FCC Web Documents citing 51.701

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.pdf
  • dismissed. Background The Parties During the period relevant to this dispute, Dobson was a telecommunications carrier that owned or managed commercial mobile radio service networks in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. BellSouth is an incumbent local exchange carrier (``incumbent LEC'') providing service in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. During the relevant period, Dobson and BellSouth exchanged telecommunications traffic, as defined in section 51.701(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, pursuant to interconnection agreements in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Facts Relevant to Counts 1 and 2 The parties' interconnection agreements provided that each party would bear the costs of using shared facilities to deliver traffic. The interconnection agreements also provided that each party would pay reciprocal compensation at stated rates for traffic originated by one party
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf
  • IX); MAP Mobile Communications, Inc. Reply to Answer, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Sept. 1, 2005) (``MAP Reply'') at 20, ¶ 42; MAP Initial Brief at 44, ¶ 44; MAP Reply Brief at 17, ¶ 45. ``IntraMTA'' traffic is traffic that originates and terminates within the same ``Major Trading Area,'' as defined in 47 C.F.R. § 24.202(a). See 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(2). See, e.g., Answer at 22-24, ¶¶ 46-47; Defendants' Legal Analysis at 8; AT&T Initial Brief at 29-32. Answer at 24 ¶ 47 (emphasis in original) (quoting TSR Wireless v. US West, 11 FCC Rcd at 11176, ¶ 18); see also AT&T Initial Brief at 28-29. AT&T Initial Brief at 29 (quoting TSR Wireless v. US West, 11 FCC Rcd at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1201A1.txt
  • in which it contends that, under governing law, a CMRS provider may recover all of its traffic-sensitive call termination costs whether or not a particular wireless network element used in call termination is deemed to be functionally equivalent to network elements in wireline networks. Sprint PCS notes that some State Commissions have focused on the ``equivalent facility'' language of Sections 51.701(c) and (d) of the Commission's rules ``and in some instances have limited CMRS cost recovery to those mobile network components they deem to be `equivalent' to network components utilized in wireline networks.'' Subsequently, in its White Paper filed on April 7, Sprint PCS proposes a test to identify compensable wireless network costs. Under this test, according to the White Paper,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-250A1.txt
  • at 3; Qwest Answer at i, 13; Joint Statement at 8. See Mountain Complaint, Exhibit III at 2; Qwest Answer at 1, 13. See Qwest Corporation's Brief on the Disputed Material Issues, File No. EB-00-MD-017, at 10-13 (filed Jan. 19, 2001) (``Qwest Brief''). See TSR Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11169, ¶ 6 n.6. During the relevant period, section 51.701(b)(1) of the Commission's rules defined a LEC's ``local'' calling area as the service area, defined by state commissions, within which calls are not subject to toll charges. 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(1) (2000). (The Commission has since amended section 51.701(b)(1), but not in a manner relevant here. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-301A1.txt
  • Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 01-347 (rel. Nov. 29, 2001) (``Texcom Order''), petition for reconsideration pending. See Texcom Order at 2-3, ¶¶ 4-6. The paging carrier may then seek reimbursement of the costs associated with transport and termination of that traffic from the carriers that originated the transiting traffic in question. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.701, et seq. Joint Statement at 2-3. Concord notes that Metrocall is a nation-wide paging provider and that callers from outside the Concord service area may send pages to Metrocall customers within the Concord area. Concord Answer at 6-7. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(c); see also Formal Complaints Reconsideration Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5692, ¶ 24. Thus, we do not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-181A1.txt
  • of WorldCom, Inc. Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for Preemption of the Jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission Regarding Interconnection Disputes with Verizon Virginia Inc., and for Expedited Arbitration, CC Docket Nos. 00-218, 00-251, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 19654 (WCB 2002) (Non-Cost Arbitration Approval Order). 3 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.501 et seq., 51.701 et seq. 4 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.807(b), (d). 5 See Cost Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17727-28, 17991-93, 18002-03, paras. 4, 694-98, 701-02, App. E. Because AT&T and WorldCom jointly filed cost studies and jointly filed most of their supporting testimony and post-hearing briefs, as well as jointly submitted a compliance filing, we generally refer to them collectively as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1A1.txt
  • No. 03-266 COMMENTS DUE: March 1, 2004 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: March 31, 2004 On December 23, 2003, Level 3 Communications LLC (Level 3) filed a petition for forbearance pursuant to section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), requesting the Commission to forbear from application of section 251(g) of the Act, the exception clause of section 51.701(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, and section 69.5(b) of the Commission's rules, to the extent those provisions could be interpreted to permit local exchange carrier (LECs) to impose interstate or intrastate access charges on Internet protocol (IP) traffic that originates or terminates on the public switched telephone network (PSTN), or on PSTN-PSTN traffic that is incidental thereto. Level 3 excludes from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3323A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Petition of Level 3 Communications LLC for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. Section 160(c) from Application of Section 251(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, the Exception Clause of Section 51.701(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, and Section 69.5(b) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 03-266 ORDER Adopted: October 21, 2004 Released: October 21, 2004 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: In this Order, pursuant to section 10(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), we extend by 90
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2002A1.txt
  • equivalent of such a service. 47 C.F.R. § 20.3. d. Non-access traffic The term ``non-access traffic'' means any telecommunications traffic that is not subject to access charges. Such traffic includes telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a CMRS provider that, at the beginning of the call, originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area (MTA). 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(2). The definition of an MTA can be found in section 24.202(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 24.202(a). 3. Prohibition on imposing termination charges pursuant to tariff on or after April 29, 2005 Pursuant to new rules, LECs are prohibited from imposing charges pursuant to tariff on other carriers for the termination of non-access traffic unless the charges accrued
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-228A1.txt
  • dismissed. Background The Parties During the period relevant to this dispute, Dobson was a telecommunications carrier that owned or managed commercial mobile radio service networks in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. BellSouth is an incumbent local exchange carrier (``incumbent LEC'') providing service in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. During the relevant period, Dobson and BellSouth exchanged telecommunications traffic, as defined in section 51.701(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, pursuant to interconnection agreements in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Facts Relevant to Counts 1 and 2 The parties' interconnection agreements provided that each party would bear the costs of using shared facilities to deliver traffic. The interconnection agreements also provided that each party would pay reciprocal compensation at stated rates for traffic originated by one party
