FCC Web Documents citing 51.709

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
  • 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 established in
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf
  • the contrary, under TSR Wireless, the default prohibition on origination charges applies to the facilities at issue. We note that, most recently, the Commission reaffirmed the TSR Wireless holding in Mountain Communications, Inc. v. Qwest, which addressed Qwest's imposition of charges for transport facilities interconnecting its switches to the terminal of a paging carrier. The Commission concluded that Qwest violated 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.'' We find unavailing Defendants' argument that the alleged interaction of section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules and section 251(c)(2) of the Act demonstrates that they may charge for originating traffic over interconnection facilities. Defendants' position is undermined by
• 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
  • 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 one-way paging
• 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
  • Dialing Numbers'' are plainly listed). 47 C.F.R. § 1.722. Metrocall Complaint at 19-20. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b) (``A LEC may not assess charges on any other telecommunications carrier for telecommunications traffic that originates on the LEC's network.''). See TSR Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at11181, ¶ 25. Id. at 11177, ¶ 19 n.70; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.703(b), 51.709(b). Texcom, Inc, d/b/a Answer Indiana v. Bell Atlantic Corp. d/b/a Verizon Communications, 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
• 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
  • 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 established in
• 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
  • the contrary, under TSR Wireless, the default prohibition on origination charges applies to the facilities at issue. We note that, most recently, the Commission reaffirmed the TSR Wireless holding in Mountain Communications, Inc. v. Qwest, which addressed Qwest's imposition of charges for transport facilities interconnecting its switches to the terminal of a paging carrier. The Commission concluded that Qwest violated 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.'' We find unavailing Defendants' argument that the alleged interaction of section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules and section 251(c)(2) of the Act demonstrates that they may charge for originating traffic over interconnection facilities. Defendants' position is undermined by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-194A1.doc
  • Defendants is nonsensical, because LECs could continue to charge carriers for the delivery of originating traffic by merely re-designating the ``traffic'' charges as ``facilities'' charges. Such a result would be inconsistent with the language and intent of the Order and the Commission's rules. . Nor are we persuaded by the LEC arguments that the reference to ``transmission facilities'' in section 51.709(b) compels the conclusion that 51.703(b) is limited to ``traffic charges.'' Section 51.709(b) applies the general principle of section 51.703(b) - that a LEC may not impose on a paging carrier any costs the LEC incurs to deliver LEC-originated, intraMTA traffic, regardless of how the LEC chooses to characterize those costs - to the specific case of dedicated facilities. Thus, the
• 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
  • 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 that telecommunications traffic
• 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
  • Thus, the originating third party carrier's customers pay for the cost of delivering their calls to the LEC, while the terminating CMRS carrier's customers pay for the cost of transporting that traffic from the LEC's network to their network. Answer Indiana further argues that where a LEC owns facilities that exchange traffic between the LEC and a CMRS carrier, section 51.709(b) bars the LEC from charging the CMRS carrier for more than the proportion of those facilities used by the CMRS carrier to send traffic back to the LEC. In the case of traffic between a LEC and a paging carrier like Answer Indiana, such a reading of section 51.709(b) effectively would prohibit all transiting traffic charges, since one-way paging companies
• 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
  • 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 Charge Mountain
• 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
  • argues that the Commission erred by not adopting Answer Indiana's position that GTE North is the originating carrier for all traffic reaching Answer Indiana's network, even that traffic that only transits GTE North's network. Answer Indiana claims that by refusing to adopt its definition of ``originates'' in the Answer Indiana Order, the Commission misconstrued the Local Competition Order and section 51.709(b) of our rules. We thoroughly considered and rejected this argument in the Answer Indiana Order, and Answer Indiana provides no new reason to reconsider our prior conclusion. 6. Answer Indiana reiterates its argument that footnote 70 of the TSR Wireless Order, stating that LECs may charge CMRS carriers for the portion of facilities used to transport transiting traffic, is a
• 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
  • 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 Mountain is
• 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
  • for Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation as defined in this subpart. (5) After July 1, 2020, all Rate-of-Return Local Exchange Carrier's Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation rates and all non-incumbent LECs that benchmark access rates to Rate-of-Return Carriers shall be set pursuant to Bill-and-Keep arrangements for Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation as defined in this subpart. § 51.707 [Removed and Reserved] Remove and reserve §51.707. Revise §51.709 to read as follows: § 51.709 Rate structure for transport and termination. (a) In state proceedings, where a rate for Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation does not exist of as of [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a state commission shall establish initial rates for the transport and termination of Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic that are structured
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-189A1.txt
  • been designated that existed prior to the USF/ICC Transformation Order for a defined period of time. This will allow the Commission the opportunity to take further action with respect to the ``own facilities'' requirement for such providers in the context of the low-income program. We also conclude that good cause exists to make the revisions to sections 20.11(e), 51.705(a), and 51.709(c) effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. As discussed above, allowing the rules subject to this Order to go into effect on December 29, 2011 may potentially result in a significant financial impact on LECs exchanging non-access LEC-CMRS traffic pursuant to interconnection agreements, contrary to the Commission's initial assumptions. Thus, we find good cause to make these rule revisions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 252 of the Act. 51.801 Commission action upon a state commission's failure to act to carry out its responsibility under section 252 of the
• 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
  • 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 that telecommunications traffic
