FCC Web Documents citing 51.509

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

• 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
  • New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. Bell Atlantic New York Order, id.; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, id. at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). SWBT Texas Order, id.; AT&T
• 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
  • agreement with Verizon. See Verizon Massachusetts I Application, App. J, Tab 37 (Interconnection Agreement Dated as of March 19, 1999 by and between New England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts and Qwest Communications Company). See Verizon Massachusetts II Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 139. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). Id. § 251(c)(2). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Massachusetts Department Massachusetts I Comments at 35-37. See ALTS Massachusetts I Comments at 14, 18-20; Covad Massachusetts I Comments at 44-47; Rhythms Massachusetts I Comments at 18-20; Rhythms Massachusetts I Reply at 8-9; ALTS Massachusetts II Comments at 6, 11-14; Covad
• 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
  • para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, para. 61-62; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394,
• 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
  • notices of premises that have run out of collocation space. See Verizon Communications, Inc., Consent Decree, File No. EB-01-IH-0236, DA-01-2079 (rel. Sept. 14, 2001). Therefore, we believe that the Enforcement Bureau, in its review prior to the issuance of the Consent Decree, has appropriately addressed the concerns raised in the audit. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Pennsylvania Commission Comments at 38-39, 49. Sprint Comments at 19-22. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at Attach. 12. Sprint Comments at 21 n. 36. Id. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 83. Id. at para. 80. Id. at para. 78. Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.txt
  • West, File Nos. E-98-13, E-98-15, E-98-16, E-98-17, E-98-18, FCC No. 00-194 (rel. June 21, 2000), pet. for review docketed sub nom., Qwest v. FCC, No. 00-1376 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 17, 2000). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(c). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(d). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(e). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Kansas Commission Comments at 9; SWBT Application App. C-Oklahoma, Vol. 25a-c, Tab 275 (Order Regarding Recommendation On 271 Application Pursuant to Telecommunications Act of 1996, Cause No. PUD 970000560 (Sept. 28, 2000)) at 161-62 (Oklahoma Commission Final 271 Order). Sprint Comments
• 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
  • SWBT Sparks Missouri Aff., para. 35. See also Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 01-132, CC Docket No. 01-92, paras. 112-114 (seeking comment on appropriate intercarrier compensation for single point of interconnection arrangements.) McLeod Missouri Comments at 25. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. See also Section III.A.1.b (discussing status of litigation over the Commission's pricing rules). SWBT Missouri I Application, App. C, Tab 86, Missouri Commission, Case No. TO -99-227, Application of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to Provide Notice of Intent to File An
• 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
  • para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC
• 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
  • 271. See Cbeyond GALA I Comments at 7-11. XO GALA I Reply Comments at 4. Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17475, para. 101; SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6355, para. 230; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18366-67, paras. 22-27. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). Id. § 251(c)(2). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Georgia Commission GALA I Comments at 45; Louisiana Commission GALA I Comments at 23. AT&T contends "that BellSouth charges almost a 50 percent higher rate for the same type of collocation space in Georgia as compared to Louisiana." See AT&T GALA
• 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
  • para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • to Respond to a Collocation Request ­ Price & Schedule Quote); PM 41- 00100 (Time to Provide a Collocation Arrangement ­ New), PM 41-00200 (Time to Provide a Collocation Arrangement ­ Augmentation). See also Pacific Bell Johnson Aff. at paras. 48-57. 423 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). 424 Id. § 251(c)(2). 425 Id. § 252(d)(1). 426 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. 427 California Commission Order at Conclusion of Law No. 6. Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-330 69 Commission]-approved interconnection agreements and FCC rules[.]"428 The California Commission also concludes that Pacific Bell has satisfied the requirements of checklist item 1.429 119. We reject
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. 54 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 55 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). 56 Id. § 252(d)(1). 57 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. 58 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). 59 SWBT Texas Order,
• 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
  • para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-224A1.txt
  • Order at para. 641. We note that load coils are not necessary for voice service on loops less than 18,000 feet in length and generally can be removed in a batch process; on loops in excess of 18,000 feet, however, load coils are needed for voice service and typically must be removed one loop at a time. 47 C.F.R. § 51.509(a), (c). Id. § 51.509(b), (d), (e); Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15878, para. 755. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15878, para. 756-57. Id. at 15882-83, para. 764. Id. at 15882-83, para. 765. See, e.g., Application by Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • date on which the Commission releases public notice of the incumbent LEC filing, unless the Commission rules otherwise within that time. Until the Commission has either ruled on an objection or the 90-day period for the Commission's consideration has expired, an incumbent LEC may not retire those copper loops or copper subloops at issue for replacement with fiber-to-the-home loops. Section 51.509 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: § 51.509 Rate structure standards for specific elements. (a) Local loop and subloop. Loop and subloop costs shall be recovered through flat-rated charges. ***** (h) Network interface device. An incumbent LEC must establish a price for the network interface device when that unbundled network element is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-277A1.txt
  • Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15788, para. 567. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a). See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15693, para. 386. 47 C.F.R. § 51.515(a). 47 C.F.R. § 51.501(b). Section 51.509(g) lists collocation as one of the specific elements for which rate structure rules are established. 47 C.F.R. § 509(g). NECA Direct Case at 24. 47 C.F.R. § 69.110(a); NECA Direct Case at 24-25. NECA Direct Case at 25. 47 C.F.R. § 69.110(a). See 47 C.F.R. § 51.509(g). GCI Opposition at 18. See GCI Opposition at 14. GCI also notes that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.txt
  • Commission's rate structure rule for the local switching UNE requires that costs for this element be recovered through a combination of a flat-rated charge for line ports and one or more flat-rated or per-MOU charges for the switching matrix and trunk ports, but it does not specify a particular combination or means for determining the appropriate combination. 47 C.F.R. § 51.509(b). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15878, para. 757. See supra para. 23 n.67 Compare 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(2) and 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15844-56, 16023, paras. 672-703, 1054. See TELRIC NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 18953, para. 18. We note that the term ``additional
• 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
  • at 15850, para. 690. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15852-53, para. 696. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15693, para. 385. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16025, para. 1057. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16025, para. 1057. Cf. 47 U.S.C. § 51.509(b) (requiring only that line port costs of the unbundled local switching element be recovered through a flat-rated charge). 47 U.S.C. § 51.509(d). See, e.g., Regulation and Markets at 122-23. See, e.g., Theory of Public Utility Pricing, 1 Bell J. Econ. at 117-20; Optimal Regulation at 191-213. Demand for subscription is generally estimated to be significantly less elastic than demand for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers. 51.607 Wholesale pricing standard. 51.609 Determination of
• 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
  • a two-wire digital link that is longer than 18,000 feet. Id. NYPSC UNE Tariff at 5.5.1.1(D)(2)(b). Id. Bell Atlantic-New York's Joint Affidavit in Support of Proposed Rates for ADSL-Qualified, HDSL-Qualified, and Digital-Designed Links, Case 98-C-1357 (Sept. 13, 1999) at 16. Id. Id. at 17. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15692. Id. Id. 47 C.F.R. § 51.509(e). ALTS Comments at 36-37; CoreComm Comments at 6; Covad Comments at 6; Intermedia Comments at 8; MCI WorldCom Comments at 21. ALTS Comments at 36-37. ALTS Comments at 36-37; CoreComm Comments at 6; Covad Comments at 6; Intermedia Comments at 8; MCI WorldCom Comments at 21. ALTS Comments at 36-37. Id. at 36. Bell Atlantic Reply at 53-55. New York
• 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
  • a point at which one carrier's responsibility for service ends and the other carrier's begins. See id. at 15778, n.1332. Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4783-85, paras. 40-42. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.305(a)(5), 51.321(a)-(b); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para 66. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804, 805-06 (1997). AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). Id. at 380. Id. at 382. Id. at 384. Id. We note that other unbundled network elements are required
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • West, File Nos. E-98-13, E-98-15, E-98-16, E-98-17, E-98-18, FCC No. 00-194 (rel. June 21, 2000), pet. for review docketed sub nom., Qwest v. FCC, No. 00-1376 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 17, 2000). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(c). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(d). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(e). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Kansas Commission Comments at 9; SWBT Application App. C-Oklahoma, Vol. 25a-c, Tab 275 (Order Regarding Recommendation On 271 Application Pursuant to Telecommunications Act of 1996, Cause No. PUD 970000560 (Sept. 28, 2000)) at 161-62 (Oklahoma Commission Final 271 Order). Sprint Comments
• 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
  • notices of premises that have run out of collocation space. See Verizon Communications, Inc., Consent Decree, File No. EB-01-IH-0236, DA-01-2079 (rel. Sept. 14, 2001). Therefore, we believe that the Enforcement Bureau, in its review prior to the issuance of the Consent Decree, has appropriately addressed the concerns raised in the audit. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Pennsylvania Commission Comments at 38-39, 49. Sprint Comments at 19-22. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at Attach. 12. Sprint Comments at 21 n. 36. Id. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 83. Id. at para. 80. Id. at para. 78. Id. at
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. 54 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 55 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). 56 Id. § 252(d)(1). 57 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844- 61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. 58 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). 59 SWBT Texas
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers. 51.607 Wholesale pricing standard. 51.609 Determination of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97298.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97298.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97298.wp
  • Transport either on a flat-rated or a minute-of-use basis. The method of pricing is not dispositive to determining 790 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-298 For example, our original pricing rule regarding shared transport permitted rates to be based either on a 791 minute-of-use basis, or in another manner consistent with the manner in which costs are incurred. 47 C.F.R. § 51.509(d). We note, however, that we are not addressing the issue of whether both cost recovery methods that Ameritech offers represent efficient rate structures for the recovery of the costs of dedicated facilities. For example, our access charge rules estimate a "loading factor of 9,000 minutes per month per voice- 792 grade circuit" for certain transport facilities. 47 C.F.R. § 69.111.
