FCC Web Documents citing 51.809

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-592A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 00-592 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON THE REVISED PETITION OF MCI WORLDCOM, INC. FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF AGREEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(i) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTION 51.809 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES CC Docket No. 00-45 Released: March 16, 2000 On March 7, 2000, MCI WorldCom, Inc. (MCI WorldCom) filed a petition seeking a declaratory ruling concerning a requesting carrier's ability to adopt previously approved interconnection agreements under section 252(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. MCI WorldCom specifically requests that the Commission declare that: (1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3647A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of MCI WorldCom, Inc. Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Process for Adoption of Agreements Pursuant to Section 252(i) of the Communications Act and Section 51.809 of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 00-45 ORDER Adopted: November 13, 2003 Released: November 13, 2003 By the Chief, Competition Policy Division: On March 7, 2000, MCI WorldCom, Inc. (MCI) filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking rulings regarding the process for adoption of interconnection agreements pursuant to section 252(i) of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2889A1.txt
  • Carriers ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 01-338 ORDER Adopted: September 7, 2004 Released: September 7, 2004 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: In the Second Report and Order in the above-captioned proceeding, released July 13, 2004, the Commission adopted a new interpretation of section 252(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and revisions to section 51.809 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, the Commission eliminated the previous rule and adopted in its place a rule that requires a requesting carrier seeking to avail itself of terms in an interconnection agreement to adopt the agreement in its entirety, taking all rates, terms, and conditions from the adopted agreement. On August 3, 2004, CompTel/ASCENT, KMC Telecom Holdings, Inc., SNiP
• 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
  • 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 AUTHORITY Brief Description: These rules implement the requirements of section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249804A1.txt
  • ``v.'' and before ``Iowa.'' In footnote 34, we insert ``a'' after ``later interpretation of'' and before ``statute.'' In footnote 46, we replace ``Federal Communications Commission'' with ``FCC.'' In footnote 73, we replace ``supra'' with ``infra.'' In footnote 93, we replace ``For'' with ``for'' after ``Counsel'' and before ``Cox.'' On page 39, in Appendix B listing the final rules, in section 51.809(c), we replace ``252(f)'' with ``252(h).'' Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Second Report and Order in the above-captioned proceeding IS AMENDED as set forth above. WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU Michelle M. Carey Chief, Competition Policy Division (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission h � �@��� �@��� < o w � < = � � � F
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.txt
  • agreement disputes through an alternative dispute resolution mediation process that may be state-supervised. This mediation process supplements, rather than supersedes, any other options at the carrier's disposal for addressing interconnection disputes with Bell Atlantic or GTE, including negotiated dispute resolution mechanisms. We note that no state 729 AT&T May 5, 2000 Comments at 5, 7. 730 See 47 C.F.R. � 51.809(a) (implementing pick and choose rule of section 252(i)). See also 47 C.F.R. �� 51.313(a), 51.603(a). As explained above, the nondiscrimination requirements of section 251(c) and corresponding Commission rules do not apply to voluntarily negotiated agreements. Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-221 150 or competitive LEC is required to adopt or participate in this process.731 Furthermore, nothing in this condition in any
• 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
  • seriously undermine our effort to curtail regulatory arbitrage and to begin a transition from dependence on intercarrier compensation and toward greater reliance on end-user recovery. In any event, our rule implementing section 252(i) requires incumbent LECs to make available ``[i]ndividual interconnection, service, or network element arrangements'' to requesting telecommunications carriers only ``for a reasonable period of time.'' 47 C.F.R. � 51.809(c). We conclude that any ``reasonable period of time'' for making available rates applicable to the exchange of ISP-bound traffic expires upon the Commission's adoption in this Order of an intercarrier compensation mechanism for ISP-bound traffic. Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16133-34. See, e.g., Letter from David J. Hostetter, SBC, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (Feb. 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-36A1.pdf