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.pdf
  • Thus, the originating third party carrier's customers pay for the cost of delivering their calls to the LEC, while the terminating CMRS carrier's customers pay for the cost of transporting that traffic from the LEC's network to their network. Answer Indiana further argues that where a LEC owns facilities that exchange traffic between the LEC and a CMRS carrier, section 51.709(b) bars the LEC from charging the CMRS carrier for more than the proportion of those facilities used by the CMRS carrier to send traffic back to the LEC.16 In the case of traffic between a LEC and a paging carrier like Answer Indiana, such a reading of section 51.709(b) effectively would prohibit all transiting traffic charges, since one-way paging companies
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-250A1.html
  • 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 offers one-way
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • Dialing Numbers'' are plainly listed). 35 47 C.F.R. 1.722. 36 Metrocall Complaint at 19-20. 37 See 47 C.F.R. 51.703(b) (``A LEC may not assess charges on any other telecommunications carrier for telecommunications traffic that originates on the LEC's network.''). 38 See TSR Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at11181, 25. 39 Id. at 11177, 19 n.70; see also 47 C.F.R. 51.703(b), 51.709(b). 40 Texcom, Inc, d/b/a Answer Indiana v. Bell Atlantic Corp. d/b/a Verizon 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-220A1.html
  • 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 Charge Mountain
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-96A1.html
  • argues that the Commission erred by not adopting Answer Indiana's position that GTE North is the originating carrier for all traffic reaching Answer Indiana's network, even that traffic that only transits GTE North's network. Answer Indiana claims that by refusing to adopt its definition of ``originates'' in the Answer Indiana Order, the Commission misconstrued the Local Competition Order and section 51.709(b) of our rules.14 We thoroughly considered and rejected this argument in the Answer Indiana Order, and Answer Indiana provides no new reason to reconsider our prior conclusion.15 6. Answer Indiana reiterates its argument that footnote 70 of the TSR Wireless Order, stating that LECs may charge CMRS carriers for the portion of facilities used to transport transiting traffic, is a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-147A1.html
  • 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. Background 2.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • 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 established in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • the contrary, under TSR Wireless, the default prohibition on origination charges applies to the facilities at issue. We note that, most recently, the Commission reaffirmed the TSR Wireless holding in Mountain Communications, Inc. v. Qwest, which addressed Qwest's imposition of charges for transport facilities interconnecting its switches to the terminal of a paging carrier. The Commission concluded that Qwest violated 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." 29. We find unavailing Defendants' argument that the alleged interaction of section 51.703(b) of the Commission's rules and section 251(c)(2) of the Act demonstrates that they may charge for originating traffic over interconnection facilities. Defendants' position is undermined
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 252 of the Act. 51.801 Commission action upon a state commission's failure to act to carry out its responsibility under section 252 of the
• 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
  • 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 that telecommunications traffic
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01347.pdf
  • Thus, the originating third party carrier's customers pay for the cost of delivering their calls to the LEC, while the terminating CMRS carrier's customers pay for the cost of transporting that traffic from the LEC's network to their network. Answer Indiana further argues that where a LEC owns facilities that exchange traffic between the LEC and a CMRS carrier, section 51.709(b) bars the LEC from charging the CMRS carrier for more than the proportion of those facilities used by the CMRS carrier to send traffic back to the LEC.16 In the case of traffic between a LEC and a paging carrier like Answer Indiana, such a reading of section 51.709(b) effectively would prohibit all transiting traffic charges, since one-way paging companies
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-250A1.html
  • 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 offers one-way
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-301A1.html
  • Dialing Numbers'' are plainly listed). 35 47 C.F.R. 1.722. 36 Metrocall Complaint at 19-20. 37 See 47 C.F.R. 51.703(b) (``A LEC may not assess charges on any other telecommunications carrier for telecommunications traffic that originates on the LEC's network.''). 38 See TSR Wireless Order, 15 FCC Rcd at11181, 25. 39 Id. at 11177, 19 n.70; see also 47 C.F.R. 51.703(b), 51.709(b). 40 Texcom, Inc, d/b/a Answer Indiana v. Bell Atlantic Corp. d/b/a Verizon 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-220A1.html
  • 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 Charge Mountain
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-96A1.html
  • argues that the Commission erred by not adopting Answer Indiana's position that GTE North is the originating carrier for all traffic reaching Answer Indiana's network, even that traffic that only transits GTE North's network. Answer Indiana claims that by refusing to adopt its definition of ``originates'' in the Answer Indiana Order, the Commission misconstrued the Local Competition Order and section 51.709(b) of our rules.14 We thoroughly considered and rejected this argument in the Answer Indiana Order, and Answer Indiana provides no new reason to reconsider our prior conclusion.15 6. Answer Indiana reiterates its argument that footnote 70 of the TSR Wireless Order, stating that LECs may charge CMRS carriers for the portion of facilities used to transport transiting traffic, is a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-147A1.html
  • 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. Background 2.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-228A1.html
  • 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 established in
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • 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" could
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • 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" could
• 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
  • 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). In the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2005/03-4311-071405.pdf
  • to these specific rules regarding the tandem interconnection rate, the FCC also adopted two more general rules relating to reciprocal compensation rates. First, the FCC adopted a rule that mirrored the "additional costs" language of § 252(d)(2)(A)(ii) requiring that reciprocal compensation rates be "structured consistently with the manner that carriers incur th[e] costs" of terminating local calls. 47 C.F.R. § 51.709(a); see also id. § 51.507(a) (requiring rates to be "structured consistently within the manner in which the costs of providing the elements are incurred"). Second, the FCC stressed that reciprocal compensation rates must be crafted consistently with "rate structure rules" that require distinct rates for different functions, including (I) "tandem switching," (2) "local switching," and (iii) the use of "transmission