FCC Web Documents citing 51.803

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1552A1.txt
  • CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON COX VIRGINIA TELCOM, INC.'S PETITION FOR PREEMPTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION REGARDING INTERCONNECTION DISPUTES WITH GTE SOUTH INCORPORATED CC Docket No. 00-126 Released: July 12, 2000 On June 30, 2000, Cox Virginia Telcom, Inc. (Cox) filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act, as amended, and section 51.803 of the FCC rules, which request that the FCC preempt the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (Virginia Commission). Cox states that the Virginia Commission has failed to act on its requests to resolve a dispute concerning the interconnection agreement in effect between Cox and GTE South, Incorporated (GTE). Cox requests that the FCC assume jurisdiction over its interconnection
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2514A1.txt
  • US LEC PETITION FOR PREEMPTION PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5) CC Docket No. 01-268 COMMENTS: November 19, 2001 REPLY COMMENTS: November 28, 2001 On September 25, 2001, US LEC of Virginia L.L.C. (US LEC) filed a petition seeking preemption of jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (Virginia Commission) pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act, and section 51.803 of the FCC's rules and regulations. US LEC requests that the Commission issue an order preempting jurisdiction of the Virginia Commission in an interconnection dispute between US LEC and Verizon-Virginia Inc. (Verizon) regarding reciprocal compensation. Under section 252(e)(5), the Commission must act upon a carrier's preemption petition within 90 days of receiving notice of a state commission's failure to act
• 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
  • 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, CC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-165A1.txt
  • PETITION FOR PREEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(E)(5) CC DOCKET NO. 02-5 Comments Due: January 30, , 2002 Reply Comments Due: February 7, 2002 On January 10, 2002, KMC Telecom of Virginia, Inc., KMC Telecom IV of Virginia, Inc., and KMC Telecom V of Virginia, Inc. (collectively KMC) filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (Virginia Commission). KMC requests that the Commission issue an order preempting the jurisdiction of the Virginia Commission in an interconnection dispute between KMC and Verizon-Virginia, Inc.(f/k/a Bell Atlantic Virginia, Inc.) (Verizon). KMC specifically requests that the Commission issue a preemption order and assume jurisdiction over
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2054A1.txt
  • 21, 2002 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON SUPRA TELECOMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. PETITION FOR PREEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5) WC DOCKET NO. 02-238 Comments Due: September 20, 2002 Reply Comments Due: October 7, 2002 On August 16, 2002, SUPRA TELECOMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. (SUPRA) filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). SUPRA requests that the Commission issue an order preempting the jurisdiction of the FPSC which failed to act on a specific request for mediation or arbitration involving the merits of unresolved issues. SUPRA specifically requests that the Commission issue a preemption order and assume
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2298A1.txt
  • JURISDICTION OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WC DOCKET NO. 02-283 Comments Due: October 2, 2002 Reply Comments Due: October 9, 2002 On September 6, 2002, MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC (MCImetro) filed a petition, pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. In the petition, MCImetro requests that the Commission (1) preempt the jurisdiction of the New York Public Service Commission in an interconnection dispute between MCImetro and New York Telephone Company, d/b/a Bell Atlantic-New York (Verizon) regarding reciprocal compensation; and (2) institute a proceeding to interpret and enforce the agreement. MCImetro requests expedited treatment of its preemption
• 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
  • that the Virginia Commission failed to carry out its section 252 responsibilities in this case, and we therefore preempt the jurisdiction of the Virginia Commission in the Global NAPs/Verizon interconnection arbitration proceeding in Virginia pursuant to section 252(e)(5). We reject Verizon's contention that Global NAPs's petition should be dismissed for failure to provide an accompanying affidavit as required by section 51.803(a)(1) of the Commission's rules. We waive section 51.803(a)(1) in this case upon our own motion pursuant to section 1.3 of our rules. We find that special circumstances present in this case warrant deviation from the general rule requiring a supporting affidavit. In establishing section 51.803, the Commission held that requiring detailed petitions, supported by affidavit, will help the Commission decide
• 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
