FCC Web Documents citing 61.23

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2011 12 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292074A1.pdf
  • § 251(a)(1). Additional statutory pricing regulation also applies to what the FCC refers to as dominant carriers. As relevant here, dominant carriers are typically subject to rate-of-return regulation or price caps accompanied by stringent tariff advance filing rules, whereas non-dominant common carriers are not. See id. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); compare 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58 with id. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c).2 Title II was enacted in 1934 in part to regulate monopolistic telephone service, at a time when broadband service obviously was not offered. As Congress and the FCC have recognized, regulation of broadband can pose different issues and challenges than regulation of local telephony. 2 The FCC's so-called Computer Inquiry rules impose nondiscriminatory access and tariffing requirements on telecommunications carriers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • provision which has proven to be virtually impossible to implement, and to encourage amateur stations to experiment with spread spectrum communications technologies. 97.311 (d) 97.5(b)(4) 4/29/11 Eliminate outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international telecommunications traffic. 43.53 43.61 (b) 43.61 (c) 63.23 (e) 7/19/11 Rule revisions enabling all tariff filers to file tariffs electronically over the Internet. 61.21 61.22 61.23 61.32 61.33 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.52(a) 7/20/11 Fairness Doctrine, Personal Attack & Political Editorial Rules. 73.1910 76.209 76.1612 9/9/11 Appendix 38 The Federal Communications Commission | November 7, 2011 Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules Regulations removed (190 as of 11/1/11) CFR Section Effective date in FR 76.1613 Broadcast Flag. 73.8000 73.9000-9009 9/9/11 Cable Programming Service Tier Complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.txt
  • et seq. (publications filed on paper or diskette). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b) (maximum 120 days notice), 204(a)(3) (seven or fifteen days' notice for local exchange carriers), and 226(h)(1)(A) (``changes in [informational tariff] rates, terms, or conditions shall be filed no later than the first day on which the changed rates, terms, or conditions are in effect''); 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (one day's notice for non-dominant carriers). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.13 et seq., 61.18, et seq., 61.28, et seq., and 61.31, et seq. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C §§ 204(a) (suspension and investigation of tariff publications) and 205(a) (action on unlawful tariff publications). See New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 826 F.2d 1101, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.txt
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.txt
  • § 61.3(q) (``Dominant carrier'' is defined as a ``carrier found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., power to control prices).''). Fifteen days' notice is required for rate increases and changes to terms and conditions and seven days' notice is required for rate decreases. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Carriers, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 1.773(a)(ii). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 21, paras. 57-58. See Competitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d at 558, paras. 7-8. Id. See Motion of AT&T Corp.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long-distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.txt
  • Charge Reform, CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995) (Nondominant Tariff Filing Order). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). Id. § 63.03(b). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202. Id. § 251(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(1). Id. §§ 224, 251(b)(4). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra n.213. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.C.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. § 222(a)-(c), (f). 47 U.S.C. § 222(d)(4), (g). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.txt
  • of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Verizon specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See, e.g., Boston Petition at 3-4 n.3; New York Petition at 4 n.3; Philadelphia Petition at 4 n.3; Pittsburgh Petition at 3-4 n.3; Providence Petition at 3-4 n.3; Virginia Beach Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.D.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.txt
  • 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 2-4. of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Qwest specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See Qwest June 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 4; see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435-36, para. 43. We recognize the strong relationship between the statutory
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.txt
  • for some services on a minimum of seven or fifteen days' notice. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. The Commission has found that direct rate regulation is generally not necessary for non-dominant carriers, and has allowed such carriers to file tariffs on one day's notice without cost support. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.23; see also Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). In addition, non-dominant carriers are required to wait only 30 days before their applications to discontinue, reduce or impair service can be granted, as opposed to a 60-day waiting period for dominant carriers. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • alternatives, and interexchange carrier customers, that cannot, pertains with equal force to the provision of access by incumbent LECs such as Qwest. See id. at 9938, para. 40; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(b). Further, competitive LECs may file tariffs on one-day's notice without cost support but are subject to mandatory detariffing of any rates that exceed the benchmark. 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(c), 61.26(b); see also CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 40. The Commission does not regulate the rates that competitive LECs charge their interexchange carrier customers pursuant to nontariffed arrangements. Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See id. at 19429, para. 25. See Qwest Corporation Tariff FCC No. 1, § 6.8.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.txt
  • with such requirements in the past. Moreover, we propose amending the notice requirements of section 61.58 to add a provision that nondominant carriers who are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3), but choose not to, must file tariffs on at least one days' notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. We seek comment on this proposed modification to our rules and any appropriate alternatives. A number of nondominant carriers operate under a ``doing business as'' or d/b/a name. Such a practice can be confusing to Commission staff and parties searching for tariff documents.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.txt
  • requirements of section 61.58 of our rules to add a provision requiring nondominant carriers that are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3) of the Act, but choose not to file using these statutory time frames, to file tariffs on at least one day's notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. No carriers filed comments objecting to this proposal. To streamline our rules, we adopt this proposal to require all carriers to comply with section 61.58 of the Commission's rules and we delete section 61.23 as duplicative. In the ETFS NPRM, we noted that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.82 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. The Commission found that this was potentially confusing, and so proposed to redesignate section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99365.doc