• 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
  • a two-wire digital link that is longer than 18,000 feet. Id. NYPSC UNE Tariff at 5.5.1.1(D)(2)(b). Id. Bell Atlantic-New York's Joint Affidavit in Support of Proposed Rates for ADSL-Qualified, HDSL-Qualified, and Digital-Designed Links, Case 98-C-1357 (Sept. 13, 1999) at 16. Id. Id. at 17. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15692. Id. Id. 47 C.F.R. § 51.509(e). ALTS Comments at 36-37; CoreComm Comments at 6; Covad Comments at 6; Intermedia Comments at 8; MCI WorldCom Comments at 21. ALTS Comments at 36-37. ALTS Comments at 36-37; CoreComm Comments at 6; Covad Comments at 6; Intermedia Comments at 8; MCI WorldCom Comments at 21. ALTS Comments at 36-37. Id. at 36. Bell Atlantic Reply at 53-55. New York
• 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
  • a point at which one carrier's responsibility for service ends and the other carrier's begins. See id. at 15778, n.1332. Advanced Services First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 4783-85, paras. 40-42. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.305(a)(5), 51.321(a)-(b); Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para 66. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 800, 804, 805-06 (1997). AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). Id. at 380. Id. at 382. Id. at 384. Id. We note that other unbundled network elements are required
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • West, File Nos. E-98-13, E-98-15, E-98-16, E-98-17, E-98-18, FCC No. 00-194 (rel. June 21, 2000), pet. for review docketed sub nom., Qwest v. FCC, No. 00-1376 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 17, 2000). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(c). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(d). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(e). 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Kansas Commission Comments at 9; SWBT Application App. C-Oklahoma, Vol. 25a-c, Tab 275 (Order Regarding Recommendation On 271 Application Pursuant to Telecommunications Act of 1996, Cause No. PUD 970000560 (Sept. 28, 2000)) at 161-62 (Oklahoma Commission Final 271 Order). Sprint Comments
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.txt
  • agreement with Verizon. See Verizon Massachusetts I Application, App. J, Tab 37 (Interconnection Agreement Dated as of March 19, 1999 by and between New England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts and Qwest Communications Company). See Verizon Massachusetts II Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 139. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). Id. § 251(c)(2). Id. § 252(d)(1). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Massachusetts Department Massachusetts I Comments at 35-37. See ALTS Massachusetts I Comments at 14, 18-20; Covad Massachusetts I Comments at 44-47; Rhythms Massachusetts I Comments at 18-20; Rhythms Massachusetts I Reply at 8-9; ALTS Massachusetts II Comments at 6, 11-14; Covad
• 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
  • notices of premises that have run out of collocation space. See Verizon Communications, Inc., Consent Decree, File No. EB-01-IH-0236, DA-01-2079 (rel. Sept. 14, 2001). Therefore, we believe that the Enforcement Bureau, in its review prior to the issuance of the Consent Decree, has appropriately addressed the concerns raised in the audit. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. Pennsylvania Commission Comments at 38-39, 49. Sprint Comments at 19-22. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at Attach. 12. Sprint Comments at 21 n. 36. Id. See Verizon Lacouture/Ruesterholz Decl. at para. 83. Id. at para. 80. Id. at para. 78. Id. at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. 54 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 55 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). 56 Id. § 252(d)(1). 57 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844-61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. 58 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). 59 SWBT Texas Order,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20643, para. 66; BellSouth Carolina Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 649-51, para. 62. 54 Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 3979, para. 66; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20640-41, paras. 61-62. 55 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added). 56 Id. § 252(d)(1). 57 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501-07, 51.509(g); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15812-16, 15844- 61, 15874-76, 15912, paras. 618-29, 674-712, 743-51, 826. 58 See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18394, para. 88; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c), (e)(6); American Tel. & Tel Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd.). 59 SWBT Texas
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2005/03-4311-071405.pdf
  • "structured consistently within the manner in which the costs of providing the elements are incurred"). Second, the FCC stressed that reciprocal compensation rates must be crafted consistently with "rate structure rules" that require distinct rates for different functions, including (I) "tandem switching," (2) "local switching," and (iii) the use of "transmission facilities between tandem switches and end offices." Id. §§ 51.509, 51.709(a). 14 II. THE CURRENT DISPUTE. On February 2, 2000, Sprint PCS wrote a letter to the chiefs of the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau (now known as the "Wireline Competition Bureau") and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau seeking guidance on whether a wireless telephone service provider may "recover in reciprocal compensation all the additional costs it incurs in terminating local traffic originated