  • (ii) Refusal by a requesting telecommunications carrier to furnish cost data that would be relevant to setting rates if the parties were in arbitration.'' Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15577-78, para. 155 (emphasis added). Mpower Communications Corp. Petition for Forbearance and Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 01-117 (filed May 25, 2001) (Mpower May 25, 2001 Petition). 47 C.F.R. �� 51.809(a)-(c). 47 U.S.C. � 252(i). Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16135-36, paras. 1304-05. Id. at 16134, para. 1303. Id. at 16139, para. 1314 (emphasis added); see also 47 C.F.R. � 51.809. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. at 377 (citing Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d at 801). Id. at 395-96. Id. at 396. Id. Mpower May 25, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1.txt
  • with Pacific, nor does the record indicate that it has ever attempted to negotiate one. We therefore focus solely on Z-Tel, and Pacific's actions with respect to Z-Tel. We note that if Z-Tel was dissatisfied with the shared transport terms of the Agreement, it need not have opted into them. Under our ``pick and choose'' rule, 47 C.F. R. � 51.809, Z-Tel had the option of opting into only those portions of the Agreement with which it was satisfied. Z-Tel could then have sought negotiation, and arbitration if necessary, on the shared transport UNE. Z-Tel instead took the approach of opting into an agreement, and then requesting additional rights. Given that Pacific appears to have complied with Z-Tel's opt-in request, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-83A1_Erratum.doc
  • with Pacific, nor does the record indicate that it has ever attempted to negotiate one. We therefore focus solely on Z-Tel, and Pacific's actions with respect to Z-Tel. We note that if Z-Tel was dissatisfied with the shared transport terms of the Agreement, it need not have opted into them. Under our ``pick and choose'' rule, 47 C.F. R. � 51.809, Z-Tel had the option of opting into only those portions of the Agreement with which it was satisfied. Z-Tel could then have sought negotiation, and arbitration if necessary, on the shared transport UNE. Z-Tel instead took the approach of opting into an agreement, and then requesting additional rights. Given that Pacific appears to have complied with Z-Tel's opt-in request, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-164A1.txt
  • Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 70 V. Ordering Clauses 71 APPENDIX A - LIST OF COMMENTERS APPENDIX B - FINAL RULES INTRODUCTION On August 21, 2003, the Commission initiated this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to determine whether it should change its interpretation of section 252(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), as implemented by section 51.809 of our rules (the ``pick-and-choose'' rule). In this Order, we adopt a different rule in place of the current pick-and-choose rule. Specifically, we adopt an ``all-or-nothing rule'' that requires a requesting carrier seeking to avail itself of terms in an interconnection agreement to adopt the agreement in its entirety, taking all rates, terms, and conditions from the adopted agreement. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-57A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-57A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-57A1.txt
  • enforcement action when carriers fail to meet these obligations. Id. 47 U.S.C. � 252(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 252(e). Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15583, � 167 (1996) (subsequent history omitted, emphasis in original) (``Local Competition Order''). 47 U.S.C. � 252(i). See also 47 C.F.R. � 51.809(a). One of the key purposes of the section 252(a) filing requirement is that carriers will know which interconnection agreements (and terms) are available under section 252(i). See Findings of Fact, Conclusions, Recommendation and Memorandum, Minn. Docket No. P-421/C-02-197 at 10 (Sept. 20, 2002). Id. For a summary of the state investigations into unfiled agreements in the first nine application states,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 157, 201-05, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271, unless otherwise noted. Subpart A - General Information. � 51.1 Basis and purpose. (a) Basis. These rules are issued pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-279A1.txt
  • arbitrate open issues, which arbitration is subject to �251 and the FCC regulations promulgated thereunder." AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 119 S.Ct. at 727 (footnote and citation omitted). 905 See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments at 15, App. A at 83-87; CompTel July 19 Comments at 14-18; Focal/Adelphia/McLeod July 26 Reply Comments at 9. 906 See 47 C.F.R. � 51.809(a) (implementing pick and choose rule of section 252(i). See also 47 C.F.R. � 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. � 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale). As explained above, the nondiscrimination requirements of section 251(c) and corresponding Commission rules do not apply to voluntarily negotiated agreements. 907 See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments, App. A at 75-78; CoreComm July