  • FCC 2d at 21 (finding that control of bottleneck facilities is ``prima facie'' evidence of market power). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58; Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-187, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2170, 2182, 2188, 2191-92, 2202-03 (1997). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-dominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54 (1995). U S West claims that competitive providers have captured more than 70 percent of the "retail market" for high capacity services. U S West Phoenix Forbearance Petition at 19. SBC states that it has competitive losses for the high capacity market exceeding 25%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292074A1.pdf
  • § 251(a)(1). Additional statutory pricing regulation also applies to what the FCC refers to as dominant carriers. As relevant here, dominant carriers are typically subject to rate-of-return regulation or price caps accompanied by stringent tariff advance filing rules, whereas non-dominant common carriers are not. See id. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); compare 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58 with id. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c).2 Title II was enacted in 1934 in part to regulate monopolistic telephone service, at a time when broadband service obviously was not offered. As Congress and the FCC have recognized, regulation of broadband can pose different issues and challenges than regulation of local telephony. 2 The FCC's so-called Computer Inquiry rules impose nondiscriminatory access and tariffing requirements on telecommunications carriers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • provision which has proven to be virtually impossible to implement, and to encourage amateur stations to experiment with spread spectrum communications technologies. 97.311 (d) 97.5(b)(4) 4/29/11 Eliminate outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international telecommunications traffic. 43.53 43.61 (b) 43.61 (c) 63.23 (e) 7/19/11 Rule revisions enabling all tariff filers to file tariffs electronically over the Internet. 61.21 61.22 61.23 61.32 61.33 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.52(a) 7/20/11 Fairness Doctrine, Personal Attack & Political Editorial Rules. 73.1910 76.209 76.1612 9/9/11 Appendix 38 The Federal Communications Commission | November 7, 2011 Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules Regulations removed (190 as of 11/1/11) CFR Section Effective date in FR 76.1613 Broadcast Flag. 73.8000 73.9000-9009 9/9/11 Cable Programming Service Tier Complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.txt
  • et seq. (publications filed on paper or diskette). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b) (maximum 120 days notice), 204(a)(3) (seven or fifteen days' notice for local exchange carriers), and 226(h)(1)(A) (``changes in [informational tariff] rates, terms, or conditions shall be filed no later than the first day on which the changed rates, terms, or conditions are in effect''); 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (one day's notice for non-dominant carriers). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.13 et seq., 61.18, et seq., 61.28, et seq., and 61.31, et seq. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C §§ 204(a) (suspension and investigation of tariff publications) and 205(a) (action on unlawful tariff publications). See New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 826 F.2d 1101, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.txt
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.txt
  • § 61.3(q) (``Dominant carrier'' is defined as a ``carrier found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., power to control prices).''). Fifteen days' notice is required for rate increases and changes to terms and conditions and seven days' notice is required for rate decreases. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Carriers, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 1.773(a)(ii). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 21, paras. 57-58. See Competitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d at 558, paras. 7-8. Id. See Motion of AT&T Corp.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long-distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.txt
  • Charge Reform, CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995) (Nondominant Tariff Filing Order). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). Id. § 63.03(b). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202. Id. § 251(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(1). Id. §§ 224, 251(b)(4). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra n.213. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.C.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. § 222(a)-(c), (f). 47 U.S.C. § 222(d)(4), (g). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.txt
  • of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Verizon specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See, e.g., Boston Petition at 3-4 n.3; New York Petition at 4 n.3; Philadelphia Petition at 4 n.3; Pittsburgh Petition at 3-4 n.3; Providence Petition at 3-4 n.3; Virginia Beach Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.D.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.txt
  • 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 2-4. of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Qwest specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See Qwest June 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 4; see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435-36, para. 43. We recognize the strong relationship between the statutory
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.txt
  • for some services on a minimum of seven or fifteen days' notice. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. The Commission has found that direct rate regulation is generally not necessary for non-dominant carriers, and has allowed such carriers to file tariffs on one day's notice without cost support. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.23; see also Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). In addition, non-dominant carriers are required to wait only 30 days before their applications to discontinue, reduce or impair service can be granted, as opposed to a 60-day waiting period for dominant carriers. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • alternatives, and interexchange carrier customers, that cannot, pertains with equal force to the provision of access by incumbent LECs such as Qwest. See id. at 9938, para. 40; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(b). Further, competitive LECs may file tariffs on one-day's notice without cost support but are subject to mandatory detariffing of any rates that exceed the benchmark. 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(c), 61.26(b); see also CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 40. The Commission does not regulate the rates that competitive LECs charge their interexchange carrier customers pursuant to nontariffed arrangements. Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See id. at 19429, para. 25. See Qwest Corporation Tariff FCC No. 1, § 6.8.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.txt
  • with such requirements in the past. Moreover, we propose amending the notice requirements of section 61.58 to add a provision that nondominant carriers who are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3), but choose not to, must file tariffs on at least one days' notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. We seek comment on this proposed modification to our rules and any appropriate alternatives. A number of nondominant carriers operate under a ``doing business as'' or d/b/a name. Such a practice can be confusing to Commission staff and parties searching for tariff documents.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.txt
  • requirements of section 61.58 of our rules to add a provision requiring nondominant carriers that are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3) of the Act, but choose not to file using these statutory time frames, to file tariffs on at least one day's notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. No carriers filed comments objecting to this proposal. To streamline our rules, we adopt this proposal to require all carriers to comply with section 61.58 of the Commission's rules and we delete section 61.23 as duplicative. In the ETFS NPRM, we noted that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.82 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. The Commission found that this was potentially confusing, and so proposed to redesignate section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as section
