FCC Web Documents citing 61.26

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 203; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. Letter from Rashann R. Duvall, counsel to Verizon, to Alexander P. Starr, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed Dec. 11, 2008) (``Motion''). (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700  € $ $ 0
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf
  • 1934, as amended (``Act''). The Complaint alleges that Northern Valley's interstate switched access service tariff (``Tariff'') violates section 201(b) of the Act, and it requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not ``clear and explicit'' as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.pdf
  • filed with the Commission. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications services throughout the United States. The Tariff at issue in the Order purported to allow Northern Valley to charge IXCs for originating or terminating calls to individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers telecommunications for free. In the Order, the Commission found that the Tariff violated Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and therefore also violated section 201(b) of the Act. Rule 61.26, which is entitled ``Tariffing of competitive [LEC] interstate switched exchange access services,'' requires that tariffed CLEC charges for ``interstate switched exchange access services'' be for services that are the ``functional equivalent'' of ILEC interstate exchange access services. In the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.pdf
  • Qwest Reconsideration Order, we likewise deny Northern Valley's instant Petition and incorporate by reference our holdings and discussion in those orders. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 405, and sections 1.106 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106 and 61.26, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Northern Valley is DISMISSED to the extent indicated and is otherwise DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Petition for Reconsideration of Northern Valley Communications, LLC, File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Aug. 17, 2011) (``Petition''). 47 U.S.C. § 405; 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.pdf
  • Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Counts I, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII. We note that, in these Counts, AT&T raises credible allegations that, inter alia, YMax's switched interstate access charges violate the ``functional equivalent'' standard and the rate-mirroring standard of section 61.26 of the Commission's rules. We also note that we need not, and do not, address issues regarding the intercarrier compensation obligations, if any, associated with Voice over Internet Protocol (``VoIP'') traffic in this Order. ``The Commission has never addressed whether interconnected VoIP is subject to intercarrier compensation rules and, if so, the applicable rate for such traffic,'' and is ``seek[ing]
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.pdf
  • the tariff. As explained below, we find that Northern Valley's tariff is unlawful. As Qwest argues, and Northern Valley does not dispute, Northern Valley's tariff purports to allow Northern Valley to impose tariffed switched access charges on IXCs for calls placed or received by individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers free services. The tariff therefore violates Commission rule 61.26 as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and accordingly also violates section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Qwest's Complaint and direct Northern Valley to revise its tariff within ten days of the date of release of this Order. BACKGROUND The Parties Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications service throughout the United States. Northern Valley
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf
  • Act). In brief, AT&T Texas alleges that, as applied to AT&T Texas, certain provisions in a FeatureGroup IP federal tariff pertaining to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act, because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II). As explained below, we grant Count I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. BACKGROUND Factual Background AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas. FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas. At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection Agreement or Agreement
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2425A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 01-2425 Released: October 18, 2001 Z-Tel Files Petition for Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) Pertaining to CLEC Access Services CCB/CPD File No. 01-19 Pleading Cycle Established COMMENT DATE: November 2, 2001 REPLY COMMENT DATE: November 12, 2001 On August 3, 2001, Z-Tel Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications of Virginia, Inc., (collectively, Z-Tel) filed a petition for waiver of Rule 61.26(d), 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(d), which prohibits competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) from tariffing interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2411A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2411A2.txt
