FCC Web Documents citing 51.801

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2118A1.txt
  • 7.For the foregoing reasons, we grant Cox's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaint against GTE and invite Cox to file for resolution of its dispute with GTE under 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq. IV.ORDERING CLAUSE 8.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 and § 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Starpower Communications, LLC on March 16, 2000, IS GRANTED. Dorothy Attwood Chief, Common Carrier Bureau I. COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH Re: Cox Virginia Telecom, Inc., Petition for Preemption of Jurisdiction of the Virginia State
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-510A1.txt
  • pursuant to section 252(b)(1).11 As GNAPs itself acknowledges through its characterization of its dispute with Bell Atlantic, however, those circumstances are not present here. Rather, as GNAPs states in its Petition, the Massachusetts complaint proceeding involves the proper interpretation of the parties' existing interconnection agreement.12 6. GNAPs argues, however, that the absence of any limiting language in the Commission's rule 51.801(b) indicates that circumstances other than those delineated in the rule are subject to Commission preemption under section 252(e)(5).13 Additionally, GNAPs argues that the language of section 252(e)(5) itself indicates that proceedings other than those set forth in rule 51.801(b) may be preempted by the Commission should the particular state commission fail to carry out its responsibilities in a timely manner.14
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-545A1.txt
  • original arbitration petition was procedurally defective. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we deny Virtual Hipster's petition for the Commission to assume jurisdiction over an interconnection arbitration between Virtual Hipster and CCC in Nevada. Ordering Clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and sections 0.91, 0.291, 51.801(a), 51.803 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 51.801(a) and 51.803, the petition for preemption of jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada filed by Virtual Hipster Corporation on December 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dorothy T. Attwood Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Petition of Virtual Hipster Corporation Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2300A1.txt
  • available to the parties. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we grant in part Global NAPs's petition and preempt jurisdiction of the Virginia Commission over the arbitration of unresolved interconnection agreement issues with Verizon in Virginia. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Global NAPs South, Inc. on June 19, 2002, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Maher, Jr. Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Petition of Global NAPs South, Inc. Pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3151A1.txt
  • For the foregoing reasons, we deny Supra's petition for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Florida Public Service Commission with respect to its arbitration of an interconnection agreement between BellSouth and Supra. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47. U.S.C. § 252, as amended, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 51.801(b), the petition filed by Supra Telecommunications & Information Systems, Inc., on August 16, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Maher, Jr. Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Petition of Supra Telecommunications & Information Systems, Inc., (``Supra'') Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for Preemption of the Jurisdiction
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3289A1.txt
  • reasons, we grant MCImetro's petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its dispute with Verizon and invite MCImetro to file for resolution of this dispute under 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by MCImetro on September 6, 2002, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Maher, Jr. Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Petition of MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for Expedited Preemption of the Jurisdiction of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-639A1.txt
  • parties. conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we grant KMC's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaint against Verizon and invite KMC to file for resolution of its dispute with Verizon under 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. §51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by KMC Telecom of Virginia, Inc., KMC Telecom IV of Virginia, Inc., and KMC Telecom V of Virginia, Inc., on January 10, 2002, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dorothy T. Attwood Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Petition of KMC Telecom of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-97A1.txt
  • For the foregoing reasons, we grant US LEC's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaint against Verizon and invite US LEC to file for resolution of its dispute with Verizon under 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. §51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by US LEC of Virginia on November 6, 2001, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dorothy T. Attwood, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Petition of US LEC of Virginia LLC Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act, CC Docket No. 01-268,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1528A1.txt
  • New York Commission over the disputes between Verizon and MFS and Verizon and Brooks Fiber and invite Petitioners to file for resolution of these disputes under 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the joint petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Petitioners on March 20, 2003, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jeffrey J. Carlisle Senior Deputy Bureau Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Joint Petition of MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., Brooks Fiber Communications of New York, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-357A1.txt
  • the exclusive remedies available to the parties. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we grant Cavalier's petition and preempt jurisdiction of the Virginia Commission over the arbitration of unresolved interconnection agreement issues with Verizon in Virginia. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Cavalier Telephone, LLC, on November 7, 2002, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Maher, Jr. Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Petition of Cavalier Telephone, LLC. Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for Preemption
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.txt