  • theory, that its July 22 Motion may be considered a new request for negotiation and arbitration under section 252(b) of the Act, and argues that the Florida Commission failed to act by not granting this new request in accordance with section 252. Supra Petition at 11; Supra Reply at 5-7. See infra., n.39. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5). 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(b); see also Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128, para. 1285. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16127, para. 1283. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128, para 1285; 47 C.F.R. § 51.801(b). 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6). Global NAPs, Inc. v. FCC, 291 F.3d at 836-37. Local Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3152A1.txt
  • ˆ DA 02-3152 RELEASED: November 14, 2002 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON PETITION OF CAVALIER TELEPHONE, LLC FOR PREEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5) WC DOCKET NO. 02-359 Comments Due: December 5, 2002 Reply Comments Due: December 19, 2002 On November 7, 2002, Cavalier Telephone, LLC (Cavalier) filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC). Cavalier requests that the Commission issue an order preempting the jurisdiction of the SCC for failing to act on a specific request for arbitration of an interconnection agreement with Verizon pursuant to section 252(b) of the Act. Cavalier specifically requests that the Commission issue
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3766A1.txt
  • LTD. FOR PREEMPTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WC DOCKET NO. 03-242 Comments: December 12, 2003 Reply Comments: December 19, 2003 On November 14, 2003, Northland Networks, Ltd. (Northland) filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. Northland requests that the Commission preempt the jurisdiction of the New York State Public Service Commission to resolve a dispute between Northland and Verizon New York, Inc. with respect to the effect of the Commission's ISP Remand Order on the reciprocal compensation and change-of-law provisions of their interconnection agreements. Northland requests expedited treatment of its 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
  • Arbitration is filed with the Commission shall be deemed to be the 135th day after which the incumbent LEC, in this case Verizon, received the request to negotiate. (identifying the issues that were resolved and removed from consideration during the course of the proceeding). 47 U.S.C. § 252(c). 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c)(1)-(3). 47 U.S.C.§ 252(e)(5); see also 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(d). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.807(b), (d), (h); see also Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16127-32, paras. 1283-95. See Arbitration Procedures Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6232, paras. 4-6. Rule 51.807(f)(3) was amended to broaden the scope of ``final offer arbitration'' as specified in § 51.807(d)(1) so that, if a final offer submitted by one or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-866A1.txt
  • 03-81 Comments: April 8, 2003 Reply Comments: April 15, 2003 On March 20, 2003, MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. f/k/a MFS Intelenet of New York (MFS), Brooks Fiber Communications of New York, Inc. (Brooks Fiber), and Verizon New York Inc. (Verizon) filed a joint petition, pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. In the petition, MFS, Brooks Fiber, and Verizon request that the Commission preempt the jurisdiction of the New York Public Service Commission to interpret and enforce interconnection agreements between Verizon and each of MFS and Brooks Fiber regarding the effect of the Commission's ISP Remand Order on provisions requiring payment of reciprocal compensation and provisions allowing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2484A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 04-2484 RELEASED: August 9, 2004 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR PETITION OF AUTOTEL FOR PREEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5) WC DOCKET NO. 04-311 Comments Due: August 24, 2004 Reply Comments Due: September 3, 2004 On July 30, 2004, Autotel filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act, as amended (Act), and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (Nevada Commission). Autotel requests that the Commission issue an order preempting the jurisdiction of the Nevada Commission for failing to act on a specific request for arbitration of an interconnection agreement with SBC pursuant to section 252(b)(4)(C) of the Act. This matter shall be
• 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
  • language and structure of this provision suggest that the remedies it authorizes are distinct and mutually exclusive. If a state commission fails to act, preemption is a viable option; however, if the state agency takes final action disposing of the pending claim, that action can be undone only by direct judicial review in the appropriate forum.''). See 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(b); see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16128, para. 1285 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16127, para. 1283. Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-278A1.txt
