FCC Web Documents citing 51.703

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
  • Cellular Corporation and Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. (collectively ``Dobson'') against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (``BellSouth'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). The Complaint asserts three claims against BellSouth. First, Dobson alleges that BellSouth over-billed Dobson for certain shared facilities in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in violation of section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules (``Count 1''). Second, Dobson alleges that BellSouth over-billed for reciprocal compensation in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in violation of sections 251(b)(5) and 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and section 51.703(a) of the Commission's rules (``Count 2''). Third, Dobson alleges that BellSouth refused to lower certain reciprocal compensation rates in Georgia and Tennessee to the rates
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf
  • Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the ``Midwest ILECs''), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``PacBell'') and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (``SWBT'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-722A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-722A2.txt
  • the payment of compensation for Internet traffic. As the Commission expressly has ruled, the "section 251(b)(5) reciprocal compensation obligations should apply only to traffic that originates and terminates within a &a/area." implementation oi the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Red 15499, !: 1034 (1996) (emphasis added) "Local Competition Order"); see also 47 C.F.R. 0 51.703(a) ("Each [local exchange carrier] shall establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for transport and termination of local telecommunications traffic" (emphasis added)). In contrast, "the reciprocal compensation provisions of section 251 (b)(5) do not apply to the transport or termination of interstate or intrastate interexchange traffic." Local Competition Order at 8 1034. And the Commission expressly has held that "ISP-bound traffic is non-local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1338A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-01-MD-008 Adopted: June 6, 2002 Released: June 10, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 6, 2001, Metrocall, Inc. (``Metrocall'') filed a formal complaint against Concord Telephone Co. (``CTC'') alleging that CTC violated section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules by: 1) charging Metrocall recurring fees solely for the use of direct inward dial (``DID'') numbers; and 2) charging Metrocall fees for DID facilities used to transport CTC-originated traffic from CTC's network to Metrocall's network. On February 2, 2002, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released a Memorandum Opinion and Order (``MO&O), granting in part and denying in
• 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
  • I. INTRODUCTION In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the above-captioned formal complaint that Mountain Communications, Inc. (``Mountain'') filed against Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'', formerly U S West Communications, Inc.) pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). Mountain, a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (``CMRS'') paging provider, alleges that Qwest violated sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules by charging Mountain for transporting certain traffic. Based on the principles established in the TSR Wireless Order and the Texcom Order, we deny Mountain's claims. In short, we find that Qwest may lawfully charge Mountain for costs associated with ``transiting traffic'' and for facilities used to provide ``wide area calling.'' BACKGROUND 2. Mountain offers
• 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
  • Metrocall ``converted'' its informal complaint into the instant formal complaint pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules. Metrocall's complaint asserts two claims: (1) that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act and Commission orders by charging recurring fees to Metrocall solely for the use of DID numbers; and (2) that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules by charging Metrocall for DID facilities used to transport traffic from Concord's network to Metrocall's network. For the reasons discussed below, we grant Metrocall's complaint as to the first claim, and grant in part and deny in part Metrocall's complaint as to the second claim. III. DISCUSSION A. The Commission Has Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Metrocall's Complaint.
• 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
  • 4. ILEC right to obtain a compensation agreement through negotiation and arbitration Under pre-existing rules and statutory provisions, CMRS providers could request interconnection with an ILEC, and require the ILEC to enter into a process of negotiation and, if necessary, arbitration to reach an agreement on interconnection and compensation terms. 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(c)(1), 252; 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.11, 51.301, 51.703. However, ILECs could not compel negotiation and arbitration with the CMRS provider. Under the new rule, ILECs may also request negotiation to establish an interconnection and compensation agreement. 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(e). If a CMRS provider receives such a request, both parties must negotiate the terms of interconnection and compensation in good faith in the same manner as if the
• 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
  • Cellular Corporation and Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. (collectively ``Dobson'') against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (``BellSouth'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). The Complaint asserts three claims against BellSouth. First, Dobson alleges that BellSouth over-billed Dobson for certain shared facilities in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in violation of section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules (``Count 1''). Second, Dobson alleges that BellSouth over-billed for reciprocal compensation in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in violation of sections 251(b)(5) and 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and section 51.703(a) of the Commission's rules (``Count 2''). Third, Dobson alleges that BellSouth refused to lower certain reciprocal compensation rates in Georgia and Tennessee to the rates
• 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
  • Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the ``Midwest ILECs''), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``PacBell'') and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (``SWBT'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims
• 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
  • 18481-81, para. 248; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4095, para. 269; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20637, para. 185. See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20924-27, paras. 20-27. Line Sharing Recon Order, para. 10. See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element.''). See Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201. Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-194A1.doc
  • that, pursuant to the Commission's rules and orders, LECs may not charge paging carriers for delivery of LEC-originated traffic. Consequently, Defendants may not impose upon Complainants charges for facilities used to deliver LEC-originated traffic to Complainants. In addition, we conclude that Defendants may not impose non-cost-based charges upon Complainants solely for the use of numbers. We further conclude that section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules does not prohibit LECs from charging, in certain instances, for ``wide area calling'' or similar services where a terminating carrier agrees to compensate the LEC for toll charges that would otherwise have been paid by the originating carrier's customer. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, we grant in part and deny in part Complainants' claims.
