FCC Web Documents citing 51.715

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
  • we dismiss in part and otherwise deny the claims alleged in the formal complaint that North County Communications Corp. (``North County'') filed against MetroPCS California, LLC (``MetroPCS'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that MetroPCS violated sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(b)(5) of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.301, and 51.715 of the Commission's rules, by (a) failing to pay North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; (b) failing to establish an interim reciprocal compensation arrangement with North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; and (c) failing to enter into a final interconnection agreement with North County for the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf
  • 51.301 by failing to negotiate and execute a written interconnection agreement with North County in good faith. Counts III and V of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, respectively, by refusing to enter into a written interconnection agreement with North County. Count IV of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 51.715 by refusing to enter into an interim interconnection agreement with North County. Based upon thorough and well-reasoned analyses, the Bureau Merits Order denied Counts II, III, IV, and V of the Complaint. Neither the North County AFR nor the MetroPCS AFR challenges those denials. Therefore, those denials are final, and we do not address them here. The only challenged portion
• 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
  • Termination Charges During Negotiation and Arbitration Once an ILEC has made a request to a CMRS provider for an interconnection and compensation agreement, the parties may impose intercarrier charges for the termination of non-access traffic at the same interim rates that would apply had the request been made by the CMRS provider, and under the same terms. 47 C.F.R. § 51.715. Such interim charges are subject to a ``true-up'' once final rates are established. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 96-98, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16031, para. 1067 (1996); 47 C.F.R. § 51.715(d). A ``true-up'' is an adjustment to past compensation that allows each carrier to receive the level of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2067A1.txt
  • 07-2067 Released: May 16, 2007 COMMENT SOUGHT ON PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED WC Docket No. 07-102 COMMENTS DUE: May 31, 2007 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: June 15, 2007 This Public Notice invites comment on the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by Interior Telephone Company, Inc. (ITC). In its petition, ITC requests a declaratory ruling with respect to rule 51.715. Specifically, ITC requests that the Commission issue a declaratory ruling clarifying whether 47 C.F.R. § 51.715 requires an ILEC to provide interim interconnection when it is in the process of negotiating non-price interconnection terms pursuant to the timelines established in Section 252 of the Act and when no dispute exists regarding the rates applicable to the transport and termination of
• 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
  • we dismiss in part and otherwise deny the claims alleged in the formal complaint that North County Communications Corp. (``North County'') filed against MetroPCS California, LLC (``MetroPCS'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that MetroPCS violated sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(b)(5) of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.301, and 51.715 of the Commission's rules, by (a) failing to pay North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; (b) failing to establish an interim reciprocal compensation arrangement with North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; and (c) failing to enter into a final interconnection agreement with North County for the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1037A1.txt
  • ARC rate. Carriers submitted their annual access tariff filings on either June 18, 2012, or June 26, 2012. These tariffs were filed pursuant to sections 61.41 through 61.49 of the Commission's rules for the price cap LECs, section 61.38 for rate-of-return LECs regulated pursuant to that section of the Commission's rules, and the new requirements established in sections 51.700 through 51.715 and 51.901 through 51.919 implementing the reforms adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. Appendix A identifies the LECs that filed original tariff transmittals on June 18, 2012, or June 26, 2012, and the subsequent revisions. No parties filed petitions to suspend and investigate the filed tariffs. However, we have a number of questions regarding how carriers calculated their ``Eligible Recovery,''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-575A1.txt
  • all incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to use to support the annual revisions to the rates in their interstate access service tariffs. The completion of the TRPs appended to this document will provide the supporting documentation to partially fulfill the requirements established in sections 61.41 through 61.49 of the Commission's rules, and the new requirements established in sections 51.700 through 51.715 and 51.901 through 51.919 of the Commission's rules. The TRPs display basic data on rate development in a consistent manner, thereby facilitating review of the ILEC rate revisions by the Commission and interested parties. The annual TRPs have served this purpose effectively for numerous years. On November 18, 2011, the Commission released the USF/ICC Transformation Order, which established a number
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-194A1.doc
  • 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, 439
• 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
  • 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 to Internet
• 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
  • in interstate or foreign commerce by wire or radio...to establish physical connections with other carriers..." 47 U.S.C. § 201(a). 47 U.S.C. § 152(b). Id. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(i). See 47 U.S.C. § 253(e); see also section 601(c) of the 1996 Act. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 800 n.21. December 29 letter at 3. 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.715(d), 51.717(b). 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 160. 47 U.S.C. § 160(e). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd. at 16016-17 ¶ 1043. Alternatively, in rural settings, wireless carriers can elect to deliver CMRS-originated calls to a large ILEC (typically a Regional Bell Operating Company [RBOC]) for routing to the rural LEC carrier. The large ILEC and rural LEC are
• 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
  • forth in section 252 of the Act. A CMRS provider receiving such a request must negotiate in good faith and must, if requested, submit to arbitration by the state commission. In recognition that the establishment of interconnection arrangements may take more than 160 days, we also establish interim compensation requirements under section 20.11 consistent with those already provided in section 51.715 of the Commission's rules. Interim compensation requirements are necessary for all the reasons the Commission articulated in Local Competition First Report and Order. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Regulatory Flexibility Analysis A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared for this Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order and is included in Appendix D. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis This document does not contain proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-100A1.txt