  • INC., AND KMC DATA LLC FOR PREEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5) WC DOCKET NO. 05-39 Comments Due: February 11, 2005 Reply Comments Due: February 18, 2005 On January 4, 2005, KMC Telecom of Virginia, Inc., KMC Telecom V of Virginia, Inc., and KMC Data LLC (collectively KMC) filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC). KMC requests that the Commission issue an order preempting the jurisdiction of the SCC for failing to act on a specific request for arbitration of an interconnection agreement with Sprint pursuant to section 252(b) of the Act. KMC specifically requests that the Commission issue
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1468A1.txt
  • REGULATION COMMISSION, OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, AND UTAH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WC DOCKET NO. 06-134 Comments: August 21, 2006 Reply Comments: September 08, 2006 On July 10, 2006, Autotel and Western Radio filed petitions for preemption, pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act) and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. In its petitions, Autotel requests that the Commission preempt the jurisdiction of the Arizona Corporation Commission, Colorado Public Utilities Commission, New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, and Utah Public Service Commission regarding arbitration of interconnection agreements with Qwest Corporation (Qwest). In its petition, Western Radio requests that the Commission preempt the jurisdiction of the Oregon Public Utility
• 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
  • 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 of agreements to other telecommunications carriers under section 252(i) of the Act. PART 52 - NUMBERING SUBPART A -- SCOPE AND
• 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
  • language and structure of this provision suggest that the remedies it authorizes are distinct and mutually exclusive. If a state commission fails to act, preemption is a viable option; however, if the state agency takes final action disposing of the pending claim, that action can be undone only by a direct review in the appropriate forum.''). See 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(b); see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Services Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16128, para. 1285 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16127, para. 1283. Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2083A1.txt
  • JURISDICTION OF ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WC DOCKET NO. 06-194 Comments: November 20, 2006 Reply Comments: December 5, 2006 On October 16, 2006, Autotel filed a petition for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Arizona Corporation Commission pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act) and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. In its petition, Autotel requests that the Commission preempt the Arizona Corporation Commission's decisions to dismiss Autotel's request for arbitration of an interconnection agreement with Citizens Utilities Rural Company, Inc. under section 252(b) of the Act as well as Autotel's request for termination of the rural exemption under section 251(f) of the Act. This matter shall
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-333A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-333A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-333A2.txt
  • the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Questions concerning the OMB control numbers and expiration dates should be directed to the Associate Managing Director - Performance Evaluation and Records Management, ("AMD-PERM"), Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet at: www.fcc.gov/omd/pra. (b) Display 0 and FCC 471 11/30/07 3060-0807 Sec. 51.803 and Supplemental Procedures for Petitions to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 06/30/07 3060-0809 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) 08/31/06 3060-0810 Procedures for Designation of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 05/31/06 3060-0812 Exemption from Payment of Regulatory Fees When Claiming Non-Profit Status 01/31/09 3060-0813
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.txt
  • Joint Board on Universal Service, Procedures for Self-Certifying as a Rural Carrier, CC Docket No. 96-45 09/30/08 3060-0795 FCC 606 07/31/08 3060-0798 FCC 601 04/30/10 3060-0799 FCC 602 12/31/09 3060-0800 FCC 603 06/30/10 3060-0804 FCC 465, FCC 466, FCC 466-A, and FCC 467 06/30/08 3060-0805 Secs. 90.523, 90.527, and 90.545 06/30/08 3060-0806 FCC 470 and FCC 471 11/30/07 3060-0807 Sec. 51.803 and Supplemental Procedures for Petitions to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 09/30/10 3060-0809 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) and Broadband Access and Services 12/31/07 3060-0810 Procedures for Designation of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 09/30/09 3060-0812 Exemption from Payment of Regulatory Fees When
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4453A1.txt
  • SECTION 252(e)(5) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WC DOCKET NO. 07-240 Comments: November 13, 2007 Reply Comments: November 23, 2007 On October 18, 2007, Autotel filed a petition for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (Nevada Commission) pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5), and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 51.803. In its petition, Autotel asks the Commission to preempt the Nevada Commission's decisions to dismiss two separate requests for arbitration regarding the provisioning of a new mid-span meet point between Autotel's facilities and a central office of Central Telephone Company - Nevada, d/b/a Sprint of Nevada (now, Embarq) pursuant to section 252(b)