• 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
  • para. 158. See AT&T Massachusetts II Reply 24; WorldCom Massachusetts II Reply at 12-13; Covad Massachusetts II Reply at 5-6. AT&T Massachusetts II Reply 24; WorldCom Massachusetts II Reply at 12-13; Covad Massachusetts II Reply at 5-6. Line Sharing Reconsideration Order at para. 14-25; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element''). Line Sharing Reconsideration Order at para. 18. Id. at paras. 18-20. Id. at para. 21. See WorldCom Massachusetts II Reply at 13. See Letter from Dee
• 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
  • intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access (see FCC 01-131, paras. 34, 36, 39, 42-43); or 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, as defined in § 24.202(a) of this chapter. 3. Sections 51.701(a), 51.701(c) through (e), 51.703, 51.705, 51.707, 51.709, 51.711, 51.713, 51.715, and 51.717 are each amended by striking "local" before "telecommunications traffic" each place such word appears. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL Re: Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic (CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 99-68) In this Order, we re-affirm our prior conclusion
• 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
  • FCC Rcd. at 14328-30 ¶¶ 211-16. See supra note 91 and accompanying text. See In the Matter of Joint Application by SBC Communications, Inc. et al. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Kansas and Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 00-217, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01-29 at ¶ 235 (rel. Jan. 22, 2001) (``Kansas/Oklahoma 271 Order'') (citing 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b); In the Matters of TSR Wireless, LLC et al. v. U.S. West, 15 FCC Rcd. 11166 (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). See Kansas/Oklahoma 271 Order, supra note 180, at ¶¶ 232-34. SBC Reply in CC Docket
• 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
  • 18481-81, para. 248; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4095, para. 269; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20637, para. 185. See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20924-27, paras. 20-27. Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, para. 10. See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element.''). See Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201. Id.
• 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
  • Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket 98-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14,712 at Appendix C, para. 66 (1999) (SBC/Ameritech Merger Order). See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element.''). See SWBT Chapman Reply Aff. at paras. 29-40. In its reply, SWBT states that it will modify the language of its interconnection agreements to eliminate any
• 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
  • 18481-81, para. 248; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4095, para. 269; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20637, para. 185. See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20924-27, paras. 20-27. Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, para. 10. See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element.''). See Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201. Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-347A1.txt
  • ) ) ) File No. EB-00-MD-14 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 26, 2001 Released: November 28, 2001 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the above-captioned complaint filed by Texcom, Inc., d/b/a Answer Indiana (``Answer Indiana'') against Bell Atlantic Corp., d/b/a Verizon Communications (``GTE North''). Answer Indiana alleges that GTE North violated section 51.703 of our rules by charging Answer Indiana for terminating traffic that transits GTE North's network. II. BACKGROUND Answer Indiana is a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (``CMRS'') provider offering one-way paging services to the public in the State of Indiana. GTE North is a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') offering local phone service to the public in the State of Indiana. GTE
• 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
  • Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106-07, para. 10 (2001). See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element''). See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201.
• 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
  • Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106-07, para. 10 (2001). See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element''). See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201.
• 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
  • Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106-07, para. 10 (2001). See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element''). See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201.