  • for Preemption of the Jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission Regarding Interconnection Disputes with Verizon-Virginia, Inc. and for Arbitration, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1558, DA 03-357 (WCB rel. Feb. 4, 2003) (Cavalier Preemption Order) (preempting the Virginia Commission and inviting Cavalier to file a Petition for Arbitration). . See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801 et seq.; see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16122-32, paras. 1269-95 (1996) (Local Competition First Report and Order) (subsequent history omitted); Procedures for Arbitrations Conducted Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 16 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3339A1.txt
  • case, a state commission has acted on a timely basis to arbitrate an interconnection dispute, section 252(e)(6) provides the basis for federal court review; section 252(e)(5) provides no alternative forum for appeal. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 252, as amended, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 51.801(b), the petition filed by Autotel on July 30, 2004 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jeffrey Carlisle Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5). Petition of Autotel Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for Preemption of the Jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada Regarding Arbitration of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-354A1.txt
  • preemption of the New York Commission over the dispute between Verizon and Northland, and invite Verizon and Northland to file for resolution of this dispute under 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq. ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the petition for preemption filed by Northland Networks, Ltd. on November 14, 2003 IS GRANTED to the extent described herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Maher, Jr. Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Petition of Northland Networks, Ltd. Pursuant to § 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for Expedited Pre-emption of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1008A1.txt
  • it assumes responsibility under section 252(e)(5). Similarly, any findings made by the Commission after it assumes responsibility over a proceeding, and any judicial review of such findings, shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by KMC Telecom of Virginia, Inc., KMC Telecom V of Virginia, Inc., and KMC Data LLC, on January 4, 2005, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Michelle Carey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Petition of KMC Telecom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1863A1.txt
  • which telecommunications carriers may request and obtain interconnection, resale services or unbundled network elements from an incumbent LEC. Need: These rules foster competition by allowing the Commission to intervene if a state does not carry out its responsibilities concerning interconnection, resale, or access to unbundled network elements under section 252. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 251, 252. Section Number and Title: 51.801 Commission action upon a state commission's failure to act to carry out its responsibility under section 252 of the Act. 51.803 Procedures for Commission notification of a state commission's failure to act. 51.805 The Commission's authority over proceedings and matters. 51.807 Arbitration and mediation of agreements by the Commission pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Act. 51.809 Availability of provisions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1997A1.txt
  • a state commission has acted on a timely basis to resolve an interconnection dispute, section 252(e)(6) provides the basis for federal court review; section 252(e)(5) provides no alternative forum for appeal. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 252, as amended, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 51.801(b), the petition filed by Autotel on July 10, 2006 for the preemption of the jurisdiction of the Arizona Corporation Commission IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 252, as amended, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 51.801(b) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5114A1.txt
  • relevant Commission precedent when initiating proceedings before the Commission. We reserve our option to refer violations of this rule for enforcement proceedings and possible sanctions, including for violations in the instant proceeding. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 51.801(b), the petition filed by Autotel on October 18, 2007 for the preemption of the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Julie A. Veach Deputy Chief Wireline Competition Bureau See Petition of Autotel Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-69A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-69A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-69A1.txt
  • no plausible basis for relief.'' Thus, we urge all parties to consider fully the record of a proceeding and relevant Commission precedent when initiating or participating in proceedings before the Commission. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 51.801(b), the petition filed by Autotel on October 20, 2006 for the preemption of the jurisdiction of the Arizona Corporation Commission IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5). See Petition of Autotel Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for Preemption
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1330A1.txt
  • responsibility under section 252(e)(5). Similarly, after the Commission assumes responsibility over a proceeding, the Commission's actions and any judicial review of those actions shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 51.801(b), the petition filed by Intrado on March 6, 2008 for the preemption of the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marcus Maher Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau See Petition of Intrado Communications of Virginia Inc. Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2307A1.txt
  • responsibility under section 252(e)(5). Similarly, after the Commission assumes responsibility over a proceeding, the Commission's actions and any judicial review of those actions shall be the exclusive remedies available to the parties. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 51.801(b), the petition filed by Intrado on July 18, 2008 for the preemption of the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dana R. Shaffer Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau See Petition of Intrado Communications of Virginia Inc. Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2205A1.txt