• 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
  • [are] bound by dispute resolution clauses in their interconnection agreement to seek relief in a particular fashion, and, therefore, the state commission would have no responsibility under section 252 to interpret and enforce an existing agreement.'' Id. at 11280, para. 6, n.14. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6). 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5). See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); see also 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(a). See 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(b); see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Services Providers, CC Docket No. 96-98, 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16128, para. 1285 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted). See Global NAPs, Inc. v. FCC, 291
• 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
  • language and structure of this provision suggest that the remedies it authorizes are distinct and mutually exclusive. If a state commission fails to act, preemption is a viable option; however, if the state agency takes final action disposing of the pending claim, that action can be undone only by a direct review in the appropriate forum.''). See 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(b); see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Services Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16128, para. 1285 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16127, para. 1283. Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2038A1.txt
  • TO SECTION 252(e)(5) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WC DOCKET NO. 08-185 Comments: September 18, 2008 Reply Comments: September 25, 2008 On July 18, 2008, Intrado Communications of Virginia Inc. (Intrado) filed a petition for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act) and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. In its petition, Intrado requests that the Commission preempt jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission in order to arbitrate pending interconnection issues between Intrado and Verizon South Inc. and Verizon Virginia Inc. (collectively, Verizon). This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2062A1.txt
  • Universal Service, Procedures for Self-Certifying as a Rural Carrier, CC Docket No. 96-45 09/30/11 3060-0795 FCC 606 06/30/11 3060-0798 FCC 601 12/31/10 3060-0799 FCC 602 12/31/10 3060-0800 FCC 603 01/31/11 3060-0804 FCC 465, FCC 466, FCC 466-A, and FCC 467 Pending OMB Approval 3060-0805 Secs. 90.523, 90.527, 90.545 and 90.1211 07/31/11 3060-0806 FCC 470 and FCC 471 01/31/11 3060-0807 Sec. 51.803 and Supplemental Procedures for Petitions to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 09/30/10 3060-0809 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) 01/31/11 3060-0810 Procedures for Designation of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 09/30/09 98-67 03/31/11 3060-1044 Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-544A1.txt
  • TO SECTION 252(e)(5) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WC DOCKET NO. 08-33 Comments: March 24, 2008 Reply Comments: March 31, 2008 On March 6, 2008, Intrado Communications of Virginia Inc. (Intrado) filed a petition for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act) and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. In its petition, Intrado requests that the Commission preempt jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission in order to arbitrate Intrado's interconnection agreement with Central Telephone Company of Virginia and United Telephone - Southeast, Inc. (collectively, Embarq). This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1643A1.txt
  • PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WC Docket No. 09-134 COMMENTS DUE: August 11, 2009 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: August 18, 2009 On July 13, 2009, UTEX Communications Corporation (UTEX) filed a petition for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission of Texas pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. In its petition, UTEX requests that the Commission ``preempt the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (the ``TPUC'') and arbitrate the pending interconnection disputes between UTEX and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Texas.'' Interested parties may file comments on the UTEX Petition on or before August 11, 2009 and reply comments on or
• 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
  • § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 51.801 (providing that the Commission shall preempt if a state commission fails to act to carry out its responsibilities under section 252 in any proceeding or other matter). UTEX Petition at 1. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 252(i). 47 U.S.C. § 252(b)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 252(b)(4)(C). 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5). 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(b). See UTEX Petition at 2. See Public Utility Commission of Texas' Response to Petition of UTEX Communications Corporation for Preemption Under 47 U.S.C. § 252(e), WC Docket No. 09-134, at 6 and Ex. A (filed Aug. 11, 2009) (PUCT Comments). It is noteworthy that UTEX did not submit a required list identifying the issues to be resolved until more than