  • 5W ROCHESTER MONROE NY 56.08 173.74 43 6 50N 77 37 15W ROCHESTER MONROE NY 51.51 8.53 40 35 56N 73 45 12W NEWYORK QUEENS NY 46.94 15.24 40 44 30N 73 52 60W NEWYORK QUEENS NY 7.32 42.67 41 59 6N 73 57 56W KINGSTON ULSTER NY 70.1 200.56 41 29 7N 81 41 29W Highland Heights Cuyahoga OH 61.26 209.09 41 27 43N 81 41 51W Tremont Cuyahoga OH 8 Tower Locations That Appear To Require FCC Registration 72.24 198.12 39 21 30N 82 6 24W Rosemount Scioto OH 78.03 354.18 41 16 31N 81 37 28W East Center Summit OH 56.39 263.04 40 4 56N 83 7 44W COLUMBUS FRANKLIN OH 49.68 263.35 40 3 8N 82 25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2691A1.txt
  • Requirements Requirements for tariffing of competitive interstate access services Guidelines for setting rates for components of competitive interstate access services Exemption for competitive interstate access services provided in rural areas 2. Internet Links Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, FCC 04-110, Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed By Competitive Local Exchange Carriers 47 C.F.R. § 61.26 Compliance Requirements General Objective The primary objective of the rules governing the access charges of competitive local exchange carriers is to ensure that such charges are just and reasonable in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 201(b)). Important Definitions Local Exchange Carrier (47 U.S.C. § 153(26)) The term ``local exchange carrier'' means any person that is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3652A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 04-3652 Released: November 24, 2004 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR PETITION OF PRAIRIEWAVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR WAIVER OF CLEC ACCESS CHARGE RULES CC Docket No. 96-262 COMMENTS DUE: December 17, 2004 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: January 7, 2005 On November 12, 2004, PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. (PrairieWave) filed a Petition for Waiver of sections 61.26(b) and 61.26(c) of the Commission's rules to permit it to tariff rates for interstate switched access services consistent with its costs. Sections 61.26(b) and 61.26(c) of the Commission's rules generally provide that a competitive LEC may not tariff interstate access charges above the rate charged for such services by the competing incumbent LEC. PrairieWave completed a forward-looking economic cost study
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3909A1.txt
  • D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Access Charge Reform Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-262 PROTECTIVE ORDER Adopted: December 14, 2004 Released: December 14, 2004 By the Chief, Pricing Policy Division: On November 12, 2004, PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. (PrairieWave) filed a Petition for Waiver of sections 61.26(b) and 61.26(c) of the Commission's rules to permit it to tariff cost-based rates for interstate switched access services. PrairieWave requested confidential treatment for certain information filed with its waiver petition. In response, the Bureau issues the following Protective Order. This Protective Order is intended to facilitate and expedite the review of documents containing trade secrets and commercial or financial information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-936A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 04-936 Released: April 2, 2004 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR PETITION OF SOUTHEAST TELEPHONE INC. FOR WAIVER OF CLEC ACCESS CHARGE RULES CC Docket No. 96-262 COMMENTS DUE: April 23, 2004 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: May 3, 2004 On March 30, 2004, Southeast Telephone, Inc. (Southeast) filed a Petition for Waiver of section 61.26(a)(6) of the Commission's rules to permit it to serve customers in metropolitan locations and maintain its eligibility for the ``rural exemption'' described in section 61.26(e) of the Commission's rules. Section 61.26(a)(6) of the Commission's rules defines a ``rural CLEC'' as ``a CLEC that does not serve (i.e., terminate traffic to or originate traffic from) any end users located within either:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.txt
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 203; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. Letter from Rashann R. Duvall, counsel to Verizon, to Alexander P. Starr, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed Dec. 11, 2008) (``Motion''). (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700  € $ $ 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-72A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Petition of Northern Telephone & Data Corp. for Waiver of Section 61.26(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 09-216 ORDER Adopted: January 13, 2010 Released: January 13, 2010 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Order, we deny a waiver petition filed by Northern Telephone & Data Corp. (NTD) because it fails to allege or show any of the criteria necessary to establish
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-298A1.txt
  • ILEC access service, and therefore entitled to charge the full `benchmark' rate level, whenever it is providing telephone numbers and some portion of the interconnection with the PSTN, and regardless of how or by whom the last-mile transmission is provided.'' Stated differently, YMax seeks guidance from the Commission as to whether the revised rule language in Part 61, specifically, section 61.26(f) permits a competitive LEC to tariff and charge the full benchmark rate even if it includes functions that neither it nor its VoIP retail partner are actually providing. YMax asserts that the purpose of the Commission's revisions to section 61.26(f) was to ``defin[e] the minimum access functionality necessary in order for a CLEC to be allowed to collect access charges