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5029A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 07-5029 Released: December 18, 2007 Pleading Cycle Established for Feature Group IP Petition FOR Forbearance From Section 251(g) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTIONS 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES WC Docket No. 07-256 COMMENTS DUE: January 17, 2008 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: February 6, 2008 By this Public Notice, we seek comment on a petition filed October 23, 2007 by Feature Group IP West LLC, Feature Group IP Southwest LLC, UTEX Communications Corp., Feature Group IP North LLC, and Feature Group IP Southeast LLC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2224A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit é Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Feature Group IP Petition for Forbearance From Section 251(g) of the Communications Act and Sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 07-256 ) ) ORDER Adopted: October 3, 2008 Released: October 3, 2008 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: In this order, pursuant to section 10(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), we extend by 90 days the date by which the petition requesting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-93A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Feature Group IP Petition for Forbearance From Section 251(g) of the Communications Act and Sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 07-256 ORDER Adopted: January 14, 2008 Released: January 14, 2008 Revised Comment Date: February 19, 2008 Revised Reply Comment Date: March 14, 2008 By the Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: On October 23, 2007, Feature Group IP West LLC, Feature Group IP Southwest LLC,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.txt
  • IX); MAP Mobile Communications, Inc. Reply to Answer, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Sept. 1, 2005) (``MAP Reply'') at 20, ¶ 42; MAP Initial Brief at 44, ¶ 44; MAP Reply Brief at 17, ¶ 45. ``IntraMTA'' traffic is traffic that originates and terminates within the same ``Major Trading Area,'' as defined in 47 C.F.R. § 24.202(a). See 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(2). See, e.g., Answer at 22-24, ¶¶ 46-47; Defendants' Legal Analysis at 8; AT&T Initial Brief at 29-32. Answer at 24 ¶ 47 (emphasis in original) (quoting TSR Wireless v. US West, 11 FCC Rcd at 11176, ¶ 18); see also AT&T Initial Brief at 28-29. AT&T Initial Brief at 29 (quoting TSR Wireless v. US West, 11 FCC Rcd at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279611A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit H & : Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Feature Group IP Petition for Forbearance From Section 251(g) of the Communications Act and Sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket 07-256 ERRATUM Released: January 18, 2008 By the Chief, Pricing Policy Division: On January 14, 2008, the Wireline Competition Bureau released an Order (DA 08-93) in the above-captioned proceeding. This Erratum corrects the docket number in footnotes 6 and 9 to read as ``WC Docket
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-285910A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Feature Group IP Petition for Forbearance From Section 251(g) of the Communications Act and Sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 07-256 ) ) ERRATUM Released: October 7, 2008 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: On October 3, 2008, the Wireline Competition Bureau released an Order, DA 08-2224, in the above captioned proceeding. This Erratum corrects paragraph 4 of the Order to read as follows: ``The petition under
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295632A1.pdf
  • telecommunications." Petitioners point to the FCC's Case: 08-1365 Document: 1225091 Filed: 01/12/2010 Page: 9 10 definition (in the Order) of "terminat[ion]" as "the switching of traffic that is subject to Section 251(b)(5) at the terminating carrier's end office switch . . . and delivery of that traffic to the called party's premises." See Order ¶ 13; see also47 C.F.R. § 51.701(d). State Pet'rs Br. 31-32. Because the "called party" in the case of dial-up Internet traffic is the ISP, petitioners say, the § 251(b)(5) telecommunications "terminat[e]" locally and thus the FCC cannot apply its § 201 authority over these communications. This argument fails because it implicitly assumes inapplicability of the end-to-end analysis, which petitioners have not challenged. And the FCC has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307423A1.pdf
  • and termination of traffic" is subject to different regulatory treatment than intercon- 12 TALK AMERICA, INC. v. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE CO. Opinion of the Court nection. Compensation for transport and termination- that is, for delivering local telephone calls placed by another carrier's customer-is governed by separate stat- utory provisions and regulations. See 47 U. S. C. §§251(b)(5), 252(d)(2); 47 CFR §51.701. The Commission explains that a competitive LEC typically pays one fee for interconnection-"just for having the link"-and then an additional fee for the transport and termination of tele- phone calls. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 3, n. 1. Entrance facilities, at least when used for the mutual exchange of traffic, seem
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307893A1.pdf
  • Tech., 594 F.3d 1149, 1158-61 (9th Cir. 2010).) 8370 AT&T COMMUNICATIONS v. PAC-WEST TELECOMM Case: 08-17030 06/21/2011 Page: 7 of 37 ID: 7792201 DktEntry: 68-1 624 F.3d at 1228."Under a reciprocal compensation arrange- ment, the originating LEC must compensate the terminating LEC for delivering its customer's call to the end point." Peevey, 462 F.3d at 1146; see also 47 C.F.R. §51.701(e). Shortly after the passage of the TCA, the FCC clarified that "reciprocal compensation obligations . . . apply only to traffic that originates and terminates within a local area."In the Mat- ter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, 11 F.C.C.R. 15499, 16013
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-194A1.doc
  • as of the `effective date' of that FCC Order (August 30, 1996), the LEC `must provide that [LEC-originated] traffic to the CMRS provider or other carrier without charge.'' The letter also referenced the Commission's conclusion in the Local Competition Order that ``local'' traffic includes CMRS-LEC traffic that originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area (``MTA'') pursuant to rule 51.701(b)(2), and language from the Second Local Competition Order concerning nondiscriminatory access to numbers. The letter concluded with a statement that, if GTE wished to continue assessing the charges, Metrocall ``expect[ed] a written explanation, within 30 days of the date of this letter, as to how those charges would not be in violation of the Telecom Act and the FCC's rules.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.txt
  • and eliminating outdated rules. Intercarrier Compensation The staff recommends that the Commission consider whether the sometimes conflicting rules used for calculating intercarrier compensation for the origination and termination of traffic can be streamlined and harmonized. At present, the transport and termination provisions in sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing regulations in 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.701-717 govern the way the incumbent LECs and competitive LECs (CLECs) compensate one another for call completion. The Part 69 access charge rules generally govern the compensation that incumbent LECs receive for the use of their services in the origination and termination of interstate interexchange traffic. Access charge structures, generally similar to that in Part 69 of the Commission rules and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-131A1.txt
  • Corporation Wyoming Public Service Commission Appendix B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Part 51, Subpart H, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows: The title of part 51, Subpart H, is revised to read as follows: Subpart H--Reciprocal Compensation for Transport and Termination of Telecommunications Traffic 2. Section 51.701(b) is revised to read as follows: § 51.701 Scope of transport and termination pricing rules. ***** Telecommunications traffic. For purposes of this subpart, telecommunications traffic means: Telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a telecommunications carrier other than a CMRS provider, except for telecommunications traffic that is interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-132A1.txt
  • a unified interconnection regime raised in this proceeding, we review the application of the Commission's current orders and rules regarding asymmetric reciprocal compensation for LEC-CMRS interconnection. Under the language of section 252(d)(2)(A) of the Communications Act, CMRS carriers are entitled to the opportunity to demonstrate that their termination costs exceed those of the ILECs. The ``equivalent facility'' language of sections 51.701(c) and (d) of the Commission's rules was not intended to require that wireless network components be reviewed on the basis of their relationship to wireline network components. Nor, given the language of the statute, was it intended to have the effect of barring a CMRS carrier from receiving compensation for the additional costs that it incurs in terminating traffic on
• 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