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292074A1.pdf
  • § 251(a)(1). Additional statutory pricing regulation also applies to what the FCC refers to as dominant carriers. As relevant here, dominant carriers are typically subject to rate-of-return regulation or price caps accompanied by stringent tariff advance filing rules, whereas non-dominant common carriers are not. See id. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); compare 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58 with id. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c).2 Title II was enacted in 1934 in part to regulate monopolistic telephone service, at a time when broadband service obviously was not offered. As Congress and the FCC have recognized, regulation of broadband can pose different issues and challenges than regulation of local telephony. 2 The FCC's so-called Computer Inquiry rules impose nondiscriminatory access and tariffing requirements on telecommunications carriers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • provision which has proven to be virtually impossible to implement, and to encourage amateur stations to experiment with spread spectrum communications technologies. 97.311 (d) 97.5(b)(4) 4/29/11 Eliminate outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international telecommunications traffic. 43.53 43.61 (b) 43.61 (c) 63.23 (e) 7/19/11 Rule revisions enabling all tariff filers to file tariffs electronically over the Internet. 61.21 61.22 61.23 61.32 61.33 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.52(a) 7/20/11 Fairness Doctrine, Personal Attack & Political Editorial Rules. 73.1910 76.209 76.1612 9/9/11 Appendix 38 The Federal Communications Commission | November 7, 2011 Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules Regulations removed (190 as of 11/1/11) CFR Section Effective date in FR 76.1613 Broadcast Flag. 73.8000 73.9000-9009 9/9/11 Cable Programming Service Tier Complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.txt
  • et seq. (publications filed on paper or diskette). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b) (maximum 120 days notice), 204(a)(3) (seven or fifteen days' notice for local exchange carriers), and 226(h)(1)(A) (``changes in [informational tariff] rates, terms, or conditions shall be filed no later than the first day on which the changed rates, terms, or conditions are in effect''); 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (one day's notice for non-dominant carriers). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.13 et seq., 61.18, et seq., 61.28, et seq., and 61.31, et seq. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C §§ 204(a) (suspension and investigation of tariff publications) and 205(a) (action on unlawful tariff publications). See New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 826 F.2d 1101, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.txt
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.txt
  • § 61.3(q) (``Dominant carrier'' is defined as a ``carrier found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., power to control prices).''). Fifteen days' notice is required for rate increases and changes to terms and conditions and seven days' notice is required for rate decreases. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Carriers, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 1.773(a)(ii). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 21, paras. 57-58. See Competitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d at 558, paras. 7-8. Id. See Motion of AT&T Corp.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long-distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.txt
  • Charge Reform, CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995) (Nondominant Tariff Filing Order). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). Id. § 63.03(b). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202. Id. § 251(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(1). Id. §§ 224, 251(b)(4). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra n.213. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.C.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. § 222(a)-(c), (f). 47 U.S.C. § 222(d)(4), (g). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.txt
  • of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Verizon specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See, e.g., Boston Petition at 3-4 n.3; New York Petition at 4 n.3; Philadelphia Petition at 4 n.3; Pittsburgh Petition at 3-4 n.3; Providence Petition at 3-4 n.3; Virginia Beach Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.D.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.txt
  • 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 2-4. of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Qwest specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See Qwest June 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 4; see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435-36, para. 43. We recognize the strong relationship between the statutory
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.txt
  • for some services on a minimum of seven or fifteen days' notice. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. The Commission has found that direct rate regulation is generally not necessary for non-dominant carriers, and has allowed such carriers to file tariffs on one day's notice without cost support. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.23; see also Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). In addition, non-dominant carriers are required to wait only 30 days before their applications to discontinue, reduce or impair service can be granted, as opposed to a 60-day waiting period for dominant carriers. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • alternatives, and interexchange carrier customers, that cannot, pertains with equal force to the provision of access by incumbent LECs such as Qwest. See id. at 9938, para. 40; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(b). Further, competitive LECs may file tariffs on one-day's notice without cost support but are subject to mandatory detariffing of any rates that exceed the benchmark. 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(c), 61.26(b); see also CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 40. The Commission does not regulate the rates that competitive LECs charge their interexchange carrier customers pursuant to nontariffed arrangements. Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See id. at 19429, para. 25. See Qwest Corporation Tariff FCC No. 1, § 6.8.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.txt
  • with such requirements in the past. Moreover, we propose amending the notice requirements of section 61.58 to add a provision that nondominant carriers who are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3), but choose not to, must file tariffs on at least one days' notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. We seek comment on this proposed modification to our rules and any appropriate alternatives. A number of nondominant carriers operate under a ``doing business as'' or d/b/a name. Such a practice can be confusing to Commission staff and parties searching for tariff documents.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.txt
  • requirements of section 61.58 of our rules to add a provision requiring nondominant carriers that are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3) of the Act, but choose not to file using these statutory time frames, to file tariffs on at least one day's notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. No carriers filed comments objecting to this proposal. To streamline our rules, we adopt this proposal to require all carriers to comply with section 61.58 of the Commission's rules and we delete section 61.23 as duplicative. In the ETFS NPRM, we noted that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.82 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. The Commission found that this was potentially confusing, and so proposed to redesignate section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99365.doc