• 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
  • 2002 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order on Review, we deny Mountain Communications, Inc.'s (``Mountain'') application for review of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in the above-captioned matter issued by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau''). In the Mountain Order, the Bureau denied Mountain's complaint alleging that Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest''), an incumbent local exchange carrier (``LEC''), violated sections 51.703 and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules by charging Mountain, a commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') carrier, for costs associated with ``transiting traffic'' and for the facilities used to provide ``wide area calling.'' Mountain provides us with insufficient justification to overturn the Bureau's conclusions in the Mountain Order, and, therefore, we deny the Mountain Petition. II. DISCUSSION A. Qwest May Lawfully
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106-07, para. 10 (2001). 166 See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers "to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element"). Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-330 C-31 configuration used to provide voice service with an arrangement that enables it to provide voice and data service to a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106-07, para. 10 (2001). 166 See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers "to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element"). Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-331 D-31 configuration used to provide voice service with an arrangement that enables it to provide voice and data service to a
• 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
  • Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106-07, para. 10 (2001). See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element''). See SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201.
• 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
  • INTRODUCTION In this Order on Reconsideration, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration of our Memorandum Opinion and Order in the above-captioned matter filed by Texcom, Inc. d/b/a Answer Indiana (``Answer Indiana''). In the Answer Indiana Order, the Commission denied Answer Indiana's complaint alleging that Bell Atlantic Corp., d/b/a Verizon Communications (``GTE North''), an incumbent local exchange carrier (``LEC''), violated section 51.703 of our rules by charging Answer Indiana, a commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') carrier, for traffic that originates on a third carrier's network, transits GTE North's network, and terminates on Answer Indiana's network. In the instant Petition for Reconsideration, Answer Indiana raises several grounds to support its contention that the Commission's decision in the Answer Indiana Order is erroneous. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-106A1.txt
  • section 251(c) claims failed, Z-Tel's section 201(b) claims also failed. Nothing in this reasoning, however, supports Z-Tel's cited assertion. Thus, the conflict that Z-Tel finds between the Liability Order and Net2000 comes entirely from misconstruing the Commission's decision in the Liability Order. Z-Tel also cites TSR Wireless, in which the Commission found that the defendant LECs had violated Commission rule 51.703(b) by charging the complainants, commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') providers, for facilities used to deliver LEC-originated traffic. Z-Tel argues that TSR Wireless establishes that the terms of the Pacific Agreement were irrelevant to an analysis of Z-Tel's claims against Pacific. As with Net2000, Z-Tel again focuses on the jurisdictional issue that it has misunderstood. Z-Tel argues that in TSR Wireless,
• 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
  • U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(B). Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long Distance pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Texas, CC Docket No. 00-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18354, 18390, para. 78 n.174 (2000). 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b). At least two courts have held that this rule applies even in cases where an incumbent LEC delivers calls to a POI located outside its customer's local calling area. See Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utils. Comm'n of Texas, 348 F.3d 482, 486-87 (5th Cir. 2003); MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 352 F.3d 872, 881
• 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
  • and Interconnection Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, CC Docket Nos. 95-185, 94-54, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 5020, 5058-64, paras. 82-95 (1996) (CMRS 1996 Notice). 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. 1041 (adopting section 51.703(a) of the Commission's rules) (Local Competition First Report and Order) (subsequent history omitted). 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). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16014, para. 1036. Id. 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(a). See, e.g.,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-147A1.txt
  • a formal complaint brought by Mountain Communications, Inc. (``Mountain'') against Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In accordance with a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (``D.C. Circuit'') vacating and remanding our earlier order, we find that Qwest violated sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of our rules by improperly charging Mountain for delivering one-way paging traffic that originated and terminated in the same Major Trading Area (``MTA'') and for which no wide area calling arrangement had been established. In so holding, we reject Qwest's assertion that granting the complaint is inappropriate in light of the jurisdictional and limitations defenses it raises. Background
• 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
  • Paper) (``By its nature, `reciprocal compensation' must [ ] apply to `telecommunications' exchanged between LECs (or carriers, like CMRS providers, that the Commission is authorized to treat as LECs), not to traffic that is exchanged between LECs and non-LECs.'') (emphasis in original). See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16013-16, paras. 1034-41. See also 47 C.F.R. 51.703(a) (``Each LEC shall establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic with any requesting telecommunications carrier''); ISP Remand Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9193-94, para. 89 n.177 (``Section 251(b)(5) applies to telecommunications traffic between a LEC and a telecommunications carrier . . . .''). Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15996, para. 1005.