  • by provisioning direct trunks, AT&T Comments at 28, SWBT concedes that the proper reading of the O2A and K2A is that direct trunking from the CLEC's collocation facility is an option, not a requirement. See SWBT Reply at 81. See SWBT Reply at 86-87. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18390, para. 78 n. 174. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.701 et seq. 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b); see also TSR Wireless, LLC et al. v. U.S. 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.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-105A1.txt
  • as (at least) traffic that originates on one LEC's network and terminates on a competing LEC's network in the same local service area. Moreover, the Second Starpower-Verizon Virginia Agreement defines ``Local Traffic'' as traffic that originates on one party's network and terminates on another party's network within a local calling area as defined by tariff or the Commission. Former section 51.701(b) of the Commission's rules similarly characterized ``local telecommunications traffic'' as telecommunications traffic between a LEC and another telecommunications carrier that originates and terminates within a local service area as defined by a state commission. These striking similarities reveal an intent to track the Commission's interpretation of the scope of section 251(b)(5), i.e., whatever the Commission determines is compensable under section
• 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
  • if the rating point for the NPA/NXX is located outside of BellSouth's landline franchise area. See BellSouth March 20 Ex Parte Letter at 3. See Nextel GALA II Reply Comments at 12; Triton April 5 Ex Parte Letter at 3. See Nextel GALA II Reply Comments at 12; Triton April 5 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(2)). See BellSouth March 20 Ex Parte Letter at 3. See Verizon Pennsylvania Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 17419, para. 100. See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6246-47, para. 19. See Developing A Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, CC Docket No. 01-92, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 01-132, (rel. April 27, 2001)(Intercarrier Compensation NPRM) at para. 112. We note that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-220A1.txt
  • wide area calling arrangement constitutes an agreement between the parties regarding the provisioning of this service. 6. Mountain is correct that the network configuration discussed in the TSR Wireless Order is similar to Mountain's arrangement with Qwest. Contrary to Mountain's contentions, however, the Mountain Order did not alter the Commission's position in the TSR Wireless Order that, pursuant to section 51.701(b) of the Commission's rules, a LEC may not charge a CMRS carrier for the delivery of LEC-originated traffic that originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area (``MTA''). The Mountain Order merely reiterated that a LEC is entitled to charge its own subscribers for intraLATA toll calls on its network that terminate within the same MTA, and that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-96A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-96A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-96A1.txt
  • two carriers to the terminating carrier's end office switch that directly serves the called party (or equivalent facility provided by a non-incumbent carrier). Many alternative arrangements exist for the provision of transport between the two networks . . . [including] facilities provided by alternative carriers ... .''). For purposes of reciprocal compensation, transport includes tandem switching. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(c). See TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S West Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11166, 11177, ¶ 19 n.70 (2000) (``TSR Wireless Order''), aff'd sub. nom., Qwest v. FCC, 252 F.3d 462 (D.C. Cir. 2001). While the cost of using the facilities at issue typically is recovered through reciprocal compensation charges to originating carriers, we note that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-215A1.txt
  • rate higher than the symmetric rate, however, after verifying to a state commission that its transport or termination costs justify the higher rate. The Commission's rules define the terms ``transport'' and ``termination,'' the costs of which may be recovered through reciprocal compensation, to include the notion of an ``equivalent facility'' provided by a carrier other than an incumbent LEC. Section 51.701(c) of our rules defines transport as ``the transmission and any necessary tandem switching of telecommunications traffic subject to section 251(b)(5) of the Act from the interconnection point between the two carriers to the terminating carrier's end office switch that directly serves the called party, or equivalent facility provided by a carrier other than an incumbent LEC.'' Section 51.701(d) of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-208A1.txt
  • to Provide Wholesale or Retail Broadband Services to CLEC UNE Voice Customers, WC Docket No. 03-251 (filed Dec. 16, 2003). Qwest Communications International Inc. Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c), WC Docket No. 03-260 (filed Dec. 18, 2003). Level 3 Communications, LLC Petition For Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. Section 160(c) From Enforcement Of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(g), Rule 51.701(b)(1), and Rule 69.5(b), WC Docket No. 03-266 (filed Dec. 23, 2003). Rural Health Care Support Mechanism,Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 02-60, FCC 03-288 (rel. Nov. 17, 2003). Petition of SBC Communications Inc. for Forbearance from the Application of Title II Common Carrier Regulation to IP Platform Services,WC Docket No. 04-29
• 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
  • subject to reciprocal compensation obligations under section 251(b)(5), rather than interstate or intrastate access charges. The Commission reasoned that, because wireless license territories are federally authorized and vary in size, the largest FCC-authorized wireless license territory, i.e., the MTA, would be the most appropriate local service area for CMRS traffic for purposes of reciprocal compensation under section 251(b)(5). Thus, section 51.701(b)(2) of the Commission's rules defines telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a CMRS provider that is subject to reciprocal compensation as traffic ``that, at the beginning of the call, originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area.'' The purpose of the intraMTA rule is thus to distinguish access traffic from section 251(b)(5) CMRS traffic. Given our goal of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-42A1.txt
  • subject to reciprocal compensation obligations under section 251(b)(5), rather than interstate or intrastate access charges. The Commission reasoned that, because wireless license territories are federally authorized and vary in size, the largest FCC-authorized wireless license territory, i.e., the MTA, would be the most appropriate local service area for CMRS traffic for purposes of reciprocal compensation under section 251(b)(5). Thus, section 51.701(b)(2) of the Commission's rules defines telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a CMRS provider that is subject to reciprocal compensation as traffic ``that, at the beginning of the call, originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area.'' Although section 251(b)(5) and the Commission's reciprocal compensation rules reference an ``arrangement'' between LECs and other telecommunications carriers, including CMRS providers,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-95A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-95A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-95A1.txt
  • FCC, 236 F.3d 729, 738 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (``Congress has established § 10 as a viable and independent means of seeking forbearance. The Commission has no authority to sweep it away by mere reference to another, very different, regulatory mechanism.''). Level 3 Communications LLC Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Enforcement of 47 U.S.C. § 251(g), Rule 51.701(b)(1), and Rule 69.5(b), WC Docket No. 03-266, Petition for Forbearance (filed Dec. 23, 2003); see also Letter from John T. Nakahata, Counsel for Level 3 Communications LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 03-266 (filed Mar. 21, 2005) (withdrawing Level 3's petition). Letter from James C. Smith, Senior Vice President, SBC, to Michael K. Powell, Chairman, FCC,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-129A1.txt
  • FCC 2d 834 (1984). See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-98 and 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499-15507, paras. 1-7 (1996) (subsequent history omitted) (Local Competition First Report and Order). 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5). Section 51.701(c) of our rules defines transport as ``the transmission and any necessary tandem switching of telecommunications traffic subject to section 251(b)(5) of the Act from the interconnection point between the two carriers to the terminating carrier's end office switch that directly serves the called party, or equivalent facility provided by a carrier other than an incumbent LEC.'' 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(c).