  • law. Should the PUCT fail to resolve this arbitration within nine months of the date of release of this order, we invite the parties to re-file a request for preemption at that time, based on those new facts. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. § 51.801(b), and pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, the petition filed by UTEX COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION on July 13, 2009 for the preemption of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1920A1.txt
  • jurisdiction, again we urge the PUCT to complete the proceeding as soon as practicable. As we previously have stated, the Act requires timely arbitration. We remain of the opinion that the PUCT is best-suited to resolve this matter. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. § 51.801(b), and pursuant to the authority delegated in section 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, the petition filed by UTEX Communications Corporation on July 13, 2010 for the preemption of the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas IS DENIED.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227628A1.txt
  • foregoing reasons, we deny ACS's petition for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska with respect to the determination of rates for unbundled network elements in Anchorage and Fairbanks. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules and 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 51.801(b), the petition filed by ACS of Anchorage, Inc., and ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. on July 24, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Maher, Jr. Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Emergency Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Other Relief of ACS of Anchorage, Inc. and ACS of Fairbanks, Inc.,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-216A1.txt
  • is. In reaching this conclusion, we find federal court precedent to be instructive. Specifically, at least two federal courts of appeal have held that inherent in state commissions' express authority to mediate, arbitrate, and approve interconnection agreements under section 252 is the authority to interpret and enforce previously approved agreements.13 These court opinions implicitly recognize that, 11 47 C.F.R. § 51.801(b). See also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16122-32, para. 1285 (1996) (Local Competition Order), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom., Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997) and Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-20A1.txt
  • jurisdiction over the arbitration of its interconnection agreement with Verizon in Virginia. WorldCom may petition for arbitration of an interconnection agreement with Verizon in Virginia in accordance with the schedule and procedures established by the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. § 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by WorldCom, Inc. on October 26, 2000, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that authority is delegated to the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau to arbitrate the WorldCom/Verizon interconnection dispute and to approve or reject an interconnection agreement, consistent with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-62A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-62A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-62A1.txt
  • failed to provide a basis for finding that Massachusetts had ``failed to act'' under section 252(e)(5) of the Act. Additionally, we conclude that the Bureau correctly declined to examine the underlying reasoning of the MDTE in its review of the GNAPs petition. As noted in the Bureau's order addressing GNAPs' Massachusetts complaint, neither section 252(e)(5) of the Act nor section 51.801 of the Commission's rules focuses on the validity of state commission decisions. 5. Similarly, we conclude that, by acting within 90 days of the filing of the GNAPs petition, the Bureau satisfied the requirements of section 252(e)(5) of the Act. Section 0.5(c) of the Commission's rules permits the Commission to delegate authority to the Common Carrier Bureau on ``matters which
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-171A1.txt
  • not met its burden of demonstrating that the state commissions ``failed to act'' within the meaning of section 252(e)(5). Therefore, we affirm the Bureau's two orders, and we deny Autotel's applications for review. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 1.115 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.115, 51.801(b), the Application for Review filed by Autotel in WC Docket No. 06-134 on November 6, 2006, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 252, and sections 1.115 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
• 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
  • U.S.C. § 252 (expressly addressing only state arbitration of interconnection agreements involving incumbent LECs). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 51.711(a)(2) (``In cases where both parties are incumbent LECs, or neither party is an incumbent LEC, a state commission shall establish the symmetrical rates for transport and termination based on the larger carrier's forward-looking costs.'') (emphasis added). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801, 51.803. See, e.g., Comcast August 3 PN Comments at 5-8; NCTA August 3 PN Comments at 17-19; Time Warner Cable August 3 PN Comments at 9-10. See, e.g., Comcast August 3 PN Comments at 5-8; NCTA August 3 PN Comments at 17-19; Time Warner Cable August 3 PN Comments at 9-10. . See, e.g., Level 3 August 3 PN Comments
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 act. 51.805 The Commission's authority over proceedings and matters. 51.807 Arbitration and mediation of agreements by the Commission pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.txt
  • sharing to their residential consumers more quickly. 3. Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith 169. The Commission concluded in the Local Competition First Report and Order, that the unbundling obligations of section 251 seek to reduce the incumbent LECs ability to 358 47 U.S.C. § 252(f)(1). 359 47 U.S.C. § 252(i). 360 See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801 et seq. 361 See Minnesota Line Sharing Order; Letter from Harris N. Miller, President, Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) to the Honorable Louis J Papan, California State Assembly, Apr. 6, 1999 (supporting Calif. AB 991 promoting xDSL deployment through line sharing), . Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-355 75 leverage their dominant position in the local market into a nascent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15528, para. 56. NorthPoint Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 4. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(b)(4)(C). 47 U.S.C. § 252(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 157(a). See also Jt. Conference on Advanced Services at para. 6. 47 U.S.C. § 157(a). 47 U.S.C. § 252(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 252(i). See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801 et seq. >. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15570, para. 141. Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 15574-15578, paras. 148-156. Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 15577, para. 154. We have also stated that we would impose penalties pursuant to sections 501, 502 and 103 of the Act on parties who fail to negotiate in good faith.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 act. 51.805 The Commission's authority over proceedings and matters. 51.807 Arbitration and mediation of agreements by the Commission pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991552.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991552.txt