• 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
  • . . . . Telephone companies do have to pay access charges to terminate calls to our customers.''). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 251(g). See Iowa Util. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, n.21 (1997), vacated and remanded in part on other grounds, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). For example the court concluded that rule 51.703, which inter alia prohibits a LEC from ``assess[ing] charges on any other telecommunications carrier for telecommunications traffic that originates on the LEC's network,'' was validly grounded in section 332 of the Act. Id. Id. Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime; T-Mobile et al. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Incumbent LEC Wireless Termination Tariffs, CC Docket No. 01-92, Declaratory Ruling and
• 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
  • office switch, or equivalent facility, and delivery of such traffic to the called party's premises. (e) Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation. For purposes of this subpart, a Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation arrangement between two carriers is either a bill-and-keep arrangement, per §51.713, or an arrangement in which each carrier receives intercarrier compensation for the transport and termination of Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic. Revise § 51.703 to read as follows: § 51.703 Non-Access reciprocal compensation obligation of LECs. (a) Each LEC shall establish Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation arrangements for transport and termination of Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic with any requesting telecommunications carrier. (b) A LEC may not assess charges on any other telecommunications carrier for Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic that originates on the LEC's network. (c) Notwithstanding any other
• 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
  • 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) (Second
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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. Subpart I - Procedures for implementation of section
• 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
  • FCC Rcd. at 14328-30 ¶¶ 211-16. See supra note 91 and accompanying text. See In the Matter of Joint Application by SBC Communications, Inc. et al. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Kansas and Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 00-217, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01-29 at ¶ 235 (rel. Jan. 22, 2001) (``Kansas/Oklahoma 271 Order'') (citing 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b); In the Matters of TSR Wireless, LLC et al. v. U.S. West, 15 FCC Rcd. 11166 (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). See Kansas/Oklahoma 271 Order, supra note 180, at ¶¶ 232-34. SBC Reply in CC Docket
• 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
  • Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket 98-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14,712 at Appendix C, para. 66 (1999) (SBC/Ameritech Merger Order). See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element.''). See SWBT Chapman Reply Aff. at paras. 29-40. In its reply, SWBT states that it will modify the language of its interconnection agreements to eliminate any
• 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
  • intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access (see FCC 01-131, paras. 34, 36, 39, 42-43); or 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, as defined in § 24.202(a) of this chapter. 3. Sections 51.701(a), 51.701(c) through (e), 51.703, 51.705, 51.707, 51.709, 51.711, 51.713, 51.715, and 51.717 are each amended by striking "local" before "telecommunications traffic" each place such word appears. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL Re: Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic (CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 99-68) In this Order, we re-affirm our prior conclusion
• 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
  • 18481-81, para. 248; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4095, para. 269; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20637, para. 185. See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20924-27, paras. 20-27. Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, para. 10. See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element.''). See Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201. Id.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99137.pdf
  • for bad debt. The LEC pays the wireless carrier an interconnection charge to terminate traffic on the wireless network. The interconnection charges are determined either by regulators or negotiated bilaterally by the Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-137 185 Id. 186 A number of current reciprocal compensation schemes are being renegotiated in order to bring wireline carriers into compliance with Section 51.703(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b). That section prohibits LECs from charging other carriers for LEC traffic that originates on the LEC's network. CMRS carriers have customarily arranged for LECs to charge them, not the calling party, for any local toll charges for calls originating on the LEC network. This payment arrangement is known as "reverse billing." With
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106-07, para. 10 (2001). 164 See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers "to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element"). Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-118 D-25 conjunction with another carrier, is able to replace an existing UNE-P configuration used to provide voice service with an arrangement
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.pdf