• 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
  • of Public Service Intercarrier Compensation FNPRM Comments at 7-10; Verizon/BellSouth Supp. ISP White Paper at 16-20; NARUC Intercarrier Compensation FNPRM Initial Comments at 7 n.13. 47 U.S.C. § 252(d)(2)(A)(i). See, e.g., Supplemental Comments of Verizon and Verizon Wireless at 33-34; Verizon/BellSouth White Paper at 31-32. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16015, para. 1040. See also 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(d). 206 F.3d at 6. We reject Verizon's argument against the application of section 251(b)(5) to ISP-bound traffic because this traffic is one-way traffic and as such is not reciprocal, see Supplemental Comments of Verizon and Verizon Wireless at 26 (Oct. 2, 2008); Verizon White Paper at 41-43 (May 17, 2004). As Level 3 points out, these arguments have been rejected
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-3A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-3A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-3A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Feature Group IP Petition for Forbearance From Section 251(g) of the Communications Act and Sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 07-256 memorandum opinion and order Adopted: January 21, 2009 Released: January 21, 2009 By the Commission: Commissioner McDowell issuing a statement. introduction In this Order, we deny a petition filed by Feature Group IP West LLC, Feature Group IP Southwest LLC, UTEX Communications Corp., Feature
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-3A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-3A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-3A2.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL RE: Feature Group IP Petition for Forbearance From Section 251(g) of the Communications Act and Sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b) of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket 07-256. It is clear that granting the forbearance petitioners have requested would not give petitioners the relief sought, but instead would create a regulatory void and significant uncertainty. In the absence of any evidence or economic analysis in the record that would allow us to determine that enforcement of our regulations is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-120A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Feature Group IP Petition for Forbearance From Section 251(g) of the Communications Act and Sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 07-256 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: June 29, 2010 Released: June 30, 2010 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this order, we decline to reconsider a Commission decision denying Feature Group IP's request for forbearance from the application of access charges (to the extent that they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.txt
  • within the same Major Trading Area is subject to [reciprocal compensation obligations] under section 251(b)(5), rather than interstate and intrastate access charges.'' Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket Nos. 96-98 and 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16016 para. 1036 (1996) (subsequent history omitted); see also 47 C.F.R. § 51.701 et seq. See Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 99-68, Order on Remand and Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9151 (2001) (ISP Remand Order); remanded but not vacated by WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 288 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2002); see also 2008 Order and ICC/USF FNPRM, 24 FCC Rcd 6475. See, e.g., 2008 Order and ICC/USF
• 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
  • 303, 316, and 332 unless otherwise noted. Section 20.12 is also issued under 47 U.S.C. 1302. Section 20.11 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: §20.11 Interconnection to facilities of local exchange carriers. * * * * * (b) Local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers shall exchange Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic, as defined in § 51.701 of this chapter, under a bill-and-keep arrangement, as defined in § 51.713 of this chapter, unless they mutually agree otherwise. * * * * * PART 36-JURISDICTIONAL SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR SEPARATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, TAXES AND RESERVES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES The authority citation for part 36 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-83A1.txt
  • as those exclusively enumerated in sections 251(b) and (c) under some construction of section 251(a) would be the very type of end run on the jurisdiction of state commissions that section 251(f) of the Act does not allow.'' See Rural LECs Jan. 14, 2011 Ex Parte Letter at 3. See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 8. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(1) (specifically excluding ``interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access'' from the scope of the reciprocal compensation pricing rules). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b)(5), 252(d)(2)(A); Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16012-25, paras. 1033-59. We note that by permitting a state commission to suspend or modify a rural carrier's section 251(b) obligations in section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-47A1.txt
  • falls under the definition of VoIP traffic as defined in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. See id. at 18005-06, para. 940 n.1891. For the reasons described below, we find it in the public interest to rely on this evidence and the associated arguments. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b)(3). USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 18002-30, paras. 933-75; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.701(b)(3), 51.703(c), 51.913. The VoIP intercarrier compensation rules subsequently were clarified in certain respects. See Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, DA 12-147 (Wir. Comp. Bur. rel. Feb. 3, 2012) (First Bureau Clarification Order); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, DA 12-298 (Wir. Comp. Bur. rel. Feb. 27, 2012)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 avoided retail costs. 51.611 Interim wholesale rates. 51.613 Restrictions on resale. 51.615 Withdrawal of services. 51.617 Assessment of end user common line charge on resellers. Subpart H - Reciprocal compensation for transport and termination of local telecommunications traffic 51.701 Scope of transport and termination pricing rules. 51.703 Reciprocal compensation obligation of LECs. 51.705 Incumbent LECs' rates for transport and termination. 51.707 Default proxies for incumbent LECs' transport and termination rates. 51.709 Rate structure for transport and termination. 51.711 Symmetrical reciprocal compensation. 51.713 Bill-and-keep arrangements for reciprocal compensation. 51.715 Interim transport and termination pricing. 51.717 Renegotiation of existing non-reciprocal arrangements.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.txt
  • a unified interconnection regime raised in this proceeding, we review the application of the Commission's current orders and rules regarding asymmetric reciprocal compensation for LEC-CMRS interconnection. Under the language of section 252(d)(2)(A) of the Communications Act, CMRS carriers are entitled to the opportunity to demonstrate that their termination costs exceed those of the ILECs. The ``equivalent facility'' language of sections 51.701(c) and (d) of the Commission's rules was not intended to require that wireless network components be reviewed on the basis of their relationship to wireline network components. Nor, given the language of the statute, was it intended to have the effect of barring a CMRS carrier from receiving compensation for the additional costs that it incurs in terminating traffic on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99038.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99038.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99038.wp
  • 1998). 16 Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16134. See also 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2) ("It is the policy of the United States to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation."). 17 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5). 18 See 47 C.F.R. § 51.701; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16013 (1996) (Local Competition Order), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997) (CompTel), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom.