  • FCC 2d at 21 (finding that control of bottleneck facilities is ``prima facie'' evidence of market power). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58; Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-187, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2170, 2182, 2188, 2191-92, 2202-03 (1997). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-dominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54 (1995). U S West claims that competitive providers have captured more than 70 percent of the "retail market" for high capacity services. U S West Phoenix Forbearance Petition at 19. SBC states that it has competitive losses for the high capacity market exceeding 25%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292074A1.pdf
  • § 251(a)(1). Additional statutory pricing regulation also applies to what the FCC refers to as dominant carriers. As relevant here, dominant carriers are typically subject to rate-of-return regulation or price caps accompanied by stringent tariff advance filing rules, whereas non-dominant common carriers are not. See id. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); compare 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58 with id. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c).2 Title II was enacted in 1934 in part to regulate monopolistic telephone service, at a time when broadband service obviously was not offered. As Congress and the FCC have recognized, regulation of broadband can pose different issues and challenges than regulation of local telephony. 2 The FCC's so-called Computer Inquiry rules impose nondiscriminatory access and tariffing requirements on telecommunications carriers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • provision which has proven to be virtually impossible to implement, and to encourage amateur stations to experiment with spread spectrum communications technologies. 97.311 (d) 97.5(b)(4) 4/29/11 Eliminate outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international telecommunications traffic. 43.53 43.61 (b) 43.61 (c) 63.23 (e) 7/19/11 Rule revisions enabling all tariff filers to file tariffs electronically over the Internet. 61.21 61.22 61.23 61.32 61.33 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.52(a) 7/20/11 Fairness Doctrine, Personal Attack & Political Editorial Rules. 73.1910 76.209 76.1612 9/9/11 Appendix 38 The Federal Communications Commission | November 7, 2011 Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules Regulations removed (190 as of 11/1/11) CFR Section Effective date in FR 76.1613 Broadcast Flag. 73.8000 73.9000-9009 9/9/11 Cable Programming Service Tier Complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.txt
  • et seq. (publications filed on paper or diskette). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b) (maximum 120 days notice), 204(a)(3) (seven or fifteen days' notice for local exchange carriers), and 226(h)(1)(A) (``changes in [informational tariff] rates, terms, or conditions shall be filed no later than the first day on which the changed rates, terms, or conditions are in effect''); 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (one day's notice for non-dominant carriers). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.13 et seq., 61.18, et seq., 61.28, et seq., and 61.31, et seq. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C §§ 204(a) (suspension and investigation of tariff publications) and 205(a) (action on unlawful tariff publications). See New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 826 F.2d 1101, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.txt
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.txt
  • § 61.3(q) (``Dominant carrier'' is defined as a ``carrier found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., power to control prices).''). Fifteen days' notice is required for rate increases and changes to terms and conditions and seven days' notice is required for rate decreases. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Carriers, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 1.773(a)(ii). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 21, paras. 57-58. See Competitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d at 558, paras. 7-8. Id. See Motion of AT&T Corp.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long-distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.txt
  • Charge Reform, CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995) (Nondominant Tariff Filing Order). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). Id. § 63.03(b). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202. Id. § 251(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(1). Id. §§ 224, 251(b)(4). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra n.213. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.C.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. § 222(a)-(c), (f). 47 U.S.C. § 222(d)(4), (g). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.txt
  • of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Verizon specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See, e.g., Boston Petition at 3-4 n.3; New York Petition at 4 n.3; Philadelphia Petition at 4 n.3; Pittsburgh Petition at 3-4 n.3; Providence Petition at 3-4 n.3; Virginia Beach Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.D.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.txt
  • 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 2-4. of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Qwest specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See Qwest June 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 4; see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435-36, para. 43. We recognize the strong relationship between the statutory
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.txt
  • for some services on a minimum of seven or fifteen days' notice. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. The Commission has found that direct rate regulation is generally not necessary for non-dominant carriers, and has allowed such carriers to file tariffs on one day's notice without cost support. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.23; see also Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). In addition, non-dominant carriers are required to wait only 30 days before their applications to discontinue, reduce or impair service can be granted, as opposed to a 60-day waiting period for dominant carriers. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • alternatives, and interexchange carrier customers, that cannot, pertains with equal force to the provision of access by incumbent LECs such as Qwest. See id. at 9938, para. 40; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(b). Further, competitive LECs may file tariffs on one-day's notice without cost support but are subject to mandatory detariffing of any rates that exceed the benchmark. 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(c), 61.26(b); see also CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 40. The Commission does not regulate the rates that competitive LECs charge their interexchange carrier customers pursuant to nontariffed arrangements. Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See id. at 19429, para. 25. See Qwest Corporation Tariff FCC No. 1, § 6.8.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.txt
  • with such requirements in the past. Moreover, we propose amending the notice requirements of section 61.58 to add a provision that nondominant carriers who are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3), but choose not to, must file tariffs on at least one days' notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. We seek comment on this proposed modification to our rules and any appropriate alternatives. A number of nondominant carriers operate under a ``doing business as'' or d/b/a name. Such a practice can be confusing to Commission staff and parties searching for tariff documents.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.txt
  • requirements of section 61.58 of our rules to add a provision requiring nondominant carriers that are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3) of the Act, but choose not to file using these statutory time frames, to file tariffs on at least one day's notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. No carriers filed comments objecting to this proposal. To streamline our rules, we adopt this proposal to require all carriers to comply with section 61.58 of the Commission's rules and we delete section 61.23 as duplicative. In the ETFS NPRM, we noted that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99365.doc