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.wp
  • Order, BellSouth has amended Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-271 980 SGAT � XIV.B. 981 SGAT Att. H. 982 BellSouth Application at 62. 983 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 19-20. 984 KMC Reply at 5-6. 985 KMC Agreement � 24.0. 986 Among the issues on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari was the Eighth Circuit's decision to vacate 47 C.F.R. � 51.809, which allowed requesting carriers to "pick and choose" among individual provisions of other interconnection agreements that have previously been negotiated between an incumbent LEC and other requesting carriers without being required to accept the terms and conditions of the agreements in their entirety. See Iowa Utils. Bd., FCC Petition for Certiorari at 10. 987 MCI Comments at 76. 179 its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.txt
  • service to arbitrate open issues, which arbitration is subject to �251 and the FCC regulations promulgated thereunder.'' AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 119 S.Ct. at 727 (footnote and citation omitted). See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments at 15, App. A at 83-87; CompTel July 19 Comments at 14-18; Focal/Adelphia/McLeod July 26 Reply Comments at 9. See 47 C.F.R. � 51.809(a) (implementing pick and choose rule of section 252(i). See also 47 C.F.R. � 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. � 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale). As explained above, the nondiscrimination requirements of section 251(c) and corresponding Commission rules do not apply to voluntarily negotiated agreements. See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments, App. A at 75-78; CoreComm July 22
• 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
  • seriously undermine our effort to curtail regulatory arbitrage and to begin a transition from dependence on intercarrier compensation and toward greater reliance on end-user recovery. In any event, our rule implementing section 252(i) requires incumbent LECs to make available ``[i]ndividual interconnection, service, or network element arrangements'' to requesting telecommunications carriers only ``for a reasonable period of time.'' 47 C.F.R. � 51.809(c). We conclude that any ``reasonable period of time'' for making available rates applicable to the exchange of ISP-bound traffic expires upon the Commission's adoption in this Order of an intercarrier compensation mechanism for ISP-bound traffic. Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16133-34. See, e.g., Letter from David J. Hostetter, SBC, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (Feb. 14,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.wp
  • to an extra-statutory and most troubling process. _____________________ 1. See generally Comments of AT&T Corp. on Proposed Conditions, CC Docket No. 98-141, at pages. 15-18 & Appendix A at pages. 82-87. 2. See also 47 C.F.R. section 51.313(a). 3. See also id. section 51.603(a). 4. The caps also violate the Commission's own implementation of that provision. See 47 C.F.R. section 51.809(a). 5. See also id. sections 51.809(a), 51.313(a). 6. Moreover, these conditions, by which the FCC takes over aspects of the role granted exclusively to State commissions, create great potential for confusion in the implementation of the conditions. If a rate or discount set by this Order is thought to be unjust or unreasonable, in which forum should that claim be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • with Pacific, nor does the record indicate that it has ever attempted to negotiate one. We therefore focus solely on Z-Tel, and Pacific's actions with respect to Z-Tel. 65 We note that if Z-Tel was dissatisfied with the shared transport terms of the Agreement, it need not have opted into them. Under our ``pick and choose'' rule, 47 C.F. R. 51.809, Z-Tel had the option of opting into only those portions of the Agreement with which it was satisfied. Z-Tel could then have sought negotiation, and arbitration if necessary, on the shared transport UNE. Z- Tel instead took the approach of opting into an agreement, and then requesting additional rights. 66 Given that Pacific appears to have complied with Z- Tel's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-57A1.html
  • appropriate enforcement action when carriers fail to meet these obligations. Id. 9 47 U.S.C. 252(a)(1). 10 47 U.S.C. 252(e). 11 Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15583, 167 (1996) (subsequent history omitted, emphasis in original) (``Local Competition Order''). 12 47 U.S.C. 252(i). See also 47 C.F.R. 51.809(a). One of the key purposes of the section 252(a) filing requirement is that carriers will know which interconnection agreements (and terms) are available under section 252(i). 13 See Findings of Fact, Conclusions, Recommendation and Memorandum, Minn. Docket No. P-421/C-02-197 at 10 (Sept. 20, 2002). 14 Id. 15 For a summary of the state investigations into unfiled agreements in the first
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 157, 201-05, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271, unless otherwise noted. Subpart A - General Information. � 51.1 Basis and purpose. (a) Basis. These rules are issued pursuant to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.wp