  • 51.301 by failing to negotiate and execute a written interconnection agreement with North County in good faith. Counts III and V of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, respectively, by refusing to enter into a written interconnection agreement with North County. Count IV of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 51.715 by refusing to enter into an interim interconnection agreement with North County. Based upon thorough and well-reasoned analyses, the Bureau Merits Order denied Counts II, III, IV, and V of the Complaint. Neither the North County AFR nor the MetroPCS AFR challenges those denials. Therefore, those denials are final, and we do not address them here. The only challenged portion
• 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
  • costs incurred by the incumbent LEC (or the larger incumbent LEC), and, consequently, that such that a higher rate is justified. * * * * * Revise §51.713 to read as follows: § 51.713 Bill-and-keep arrangements. Bill-and-keep arrangements are those in which carriers exchanging telecommunications traffic do not charge each other for specific transport and/or termination functions or services. Revise §51.715 paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), (b) introductory text, (b)(2), and revise the first sentence in paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 51.715 Interim transport and termination pricing. (a) Upon request from a telecommunications carrier without an existing interconnection arrangement with an incumbent LEC, the incumbent LEC shall provide transport and termination of Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic immediately under an interim
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • - 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 Procedures for Commission notification of a state commission's failure to
• 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
  • in interstate or foreign commerce by wire or radio...to establish physical connections with other carriers..." 47 U.S.C. § 201(a). 47 U.S.C. § 152(b). Id. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(i). See 47 U.S.C. § 253(e); see also section 601(c) of the 1996 Act. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 800 n.21. December 29 letter at 3. 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.715(d), 51.717(b). 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 160. 47 U.S.C. § 160(e). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd. at 16016-17 ¶ 1043. Alternatively, in rural settings, wireless carriers can elect to deliver CMRS-originated calls to a large ILEC (typically a Regional Bell Operating Company [RBOC]) for routing to the rural LEC carrier. The large ILEC and rural LEC are
• 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
  • 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 to Internet
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • we dismiss in part and otherwise deny the claims alleged in the formal complaint that North County Communications Corp. ("North County") filed against MetroPCS California, LLC ("MetroPCS") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In short, the Complaint alleges that MetroPCS violated sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(b)(5) of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.301, and 51.715 of the Commission's rules, by (a) failing to pay North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; (b) failing to establish an interim reciprocal compensation arrangement with North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; and (c) failing to enter into a final interconnection agreement with North County for the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • 51.301 by failing to negotiate and execute a written interconnection agreement with North County in good faith. Counts III and V of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, respectively, by refusing to enter into a written interconnection agreement with North County. Count IV of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 51.715 by refusing to enter into an interim interconnection agreement with North County. 8. Based upon thorough and well-reasoned analyses, the Bureau Merits Order denied Counts II, III, IV, and V of the Complaint. Neither the North County AFR nor the MetroPCS AFR challenges those denials. Therefore, those denials are final, and we do not address them here. The only challenged
• 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
  • in interstate or foreign commerce by wire or radio...to establish physical connections with other carriers..." 47 U.S.C. § 201(a). 47 U.S.C. § 152(b). Id. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(i). See 47 U.S.C. § 253(e); see also section 601(c) of the 1996 Act. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 800 n.21. December 29 letter at 3. 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.715(d), 51.717(b). 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 160. 47 U.S.C. § 160(e). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd. at 16016-17 ¶ 1043. Alternatively, in rural settings, wireless carriers can elect to deliver CMRS-originated calls to a large ILEC (typically a Regional Bell Operating Company [RBOC]) for routing to the rural LEC carrier. The large ILEC and rural LEC are
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • - 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 Procedures for Commission notification of a state commission's failure to
• 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
  • 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 to Internet
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • we dismiss in part and otherwise deny the claims alleged in the formal complaint that North County Communications Corp. ("North County") filed against MetroPCS California, LLC ("MetroPCS") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In short, the Complaint alleges that MetroPCS violated sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(b)(5) of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.301, and 51.715 of the Commission's rules, by (a) failing to pay North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; (b) failing to establish an interim reciprocal compensation arrangement with North County for the transport and termination of intrastate traffic originated by MetroPCS; and (c) failing to enter into a final interconnection agreement with North County for the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-100A1.html
  • 51.301 by failing to negotiate and execute a written interconnection agreement with North County in good faith. Counts III and V of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, respectively, by refusing to enter into a written interconnection agreement with North County. Count IV of the Complaint alleged that MetroPCS is violating rule 51.715 by refusing to enter into an interim interconnection agreement with North County. 8. Based upon thorough and well-reasoned analyses, the Bureau Merits Order denied Counts II, III, IV, and V of the Complaint. Neither the North County AFR nor the MetroPCS AFR challenges those denials. Therefore, those denials are final, and we do not address them here. The only challenged
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • 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 that
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • 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 that
• 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
  • 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 Competition