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1398A1.txt
  • TO SECTION 252(e)(5) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WC Docket No. 09-134 COMMENTS DUE: August 12, 2010 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: August 23, 2010 On July 13, 2010, UTEX Communications Corporation (UTEX) filed a renewed petition for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission of Texas pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. In its petition, UTEX requests that the Commission ``preempt the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (the ``PUCT'') and arbitrate the pending interconnection disputes between UTEX and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Texas.'' UTEX's original preemption petition was denied on October 9, 2009. UTEX has filed a renewed petition claiming the ``PUCT has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1741A1.txt
  • Sec. 68.110(c) 09/30/12 3060-0791 Sec. 32.7300, Accounting for Judgments and Other Costs Associated with Litigation 09/30/12 3060-0795 FCC 606 06/30/11 3060-0798 FCC 601 09/30/13 3060-0799 FCC 602 09/30/13 3060-0800 FCC 603 01/31/11 3060-0804 FCC 465, FCC 466, FCC 466-A, and FCC 467 11/30/11 3060-0805 Secs. 90.523, 90.527, 90.545 and 90.1211 07/31/11 3060-0806 FCC 470 and FCC 471 01/31/11 3060-0807 Sec. 51.803 and Supplemental Procedures for Petitions to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 07/31/13 3060-0809 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) 01/31/11 3060-0810 Procedures for Designation of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 10/31/12 420-IB 01/31/13 3060-1058 FCC 608 01/31/11 3060-1059 Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite
• 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
  • 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. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon E. Gillett, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau See UTEX Communications Corporation, Renewed Petition for Preemption, WC Docket No. 09-134 (filed July 13, 2010) (Renewed Petition). See 47.U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 51.803 (providing procedures for Commission notification of a state commission's failure to act). Renewed Petition at 1-2. See Petition of UTEX Communications Corporation, Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act, for Preemption of the Jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission of Texas Regarding Interconnection Disputes with AT&T Texas, WC Docket No. 09-134 (filed July 13, 2009) (First UTEX Petition). Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2159A1.txt
  • RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR PREEMPTION WC Docket No. 09-134 COMMENTS DUE: November 23, 2010 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: December 3, 2010 On July 13, 2010, UTEX Communications Corporation (UTEX) filed a renewed petition for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission of Texas pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules. In its petition, UTEX requested that the Commission ``preempt the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (the ``PUCT'') and arbitrate the pending interconnection disputes between UTEX and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Texas.'' UTEX claimed the ``PUCT has failed to resolve the arbitration by the deadline established by the Commission.'' The Bureau denied
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-219524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-219524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-219524A1.txt
  • at (202) 418-1580 (voice). CC 02-5; PN 01/18/02; DA 02-165 Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on KMC Telecom Petition for Preemption Pursuant to Section 252(E)(5). On January 10, 2002, KMC Telecom of Virginia, Inc., KMC Telecom IV of Virginia, Inc., and KMC Telecom V of Virginia, Inc. filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission. KMC requests that the Commission issue an order preempting the jurisdiction of the Virginia Commission in an interconnection dispute between KMC and Verizon-Virginia, Inc. (f/k/a Bell Atlantic Virginia, Inc.) (Verizon). Comments due January 30; replies due February 7. Contact: Janice Myles at (202) 418-1580 (voice).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-219668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-219668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-219668A1.txt
  • at (202) 418-1580 (voice). CC 02-5; PN 01/18/02; DA 02-165 Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on KMC Telecom Petition for Preemption Pursuant to Section 252(E)(5). On January 10, 2002, KMC Telecom of Virginia, Inc., KMC Telecom IV of Virginia, Inc., and KMC Telecom V of Virginia, Inc. filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission. KMC requests that the Commission issue an order preempting the jurisdiction of the Virginia Commission in an interconnection dispute between KMC and Verizon-Virginia, Inc. (f/k/a Bell Atlantic Virginia, Inc.) (Verizon). Comments due January 30*; replies due February 7. Contact: Janice Myles at (202) 418-1580 (voice).