  • Order, BellSouth has amended Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-271 980 SGAT � XIV.B. 981 SGAT Att. H. 982 BellSouth Application at 62. 983 BellSouth Varner Aff. at paras. 19-20. 984 KMC Reply at 5-6. 985 KMC Agreement � 24.0. 986 Among the issues on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari was the Eighth Circuit's decision to vacate 47 C.F.R. � 51.809, which allowed requesting carriers to "pick and choose" among individual provisions of other interconnection agreements that have previously been negotiated between an incumbent LEC and other requesting carriers without being required to accept the terms and conditions of the agreements in their entirety. See Iowa Utils. Bd., FCC Petition for Certiorari at 10. 987 MCI Comments at 76. 179 its
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991552.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da991552.txt
  • Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board might impact the arbitration of unresolved issues between GNAPs and Bell Atlantic. 10. On February 10, 1999, Bell Atlantic filed a supplemental brief in response to the January 29, 1999 order. According to the Virginia Commission's April 2, 1999 final order, Bell Atlantic argued in its supplemental brief that the Supreme Court's reinstatement of section 51.809 of the Commission's rules did not entitle GNAPs to adopt Bell Atlantic's 1996 MFS Agreement. On February 10, 1999, GNAPs also filed a supplemental brief in response to the January 29, 1999 order. According to the Virginia Commission's April 2, 1999 final order, GNAPs argued in its supplemental brief that it was entitled to reciprocal compensation for terminating Internet Service
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99199.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99199.txt
  • � 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 U.S.C. � 252(i). Rule 51.809(a) specifies that the incumbent shall make available provisions of an agreement ``without unreasonable delay.'' 47 C.F.R. � 51.809(a). 47 U.S.C. � 252(e)(1) (``Any interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation or arbitration shall be submitted to the State commission''); see also Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16141, � 1321 (indicating that carriers ``seeking interconnection, network elements, or services pursuant to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99279.txt
  • service to arbitrate open issues, which arbitration is subject to �251 and the FCC regulations promulgated thereunder.'' AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 119 S.Ct. at 727 (footnote and citation omitted). See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments at 15, App. A at 83-87; CompTel July 19 Comments at 14-18; Focal/Adelphia/McLeod July 26 Reply Comments at 9. See 47 C.F.R. � 51.809(a) (implementing pick and choose rule of section 252(i). See also 47 C.F.R. � 51.313(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory access to network elements); 47 C.F.R. � 51.603(a) (requiring nondiscriminatory resale). As explained above, the nondiscrimination requirements of section 251(c) and corresponding Commission rules do not apply to voluntarily negotiated agreements. See, e.g., AT&T July 19 Comments, App. A at 75-78; CoreComm July 22
• 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
  • seriously undermine our effort to curtail regulatory arbitrage and to begin a transition from dependence on intercarrier compensation and toward greater reliance on end-user recovery. In any event, our rule implementing section 252(i) requires incumbent LECs to make available ``[i]ndividual interconnection, service, or network element arrangements'' to requesting telecommunications carriers only ``for a reasonable period of time.'' 47 C.F.R. � 51.809(c). We conclude that any ``reasonable period of time'' for making available rates applicable to the exchange of ISP-bound traffic expires upon the Commission's adoption in this Order of an intercarrier compensation mechanism for ISP-bound traffic. Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16133-34. See, e.g., Letter from David J. Hostetter, SBC, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (Feb. 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da000592.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da000592.txt
  • information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 00-592 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON THE REVISED PETITION OF MCI WORLDCOM, INC. FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF AGREEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(i) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTION 51.809 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES CC Docket No. 00-45 Released: March 16, 2000 On March 7, 2000, MCI WorldCom, Inc. (MCI WorldCom) filed a petition seeking a declaratory ruling concerning a requesting carrier's ability to adopt previously approved interconnection agreements under section 252(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. MCI WorldCom specifically requests that the Commission declare that: a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl000407.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl000407.html