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213228A1.txt
  • first sentence of paragraph 28 is revised to read, ``Tariffs require IXCs to pay . . . . '' The first sentence of paragraph 82 is revised to read, ``As previously indicated, we conclude that a CLEC . . . .'' The first sentence of paragraph 143 is revised to read, ``This proceeding will continue . . . .'' Section 61.26(a) of the final rules in Appendix B is revised by replacing ``paragraph'' with ``section.'' Section 61.26(b) of the final rules in Appendix B is revised to read, ``Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section, a CLEC . . . .'' Section 61.26(b)(2)(i) of the final rules in Appendix B is revised to read, ``The benchmark rate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217195A1.txt
  • (202) 418-0484 TTY. CC 99-200; PN 10/17/01; DA 01-2419 The Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on the National Thousands-Block Number Pooling Rollout Schedule. The Commission seeks comment on the above-captioned proceeding. Comments due November 6; replies due November 16. Contact: Sanford Williams at (202) 418-2320 (voice), (202) 418-0484 TTY. PN 10/18/01; DA 01-2425 Z-Tel Petition for Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) Pertaining to CLEC Access Services CCB/CPD File No. 01-19. On August 3, 2001, Z-Tel Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications of Virginia, Inc. filed a petition for Waiver of Rule 61.26(d), 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(d) that prohibits competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) from tariffing interstate access services at rates higher than those charged by the competing incumbent LEC in a metropolitan
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217358A1.txt
  • (202) 418-0484 TTY. CC 99-200; PN 10/17/01; DA 01-2419 The Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on the National Thousands-Block Number Pooling Rollout Schedule. The Commission seeks comment on the above-captioned proceeding. Comments due November 6; replies due November 16. Contact: Sanford Williams at (202) 418-2320 (voice), (202) 418-0484 TTY. PN 10/18/01; DA 01-2425 Z-Tel Petition for Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) Pertaining to CLEC Access Services CCB/CPD File No. 01-19. On August 3, 2001, Z-Tel Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications of Virginia, Inc. filed a petition for Waiver of Rule 61.26(d), 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(d) that prohibits competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) from tariffing interstate access services at rates higher than those charged by the competing incumbent LEC in a metropolitan
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246980A1.txt
  • CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau will present a progress report on number portability implementation. 2 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: Access Charge Reform (CC Docket No. 96-262); Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers; and Petition of Z-tel Communications, Inc. for Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider an Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration concerning amendments to and clarification of the rules governing the tariffing of interstate switched exchange access services provided by competitive LECs. 3 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250449A1.txt
  • Register). See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. ________________________________________________________________________ ______ Subject: In the Matter of Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers; Petition of Z-Tel Communications, Inc., for Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CC Docket No. 96-262) NUMBER OF PETITIONS FILED: 1 Marlene H. Dortch, B " Ã A B I J K L M B K M j k l m € " ­ (R) ¯ ° ² ³ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º " M h i j k
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261167A1.txt
  • meters ANTENNA ID: AVL-12MUSA 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W 61.92 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 7M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 7M00D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Points of Communication: ENG-9 - PERMITTED LIST - () E050261 SES-LIC-20050916-01265E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Authority State of Nevada EZ Nature of Service:Fixed Satellite Service Page 3 of 7
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262218A1.txt
  • 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W 61.92 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 7M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 7M00D7W Page 1 of 14 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Points of Communication: ENG-9 - PERMITTED LIST - () E050261 SES-LIC-20050916-01265E Date Effective: Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Authority State of Nevada Nature of Service:Fixed Satellite Service 39 ° 9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 19941995199619971998199920002001200220032004 22005 3 New Mexico Alamogordo 31.96 31.96 31.86 31.86 31.86 31.86 30.00 31.99 32.01 32.01 32.09 32.27 New York Binghamton 62.42 62.71 62.59 62.47 62.41 62.41 57.13 61.53 55.00 61.61 63.32 63.18 New York Buffalo 64.13 63.83 63.71 63.59 63.53 63.53 58.17 62.57 55.00 62.68 64.56 64.42 New York Massena 62.63 62.34 62.22 62.10 62.05 62.05 57.33 61.18 55.00 61.26 62.50 62.63 New York New York 64.58 64.29 64.02 63.90 63.84 63.84 58.32 62.47 55.00 62.62 64.60 64.53 New York Ogdensburg 64.39 64.09 63.97 63.85 63.79 63.79 57.33 62.83 55.00 62.91 64.42 64.28 New York Rochester 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 North Carolina Raleigh 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 42.75 44.03 45.32