  • Verizon Communications, ) ) Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September November 26, Released: November 28, 2001 2001 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the above-captioned complaint filed by Texcom, Inc., d/b/a Answer Indiana (``Answer Indiana'') against Bell Atlantic Corp., d/b/a Verizon Communications (``GTE North''). Answer Indiana alleges that GTE North violated section 51.703 of our rules1 by charging Answer Indiana for terminating traffic that transits GTE North's network.2 II. BACKGROUND Answer Indiana is a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (``CMRS'') provider offering one-way paging services to the public in the State of Indiana. GTE North is a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') offering local phone service to the public in the State of Indiana.3 GTE
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1338A1.html
  • ) Concord Telephone Co., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: June 6, 2002 Released: June 10, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 6, 2001, Metrocall, Inc. (``Metrocall'') filed a formal complaint against Concord Telephone Co. (``CTC'') alleging that CTC violated section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules by: 1) charging Metrocall recurring fees solely for the use of direct inward dial (``DID'') numbers; and 2) charging Metrocall fees for DID facilities used to transport CTC-originated traffic from CTC's network to Metrocall's network. On February 2, 2002, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released a Memorandum Opinion and Order (``MO&O), granting in part and denying in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-250A1.html
  • I. INTRODUCTION In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the above-captioned formal complaint that Mountain Communications, Inc. (``Mountain'') filed against Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'', formerly U S West Communications, Inc.) pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').1 Mountain, a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (``CMRS'') paging provider, alleges that Qwest violated sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules2 by charging Mountain for transporting certain traffic.3 Based on the principles established in the TSR Wireless Order4 and the Texcom Order,5 we deny Mountain's claims. In short, we find that Qwest may lawfully charge Mountain for costs associated with ``transiting traffic'' and for facilities used to provide ``wide area calling.'' II. BACKGROUND 2. Mountain
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • Metrocall ``converted'' its informal complaint into the instant formal complaint pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.17 Metrocall's complaint asserts two claims: (1) that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act18 and Commission orders by charging recurring fees to Metrocall solely for the use of DID numbers;19 and (2) that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules20 by charging Metrocall for DID facilities used to transport traffic from Concord's network to Metrocall's network.21 For the reasons discussed below, we grant Metrocall's complaint as to the first claim, and grant in part and deny in part Metrocall's complaint as to the second claim. III. DISCUSSION A. The Commission Has Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Metrocall's Complaint.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-220A1.html
  • 2002 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order on Review, we deny Mountain Communications, Inc.'s (``Mountain'') application for review1 of the Memorandum Opinion and Order2 in the above-captioned matter issued by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau''). In the Mountain Order, the Bureau denied Mountain's complaint alleging that Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest''), an incumbent local exchange carrier (``LEC''), violated sections 51.703 and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules3 by charging Mountain, a commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') carrier, for costs associated with ``transiting traffic'' and for the facilities used to provide ``wide area calling.'' Mountain provides us with insufficient justification to overturn the Bureau's conclusions in the Mountain Order, and, therefore, we deny the Mountain Petition. II. DISCUSSION A. Qwest May Lawfully
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-96A1.html
  • INTRODUCTION In this Order on Reconsideration, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration of our Memorandum Opinion and Order1 in the above-captioned matter filed by Texcom, Inc. d/b/a Answer Indiana (``Answer Indiana'').2 In the Answer Indiana Order, the Commission denied Answer Indiana's complaint alleging that Bell Atlantic Corp., d/b/a Verizon Communications (``GTE North''), an incumbent local exchange carrier (``LEC''), violated section 51.703 of our rules3 by charging Answer Indiana, a commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') carrier, for traffic that originates on a third carrier's network, transits GTE North's network, and terminates on Answer Indiana's network. In the instant Petition for Reconsideration, Answer Indiana raises several grounds to support its contention that the Commission's decision in the Answer Indiana Order is erroneous. The
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-106A1.html
  • 251(c) claims failed, Z-Tel's section 201(b) claims also failed. Nothing in this reasoning, however, supports Z-Tel's cited assertion. Thus, the conflict that Z-Tel finds between the Liability Order and Net2000 comes entirely from misconstruing the Commission's decision in the Liability Order. 16. Z-Tel also cites TSR Wireless,34 in which the Commission found that the defendant LECs had violated Commission rule 51.703(b)35 by charging the complainants, commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') providers, for facilities used to deliver LEC-originated traffic. Z-Tel argues that TSR Wireless establishes that the terms of the Pacific Agreement were irrelevant to an analysis of Z- Tel's claims against Pacific.36 As with Net2000, Z-Tel again focuses on the jurisdictional issue that it has misunderstood. Z-Tel argues that in TSR
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-147A1.html