  • 7797/RM 7798). Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration - Bryan Broadcasting License Subsidiary, Inc. In the Matter of Truth-In-Billing and Billing Format (CC Docket No. 98-170). Comments --GVNW Consulting, Inc. -2- March 31 In the Matter of MCI WORLDCOM, INC. Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Process for Adoption of Agreements Pursuant to Section 252(I) of the Communications Act and 51.809 of the Commission's Rules (CC Docket No. 00-45). Joint Comments - Focal Communications Corporation, Level 3 Communications, L.L.C., MPPOWER Communications Corporation, Adelphia Business Solutions and CORECOMM Ltd., Broadspan Communications, Inc. d/b/a Primary Network Communications, Inc., @LINK NETWORKS, INC., DSL-NET, INC., The Competitive Telecommunications Association, GLOBAL NAPS, INC. AND Universal Telecom, Inc., The Personal Communications Industry Association, Airtouch Paging, Williams Local
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl000414.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl000414.html
  • In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television Broadcast Stations (Lubbock, Texas). Petition for Rulemaking to Amend the DTV Table of Allotments - Cosmos Broadcasting Company. In the Matter of MCI WorldCom, Inc. Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Process for Adoption of Agreements Pursuant to Section 252(I) of the Communications Act and Section 51.809 of the Commission's Rules (CC Docket No. 00-45). Reply Comments - The Personal Communications Industry Association, Florida Public Service Commission, Focal Communications Corporation, Level 3 -6- Communications, LLC, MPOWER Communications Corporation, Adelphi Business Solutions and CoreComm Limited. In the Matter of Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996/Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl000505.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl000505.html
  • Petition of the Arizona Corporation Commission for Expedited Temporary Waiver of the May 1, 2000 Effective Date of Section 51.507(f) Requiring Geographic Deaveraging of Unbundled Network Element Rates. -2- April 27 In the matter of MCI WORLDCOM, Inc. Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Process for Adoption of Agreements Pursuant to Section 252(I) of the Communications Act and Section 51.809 of the Commission's Rules (CC Docket 00-45). Comments - Focal Communications Corporation, Level 3 Communications, LLC, MPOWER Communications Corporation., Adelphia Business Solutions and CORECOMM, Ltd. In the Matter of Ex Parte Presentation in CC Docket No. 96-98, 4th FNPRM. Ex Parte of Late Filed - CompTel. In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000316.html
  • [1]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Tariffs/com bined/tt031500.pdf Report No: N-156-A. Released: March 16, 2000. COMMON CARRIER NETWORK SERVICES APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER RULES PART 68. Internet URL: [2]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Part68_Acti ons/2000/g2kmar16.doc Released: March 16, 2000. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON THE REVISED PETITION OF MCI WORLDCOM, INC. FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF AGREEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 252(I) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTION 51.809 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES.Comments Due: March 31, 2000, Reply Comments Due: April 11, 2000. (DA No. 00-592). Dkt No.: CC-00-45. Contact: Policy and Program Planning Division: Janice M. Myles at (202) 418-1580, email: jmyles@fcc.gov. Internet URL: [3]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da0005 92.doc Report No: 2396. Released: March 16, 2000. CONSUMER INFORMATION BUREAU REFERENCE INFORMATION CENTER PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FILED. Internet URL: [4]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Consumer_Information/Public_Notices/2000/ pnci0027.doc Report
• http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.html http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Furchtgott_Roth/Statements/sthfr949.wp
  • to an extra-statutory and most troubling process. _____________________ 1. See generally Comments of AT&T Corp. on Proposed Conditions, CC Docket No. 98-141, at pages. 15-18 & Appendix A at pages. 82-87. 2. See also 47 C.F.R. section 51.313(a). 3. See also id. section 51.603(a). 4. The caps also violate the Commission's own implementation of that provision. See 47 C.F.R. section 51.809(a). 5. See also id. sections 51.809(a), 51.313(a). 6. Moreover, these conditions, by which the FCC takes over aspects of the role granted exclusively to State commissions, create great potential for confusion in the implementation of the conditions. If a rate or discount set by this Order is thought to be unjust or unreasonable, in which forum should that claim be
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-83A1.html
  • with Pacific, nor does the record indicate that it has ever attempted to negotiate one. We therefore focus solely on Z-Tel, and Pacific's actions with respect to Z-Tel. 65 We note that if Z-Tel was dissatisfied with the shared transport terms of the Agreement, it need not have opted into them. Under our ``pick and choose'' rule, 47 C.F. R. 51.809, Z-Tel had the option of opting into only those portions of the Agreement with which it was satisfied. Z-Tel could then have sought negotiation, and arbitration if necessary, on the shared transport UNE. Z- Tel instead took the approach of opting into an agreement, and then requesting additional rights. 66 Given that Pacific appears to have complied with Z- Tel's