  • FCC 2d at 21 (finding that control of bottleneck facilities is ``prima facie'' evidence of market power). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58; Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-187, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2170, 2182, 2188, 2191-92, 2202-03 (1997). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-dominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54 (1995). U S West claims that competitive providers have captured more than 70 percent of the "retail market" for high capacity services. U S West Phoenix Forbearance Petition at 19. SBC states that it has competitive losses for the high capacity market exceeding 25%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292074A1.pdf
  • § 251(a)(1). Additional statutory pricing regulation also applies to what the FCC refers to as dominant carriers. As relevant here, dominant carriers are typically subject to rate-of-return regulation or price caps accompanied by stringent tariff advance filing rules, whereas non-dominant common carriers are not. See id. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); compare 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58 with id. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c).2 Title II was enacted in 1934 in part to regulate monopolistic telephone service, at a time when broadband service obviously was not offered. As Congress and the FCC have recognized, regulation of broadband can pose different issues and challenges than regulation of local telephony. 2 The FCC's so-called Computer Inquiry rules impose nondiscriminatory access and tariffing requirements on telecommunications carriers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • provision which has proven to be virtually impossible to implement, and to encourage amateur stations to experiment with spread spectrum communications technologies. 97.311 (d) 97.5(b)(4) 4/29/11 Eliminate outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international telecommunications traffic. 43.53 43.61 (b) 43.61 (c) 63.23 (e) 7/19/11 Rule revisions enabling all tariff filers to file tariffs electronically over the Internet. 61.21 61.22 61.23 61.32 61.33 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.52(a) 7/20/11 Fairness Doctrine, Personal Attack & Political Editorial Rules. 73.1910 76.209 76.1612 9/9/11 Appendix 38 The Federal Communications Commission | November 7, 2011 Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules Regulations removed (190 as of 11/1/11) CFR Section Effective date in FR 76.1613 Broadcast Flag. 73.8000 73.9000-9009 9/9/11 Cable Programming Service Tier Complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.txt
  • et seq. (publications filed on paper or diskette). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b) (maximum 120 days notice), 204(a)(3) (seven or fifteen days' notice for local exchange carriers), and 226(h)(1)(A) (``changes in [informational tariff] rates, terms, or conditions shall be filed no later than the first day on which the changed rates, terms, or conditions are in effect''); 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (one day's notice for non-dominant carriers). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.13 et seq., 61.18, et seq., 61.28, et seq., and 61.31, et seq. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C §§ 204(a) (suspension and investigation of tariff publications) and 205(a) (action on unlawful tariff publications). See New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 826 F.2d 1101, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.txt
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.txt
  • § 61.3(q) (``Dominant carrier'' is defined as a ``carrier found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., power to control prices).''). Fifteen days' notice is required for rate increases and changes to terms and conditions and seven days' notice is required for rate decreases. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Carriers, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 1.773(a)(ii). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 21, paras. 57-58. See Competitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d at 558, paras. 7-8. Id. See Motion of AT&T Corp.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long-distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.txt
  • Charge Reform, CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995) (Nondominant Tariff Filing Order). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). Id. § 63.03(b). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202. Id. § 251(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(1). Id. §§ 224, 251(b)(4). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra n.213. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.C.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. § 222(a)-(c), (f). 47 U.S.C. § 222(d)(4), (g). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.txt
  • of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Verizon specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See, e.g., Boston Petition at 3-4 n.3; New York Petition at 4 n.3; Philadelphia Petition at 4 n.3; Pittsburgh Petition at 3-4 n.3; Providence Petition at 3-4 n.3; Virginia Beach Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.D.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.txt
  • 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 2-4. of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Qwest specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See Qwest June 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 4; see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435-36, para. 43. We recognize the strong relationship between the statutory
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.txt
  • for some services on a minimum of seven or fifteen days' notice. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. The Commission has found that direct rate regulation is generally not necessary for non-dominant carriers, and has allowed such carriers to file tariffs on one day's notice without cost support. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.23; see also Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). In addition, non-dominant carriers are required to wait only 30 days before their applications to discontinue, reduce or impair service can be granted, as opposed to a 60-day waiting period for dominant carriers. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • alternatives, and interexchange carrier customers, that cannot, pertains with equal force to the provision of access by incumbent LECs such as Qwest. See id. at 9938, para. 40; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(b). Further, competitive LECs may file tariffs on one-day's notice without cost support but are subject to mandatory detariffing of any rates that exceed the benchmark. 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(c), 61.26(b); see also CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 40. The Commission does not regulate the rates that competitive LECs charge their interexchange carrier customers pursuant to nontariffed arrangements. Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See id. at 19429, para. 25. See Qwest Corporation Tariff FCC No. 1, § 6.8.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.txt
  • with such requirements in the past. Moreover, we propose amending the notice requirements of section 61.58 to add a provision that nondominant carriers who are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3), but choose not to, must file tariffs on at least one days' notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. We seek comment on this proposed modification to our rules and any appropriate alternatives. A number of nondominant carriers operate under a ``doing business as'' or d/b/a name. Such a practice can be confusing to Commission staff and parties searching for tariff documents.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.txt
  • requirements of section 61.58 of our rules to add a provision requiring nondominant carriers that are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3) of the Act, but choose not to file using these statutory time frames, to file tariffs on at least one day's notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. No carriers filed comments objecting to this proposal. To streamline our rules, we adopt this proposal to require all carriers to comply with section 61.58 of the Commission's rules and we delete section 61.23 as duplicative. In the ETFS NPRM, we noted that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99173.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.82 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. The Commission found that this was potentially confusing, and so proposed to redesignate section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99365.doc