  • a formal complaint brought by Mountain Communications, Inc. ("Mountain") against Qwest Communications International, Inc. ("Qwest") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In accordance with a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") vacating and remanding our earlier order, we find that Qwest violated sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of our rules by improperly charging Mountain for delivering one-way paging traffic that originated and terminated in the same Major Trading Area ("MTA") and for which no wide area calling arrangement had been established. In so holding, we reject Qwest's assertion that granting the complaint is inappropriate in light of the jurisdictional and limitations defenses it raises. II.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • Cellular Corporation and Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. (collectively "Dobson") against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ("BellSouth") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Complaint asserts three claims against BellSouth. First, Dobson alleges that BellSouth over-billed Dobson for certain shared facilities in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in violation of section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules ("Count 1"). Second, Dobson alleges that BellSouth over-billed for reciprocal compensation in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in violation of sections 251(b)(5) and 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and section 51.703(a) of the Commission's rules ("Count 2"). Third, Dobson alleges that BellSouth refused to lower certain reciprocal compensation rates in Georgia and Tennessee to the rates
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the "Midwest ILECs"), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("PacBell") and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. ("SWBT") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims
• 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
  • FCC Rcd. at 14328-30 ¶¶ 211-16. See supra note 91 and accompanying text. See In the Matter of Joint Application by SBC Communications, Inc. et al. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Kansas and Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 00-217, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01-29 at ¶ 235 (rel. Jan. 22, 2001) (``Kansas/Oklahoma 271 Order'') (citing 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b); In the Matters of TSR Wireless, LLC et al. v. U.S. West, 15 FCC Rcd. 11166 (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). See Kansas/Oklahoma 271 Order, supra note 180, at ¶¶ 232-34. SBC Reply in CC Docket
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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. Subpart I - Procedures for implementation of section
• 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
  • Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket 98-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14,712 at Appendix C, para. 66 (1999) (SBC/Ameritech Merger Order). See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element.''). See SWBT Chapman Reply Aff. at paras. 29-40. In its reply, SWBT states that it will modify the language of its interconnection agreements to eliminate any
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.txt
  • para. 158. See AT&T Massachusetts II Reply 24; WorldCom Massachusetts II Reply at 12-13; Covad Massachusetts II Reply at 5-6. AT&T Massachusetts II Reply 24; WorldCom Massachusetts II Reply at 12-13; Covad Massachusetts II Reply at 5-6. Line Sharing Reconsideration Order at para. 14-25; SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element''). Line Sharing Reconsideration Order at para. 18. Id. at paras. 18-20. Id. at para. 21. See WorldCom Massachusetts II Reply at 13. See Letter from Dee
• 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
  • intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access (see FCC 01-131, paras. 34, 36, 39, 42-43); or 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, as defined in § 24.202(a) of this chapter. 3. Sections 51.701(a), 51.701(c) through (e), 51.703, 51.705, 51.707, 51.709, 51.711, 51.713, 51.715, and 51.717 are each amended by striking "local" before "telecommunications traffic" each place such word appears. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL Re: Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic (CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 99-68) In this Order, we re-affirm our prior conclusion
• 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
  • 18481-81, para. 248; Bell Atlantic New York Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4095, para. 269; Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20637, para. 185. See Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20924-27, paras. 20-27. Line Sharing Reconsideration Order, para. 10. See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. §51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers ``to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element.''). See Kansas/Oklahoma Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6348, para. 220. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(v). Second BellSouth Louisiana Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20719, para. 201. Id.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106-07, para. 10 (2001). 166 See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers "to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element"). Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-331 D-31 configuration used to provide voice service with an arrangement that enables it to provide voice and data service to a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Other/paging.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Other/paging.wp
