FCC Web Documents citing 51.503

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.txt
  • a state commission may reject a negotiated agreement if it finds that the agreement "discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement."728 Thus, the commission in each state 723 See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), (4)(B) (nondiscrimination requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale); 47 C.F.R. § 51.503(c) (providing that an incumbent's rates shall not vary on the "basis of the class of customers served by the requesting carrier, or the type of services that the requesting carrier purchasing such elements uses them to provide"). See also SBC/Ameritech Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 14915, para. 495. 724 See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). With Bell Atlantic/GTE voluntarily offering to
• 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
  • associated with those facilities) available to requesting competitive carriers on an unbundled basis. See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15624, 15631, paras. 241, 258. See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-56, paras. 672-703. See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15851-54, paras. 694-98; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.503, 51.505. The term ``common costs'' refers to ``costs that are incurred in connection with the production of multiple products or services, and remains unchanged as the relative proportion of those products or services varies.'' Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15845, para. 676. In its rules, the Commission defines forward-looking common costs as ``economic costs efficiently
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 51.601 Scope of resale rules. 51.603 Resale obligation of all local exchange carriers. 51.605 Additional
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.txt
  • III (advanced services OSS discount). 900 See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments at 16, App. A at 83-87; CompTel July 19 Comments at 14-18; Focal/Adelphia/McLeod July 26 Reply Comments at 9. 901 See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), (4)(b) (nondiscrimination requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale); 47 C.F.R. § 51.503(c) (providing that an incumbent's rates shall not vary on the "basis of the class of customers served by the requesting carrier, or the type of services that the requesting carrier purchasing such elements uses them to provide."). 902 See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). With SBC/Ameritech voluntarily offering to amend interconnection agreements, states will not be in the position of putting
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.txt
  • discount); Section III (advanced services OSS discount). See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments at 16, App. A at 83-87; CompTel July 19 Comments at 14-18; Focal/Adelphia/McLeod July 26 Reply Comments at 9. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), (4)(b) (nondiscrimination requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale); 47 C.F.R. § 51.503(c) (providing that an incumbent's rates shall not vary on the ``basis of the class of customers served by the requesting carrier, or the type of services that the requesting carrier purchasing such elements uses them to provide.''). See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). With SBC/Ameritech voluntarily offering to amend interconnection agreements, states will not be in the position of putting the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 51.601 Scope of resale rules. 51.603 Resale obligation of all local exchange carriers. 51.605 Additional
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.txt
  • discount); Section III (advanced services OSS discount). See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments at 16, App. A at 83-87; CompTel July 19 Comments at 14-18; Focal/Adelphia/McLeod July 26 Reply Comments at 9. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), (4)(b) (nondiscrimination requirements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. § 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale); 47 C.F.R. § 51.503(c) (providing that an incumbent's rates shall not vary on the ``basis of the class of customers served by the requesting carrier, or the type of services that the requesting carrier purchasing such elements uses them to provide.''). See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). With SBC/Ameritech voluntarily offering to amend interconnection agreements, states will not be in the position of putting the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • the Legislative Branch of our national government. A. The FCC's Pricing Rules All of the petitioners vehemently challenge the FCC's pricing rules. Their primary target is the FCC's mandate that state commissions employ the "total element long-run incremental cost" (TELRIC) method to calculate the costs that an incumbent LEC incurs in making its facilities available to competitors. See 47 C.F.R. 51.503, 51.505 (1996). After applying the TELRIC method and arriving at a cost figure, the state commissions, according to the FCC's rules, must then determine the price that an incumbent LEC may charge its competitors, based on the TELRIC-driven cost figure.[8]^(8) The petitioners also challenge the FCC's proxy rates, which, under the provisions of the First Report and Order, are to
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • the Legislative Branch of our national government. A. The FCC's Pricing Rules All of the petitioners vehemently challenge the FCC's pricing rules. Their primary target is the FCC's mandate that state commissions employ the "total element long-run incremental cost" (TELRIC) method to calculate the costs that an incumbent LEC incurs in making its facilities available to competitors. See 47 C.F.R. 51.503, 51.505 (1996). After applying the TELRIC method and arriving at a cost figure, the state commissions, according to the FCC's rules, must then determine the price that an incumbent LEC may charge its competitors, based on the TELRIC-driven cost figure.[8]^(8) The petitioners also challenge the FCC's proxy rates, which, under the provisions of the First Report and Order, are to
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.wp
  • that primary authority to implement the local-competition provisions belonged to the States rather than to the FCC. They thus argued that many of the local- competition rules were invalid, most notably the one requiring that prices for interconnection and unbundled access be based on 'Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost' (TELRIC)--a forward-looking rather than historic measure. [FN3] See 47 CFR 51.503, 51.505 (1997). The Court of Appeals agreed, and vacated the pricing rules, and several other aspects of the Order, as reaching beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 120 F. 3d 753, 800, 804, 805-806 (1997). It held that the general rulemaking authority conferred upon the Commission by the Communications Act of 1934 extended only to interstate matters,
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/96-3321.html
  • intruded on the states' role in establishing rates because the proxy prices were optional. The First Report and Order very clearly commands the use of the proxy prices by directing that "a state commission shall use [default proxies] . . . in the period before it applies the pricing methodology." First Report and Order ¶ 619 (emphasis added). Additionally, rule 51.503(b) states that the ILECs' rates for its elements "shall be established" using either TELRIC or the proxy prices. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.503(b) (emphasis added). The word "shall" is language of a mandatory nature. Clark v. Brewer, 776 F.2d 226, 230 (8th Cir. 1985). It is clear from the language of the First Report and Order, as well as the