• 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
  • by provisioning direct trunks, AT&T Comments at 28, SWBT concedes that the proper reading of the O2A and K2A is that direct trunking from the CLEC's collocation facility is an option, not a requirement. See SWBT Reply at 81. See SWBT Reply at 86-87. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18390, para. 78 n. 174. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.701 et seq. 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b); see also TSR Wireless, LLC et al. v. U.S. 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.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01131.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01131.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01131.txt
  • Corporation Wyoming Public Service Commission Appendix B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Part 51, Subpart H, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows: The title of part 51, Subpart H, is revised to read as follows: Subpart H--Reciprocal Compensation for Transport and Termination of Telecommunications Traffic 2. Section 51.701(b) is revised to read as follows: § 51.701 Scope of transport and termination pricing rules. ***** Telecommunications traffic. For purposes of this subpart, telecommunications traffic means: Telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a telecommunications carrier other than a CMRS provider, except for telecommunications traffic that is interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.txt
  • eliminating outdated rules. Intercarrier Compensation The staff recommends that the Commission consider whether the various, sometimes conflicting, rules used for calculating intercarrier compensation for the origination and termination of traffic can be streamlined and harmonized. At present, the transport and termination provisions in sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing regulations in 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.701-717 govern the way the incumbent LECs and competitive LECs (CLECs) compensate one another for call completion. The Part 69 access charge rules generally govern the compensation that incumbent LECs receive for the use of their services in the origination and termination of interstate interexchange traffic. Access charge structures, generally similar to that in Part 69 of the Commission rules and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-250A1.html
  • Qwest Answer at i, 13; Joint Statement at 8. 9 See Mountain Complaint, Exhibit III at 2; Qwest Answer at 1, 13. 10 See Qwest Corporation's Brief on the Disputed Material Issues, File No. EB-00-MD-017, at 10-13 (filed Jan. 19, 2001) (``Qwest Brief''). 11 See TSR Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11169, 6 n.6. During the relevant period, section 51.701(b)(1) of the Commission's rules defined a LEC's ``local'' calling area as the service area, defined by state commissions, within which calls are not subject to toll charges. 47 C.F.R. 51.701(b)(1) (2000). (The Commission has since amended section 51.701(b)(1), but not in a manner relevant here. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Order on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 01- 347 (rel. Nov. 29, 2001) (``Texcom Order''), petition for reconsideration pending. 41 See Texcom Order at 2-3, 4-6. The paging carrier may then seek reimbursement of the costs associated with transport and termination of that traffic from the carriers that originated the transiting traffic in question. See 47 U.S.C. 251(b)(5); 47 C.F.R. 51.701, et seq. 42 Joint Statement at 2-3. 43 Concord notes that Metrocall is a nation-wide paging provider and that callers from outside the Concord service area may send pages to Metrocall customers within the Concord area. Concord Answer at 6-7. 44 See 47 C.F.R. 1.722(c); see also Formal Complaints Reconsideration Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5692, 24. Thus, we do
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-105A1.html
  • as (at least) traffic that originates on one LEC's network and terminates on a competing LEC's network in the same local service area.100 Moreover, the Second Starpower-Verizon Virginia Agreement defines ``Local Traffic'' as traffic that originates on one party's network and terminates on another party's network within a local calling area as defined by tariff or the Commission.101 Former section 51.701(b) of the Commission's rules similarly characterized ``local telecommunications traffic'' as telecommunications traffic between a LEC and another telecommunications carrier that originates and terminates within a local service area as defined by a state commission.102 These striking similarities reveal an intent to track the Commission's interpretation of the scope of section 251(b)(5), i.e., whatever the Commission determines is compensable under section
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-220A1.html
  • wide area calling arrangement constitutes an agreement between the parties regarding the provisioning of this service.27 6. Mountain is correct that the network configuration discussed in the TSR Wireless Order is similar to Mountain's arrangement with Qwest.28 Contrary to Mountain's contentions, however, the Mountain Order did not alter the Commission's position in the TSR Wireless Order that, pursuant to section 51.701(b) of the Commission's rules, a LEC may not charge a CMRS carrier for the delivery of LEC-originated traffic that originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area (``MTA'').29 The Mountain Order merely reiterated that a LEC is entitled to charge its own subscribers for intraLATA toll calls on its network that terminate within the same MTA, and that the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-96A1.html
  • the two carriers to the terminating carrier's end office switch that directly serves the called party (or equivalent facility provided by a non-incumbent carrier). Many alternative arrangements exist for the provision of transport between the two networks . . . [including] facilities provided by alternative carriers ... .''). For purposes of reciprocal compensation, transport includes tandem switching. See 47 C.F.R. 51.701(c). 12 See TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S West Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11166, 11177, 19 n.70 (2000) (``TSR Wireless Order''), aff'd sub. nom., Qwest v. FCC, 252 F.3d 462 (D.C. Cir. 2001). While the cost of using the facilities at issue typically is recovered through reciprocal compensation charges to originating carriers, we note that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • A. The Parties 2. During the period relevant to this dispute, Dobson was a telecommunications carrier that owned or managed commercial mobile radio service networks in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. BellSouth is an incumbent local exchange carrier ("incumbent LEC") providing service in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. During the relevant period, Dobson and BellSouth exchanged telecommunications traffic, as defined in section 51.701(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, pursuant to interconnection agreements in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. A. Facts Relevant to Counts 1 and 2 3. The parties' interconnection agreements provided that each party would bear the costs of using shared facilities to deliver traffic. The interconnection agreements also provided that each party would pay reciprocal compensation at stated rates for traffic originated by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • IX); MAP Mobile Communications, Inc. Reply to Answer, File No. EB-05-MD-013 (filed Sept. 1, 2005) ("MAP Reply") at 20, P: 42; MAP Initial Brief at 44, P: 44; MAP Reply Brief at 17, P: 45. "IntraMTA" traffic is traffic that originates and terminates within the same "Major Trading Area," as defined in 47 C.F.R. S: 24.202(a). See 47 C.F.R. S: 51.701(b)(2). See, e.g., Answer at 22-24, P:P: 46-47; Defendants' Legal Analysis at 8; AT&T Initial Brief at 29-32. Answer at 24 P: 47 (emphasis in original) (quoting TSR Wireless v. US West, 11 FCC Rcd at 11176, P: 18); see also AT&T Initial Brief at 28-29. AT&T Initial Brief at 29 (quoting TSR Wireless v. US West, 11 FCC Rcd at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01132.txt
  • a unified interconnection regime raised in this proceeding, we review the application of the Commission's current orders and rules regarding asymmetric reciprocal compensation for LEC-CMRS interconnection. Under the language of section 252(d)(2)(A) of the Communications Act, CMRS carriers are entitled to the opportunity to demonstrate that their termination costs exceed those of the ILECs. The ``equivalent facility'' language of sections 51.701(c) and (d) of the Commission's rules was not intended to require that wireless network components be reviewed on the basis of their relationship to wireline network components. Nor, given the language of the statute, was it intended to have the effect of barring a CMRS carrier from receiving compensation for the additional costs that it incurs in terminating traffic on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 avoided retail costs. 51.611 Interim wholesale rates. 51.613 Restrictions on resale. 51.615 Withdrawal of services. 51.617 Assessment of end user common line charge on resellers. Subpart H - Reciprocal compensation for transport and termination of local telecommunications traffic 51.701 Scope of transport and termination pricing rules. 51.703 Reciprocal compensation obligation of LECs. 51.705 Incumbent LECs' rates for transport and termination. 51.707 Default proxies for incumbent LECs' transport and termination rates. 51.709 Rate structure for transport and termination. 51.711 Symmetrical reciprocal compensation. 51.713 Bill-and-keep arrangements for reciprocal compensation. 51.715 Interim transport and termination pricing. 51.717 Renegotiation of existing non-reciprocal arrangements.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99038.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99038.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99038.wp
  • 1998). 16 Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16134. See also 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2) ("It is the policy of the United States to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation."). 17 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5). 18 See 47 C.F.R. § 51.701; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16013 (1996) (Local Competition Order), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997) (CompTel), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom.