• 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
  • See Attachment to Letter from John T. Nakahata, Counsel to GCI, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Oct. 3, 2002)(GCI Ex Parte)(ACS of Fairbanks, Inc., ACS of Alaska, Inc., ACS of the Northland, Inc. v. GCI Communication Corp., et al., No. 01-35344, Order to Show Cause at 2-3 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2002)). 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5). 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(b); see also Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128, para. 1285. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128, para. 1285. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128, para. 1285; 47 C.F.R. § 51.801(b). 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6). Global NAPs, Inc. v. FCC, 291 F.3d at 836-37. The record
• 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
  • proceeding under this section, this Commission shall issue an order within 90 days preempting the state and assuming responsibility for the matter or proceeding. GNAPs Preemption Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4946, para. 7. GNAPs Application for Review at 7. Id. at 14-15. Id. See also 47 C.F.R. § 0.5(c). GNAPs Application for Review at 15. Id. 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(b); see also Global NAPs, Inc. Petition for Preemption of Jurisdiction of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Regarding Interconnection Dispute with Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, CC Docket No. 99-154, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12530, 12533, at para. 6 (1999) (GNAPs/New Jersey Order). 47 C.F.R. § 51.801. Section 51.801 sets forth the circumstances under which this Commission considers
• 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
  • by dispute resolution clauses in their interconnection agreement to seek relief in a particular fashion, and, therefore, the state commission would have no responsibility under section 252 to interpret and enforce an existing agreement.'' Starpower Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11280, para. 6 n.14. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6). 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5). See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(a). See 47 C.F.R. § 51.803(b); see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Services Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16128, para. 1285 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (subsequent history omitted). See Global NAPs, Inc. v. FCC, 291
• 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
  • § 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 at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 Act. 51.809 Availability of provisions of agreements to other telecommunications carriers under section 252(i) of the Act. AUTHORITY: Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-355A1.txt
  • See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251 and 252. See also GTE Comments at 13. 442 If a particular state commission chooses not to accept one or more of the tasks that we accord to state commissions regarding deployment of advanced services, the aggrieved party may present its claims to this Commission. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801 and 51.803. 443 See California PUC Comments at 4 ("there will clearly be a role for the states in resolution of disputes arising from actual local deployment practices"); Oklahoma CC Comments at 10 ("the OCC is both willing and able to arbitrate these types of disputes"); Texas PUC Comments at 5-6 ("Given that it is impossible to predict every deployment scenario and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • 5. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251 and 252. See also GTE Comments at 13. If a particular state commission chooses not to accept one or more of the tasks that we accord to state commissions regarding deployment of advanced services, the aggrieved party may present its claims to this Commission. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801 and 51.803. See California PUC Comments at 4 (``there will clearly be a role for the states in resolution of disputes arising from actual local deployment practices''); Oklahoma CC Comments at 10 (``the OCC is both willing and able to arbitrate these types of disputes''); Texas PUC Comments at 5-6 (``Given that it is impossible to predict every deployment scenario and difficulty,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 Act. 51.809 Availability of provisions of agreements to other telecommunications carriers under section 252(i) of the Act. AUTHORITY: Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991552.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991552.txt