  • 19th St., N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20016 Dear Ms. Massey, Ms. Abernathy, Mr. Stachiw, and Ms. St. Ledger-Roty: This letter responds to your letter, dated January 30, 1997, that sets forth your concerns regarding disagreements among several local exchange carriers (LECs) and the paging companies that you represent. Among other things, you urge the Bureau to affirm that section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules[2]^(1) prohibits LECs from charging Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers, including paging companies, for the traffic that originates on the LECs' networks, or from threatening to terminate their interconnection agreements with paging companies that refuse to pay such charges. The record in the Implementation of Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 proceeding contains
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99137.pdf
  • for bad debt. The LEC pays the wireless carrier an interconnection charge to terminate traffic on the wireless network. The interconnection charges are determined either by regulators or negotiated bilaterally by the Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-137 185 Id. 186 A number of current reciprocal compensation schemes are being renegotiated in order to bring wireline carriers into compliance with Section 51.703(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b). That section prohibits LECs from charging other carriers for LEC traffic that originates on the LEC's network. CMRS carriers have customarily arranged for LECs to charge them, not the calling party, for any local toll charges for calls originating on the LEC network. This payment arrangement is known as "reverse billing." With
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98, 16 FCC Rcd 2101, 2106-07, para. 10 (2001). 164 See generally SWBT Texas Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18515-17, paras. 323-329 (describing line splitting); 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(c) (requiring that incumbent LECs provide competing carriers with access to unbundled loops in a manner that allows competing carriers "to provide any telecommunications service that can be offered by means of that network element"). Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-118 D-25 conjunction with another carrier, is able to replace an existing UNE-P configuration used to provide voice service with an arrangement
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.pdf
  • Verizon Communications, ) ) Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September November 26, Released: November 28, 2001 2001 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the above-captioned complaint filed by Texcom, Inc., d/b/a Answer Indiana (``Answer Indiana'') against Bell Atlantic Corp., d/b/a Verizon Communications (``GTE North''). Answer Indiana alleges that GTE North violated section 51.703 of our rules1 by charging Answer Indiana for terminating traffic that transits GTE North's network.2 II. BACKGROUND Answer Indiana is a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (``CMRS'') provider offering one-way paging services to the public in the State of Indiana. GTE North is a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') offering local phone service to the public in the State of Indiana.3 GTE
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1338A1.html
  • ) Concord Telephone Co., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: June 6, 2002 Released: June 10, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 6, 2001, Metrocall, Inc. (``Metrocall'') filed a formal complaint against Concord Telephone Co. (``CTC'') alleging that CTC violated section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules by: 1) charging Metrocall recurring fees solely for the use of direct inward dial (``DID'') numbers; and 2) charging Metrocall fees for DID facilities used to transport CTC-originated traffic from CTC's network to Metrocall's network. On February 2, 2002, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') released a Memorandum Opinion and Order (``MO&O), granting in part and denying in
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-250A1.html
  • I. INTRODUCTION In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the above-captioned formal complaint that Mountain Communications, Inc. (``Mountain'') filed against Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest'', formerly U S West Communications, Inc.) pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').1 Mountain, a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (``CMRS'') paging provider, alleges that Qwest violated sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules2 by charging Mountain for transporting certain traffic.3 Based on the principles established in the TSR Wireless Order4 and the Texcom Order,5 we deny Mountain's claims. In short, we find that Qwest may lawfully charge Mountain for costs associated with ``transiting traffic'' and for facilities used to provide ``wide area calling.'' II. BACKGROUND 2. Mountain
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • Metrocall ``converted'' its informal complaint into the instant formal complaint pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules.17 Metrocall's complaint asserts two claims: (1) that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act18 and Commission orders by charging recurring fees to Metrocall solely for the use of DID numbers;19 and (2) that Concord violates section 201(b) of the Act and section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules20 by charging Metrocall for DID facilities used to transport traffic from Concord's network to Metrocall's network.21 For the reasons discussed below, we grant Metrocall's complaint as to the first claim, and grant in part and deny in part Metrocall's complaint as to the second claim. III. DISCUSSION A. The Commission Has Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Metrocall's Complaint.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-220A1.html
  • 2002 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order on Review, we deny Mountain Communications, Inc.'s (``Mountain'') application for review1 of the Memorandum Opinion and Order2 in the above-captioned matter issued by the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau''). In the Mountain Order, the Bureau denied Mountain's complaint alleging that Qwest Communications International, Inc. (``Qwest''), an incumbent local exchange carrier (``LEC''), violated sections 51.703 and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules3 by charging Mountain, a commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') carrier, for costs associated with ``transiting traffic'' and for the facilities used to provide ``wide area calling.'' Mountain provides us with insufficient justification to overturn the Bureau's conclusions in the Mountain Order, and, therefore, we deny the Mountain Petition. II. DISCUSSION A. Qwest May Lawfully