  • FCC 2d at 21 (finding that control of bottleneck facilities is ``prima facie'' evidence of market power). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58; Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-187, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2170, 2182, 2188, 2191-92, 2202-03 (1997). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-dominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54 (1995). U S West claims that competitive providers have captured more than 70 percent of the "retail market" for high capacity services. U S West Phoenix Forbearance Petition at 19. SBC states that it has competitive losses for the high capacity market exceeding 25%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292074A1.pdf
  • § 251(a)(1). Additional statutory pricing regulation also applies to what the FCC refers to as dominant carriers. As relevant here, dominant carriers are typically subject to rate-of-return regulation or price caps accompanied by stringent tariff advance filing rules, whereas non-dominant common carriers are not. See id. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); compare 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58 with id. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c).2 Title II was enacted in 1934 in part to regulate monopolistic telephone service, at a time when broadband service obviously was not offered. As Congress and the FCC have recognized, regulation of broadband can pose different issues and challenges than regulation of local telephony. 2 The FCC's so-called Computer Inquiry rules impose nondiscriminatory access and tariffing requirements on telecommunications carriers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • provision which has proven to be virtually impossible to implement, and to encourage amateur stations to experiment with spread spectrum communications technologies. 97.311 (d) 97.5(b)(4) 4/29/11 Eliminate outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international telecommunications traffic. 43.53 43.61 (b) 43.61 (c) 63.23 (e) 7/19/11 Rule revisions enabling all tariff filers to file tariffs electronically over the Internet. 61.21 61.22 61.23 61.32 61.33 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.52(a) 7/20/11 Fairness Doctrine, Personal Attack & Political Editorial Rules. 73.1910 76.209 76.1612 9/9/11 Appendix 38 The Federal Communications Commission | November 7, 2011 Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules Regulations removed (190 as of 11/1/11) CFR Section Effective date in FR 76.1613 Broadcast Flag. 73.8000 73.9000-9009 9/9/11 Cable Programming Service Tier Complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.txt
  • control provision which has proven to be virtually impossible to implement, and to encourage amateur stations to experiment with spread spectrum communications technologies. 97.311(d) 97.5(b)(4) 4/29/11 Eliminated outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international telecommunications traffic. 43.53 43.61 (b) 43.61 (c) 63.23 (e) 7/19/11 Rule revisions enabling all tariff filers to file tariffs electronically over the Internet. 61.21 61.22 61.23 61.32 61.33 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.52(a) 7/20/11 Fairness Doctrine, Personal Attack & Political Editorial Rules. 73.1910 76.209 76.1612 76.1613 9/9/11 Broadcast Flag. 73.8000 73.9000-9009 9/9/11 Cable Programming Service Tier Complaints. 76.950-951 76.953-957 76.960-961 76.1402 76.1605-1606 9/9/11 Part 1, Subpart D Broadcast Applications & Proceedings (duplicative of rules in Part 73). 1.502-615 9/9/11 Required Commission to review the Interstate Cost Recovery
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.txt
  • et seq. (publications filed on paper or diskette). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b) (maximum 120 days notice), 204(a)(3) (seven or fifteen days' notice for local exchange carriers), and 226(h)(1)(A) (``changes in [informational tariff] rates, terms, or conditions shall be filed no later than the first day on which the changed rates, terms, or conditions are in effect''); 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (one day's notice for non-dominant carriers). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.13 et seq., 61.18, et seq., 61.28, et seq., and 61.31, et seq. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C §§ 204(a) (suspension and investigation of tariff publications) and 205(a) (action on unlawful tariff publications). See New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 826 F.2d 1101, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.txt
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.txt
  • § 61.3(q) (``Dominant carrier'' is defined as a ``carrier found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., power to control prices).''). Fifteen days' notice is required for rate increases and changes to terms and conditions and seven days' notice is required for rate decreases. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Carriers, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 1.773(a)(ii). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 21, paras. 57-58. See Competitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d at 558, paras. 7-8. Id. See Motion of AT&T Corp.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long-distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.txt
  • Charge Reform, CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995) (Nondominant Tariff Filing Order). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). Id. § 63.03(b). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202. Id. § 251(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(1). Id. §§ 224, 251(b)(4). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra n.213. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.C.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. § 222(a)-(c), (f). 47 U.S.C. § 222(d)(4), (g). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.txt
  • of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Verizon specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See, e.g., Boston Petition at 3-4 n.3; New York Petition at 4 n.3; Philadelphia Petition at 4 n.3; Pittsburgh Petition at 3-4 n.3; Providence Petition at 3-4 n.3; Virginia Beach Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.D.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.txt
  • 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 2-4. of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Qwest specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See Qwest June 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 4; see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435-36, para. 43. We recognize the strong relationship between the statutory
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.txt
  • for some services on a minimum of seven or fifteen days' notice. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. The Commission has found that direct rate regulation is generally not necessary for non-dominant carriers, and has allowed such carriers to file tariffs on one day's notice without cost support. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.23; see also Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). In addition, non-dominant carriers are required to wait only 30 days before their applications to discontinue, reduce or impair service can be granted, as opposed to a 60-day waiting period for dominant carriers. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • alternatives, and interexchange carrier customers, that cannot, pertains with equal force to the provision of access by incumbent LECs such as Qwest. See id. at 9938, para. 40; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(b). Further, competitive LECs may file tariffs on one-day's notice without cost support but are subject to mandatory detariffing of any rates that exceed the benchmark. 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(c), 61.26(b); see also CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 40. The Commission does not regulate the rates that competitive LECs charge their interexchange carrier customers pursuant to nontariffed arrangements. Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See id. at 19429, para. 25. See Qwest Corporation Tariff FCC No. 1, § 6.8.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.txt