  • in part and remanded, AT&T Corp., et al. v. Iowa Utils. Bd. et al., 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999); Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996); Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97-295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997), further recons. pending; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801(b), 51.803(b). See generally 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). For purposes of this order, the interconnection, access to unbundled elements, services for resale and other items for which incumbent LECs have a duty to negotiate pursuant to section 251(c)(1) are sometimes referred to collectively as ``interconnection.'' See generally 47 U.S.C. § 252. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a), (b). 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99199.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99199.txt
  • in part and remanded, AT&T Corp., et al. v. Iowa Utils. Bd. et al., 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999); Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996); Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97-295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997), further recons. pending; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801(b), 51.803(b). See generally 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). For purposes of this order, the interconnection, access to unbundled elements, services for resale and other items for which incumbent LECs have a duty to negotiate pursuant to section 251(c)(1) are sometimes referred to collectively as ``interconnection.'' See generally 47 U.S.C. § 252. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a), (b). 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99355.txt
  • 5. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 251 and 252. See also GTE Comments at 13. If a particular state commission chooses not to accept one or more of the tasks that we accord to state commissions regarding deployment of advanced services, the aggrieved party may present its claims to this Commission. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(5); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.801 and 51.803. See California PUC Comments at 4 (``there will clearly be a role for the states in resolution of disputes arising from actual local deployment practices''); Oklahoma CC Comments at 10 (``the OCC is both willing and able to arbitrate these types of disputes''); Texas PUC Comments at 5-6 (``Given that it is impossible to predict every deployment scenario and difficulty,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99386.doc
  • Arkansas AG Comments at 21-22 (MCI); ATA Comments at v, 3-4 (MCI); ATA Reply Comments at 1, 10 (MCI); Bell Atlantic Comments at 3-4 (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). 4/16/98 ACSI Ex Parte Letter; 5/8/98 ACSI Ex Parte Letter. 47 C.F.R. § 51.803. See generally Arkansas AG Comments at 11-15, 20 (ACSI); Arkansas AG Comments at 21-22 (MCI); Arkansas AG Reply Comments at 1 (MCI); 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/archives/whatsnewarchive02.html
  • the attached ex parte, with the relevant state commissions. Public Notice: [160]Word | [161]Text | [162]Acrobat Attachment: [163]Word | [164]Text | [165]Acrobat 8/21/02 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON SUPRA Petition for Preemption pursuant to section 252(e) On August 16, 2002 SUPRA TELECOMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Florida Public Service Commission. SUPRA requests that the Commission issue an order preempting the jurisdiction of the FPSC which failed to act on a specific request for mediation or arbitration involving the merits of unresolved issues. Public Notice: [166]Word | [167]Text | [168]Acrobat 8/13/02 Pleading Cycle Established for Comments
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/archives/whatsnewarchive04.html
  • 98-147, 01-338 Order: [499]Word | [500]Acrobat Powell Statement: [501]Word | [502]Acrobat Abernathy Statement: [503]Word | [504]Acrobat Copps Statement: [505]Word | [506]Acrobat Adelstein Statement: [507]Word | [508]Acrobat 8/9/04 Pleading Cycle Established, PETITION OF AUTOTEL FOR PREEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(e)(5). On July 30, 2004, Autotel filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act, as amended (Act), and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. WC Dkt. No. 04-311 Public Notice: [509]Word | [510]Acrobat 8/6/04 DOMESTIC SECTION 214 APPLICATION FILED FOR NUNC PRO TUNC APPROVAL FOR NETWORK US, INC. TO ACQUIRE ASSETS OF CONNECTAMERICA, INC. Public Notice: [511]Word | [512]Acrobat 8/4/04 FCC TAKES ACTION TO PROMOTE BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT TO
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/archive/2004ord.html
  • [300]Word | [301]Acrobat Powell Statement: [302]Word | [303]Acrobat Abernathy Statement: [304]Word | [305]Acrobat Copps Statement: [306]Word | [307]Acrobat Adelstein Statement: [308]Word | [309]Acrobat 8/9/04 PUBLIC NOTICE: Re: Pleading Cycle Established, for Autotel Petition for Preemption Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5). On July 30, 2004, Autotel filed a petition pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act, as amended (Act), and section 51.803 of the Commission's rules for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. WC Dkt. No. 04-311 Public Notice: [310]Word | [311]Acrobat 08/06/04 PUBLIC NOTICE: Re: Comments Invited on Application of ICG Telecom to Discontinue Domestic Telecommunications Services. DA No. 04-2491, Dkt No 04-310. Comments Due: 08/20/04. [312]PDF | [313]Word 8/6/04 PUBLIC NOTICE: Re: Domestic Section 214