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-57A1.html
  • appropriate enforcement action when carriers fail to meet these obligations. Id. 9 47 U.S.C. 252(a)(1). 10 47 U.S.C. 252(e). 11 Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15583, 167 (1996) (subsequent history omitted, emphasis in original) (``Local Competition Order''). 12 47 U.S.C. 252(i). See also 47 C.F.R. 51.809(a). One of the key purposes of the section 252(a) filing requirement is that carriers will know which interconnection agreements (and terms) are available under section 252(i). 13 See Findings of Fact, Conclusions, Recommendation and Memorandum, Minn. Docket No. P-421/C-02-197 at 10 (Sept. 20, 2002). 14 Id. 15 For a summary of the state investigations into unfiled agreements in the first
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/iowa51.wp
  • from intruding on the states' intrastate turf. Having concluded that the FCC lacks jurisdiction to issue the pricing rules, we vacate the FCC's pricing rules[21]^(21) on that ground alone and choose not to review these rules on their merits. B. The FCC's "Pick and Choose" Rule The petitioners next assert that the FCC's so-called "pick and choose" rule, 47 C.F.R. 51.809, is an unreasonable interpretation of subsection 252(i). Subsection 252(i) provides: A local exchange carrier shall make available any interconnection, service, or network element provided under an agreement approved under this section to which it is a party to any other requesting telecommunications carrier upon the same terms and conditions as those provided in the agreement. 47 U.S.C.A. 252(i). With its
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1998/iowa51.html
  • from intruding on the states' intrastate turf. Having concluded that the FCC lacks jurisdiction to issue the pricing rules, we vacate the FCC's pricing rules[21]^(21) on that ground alone and choose not to review these rules on their merits. B. The FCC's "Pick and Choose" Rule The petitioners next assert that the FCC's so-called "pick and choose" rule, 47 C.F.R. 51.809, is an unreasonable interpretation of subsection 252(i). Subsection 252(i) provides: A local exchange carrier shall make available any interconnection, service, or network element provided under an agreement approved under this section to which it is a party to any other requesting telecommunications carrier upon the same terms and conditions as those provided in the agreement. 47 U.S.C.A. 252(i). With its
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/iowa.wp
  • terms of agreements between LECs and competing carriers. Under this rule, a carrier may demand that the LEC make available to it 'any individual interconnection, service, or network element arrangement' on the same terms and conditions the LEC has given anyone else in an agreement approved under 252--without its having to accept the other provisions of the agreement. 47 CFR 51.809 (1997); First Report & Order ¶ ;¶ ;1309- 1310. The Court of Appeals vacated the rule, reasoning that it would deter the 'voluntarily negotiated agreements' that the 1996 Act favored, by making incumbent LECs reluctant to grant quids for quos, so to speak, for fear that they would have to grant others the same quids without receiving quos. 120 F.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-511.pdf
  • protecting the incumbent�s ability to control the performance of its own network, is in accord with what we said in Iowa Utilities Board. There, for example, we rein- stated the Commission�s �pick and choose� rule43 in part because the duty to provide network elements on match- ing terms to all comers did not arise when it was �not technically feasible,� �51.809(b)(2). 525 U. S., at 396. If �technically feasible� meant what is merely possible, it would have been no limitation at all. The two substantive rules each have additional features that are consistent with the purposes of �251(c)(3). Rule 315(c), to the extent that it raises a duty to combine what is �ordinarily combined,� neatly complements the facially similar Rule 315(b),
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/archive/2000ord.html
  • Dkt. No. 00-52, DA 00-630. [67][Acrobat] [68][Text]> 03/17/2000 PUBLIC NOTICE: Establishing Pleading cycle for AT&T And Alascom Petition for Structural And Other Regulatory Relief, DA 00-603. [69][Acrobat] [70][Text]> 03/16/2000 PUBLIC NOTICE: Establishing Pleading cycle for Revised Petition of MCI WorldCom for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Process for Adoption of Agreements Pursuant to Section 252(I) of the Communications Act And Section 51.809 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 00-45, DA No. 00-592. [71][Acrobat] [72][Text]> 3/10/2000 ORDER/LETTER: Granting Extention of Time Re: Development of Enhancements to Advanced Services Operational Support Systems ("OSS") required under the SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, DA No. 00-562, [73][Acrobat][74][Text] 3/10/2000 ORDER/LETTER: Granting Extention of Time Re: Development of Uniform and Enhanced Operational Support Systems ("OSS") required under the SBC/Ameritech