  • with such requirements in the past. Moreover, we propose amending the notice requirements of section 61.58 to add a provision that nondominant carriers who are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3), but choose not to, must file tariffs on at least one days' notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. We seek comment on this proposed modification to our rules and any appropriate alternatives. A number of nondominant carriers operate under a ``doing business as'' or d/b/a name. Such a practice can be confusing to Commission staff and parties searching for tariff documents.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.txt
  • requirements of section 61.58 of our rules to add a provision requiring nondominant carriers that are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3) of the Act, but choose not to file using these statutory time frames, to file tariffs on at least one day's notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. No carriers filed comments objecting to this proposal. To streamline our rules, we adopt this proposal to require all carriers to comply with section 61.58 of the Commission's rules and we delete section 61.23 as duplicative. In the ETFS NPRM, we noted that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99365.doc
  • FCC 2d at 21 (finding that control of bottleneck facilities is ``prima facie'' evidence of market power). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58; Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-187, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2170, 2182, 2188, 2191-92, 2202-03 (1997). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-dominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54 (1995). U S West claims that competitive providers have captured more than 70 percent of the "retail market" for high capacity services. U S West Phoenix Forbearance Petition at 19. SBC states that it has competitive losses for the high capacity market exceeding 25%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292074A1.pdf
  • § 251(a)(1). Additional statutory pricing regulation also applies to what the FCC refers to as dominant carriers. As relevant here, dominant carriers are typically subject to rate-of-return regulation or price caps accompanied by stringent tariff advance filing rules, whereas non-dominant common carriers are not. See id. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); compare 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58 with id. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c).2 Title II was enacted in 1934 in part to regulate monopolistic telephone service, at a time when broadband service obviously was not offered. As Congress and the FCC have recognized, regulation of broadband can pose different issues and challenges than regulation of local telephony. 2 The FCC's so-called Computer Inquiry rules impose nondiscriminatory access and tariffing requirements on telecommunications carriers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • provision which has proven to be virtually impossible to implement, and to encourage amateur stations to experiment with spread spectrum communications technologies. 97.311 (d) 97.5(b)(4) 4/29/11 Eliminate outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international telecommunications traffic. 43.53 43.61 (b) 43.61 (c) 63.23 (e) 7/19/11 Rule revisions enabling all tariff filers to file tariffs electronically over the Internet. 61.21 61.22 61.23 61.32 61.33 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.52(a) 7/20/11 Fairness Doctrine, Personal Attack & Political Editorial Rules. 73.1910 76.209 76.1612 9/9/11 Appendix 38 The Federal Communications Commission | November 7, 2011 Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules Regulations removed (190 as of 11/1/11) CFR Section Effective date in FR 76.1613 Broadcast Flag. 73.8000 73.9000-9009 9/9/11 Cable Programming Service Tier Complaints.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.txt
  • control provision which has proven to be virtually impossible to implement, and to encourage amateur stations to experiment with spread spectrum communications technologies. 97.311(d) 97.5(b)(4) 4/29/11 Eliminated outdated and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international telecommunications traffic. 43.53 43.61 (b) 43.61 (c) 63.23 (e) 7/19/11 Rule revisions enabling all tariff filers to file tariffs electronically over the Internet. 61.21 61.22 61.23 61.32 61.33 61.151 61.152 61.153 61.52(a) 7/20/11 Fairness Doctrine, Personal Attack & Political Editorial Rules. 73.1910 76.209 76.1612 76.1613 9/9/11 Broadcast Flag. 73.8000 73.9000-9009 9/9/11 Cable Programming Service Tier Complaints. 76.950-951 76.953-957 76.960-961 76.1402 76.1605-1606 9/9/11 Part 1, Subpart D Broadcast Applications & Proceedings (duplicative of rules in Part 73). 1.502-615 9/9/11 Required Commission to review the Interstate Cost Recovery
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-421A1.txt
  • et seq. (publications filed on paper or diskette). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b) (maximum 120 days notice), 204(a)(3) (seven or fifteen days' notice for local exchange carriers), and 226(h)(1)(A) (``changes in [informational tariff] rates, terms, or conditions shall be filed no later than the first day on which the changed rates, terms, or conditions are in effect''); 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (one day's notice for non-dominant carriers). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.13 et seq., 61.18, et seq., 61.28, et seq., and 61.31, et seq. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C §§ 204(a) (suspension and investigation of tariff publications) and 205(a) (action on unlawful tariff publications). See New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 826 F.2d 1101, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-84A1.txt
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-132A1.txt
  • § 61.3(q) (``Dominant carrier'' is defined as a ``carrier found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., power to control prices).''). Fifteen days' notice is required for rate increases and changes to terms and conditions and seven days' notice is required for rate decreases. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Carriers, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 1.773(a)(ii). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 21, paras. 57-58. See Competitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d at 558, paras. 7-8. Id. See Motion of AT&T Corp.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long-distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-149A1.txt
  • Charge Reform, CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995) (Nondominant Tariff Filing Order). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). Id. § 63.03(b). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202. Id. § 251(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(1). Id. §§ 224, 251(b)(4). 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.txt
  • and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 10-11, para. 26. Id. at 20, para. 54. Id. at 11, para. 27. Specifically, nondominant carriers generally are not subject to direct rate regulation, are subject to reduced tariff obligations, and are accorded presumptive streamlined treatment under section 214 of the Act. See id. at 30-49, paras. 85-147; see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c), 63.03(b), 63.71(c). See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 22-23, para. 62. With respect to long distance market shares, the Commission found that AT&T had ``significant market power'' in the Message Telecommunications Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS) market and in the private line service market. Id. at 23, paras. 63-64. With respect to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-180A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra n.213. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-184A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.C.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C. § 222(a)-(c), (f). 47 U.S.C. § 222(d)(4), (g). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-212A1.txt
