FCC Web Documents citing 51.711

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.pdf
  • record supports, and this Order reaches, an outcome different from the one apparently advocated by Congressman Filner. Thus, we deny MetroPCS' Motion for Sanctions. ordering clauses IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 332, and sections 1.721-1.736, 20.11, and 51.711 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.721-1.736, 20.11, and 51.711, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that Count I of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 208, 251(b)(5), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1201A1.txt
  • NPRM, the CMRS carrier bears the burden of justifying its additional costs, and demonstrating that its analysis complies with all applicable Commission rules. We do note that the NPRM does seek comment on whether we should change our rules on these issues. With respect to when a carrier is entitled to the tandem interconnection rate, the Commission stated that section 51.711(a)(3) of its rules requires only that the comparable geographic area test be met before a carrier is entitled to the tandem interconnection rate for local call termination. It noted that although there has been some confusion stemming from additional language in the text of the Local Competition Order regarding functional equivalency, section 51.711(a)(3) requires only a geographic area test. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-181A1.txt
  • day equivalents that should be used in determining common transport costs. See infra section II.C. We also note that the Commission's symmetrical compensation rule requires that the reciprocal compensation rates AT&T or WorldCom may charge Verizon shall be the same as those that Verizon charges them unless they demonstrate that their costs warrant a different rate. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.711(a)-(b). Federal Communications Commission DA 04-181 12 rebuttal filing. We distinguish Verizon's position on this issue from its refusal to apply our reciprocal compensation decision. With respect to the latter issue, Verizon simply claims that we were wrong and therefore disregards the Cost Order. Verizon, however, was fully capable of implementing the order. Here, in contrast, Verizon claims that it is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.txt
  • record supports, and this Order reaches, an outcome different from the one apparently advocated by Congressman Filner. Thus, we deny MetroPCS' Motion for Sanctions. ordering clauses IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 332, and sections 1.721-1.736, 20.11, and 51.711 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.721-1.736, 20.11, and 51.711, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that Count I of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 208, 251(b)(5), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-194A1.doc
  • n.8. See Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 800 n.21, 820 n.39; see also supra note 11. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16185, 16189. See Brief for Intervenors CMRS Providers in Support of Respondents, filed December 23, 1996, in No. 96-3321, Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, at 4-6 (arguing in favor of validity of §§ 51.701(b), 51.703, 51.709(b), 51.711(a), 51.715(d), and 51.717 of the Commission's rules); see also Reply Brief of the Mid-sized Local Exchange Carriers, filed January 6, 1997, in No. 96-3321, Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, at 34 (arguing against LEC-CMRS interconnection regime adopted in the Local Competition Order). 1B J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 0.405[1], pp. 622-24 (2d ed. 1974)(quoted in Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore,
• 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
  • 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 delivered
• 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
  • submit a cost study to justify its claim to asymmetric reciprocal compensation that includes additional traffic sensitive costs associated with those network elements. We note that, under our rules, the CMRS carrier bears the burden of justifying in its analysis precisely what are its additional costs, and demonstrating that its analysis complies with all applicable Commission rules. In addition, section 51.711(a)(3) of the Commission's rules requires only that the comparable geographic area test be met before carriers are entitled to the tandem interconnection rate for local call termination. Although there has been some confusion stemming from additional language in the text of the Local Competition Order regarding functional equivalency, section 51.711(a)(3) is clear in requiring only a geographic area test. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-185A1.txt
  • the negotiation and arbitration processes provided in sections 251 and 252 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-252. In the arbitration process, a state commission can order the ILEC to pay more than the CLEC (i.e., ``asymetrical compensation'') only if the CLEC demonstrates that its costs for transporting and terminating local traffic exceed those of the ILEC. 47 C.F.R. § 51.711(b). BTI Initial Brief at 24. BTI Initial Brief at 68. Joint Appendix, at Exhibit 3, Pflaging Deposition, Exhibit 7 at 1304-05. Joint Appendix, at Exhibit 3, Pflaging Deposition at 143-48; Joint Appendix, at Exhibit 3, Plfaging Deposition Exhibit 7, at 1302-06 (BTI's ``Local Business Partner's Plan''). BTI's marketing materials clearly describe this program as ``a product that pays the customer
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-215A1.txt
  • transport and termination of traffic subject to section 251(b)(5) that originated on the other carrier's network. Pursuant to section 252(d)(2)(A) of the Act, a carrier is entitled to a reciprocal compensation rate that provides for the recovery of ``a reasonable approximation of the additional costs [to the carrier] of terminating'' calls from the other carrier. Pursuant to this provision, section 51.711 of the Commission rules establishes a presumption that the reciprocal compensation rates that two carriers may charge each other are symmetric, with the symmetric rate generally set to cover the forward-looking costs of the larger carrier or the incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) where one is involved in the call. The rule also provides that a carrier may charge a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.txt
  • and Carrier Relations, NewSouth Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 01-92, at 1 (filed Feb. 27, 2004). Id. at 1-2. NewSouth states that this is the standard that is applied pursuant to our reciprocal compensation rules for purposes of determining whether a competitive LEC may charge the tandem interconnection rate. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.711(a)(3). See Letter from Peter H. Jacoby, General Attorney, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-262, at 2-4 (filed Mar. 30, 2004) (AT&T Mar. 30 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Henry G. Hultquist, MCI, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-262, at 2-3 (filed Mar. 22, 2004)(MCI Mar. 22 Ex
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.txt