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266998A1.txt
  • 161KG1W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E060318 SES-LIC-20060816-01376E Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority The Curators of the University of Missouri Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: 1 CONUS - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI, VARIOUS LOCATION: AVL TECHNOLOGIES 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 1200K DSNG DIGITAL COMPRESSED VIDEO 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00G7F 61.26 dBW DIGITAL COMPRESSED VIDEO CARRIER 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00G7F Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E060319 SES-LIC-20060816-01391E Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority Mammoth Recreations Inc. EZ Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: 1 (MAMMOTH) LOCATION: ADVENT KU Sat 1.5 meters ANTENNA ID: NewsSwift 1.5M SNG 67.50 dBW One digital carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267506A1.txt
  • Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority WTVD TELEVISION, LLC EZ Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service Page 5 of 10 SITE ID: UNIT5 LOCATION: AVL 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 1200K DSNG 60.88 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 5M50D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Points of Communication: UNIT5 -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267622A1.txt
  • E060318 SES-LIC-20060816-01376E Date Effective: 09/25/2006 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Grant of Authority 09/25/2006 - 09/25/2021 Application for Authority The Curators of the University of Missouri Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: 1 CONUS - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI, VARIOUS LOCATION: AVL TECHNOLOGIES 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 1200K DSNG DIGITAL COMPRESSED VIDEO 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00G7F 61.26 dBW DIGITAL COMPRESSED VIDEO CARRIER 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00G7F Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E060319 SES-LIC-20060816-01391E Date Effective: 09/25/2006 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Grant of Authority 09/25/2006 - 09/25/2021 Application for Authority MAMMOTH RECREATIONS, INC. Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: 1 (MAMMOTH) LOCATION: ADVENT KU Sat 1.5 meters ANTENNA ID:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268284A1.txt
  • Station Grant of Authority 10/25/2006 - 10/25/2021 Application for Authority WTVD TELEVISION, LLC EZ Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: UNIT5 LOCATION: AVL 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 1200K DSNG 60.88 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 5M50D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Points of Communication: UNIT5 -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276423A1.txt
  • Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority Gray Television Licensee, Inc. EZ Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: ENG-1 LOCATION: AVL 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: AVL-12MUSA 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W 60.88 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Page 1 of 6 Points
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277412A1.txt
  • 10/11/2007 - 10/11/2022 Application for Authority Gray Television Licensee, Inc. Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: ENG-1 VARIOUS LOCATION: Page 1 of 22 AVL 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: AVL-12MUSA 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W 60.88 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Points of Communication: ENG-1 -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 31.96 31.96 31.86 31.86 31.86 31.86 30.00 31.99 32.01 32.01 32.09 32.27 33.60 33.49 New York Binghamton 62.42 62.71 62.59 62.47 62.41 62.41 57.13 61.53 55.00 61.61 63.32 63.18 63.06 63.18 New York Buffalo 64.13 63.83 63.71 63.59 63.53 63.53 58.17 62.57 55.00 62.68 64.56 64.42 64.51 64.63 New York Massena 62.63 62.34 62.22 62.10 62.05 62.05 57.33 61.18 55.00 61.26 62.50 62.63 62.71 62.83 New York New York 64.58 64.29 64.02 63.90 63.84 63.84 58.32 62.47 55.00 62.62 64.60 64.53 64.53 64.58 New York Ogdensburg 64.39 64.09 63.97 63.85 63.79 63.79 57.33 62.83 55.00 62.91 64.42 64.28 64.36 64.48 New York Rochester 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 38.01 North Carolina Raleigh 44.03
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287377A1.pdf