  • Bell Atlantic received GNAPs' request for interconnection, consistent with the requirements of section 252(b)(4)(C). According to the Virginia Commission, GNAPs presented no evidence regarding terms for an interconnection agreement with Bell Atlantic in the event the Virginia Commission determined it was not reasonable to require Bell Atlantic to offer the soon to expire 1996 MFS Agreement to GNAPs. Because section 51.801 of the Commission's rules does not focus on the validity of state commission decisions, we do not see a basis for examining the underlying reasoning of the Virginia Commission. While we recognize the frustration GNAPs has experienced in its efforts to obtain interconnection with Bell Atlantic, we cannot conclude that the Virginia Commission has ``failed to act'' under the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99199.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99199.txt
  • to other carriers pursuant to section 252(i) on an expedited basis. IV. CONCLUSION 21. For the foregoing reasons, we deny GNAPs' petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction of GNAPs' arbitration proceeding with Bell Atlantic in New Jersey. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. § 51.801(b), the petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Global NAPs, Inc. on May 5, 1999 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Global NAPs, Inc. Petition for Preemption of Jurisdiction of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, CC Docket No. 99-154, filed with
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15528, para. 56. NorthPoint Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 4. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(b)(4)(C). 47 U.S.C. § 252(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 157(a). See also Jt. Conference on Advanced Services at para. 6. 47 U.S.C. § 157(a). 47 U.S.C. § 252(f)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 252(i). See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801 et seq. >. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15570, para. 141. Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 15574-15578, paras. 148-156. Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 15577, para. 154. We have also stated that we would impose penalties pursuant to sections 501, 502 and 103 of the Act on parties who fail to negotiate in good faith.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99386.doc
  • ATA Comments at v, 3-4 (MCI); ATA Reply Comments at 1, 10 (MCI); Bell Atlantic Comments at 3-4 (MCI); CPI Comments at 8 (MCI); NATC Comments at iii, 8-9 (ACSI); SWBT Comments at 14-16 (ACSI); SWBT Reply Comments at 5 (ACSI); SWBT Comment at 15 (MCI). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128, ¶ 1285. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.801(b). See also Petition for Commission Assumption of Jurisdiction of Low Tech Designs, Inc.'s Petition for Arbitration with Ameritech Illinois Before the Illinois Commerce Commission, CC Docket No. 97-163, Petition for Commission Assumption of Jurisdiction of Low Tech Designs, Inc.'s Petition for Arbitration with BellSouth Before the Georgia Public Service Commission, CC Docket No. 97-164, Petition for Commission Assumption of Jurisdiction
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000510.doc
  • arbitration pursuant to section 252(b)(1). As GNAPs itself acknowledges through its characterization of its dispute with Bell Atlantic, however, those circumstances are not present here. Rather, as GNAPs states in its Petition, the Massachusetts complaint proceeding involves the proper interpretation of the parties' existing interconnection agreement. GNAPs argues, however, that the absence of any limiting language in the Commission's rule 51.801(b) indicates that circumstances other than those delineated in the rule are subject to Commission preemption under section 252(e)(5). Additionally, GNAPs argues that the language of section 252(e)(5) itself indicates that proceedings other than those set forth in rule 51.801(b) may be preempted by the Commission should the particular state commission fail to carry out its responsibilities in a timely manner.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002118.doc
  • foregoing reasons, we grant Cox's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaint against GTE and invite Cox to file for resolution of its dispute with GTE under 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 and § 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Starpower Communications, LLC on March 16, 2000, IS GRANTED. Dorothy Attwood Chief, Common Carrier Bureau COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH Re: Cox Virginia Telecom, Inc., Petition for Preemption of Jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission Pursuant
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/er002118.doc
  • the jurisdiction of the Virginia Commission under section 252(e)(5) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The order is hereby corrected in the manner described in the following paragraph. Paragraph 8, the Ordering Clause, is corrected to read as follows: ``Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.291 and 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 and § 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Cox Virginia Telecom, Inc., on June 30, 2000, IS GRANTED.'' FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Michelle M. Carey Chief, Policy and Program Planning Division Common Carrier Bureau In the Matter of Cox Virginia Telecom, Inc. Petition for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00216.doc
  • Starpower's Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction over its complaints against Bell Atlantic and GTE and invite Starpower to file for resolution of its disputes with Bell Atlantic and GTE under 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.801(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. § 252 and 47 C.F.R. § 51.801(b), the Petition for Commission preemption of jurisdiction filed by Starpower Communications, LLC on March 16, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH Re: Starpower Communications, LLC Petition for Preemption of Jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5)