• 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
  • by provisioning direct trunks, AT&T Comments at 28, SWBT concedes that the proper reading of the O2A and K2A is that direct trunking from the CLEC's collocation facility is an option, not a requirement. See SWBT Reply at 81. See SWBT Reply at 86-87. See SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18390, para. 78 n. 174. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.701 et seq. 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b); see also TSR Wireless, LLC et al. v. U.S. 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.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01131.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01131.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01131.txt
  • Corporation Wyoming Public Service Commission Appendix B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Part 51, Subpart H, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows: The title of part 51, Subpart H, is revised to read as follows: Subpart H--Reciprocal Compensation for Transport and Termination of Telecommunications Traffic 2. Section 51.701(b) is revised to read as follows: § 51.701 Scope of transport and termination pricing rules. ***** Telecommunications traffic. For purposes of this subpart, telecommunications traffic means: Telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a telecommunications carrier other than a CMRS provider, except for telecommunications traffic that is interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2007/dd071219.html
  • CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY PETITION FOR PRICING FLEXIBILITY FOR SPECIAL ACCESS SERVICES, DEDICATED TRANSPORT SERVICES, AND CHANNEL TERMINATION SERVICES. (DA No. 07-5032). Comments Due: 01/07/2008. Reply Comments Due: 01/17/2008. WCB. Contact: Pamela Arluk at (202) 418-1520 [151]DA-07-5032A1.doc [152]DA-07-5032A1.pdf [153]DA-07-5032A1.txt Released: 12/18/2007. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR FEATURE GROUP IP PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FROM SECTION 251(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTIONS 51.701(B)(1) AND 69.5(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. (DA No. 07-5029). (Dkt No 07-256). Comments Due: 01/17/2008. Reply Comments Due: 02/06/2008. WCB. Contact: Lynne Hewitt Engledow at (202) 418-1520, email: Lynne.Engledow@fcc.gov [154]DA-07-5029A1.doc [155]DA-07-5029A1.pdf [156]DA-07-5029A1.txt Released: 12/18/2007. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR EMBARQ LOCAL OPERATING COMPANIES AND FRONTIER AND CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE TELEPHONE CARRIERS PETITIONS SEEKING FORBEARANCE FROM ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN ARMIS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd080115.html
  • SHORT CODES ARE TITLE II SERVICES OR ARE TITLE I SERVICES SUBJECT TO SECTION 202 NON-DISCRIMINATION RULES. (DA No. 08-78). (Dkt No 08-7). Comments Due: 02/13/2008. Reply Comments Due: 03/14/2008. WTB. Contact: Jennifer Salhus at (202) 418-1310 [48]DA-08-78A1.doc [49]DA-08-78A1.pdf [50]DA-08-78A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- FEATURE GROUP IP PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FROM SECTION 251(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTIONS 51.701(B)(1) AND 69.5(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Revised the Comment Date and Reply Comment Date in this proceeding. (Dkt No. 07-256). Action by: Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Comments Due: 02/19/2008. Reply Comments Due: 03/14/2008. Adopted: 01/14/2008 by ORDER. (DA No. 08-93). WCB [51]DA-08-93A1.doc [52]DA-08-93A1.pdf [53]DA-08-93A1.txt THOMAS H. MURPHY APPLICATION FOR A NEW INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS POOL STATION IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. Denied
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd080122.html
  • Extended the deadline for filing reply comments in response to the Public Notice to February 1, 2008. (Dkt No. 96-45). Action by: Acting Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Reply Comments Due: 02/01/2008. Adopted: 01/18/2008 by ORDER. (DA No. 08-132). WCB [43]DA-08-132A1.doc [44]DA-08-132A1.pdf [45]DA-08-132A1.txt ERRATUM - FEATURE GROUP IP PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FROM SECTION 251(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTIONS 51.701(B)(1) AND 69.5(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Issued an Erratum correcting DA 08-93, released on January 14, 2008. (Dkt No. 07-256) by ERRATUM. WCB [46]DOC-279611A1.doc [47]DOC-279611A1.pdf [48]DOC-279611A1.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279610A1.doc 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279610A1.pdf 3. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279610A1.txt 4. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-138A1.doc 5. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-138A2.xls 6. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-138A1.pdf 7. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-138A2.pdf 8. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-138A1.txt 9. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-138A2.txt 10. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279597A2.txt 11. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279597A1.pdf 12. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279596A2.txt 13. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279596A1.pdf 14. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-128A1.doc 15. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-128A1.pdf 16. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-128A1.txt 17.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd081006.html
  • RULES, SECTION 251(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND COMMISSION ORDERS ON THE ESP EXEMPTION. (DA No. 08-2228). (Dkt No 08-205). Comments Due: 10/10/2008. Reply Comments Due: 10/17/2008. WCB. Contact: Lynne Hewitt Engledow at (202) 418-1520, email: Lynne.Engledow@fcc.gov [46]DA-08-2228A1.doc [47]DA-08-2228A1.pdf [48]DA-08-2228A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- FEATURE GROUP IP PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FROM SECTION 251(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTIONS 51.701(B)(1) AND 69.5(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Extended the date on which the petition seeking forbearance filed by Feature Group IP shall be deemed granted, in the absence of a Commission denial of the petition for failure to meet the statutory standards for forbearance. (Dkt No. 07-256). Action by: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 10/03/2008 by ORDER. (DA No. 08-2224). WCB
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd081008.html
  • News Release CMMR. Contact Susan Fisenne at (202) 418-2502, email: Susan.Fisenne@fcc.gov [48]DOC-285921A1.doc [49]DOC-285921A1.pdf [50]DOC-285921A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- KNOLOGY, INC. Adopted a Consent Decree in this proceeding. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 09/26/2008 by ORDER. (DA No. 08-1876). EB [51]DA-08-1876A1.doc [52]DA-08-1876A1.pdf [53]DA-08-1876A1.txt ERRATUM - FEATURE GROUP IP FOR FORBEARANCE FROM SECTION 251(G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTIONS 51.701(B)(1) AND 69.5(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Issued an Errartum correcting Order, DA 08-2224, released October 3, 2008. (Dkt No. 07-256). Action by: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau by ERRATUM. WCB [54]DOC-285910A1.doc [55]DOC-285910A1.pdf [56]DOC-285910A1.txt UNIVERSAL SERVICE CONTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR BY CURRY IP SOLUTIONS, ET AL. Granted six requests for reversal of late fees
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd090122.html
  • SERVICES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED, FURTHER COMMENT REQUESTED. (DA No. 09-139). (Dkt No 08-251). Comments Due: 01/28/2009. WCB. Contact: Carmell Weathers at (202) 418-2325, email: Carmell.Weathers@fcc.gov or Melissa Kirkel at (202) 418-7958, email: Melissa.Kirkel@fcc.gov, TTY: (202) 418-0484 [5]DA-09-139A1.doc [6]DA-09-139A1.pdf [7]DA-09-139A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- FEATURE GROUP IP PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FROM SECTION 251 (G) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTION 51.701(B)(1) AND 69.5(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Denied a petition filed by Feature Group IP requesting that the Commission forbear from section 251(g) of the Communications Act and sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b). (Dkt No. 07-256). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 01/21/2009 by MO&O. (FCC No. 09-3). WCB [8]FCC-09-3A1.doc [9]FCC-09-3A2.doc [10]FCC-09-3A1.pdf [11]FCC-09-3A2.pdf [12]FCC-09-3A1.txt [13]FCC-09-3A2.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288016A2.txt 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288016A1.pdf 3. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288015A2.txt 4.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-250A1.html