  • On the merits, this petition must be viewed in light of a decade-long FCC process aimed at ensuring competition in the telecommunications market between those carriers in exis- tence at the time of the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ILECs, and the newcomers entering the mar- ket after that enactment, the CLECs. See47 U.S.C. §251(h); 47 C.F.R. §61.26(a)(1). That process culminated in the Trien- nial Review Remand Order of 2005 ("TRRO"), in which, after full notice and comment, the FCC required CLECs to end their dependence on unbundled services provided by the older, better established ILECs. Prior to the TRRO, Fones4All 16487 FONES4ALL CORP. v. FCC Case: 06-75388 12/16/2008 Page: 3 of 19 DktEntry: 6740117 had contracts to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.txt
  • Hoc BayRing CTSI, Inc. Cox e.spire Communications, Inc., KMC Telecom, Inc., Talk.com Holding Corp. and XO Communications, Inc. Eschelon FairPoint Focal and Winstar Minnesota CLEC Consortium RICA Sprint Z-Tel APPENDIX B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Part 61, Subpart C, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended by adding section 61.26 as follows: 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange access services. Definitions. For purposes of this section 61.26, the following definitions shall apply: ``CLEC'' shall mean a provider of interstate exchange access services that does not fall within the definition of ``incumbent local exchange carrier'' in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h). ``Competing ILEC'' shall mean the incumbent local exchange carrier, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.txt
  • $0.900 Standard error 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 No. of satellite channels 46.61 44.38 42.89 33.75 25.29 Standard error 0.68 0.77 0.71 1.23 1.63 Rate per satellite channel $0.711 $0.735 $.0.764 $1.019 $1.211 Standard error 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 July 1, 1999 Programming total $30.68 $29.75 $29.72 $29.68 $26.34 Standard error 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.33 0.83 Number of channels 61.26 57.64 53.20 41.54 32.24 Standard error 0.87 0.95 0.82 1.29 1.67 Rate per channel † $0.508 $0.531 $0.579 $0.759 $0.870 Standard error 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 † Equals the number of channels divided by the monthly rate for programming. This average cannot be computed using the numbers in this Attachment, because the number of channels and the monthly rate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-323A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd at 16094-96, paras. 263 and 265. See 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(1). See also, e.g., Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC; Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). CALLS Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 12979, para. 42. See Petition at 35-36; 47 U.S.C. § 254(g). See 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(2). See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(c). CLECs competing against Iowa Telecom currently can charge access rates no greater than 1.8 cents per minute, and they will reach Iowa Telecom's rate level no later than June 20, 2004. See Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96-262, Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9923 (2001). See Access Charge Reform Order, 12
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ~ Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Access Charge Reform Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Petition of Z-Tel Communications, Inc. For Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-262 CCB/CPD File No. 01-19 EIGHTH REPORT AND ORDER AND FIFTH ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: May 13, 2004 Released: May 18, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell issuing a statement. Table of Contents Paragraph
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A2.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Statement of Chairman Michael K. Powell Re: In the Matter of Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Petition of Z-Tel Communications, Inc. For Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket 96-262 Today's Order removes a regulatory quirk that has for too long led carriers into regulatory arbitrage schemes. It represents the culmination of our efforts, begun in 2001, to quiet the financial and regulatory uncertainty for both competitive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-252A1.txt
  • Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers, Fourteenth Report and Order, Twenty-Second Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-45, and Report and Order in CC Docket No. 00-256, 16 FCC Rcd 11244, 11327, para. 211 (2001) (Rural Task Force Order). 47 C.F.R. § 54.305. (describing proposals by Western Wireless). 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(e). A ``rural CLEC'' is defined as a competitive LEC ``that does not serve (i.e., terminate traffic to or originate traffic from) any end users located within either: (i) Any incorporated place of 50,000 inhabitants or more . . . or (ii) [a]n urbanized area, as defined by the Census Bureau.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(a)(6). For example,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.txt
  • Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 96-262, Seventh Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9923 (2001) (``CLEC Access Charge Order'') (establishing benchmark rates for CLEC access charges), recon., Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Petition of Z-Tel Communications, Inc. For Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas, CC Docket No. 96-262 and CCB/CPD File No. 01-19, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (2004) (CLEC Access Charge Recon. Order); see also Petitions of Sprint PCS and AT&T Corp. For Declaratory Ruling Regarding CMRS Access Charges, WT Docket No. 01-316, Declaratory