  • of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Verizon specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See, e.g., Boston Petition at 3-4 n.3; New York Petition at 4 n.3; Philadelphia Petition at 4 n.3; Pittsburgh Petition at 3-4 n.3; Providence Petition at 3-4 n.3; Virginia Beach Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-168A1.txt
  • CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, Fifth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14241, para. 40 (1999) (Pricing Flexibility Order) (allowing price cap LECs to file tariffs for new services on one day's notice), aff'd, WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54, paras. 3-4 (1995). 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c). 47 C.F.R. § 63.03(b). See 47 U.S.C. § 271. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1903. 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). See infra part III.D.4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 47 U.S.C. § 225. 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-174A1.txt
  • 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 2-4. of the Act to ensure that rates are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Qwest specifically asks the Commission to forbear from the rules in Subpart E of Part 61; that Subpart applies exclusively to dominant carriers. Compare 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (tariff notice requirements for dominant carriers), with id. § 61.23 (tariff notice requirements for nondominant carriers), § 61.26 (tariffing requirements for competitive interstate switched access services); see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See Qwest June 13, 2008 Ex Parte Letter at 4; see also Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435-36, para. 43. We recognize the strong relationship between the statutory
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-237A1.txt
  • for some services on a minimum of seven or fifteen days' notice. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58. The Commission has found that direct rate regulation is generally not necessary for non-dominant carriers, and has allowed such carriers to file tariffs on one day's notice without cost support. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.23; see also Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-Dominant Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13654, paras. 4-5 (1995). In addition, non-dominant carriers are required to wait only 30 days before their applications to discontinue, reduce or impair service can be granted, as opposed to a 60-day waiting period for dominant carriers. See 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • alternatives, and interexchange carrier customers, that cannot, pertains with equal force to the provision of access by incumbent LECs such as Qwest. See id. at 9938, para. 40; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(b). Further, competitive LECs may file tariffs on one-day's notice without cost support but are subject to mandatory detariffing of any rates that exceed the benchmark. 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(c), 61.26(b); see also CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 40. The Commission does not regulate the rates that competitive LECs charge their interexchange carrier customers pursuant to nontariffed arrangements. Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19435, para. 41. See id. at 19429, para. 25. See Qwest Corporation Tariff FCC No. 1, § 6.8.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-127A1.txt
  • with such requirements in the past. Moreover, we propose amending the notice requirements of section 61.58 to add a provision that nondominant carriers who are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3), but choose not to, must file tariffs on at least one days' notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. We seek comment on this proposed modification to our rules and any appropriate alternatives. A number of nondominant carriers operate under a ``doing business as'' or d/b/a name. Such a practice can be confusing to Commission staff and parties searching for tariff documents.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-92A1.txt
  • requirements of section 61.58 of our rules to add a provision requiring nondominant carriers that are eligible to file pursuant to the streamlining requirements of section 204(a)(3) of the Act, but choose not to file using these statutory time frames, to file tariffs on at least one day's notice. This addition to section 61.58 would permit us to delete section 61.23 as duplicative, and instead require all carriers to comply with the general notice requirements of section 61.58. No carriers filed comments objecting to this proposal. To streamline our rules, we adopt this proposal to require all carriers to comply with section 61.58 of the Commission's rules and we delete section 61.23 as duplicative. In the ETFS NPRM, we noted that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • stayed the rules adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order pending judicial review.17 As a result of the court's ruling, nondominant IXCs remain obligated to file tariffs pursuant to the tariffing rules we sought to eliminate in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order. In addition, because the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order redesignated Sections 61.20 through 61.23 of our rules as Sections 61.21 through 61.24, each of these section numbers will refer to a different rule, depending on the outcome of the pending judicial review. This is potentially confusing. Accordingly, we propose to redesignate the Section 61.20 adopted in the Mandatory Detariffing Second Report and Order, imposing mandatory detariffing on nondominant IXCs, as Section 61.19, as shown
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99365.doc
  • FCC 2d at 21 (finding that control of bottleneck facilities is ``prima facie'' evidence of market power). See 47 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), 204(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58; Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-187, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2170, 2182, 2188, 2191-92, 2202-03 (1997). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.773(a)(ii) and 61.23(c); Tariff Filing Requirements for Non-dominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 93-36, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13653, 13653-54 (1995). U S West claims that competitive providers have captured more than 70 percent of the "retail market" for high capacity services. U S West Phoenix Forbearance Petition at 19. SBC states that it has competitive losses for the high capacity market exceeding 25%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99381.doc
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01084.html
  • F. Supp. at 475-6, 482. Complaint at 2, ¶ 6; Answer at 2, ¶ 6. Answer at 32-33, 34, ¶¶ 13, 16; AT&T Brief at 11. A carrier that has been found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., the power to control prices) is considered ``dominant.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.3(o). All others are classified ``non-dominant.'' Pursuant to section 61.23(c) of the Commission's rules then in effect, ``[a]ll tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one day's notice.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.23(c) (1995). Tariffs for dominant carriers, however, were not effective until 30 days after filing. 47 C.F.R. § 61.59(a) (1995). AT&T Brief at 6. See also Total Telecommunications Services, Inc., and Atlas
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/order1.html
  • 252 of the Act to determine inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic," even where the parties' existing interconnection agreement is silent on the subject. C. Events After the Commission's Reciprocal Compensation Order . On April 14, 1999, Global NAPs filed with this Commission the federal tariff at issue here. Global NAPs filed the Tariff on one day's notice pursuant to section 61.23(c) of our rules. The Tariff purports to charge an interstate rate of $.008 per minute for all ISP-bound calls for which Global NAPs does not receive compensation under an interconnection agreement. Towards that end, the Tariff states: This tariff applies to telecommunications delivered to the Company [i.e., Global NAPs] by a local exchange carrier (the "Delivering LEC") for further delivery