MAR 1995 12,992.940 20,196.187 33,189.128 10.556 45.507 56.064 13,003.496 20,241.694 33,245.192 APR 1995 12,876.590 20,055.339 32,931.930 9.822 45.680 55.503 12,886.412 20,101.019 32,987.433 MAY 1995 12,922.323 20,252.704 33,175.027 10.271 46.955 57.226 12,932.594 20,299.659 33,232.253 JUN 1995 12,862.447 20,177.715 33,040.163 9.864 43.277 53.141 12,872.311 20,220.992 33,093.304 JUL 1995 12,790.073 20,002.531 32,792.605 9.309 42.095 51.405 12,799.382 20,044.626 32,844.010 AUG 1995 13,229.138 21,556.691 34,785.830 9.558 42.282 51.841 13,238.696 21,598.973 34,837.671 SEP 1995 12,898.598 20,481.745 33,380.344 8.256 36.663 44.920 12,906.854 20,518.408 33,425.264 OCT 1995 13,180.613 21,088.701 34,269.314 7.881 36.167 44.049 13,188.494 21,124.868 34,313.363 NOV 1995 13,170.575 21,068.258 34,238.833 6.997 32.759 39.756 13,177.572 21,101.017 34,278.589 DEC 1995 13,347.065 20,823.758 34,170.824 6.831 30.834 37.665 13,353.896 20,854.592 34,208.489 JAN 1996
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-8.pdf
  • 12,484.383 19,627.957 32,112.341 9.411 45.527 54.939 12,493.794 19,673.484 32,167.280 MAR 1995 12,992.940 20,196.187 33,189.128 10.556 45.507 56.064 13,003.496 20,241.694 33,245.192 APR 1995 12,876.590 20,055.339 32,931.930 9.822 45.680 55.503 12,886.412 20,101.019 32,987.433 MAY 1995 12,922.323 20,252.704 33,175.027 10.271 46.955 57.226 12,932.594 20,299.659 33,232.253 JUN 1995 12,862.447 20,177.715 33,040.163 9.864 43.277 53.141 12,872.311 20,220.992 33,093.304 JUL 1995 12,793.886 19,998.718 32,792.605 9.309 42.095 51.405 12,803.195 20,040.813 32,844.010 AUG 1995 13,233.599 21,552.231 34,785.830 9.558 42.282 51.841 13,243.157 21,594.513 34,837.671 SEP 1995 12,902.581 20,477.762 33,380.344 8.256 36.663 44.920 12,910.837 20,514.425 33,425.264 OCT 1995 13,184.847 21,084.467 34,269.314 7.881 36.167 44.049 13,192.728 21,120.634 34,313.363 NOV 1995 13,172.363 21,064.516 34,236.879 6.997 32.759 39.756 13,179.360 21,097.275 34,276.635 DEC 1995 13,349.932 20,819.766 34,169.699 6.831 30.834 37.665 13,356.763 20,850.600 34,207.364 JAN 1996
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2001/dd010828.html
  • DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 168: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NEWS RELEASES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER COPPS ON COMMISSIONER TRISTANI'S DEPARTURE NOTICE. News Release. News Media Contact: Jordan Goldstein at (202) 418-2000 CMMR [46]DOC-215692A1.doc [47]DOC-215692A1.pdf [48]DOC-215692A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ACS OF ALASKA, INC. ACS OF FAIRBANKS, INC. AND ACS OF NORTHLAND, INC.. Denied ACS' Petition to amend Section 51.405 of the Commission's Rules to implement the Eighth Circuit's Decision in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC regarding the burden of proof in rural exemption cases under Section 251(f)(1) of the Communications Act. Action by: Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: 08/27/2001 by ORDER. (DA No. 01-1951). CCB [49]DA-01-1951A1.doc [50]DA-01-1951A1.pdf [51]DA-01-1951A1.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215693A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215693A1.txt 3. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2030A1.doc 4. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2030A1.pdf 5. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2030A1.txt
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • an incentive to negotiate initial agreements that would be acceptable to a wide range of later requesting carriers. We conclude that the FCC's interpretation conflicts with the Act's design to promote negotiated agreements. Thus, we find the FCC's "pick and choose" rule to be an unreasonable construction of the Act and vacate it for the foregoing reasons. C. Rural Exemptions-Rule 51.405 A few petitioners take issue with the Commission's rule that establishes additional standards that the state commissions are to follow in determining whether rural and small LECs are entitled to exemptions from or suspensions or modifications of the duties imposed on incumbent LECs generally under the Act. The Commission's rule, 47 C.F.R. 51.405, purports to implement subsection 251(f), which governs
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • an incentive to negotiate initial agreements that would be acceptable to a wide range of later requesting carriers. We conclude that the FCC's interpretation conflicts with the Act's design to promote negotiated agreements. Thus, we find the FCC's "pick and choose" rule to be an unreasonable construction of the Act and vacate it for the foregoing reasons. C. Rural Exemptions-Rule 51.405 A few petitioners take issue with the Commission's rule that establishes additional standards that the state commissions are to follow in determining whether rural and small LECs are entitled to exemptions from or suspensions or modifications of the duties imposed on incumbent LECs generally under the Act. The Commission's rule, 47 C.F.R. 51.405, purports to implement subsection 251(f), which governs
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.wp
  • displace that explicit authority. We hold, therefore, that the Commission has jurisdiction to design a pricing methodology. For similar reasons, we reverse the Court of Appeals' determinations that the Commission had no jurisdiction to promulgate rules regarding state review of pre-existing interconnection agreements between incumbent LECs and other carriers, regarding rural exemptions, and regarding dialing parity. See 47 CFR 51.303, 51.405, and 51.205-51.215 (1997). None of the statutory provisions that these rules interpret displaces the Commission's general rulemaking authority. While it is true that the 1996 Act entrusts state commissions with the job of approving interconnection agreements, 47 U. S. C. 252(e) (1994 ed., Supp. II), and granting exemptions to rural LECs, 251(f), these assignments, like the rate-establishing assignment just discussed,
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.html
  • all parties are familiar with the opinion of the Supreme Court as well as our prior opinion. In our prior opinion, Iowa Utils. Bd. v. F.C.C., 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), we concluded, in relevant part, that (1) the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating various pricing rules; (2) the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating 47 C.F.R. § 51.405, regarding rural exemptions; (3) the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating 47 C.F.R. § 51.303, regarding preexisting agreements; and (4) various unbundling rules, including the superior quality rules and the combination of network elements rule, were contrary to the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. See AT & T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd.,