• 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
  • contemplate imposing incumbent LEC status on more than one carrier in an area). Although we only address dominant carrier regulation in this Order, we explicitly state that this Order does not prejudge a future Qwest request for forbearance from additional regulation. This would include the interstate switched exchange access benchmark, among other requirements, pending further action. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. See Mid-Rivers Petition at 3; Notice, 19 FCC Rcd at 23078, para. 14 n.50; Mid-Rivers July 25, 2006 Ex Parte Letter. See Mid-Rivers Petition at 3. See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat.
• 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
  • effectively unable either to pass through access charges to their end users or to create other incentives for end users to choose LECs with low access rates, the party causing the costs - the end user that chooses the high-priced LEC - has no incentive to minimize costs. As a result, the Commission imposed a permissive detariffing regime through section 61.26 that permits the filing of tariffs on one day's notice without cost support (and presumes the access charges that competitive LECs charge their carrier customers to be just and reasonable) where the rates are at or below a benchmark that is ``the rate of the competing ILEC.'' Competitive LECs are subject to mandatory detariffing of any rates that exceed that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-176A1.txt
  • lower, than the prescribed rate of return that incumbent LECs are allowed to earn under rate-of-return regulation. Price cap LECs are not subject to complaints for excess earnings. Price cap LECs file access tariffs annually to become effective on July 1. Competitive local exchange carriers. Competitive LECs are considered nondominant carriers and are thus subject to minimal rate regulation. Section 61.26 allows competitive LECs to tariff interstate access charges if the charges are no higher than the rate charged for such services by the competing incumbent LEC (the benchmarking rule). The Commission established an exemption for rural competitive LECs competing against non-rural incumbent LECs, pursuant to which rural competitive LECs may file tariffs provided that their rates are no higher than
• 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
  • 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 at 3-4 n.3 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.03,
• 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
  • 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 forbearance criteria and the Commission's dominance analysis, particularly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-197A1.txt
  • Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 08-162 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: August 27, 2008 Released: August 27, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring and issuing separate statements. INTRODUCTION In this Order, we deny a petition filed by OrbitCom, Inc. (OrbitCom) requesting that the Commission forbear from tariff regulations set forth in sections 61.26(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules. OrbitCom's petition fails to address in any manner the statutory criteria for a grant of forbearance or to provide any showing that those criteria are met by its request. Accordingly, we deny the petition. Background On August 27, 2007, OrbitCom filed its one page petition seeking forbearance from tariff regulations set forth in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.txt
  • IXCs will have a constraining effect on non-incumbent LEC pricing.'' Id. at 16141, para. 362. This reliance on a market-based approach proved misplaced. In subsequent years, competitive LECs, instead of reducing access charges, frequently raised them above the regulated rates of incumbent LECs. As a result, the Commission was forced to regulate competitive LEC access charges. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26; Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 96-262, Seventh Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9923, 9924, paras. 1-3 (2001) (CLEC Access Charge Order) (establishing benchmark rates for competitive LEC access charges), recon., Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Petition of Z-Tel Commc'ns Inc.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-49A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit p Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Access Charge Reform PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. Petition for Waiver of Sections 61.26(b) and (c) or in the Alternative Section 61.26(a)(6) of the Commission's Rules SouthEast Telephone, Inc. Petition for Waiver of Section 61.26(a)(6) of the Commission's Rules Cox Communications, Inc. Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-262 ORDER Adopted: February 12, 2008 Released: February 14,
• 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
  • the CLEC Access Charge Reform Order concerned rates for access charged by competitive LECs rather than incumbents, the distinction made there between end-user customers, that may choose among competitive 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
• 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