  • Commission found that the higher rate for tandem switching would be available to carriers other than incumbent LECs if those carriers utilize a switch that serves a geographic area comparable to that served by the incumbent LEC's tandem switch. In the CMRS Termination Compensation Order, the Commission affirmed that a carrier is entitled to the tandem interconnection rate under section 51.711(a)(3) of the Commission's rules if it can satisfy a comparable geographic area test and need not also satisfy a functional equivalency test. The Current Intercarrier Compensation Regimes Cannot Be Sustained in the Developing Marketplace Introduction The record in this proceeding shows that the three basic principles underlying our existing intercarrier compensation regimes must be re-examined in light of significant market
• 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
  • forward-looking economic costs of such offerings, using a cost study pursuant to §§51.505 and 51.511; or (ii) A bill-and-keep arrangement, as provided in §51.713. (3) In cases where both carriers in a Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation arrangement are incumbent LECs, state commissions shall establish the rates of the smaller carrier on the basis of the larger carrier's forward-looking costs, pursuant to §51.711. (c) Except as provided by paragraph (a) of this section, and notwithstanding any other provision of the Commission's rules, default transitional Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation rates shall be determined as follows: (1) Effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], no telecommunications carrier may increase a Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation for transport or termination above the level
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 Act. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-9 51.803
• 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
  • submit a cost study to justify its claim to asymmetric reciprocal compensation that includes additional traffic sensitive costs associated with those network elements. We note that, under our rules, the CMRS carrier bears the burden of justifying in its analysis precisely what are its additional costs, and demonstrating that its analysis complies with all applicable Commission rules. In addition, section 51.711(a)(3) of the Commission's rules requires only that the comparable geographic area test be met before carriers are entitled to the tandem interconnection rate for local call termination. Although there has been some confusion stemming from additional language in the text of the Local Competition Order regarding functional equivalency, section 51.711(a)(3) is clear in requiring only a geographic area test. Therefore,
• 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
  • 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 delivered
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.html
  • the negotiation and arbitration processes provided in sections 251 and 252 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-252. In the arbitration process, a state commission can order the ILEC to pay more than the CLEC (i.e., ``asymetrical compensation'') only if the CLEC demonstrates that its costs for transporting and terminating local traffic exceed those of the ILEC. 47 C.F.R. § 51.711(b). BTI Initial Brief at 24. BTI Initial Brief at 68. Joint Appendix, at Exhibit 3, Pflaging Deposition, Exhibit 7 at 1304-05. Joint Appendix, at Exhibit 3, Pflaging Deposition at 143-48; Joint Appendix, at Exhibit 3, Plfaging Deposition Exhibit 7, at 1302-06 (BTI's ``Local Business Partner's Plan''). BTI's marketing materials clearly describe this program as ``a product that pays the customer
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • and this Order reaches, an outcome different from the one apparently advocated by Congressman Filner. Thus, we deny MetroPCS' Motion for Sanctions. IV. ordering clauses 29. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 332, and sections 1.721-1.736, 20.11, and 51.711 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721-1.736, 20.11, and 51.711, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Count I of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 208, 251(b)(5), and 332 of the Communications Act of
• 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
  • submit a cost study to justify its claim to asymmetric reciprocal compensation that includes additional traffic sensitive costs associated with those network elements. We note that, under our rules, the CMRS carrier bears the burden of justifying in its analysis precisely what are its additional costs, and demonstrating that its analysis complies with all applicable Commission rules. In addition, section 51.711(a)(3) of the Commission's rules requires only that the comparable geographic area test be met before carriers are entitled to the tandem interconnection rate for local call termination. Although there has been some confusion stemming from additional language in the text of the Local Competition Order regarding functional equivalency, section 51.711(a)(3) is clear in requiring only a geographic area test. Therefore,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 Act. Federal Communications Commission 96-325 B-9 51.803
• 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
  • 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 delivered
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01185.html
  • the negotiation and arbitration processes provided in sections 251 and 252 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-252. In the arbitration process, a state commission can order the ILEC to pay more than the CLEC (i.e., ``asymetrical compensation'') only if the CLEC demonstrates that its costs for transporting and terminating local traffic exceed those of the ILEC. 47 C.F.R. § 51.711(b). BTI Initial Brief at 24. BTI Initial Brief at 68. Joint Appendix, at Exhibit 3, Pflaging Deposition, Exhibit 7 at 1304-05. Joint Appendix, at Exhibit 3, Pflaging Deposition at 143-48; Joint Appendix, at Exhibit 3, Plfaging Deposition Exhibit 7, at 1302-06 (BTI's ``Local Business Partner's Plan''). BTI's marketing materials clearly describe this program as ``a product that pays the customer
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • and this Order reaches, an outcome different from the one apparently advocated by Congressman Filner. Thus, we deny MetroPCS' Motion for Sanctions. IV. ordering clauses 29. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 332, and sections 1.721-1.736, 20.11, and 51.711 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.721-1.736, 20.11, and 51.711, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Count I of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 208, 251(b)(5), and 332 of the Communications Act of
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • 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 indicate
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • 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 indicate
• 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
  • 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 Local
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2005/03-4311-071405.pdf
  • appropriate compensation rate in some circumstances that may involve tandem switching even though the state of the competing carrier's technology might not use tandem switching to complete a given call. The substance of this rule is set forth in the final sentence of ¶ 1090 of the Local Competition Order. That text is nearly identical to the text of Rule 51.711 (a)(3). Pursuant to ¶ 1090 and Rule 51.711(a)(3), a non-ILEC carrier is entitled to recover the tandem interconnection rate for terminating traffic on its network upon a showing that its switch serves a geographical area comparable to that served by the ILEC's tandem switch. According to the FCC, there is no need for the non-ILEC to also show that its