  • Qwest Answer at i, 13; Joint Statement at 8. 9 See Mountain Complaint, Exhibit III at 2; Qwest Answer at 1, 13. 10 See Qwest Corporation's Brief on the Disputed Material Issues, File No. EB-00-MD-017, at 10-13 (filed Jan. 19, 2001) (``Qwest Brief''). 11 See TSR Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11169, 6 n.6. During the relevant period, section 51.701(b)(1) of the Commission's rules defined a LEC's ``local'' calling area as the service area, defined by state commissions, within which calls are not subject to toll charges. 47 C.F.R. 51.701(b)(1) (2000). (The Commission has since amended section 51.701(b)(1), but not in a manner relevant here. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Order on
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC No. 01- 347 (rel. Nov. 29, 2001) (``Texcom Order''), petition for reconsideration pending. 41 See Texcom Order at 2-3, 4-6. The paging carrier may then seek reimbursement of the costs associated with transport and termination of that traffic from the carriers that originated the transiting traffic in question. See 47 U.S.C. 251(b)(5); 47 C.F.R. 51.701, et seq. 42 Joint Statement at 2-3. 43 Concord notes that Metrocall is a nation-wide paging provider and that callers from outside the Concord service area may send pages to Metrocall customers within the Concord area. Concord Answer at 6-7. 44 See 47 C.F.R. 1.722(c); see also Formal Complaints Reconsideration Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5692, 24. Thus, we do
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-105A1.html
  • as (at least) traffic that originates on one LEC's network and terminates on a competing LEC's network in the same local service area.100 Moreover, the Second Starpower-Verizon Virginia Agreement defines ``Local Traffic'' as traffic that originates on one party's network and terminates on another party's network within a local calling area as defined by tariff or the Commission.101 Former section 51.701(b) of the Commission's rules similarly characterized ``local telecommunications traffic'' as telecommunications traffic between a LEC and another telecommunications carrier that originates and terminates within a local service area as defined by a state commission.102 These striking similarities reveal an intent to track the Commission's interpretation of the scope of section 251(b)(5), i.e., whatever the Commission determines is compensable under section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-220A1.html
  • wide area calling arrangement constitutes an agreement between the parties regarding the provisioning of this service.27 6. Mountain is correct that the network configuration discussed in the TSR Wireless Order is similar to Mountain's arrangement with Qwest.28 Contrary to Mountain's contentions, however, the Mountain Order did not alter the Commission's position in the TSR Wireless Order that, pursuant to section 51.701(b) of the Commission's rules, a LEC may not charge a CMRS carrier for the delivery of LEC-originated traffic that originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area (``MTA'').29 The Mountain Order merely reiterated that a LEC is entitled to charge its own subscribers for intraLATA toll calls on its network that terminate within the same MTA, and that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-96A1.html
  • the two carriers to the terminating carrier's end office switch that directly serves the called party (or equivalent facility provided by a non-incumbent carrier). Many alternative arrangements exist for the provision of transport between the two networks . . . [including] facilities provided by alternative carriers ... .''). For purposes of reciprocal compensation, transport includes tandem switching. See 47 C.F.R. 51.701(c). 12 See TSR Wireless, LLC v. U S West Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11166, 11177, 19 n.70 (2000) (``TSR Wireless Order''), aff'd sub. nom., Qwest v. FCC, 252 F.3d 462 (D.C. Cir. 2001). While the cost of using the facilities at issue typically is recovered through reciprocal compensation charges to originating carriers, we note that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • A. The Parties 2. During the period relevant to this dispute, Dobson was a telecommunications carrier that owned or managed commercial mobile radio service networks in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. BellSouth is an incumbent local exchange carrier ("incumbent LEC") providing service in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. During the relevant period, Dobson and BellSouth exchanged telecommunications traffic, as defined in section 51.701(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, pursuant to interconnection agreements in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. A. Facts Relevant to Counts 1 and 2 3. The parties' interconnection agreements provided that each party would bear the costs of using shared facilities to deliver traffic. The interconnection agreements also provided that each party would pay reciprocal compensation at stated rates for traffic originated by
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • method to calculate costs. See id. 51.503(b)(2), 51.513, 51.705(a)(2), 51.707. The incumbent LECs assert that these proxy rates also do not accurately reflect their costs and are artificially low. The petitioners also challenge several other FCC regulations pertaining to the prices that the incumbent LECs are permitted to charge for fulfilling their new duties under the Act. See id. 51.601-51.611, 51.701-51.717. The petitioners' first line of attack against the FCC's pricing rules is their claim that the FCC has no jurisdiction to promulgate these rules. They argue that the Act plainly directs state commissions, not the FCC, to set the prices that an incumbent LEC may charge an incoming competitor for interconnection, unbundled access, and resale, and also to determine the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • method to calculate costs. See id. 51.503(b)(2), 51.513, 51.705(a)(2), 51.707. The incumbent LECs assert that these proxy rates also do not accurately reflect their costs and are artificially low. The petitioners also challenge several other FCC regulations pertaining to the prices that the incumbent LECs are permitted to charge for fulfilling their new duties under the Act. See id. 51.601-51.611, 51.701-51.717. The petitioners' first line of attack against the FCC's pricing rules is their claim that the FCC has no jurisdiction to promulgate these rules. They argue that the Act plainly directs state commissions, not the FCC, to set the prices that an incumbent LEC may charge an incoming competitor for interconnection, unbundled access, and resale, and also to determine the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-1094.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-1094.html
  • for the transport and termination of telecommunications." }{\i\fs24\insrsid214472 Id}{\fs24\insrsid214472 . \'a7 251(b)(5). When LECs collaborate to complete a call, this provision ensures compensation both for the originating LEC, which receives payment from the end\_ user, and for the recipient's LEC. By regulation the Commission has limited the scope of the reciprocal compensation requirement to "local telecommunications traffic." 47 CFR \'a7 51.701(a) . In the ruling under review, it considered whether calls to internet service providers ("ISPs") within the caller's local calling area are themselves "local." In doing so it applied its so\_called "end\_to\_ end" analysis, noting that the communication characteristically will ultimately (if indirectly) extend beyond the ISP to websites out\_of\_state and around the world. Accordingly it found the calls non\_local.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1376.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1376.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-1376.pdf
  • charged by Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers, see 47 U.S.C. §§ 152(b) (exempting the provisions of section 332), 332(c)(3)(A), and because section 332(c)(1)(B) gives the FCC the authority to order LECs to interconnect with CMRS carriers, we believe that the Commission has the authority to issue the rules of special concern to the CMRS providers, i.e., 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.701, 51.703, 51.709(b), 51.711(a)(1), 51.715(d), and 51.717, but only as these provisions apply to CMRS providers. Thus, rules 51.701, 51.703, 51.709(b), 51.711(a)(1), 51.715(d), and 51.717 remain in full force and effect with respect to the CMRS providers, and our order of vacation does not apply to them in the CMRS context. Iowa Utilities Bd., 120 F.3d at 800 n.21 (emphasis added).