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-96A1.html
  • INTRODUCTION In this Order on Reconsideration, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration of our Memorandum Opinion and Order1 in the above-captioned matter filed by Texcom, Inc. d/b/a Answer Indiana (``Answer Indiana'').2 In the Answer Indiana Order, the Commission denied Answer Indiana's complaint alleging that Bell Atlantic Corp., d/b/a Verizon Communications (``GTE North''), an incumbent local exchange carrier (``LEC''), violated section 51.703 of our rules3 by charging Answer Indiana, a commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') carrier, for traffic that originates on a third carrier's network, transits GTE North's network, and terminates on Answer Indiana's network. In the instant Petition for Reconsideration, Answer Indiana raises several grounds to support its contention that the Commission's decision in the Answer Indiana Order is erroneous. The
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-106A1.html
  • 251(c) claims failed, Z-Tel's section 201(b) claims also failed. Nothing in this reasoning, however, supports Z-Tel's cited assertion. Thus, the conflict that Z-Tel finds between the Liability Order and Net2000 comes entirely from misconstruing the Commission's decision in the Liability Order. 16. Z-Tel also cites TSR Wireless,34 in which the Commission found that the defendant LECs had violated Commission rule 51.703(b)35 by charging the complainants, commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') providers, for facilities used to deliver LEC-originated traffic. Z-Tel argues that TSR Wireless establishes that the terms of the Pacific Agreement were irrelevant to an analysis of Z- Tel's claims against Pacific.36 As with Net2000, Z-Tel again focuses on the jurisdictional issue that it has misunderstood. Z-Tel argues that in TSR
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-147A1.html
  • a formal complaint brought by Mountain Communications, Inc. ("Mountain") against Qwest Communications International, Inc. ("Qwest") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In accordance with a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") vacating and remanding our earlier order, we find that Qwest violated sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of our rules by improperly charging Mountain for delivering one-way paging traffic that originated and terminated in the same Major Trading Area ("MTA") and for which no wide area calling arrangement had been established. In so holding, we reject Qwest's assertion that granting the complaint is inappropriate in light of the jurisdictional and limitations defenses it raises. II.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • Cellular Corporation and Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. (collectively "Dobson") against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ("BellSouth") pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Complaint asserts three claims against BellSouth. First, Dobson alleges that BellSouth over-billed Dobson for certain shared facilities in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in violation of section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and sections 51.703(b) and 51.709(b) of the Commission's rules ("Count 1"). Second, Dobson alleges that BellSouth over-billed for reciprocal compensation in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in violation of sections 251(b)(5) and 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act and section 51.703(a) of the Commission's rules ("Count 2"). Third, Dobson alleges that BellSouth refused to lower certain reciprocal compensation rates in Georgia and Tennessee to the rates
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • rates 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. ^22We acknowledge that the words "any interconnection, service, or network element"
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • rates 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. ^22We acknowledge that the words "any interconnection, service, or network element"
• 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
  • "call-back" number or message, it sends out a radio broadcast that sets off the customer's pager. Thus the call starts out on the LEC's network but is handed off to the paging carrier, which completes the call. This case concerns the Federal Communications Commission's rule forbidding any LEC charge to the paging company for carrying such calls, 47 CFR § 51.703(b). The Commission enforced this no-compensation rule through adjudication of complaints brought by providers of one-way paging services, who contended that certain LECs had violated § 51.703(b). The LECs object to use of this procedure to resolve the dispute. They contend that under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (the "1996 Act"), such disputes can
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/02-1255-011604.pdf
  • other hand, a paging call were made from one local calling area to another, Qwest would transport the call to Mountain's POI­without crossing a local calling area boundary­at which time Mountain would assume responsibility for delivering the call across the local calling areas, presumably at Mountain's expense. Mountain claimed before the FCC that the Commission's regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b), which states that LECs such as Qwest ``may not assess charges on any other telecommunications carrier for telecommunications traf- fic that originates on the LEC's network,'' prohibit Qwest from charging for transmitting calls from Qwest customers to Mountain's POI. Mountain also relied on a recent FCC decision, TSR Wireless, LLC v. US West Communications, Inc., 15 FCCR 11166, 11184 ¶