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/01-1218.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/01-1218.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/01-1218.pdf
  • the same area. Although its literal language purports to extend reciprocal compensation to all "telecommunications," the Commission has construed it as limited to "local" traffic only. In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16012-13, p p 1033-34, 16015-16, p 1040 (1996) ("Local Competition Order"); 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(a). For long distance calls, by contrast, the long-distance carrier collects from the user and pays both LECs--the one originating and the one terminating the call. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16013, p 1034. In an earlier order, the Commission excluded ISP calls from the reach of § 251(b)(5) on the theory that they were indeed not "local." In
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/02-1131.pdf
  • the present agreements unambiguously elevates one aspect of ISP-bound traffic over the other. The Commission makes two principal arguments in defense of its interpretation of the agreements: First, the agreements clearly invoke the non-local end-to-end jurisdictional nature of ISP-bound traffic. Second, the definition of ``Local Traffic'' in each agreement tracks the Commission's interpretation of § 251(b)(5), see 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(1) (1997), which does not require compensation for ISP-bound traffic. For its part, Starpower argues that the context in which the term ``end-to- end'' was used in each agreement ­ designating a call as ``Local'' versus ``Toll'' in the 1998 Agreement, and providing data on local versus interstate trunk usage in the 1999 Agreement ­ shows that the parties did not
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/02-1255-011604.pdf
  • the same configuration in TSR was not so considered. The Commission's attempt to stretch the concept of a wide area calling arrangement (essentially an agreement) to a wide area calling ``service'' is logically inconsistent with its TSR decision.3 The premise, according to the Commission's TSR 2 In the words of the Commission, ``[s]ection 51.703(b), when read in conjunction with Section 51.701(b)(2), requires LECs to deliver, without charge, traffic to [wireless] providers anywhere within the MTA [Major Trading Area] in which the call originatedTTTT'' TSR, 15 FCCR at 11184 ¶ 31. An MTA is the area within which wireless providers offer service, and within which the FCC's reciprocal compensation rules apply. All three local calling areas at issue here are within the
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/archives/whatsnewarchive04.html
  • of a Commission decision that the petition fails to meet the standards for forbearance under section 10(a) of the Act. WC Docket No. 03-256. Order: [253]Word | [254]Acrobat 10/22/04 Petition of Level 3 Communications LLC for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. Section 160(c) from Application of Section 251(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, the Exception Clause of Section 51.701(b)(1) of the Commissions Rules, and Section 69.5(b) of the Commissions Rules. FCC extends by 90 days the date by which the petition requesting forbearance filed by Level 3 Communications LLC (Level 3) shall be deemed granted in the absence of a Commission decision that the petition fails to meet the standards for forbearance under section 10(a) of the Act.. WC
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2007archive.html
  • Election Of Price Cap Regulation And For Limited Waiver Of Pricing And Universal Service Rules. (DA No. 07-5011). Comments Due: 01/21/2008. Reply Comments Due: 02/05/2008. [26][Word] [27][Acrobat] 12/18/2007 Order: Cincinnati Bell Protective Order. Issued Protective Order. [28][Word] [29][Acrobat] 12/18/2007 Public Notice: Pleading Cycle Established for feature Group IP Petition For Forbearance From Section 251(G) Of The Communications Act And Sections 51.701(B)(1) And 69.5(B) Of The Commission's Rules. (Dkt No 07-256). Comments Due: 01/17/2008. Reply Comments Due: 02/06/2008. [30][Word] [31][Acrobat] 12/18/2007 Public Notice: Pleading Cycle Established For Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company Petition For Pricing Flexibility For Special Access Services, Dedicated Transport Services And Channel Termination Services. Comments Due: 01/07/2008. Reply Comments Due: 01/17/2008. [32][Word] [33][Acrobat] 12/6/2007 Public Notice: Pleading Cycle Established For
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2008archive.html
  • Issued an Erratum correcting DA 08-94, released on January 14, 2008. [130][Word] [131][Acrobat] 1/15/2008 Public Notice: National Exchange Carried Association, Inc'S Proposed 2008 Modification Of Average Schedule Formulas. (Dkt No 07-290) PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED. Comments Due: 01/30/2008. Reply Comments Due: 02/11/2008. [132][Word] [133][Acrobat] 1/14/2008 Order: Feature Group IP Petition For Forbearance From Section 251(G) Of The Communications Act And Sections 51.701(B)(1) And 69.5(B) Of The Commission's Rules. Revised the Comment Date and Reply Comment Date in this proceeding. (Dkt No. 07-256). Action by: Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Comments Due: 02/19/2008. Reply Comments Due: 03/14/2008. [134][Word] [135][Acrobat] 1/14/2008 Public Notice: Pleading Cycle Established For Petition Of The Embarq Local Operating Companies For Forbearance From Enforcement Of Section 69.5(A) Of The Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2009archive.html
  • For Forbearance. Extended the forbearance date to May 15, 2009. (Dkt No. 08-24). [79][Word] [80][Acrobat] 1/30/2009 Public Notice: National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc'S Proposed 2009 Modification Of Average Schedule Formulas. (Dkt No 08-248). Comments Due: 02/17/2009. Reply Comments Due: 02/27/2009. [81][Word] [82][Acrobat] 1/21/2009 Order: Feature Group IP Petition For Forbearance From Section 251 (G) Of The Communications Act And Section 51.701(B)(1) And 69.5(B) Of The Commission's Rules. Denied a petition filed by Feature Group IP requesting that the Commission forbear from section 251(g) of the Communications Act and sections 51.701(b)(1) and 69.5(b). (Dkt No. 07-256). [83][Word] [84][Acrobat] McDowell Statement: [85][Word] [86][Acrobat] 1/9/2009 Order: Petition Of The Embarq Local Operating Companies For Limited Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. Section 160(C) From Enforcement Of