  • the amount of traffic priced at each rate, with respect to calls for which operator services are provided. Any changes in such 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 U.S.C. § 226(h)(1)(A). See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.709. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. In 1997, the Commission released an order establishing permissive detariffing for non-incumbent LEC providers of interstate exchange access services and sought comment on the mandatory detariffing of such services. Hyperion Telecommunications, Inc. Petition Requesting Forbearance, CC Docket No. 97-146, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 8596 (1997) (Hyperion Order). The Commission took no further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.txt
  • 1934, as amended (``Act''). The Complaint alleges that Northern Valley's interstate switched access service tariff (``Tariff'') violates section 201(b) of the Act, and it requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not ``clear and explicit'' as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.txt
  • sharing occurs when a rate-of-return ILEC or a CLEC enters into an access revenue sharing agreement that will result in a net payment to the other party (including affiliates) to the access revenue sharing agreement, over the course of the agreement. A rate-of-return ILEC or a CLEC meeting this trigger is subject to revised interstate switched access charge rules. Section 61.26 is amended by revising subsections (b), (d) and (e) and adding new paragraph (g) as follows: § 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange access services. * * * * * (b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of this section, a CLEC shall not file a tariff for its interstate switched exchange access services that prices
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.txt
  • filed with the Commission. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications services throughout the United States. The Tariff at issue in the Order purported to allow Northern Valley to charge IXCs for originating or terminating calls to individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers telecommunications for free. In the Order, the Commission found that the Tariff violated Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and therefore also violated section 201(b) of the Act. Rule 61.26, which is entitled ``Tariffing of competitive [LEC] interstate switched exchange access services,'' requires that tariffed CLEC charges for ``interstate switched exchange access services'' be for services that are the ``functional equivalent'' of ILEC interstate exchange access services. In the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • terminating intrastate switched access service above the rate for such service in effect on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (2) In the case of Competitive LEC operating in an area served by an incumbent local exchange carrier that is a Rate-of-Return Carrier or Competitive LECs that are subject to the rural exemption in §61.26(e) of this chapter, no such Competitive LEC may increase the rate for any originating or terminating intrastate switched access service above the rate for such service in effect on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], with the exception of intrastate originating access service. For such Competitive LECs, intrastate originating access service subject to this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.txt
  • Qwest Reconsideration Order, we likewise deny Northern Valley's instant Petition and incorporate by reference our holdings and discussion in those orders. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 405, and sections 1.106 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106 and 61.26, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Northern Valley is DISMISSED to the extent indicated and is otherwise DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Petition for Reconsideration of Northern Valley Communications, LLC, File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Aug. 17, 2011) (``Petition''). 47 U.S.C. § 405; 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.txt
  • Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Counts I, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII. We note that, in these Counts, AT&T raises credible allegations that, inter alia, YMax's switched interstate access charges violate the ``functional equivalent'' standard and the rate-mirroring standard of section 61.26 of the Commission's rules. We also note that we need not, and do not, address issues regarding the intercarrier compensation obligations, if any, associated with Voice over Internet Protocol (``VoIP'') traffic in this Order. ``The Commission has never addressed whether interconnected VoIP is subject to intercarrier compensation rules and, if so, the applicable rate for such traffic,'' and is ``seek[ing]
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.txt
  • the tariff. As explained below, we find that Northern Valley's tariff is unlawful. As Qwest argues, and Northern Valley does not dispute, Northern Valley's tariff purports to allow Northern Valley to impose tariffed switched access charges on IXCs for calls placed or received by individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers free services. The tariff therefore violates Commission rule 61.26 as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and accordingly also violates section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Qwest's Complaint and direct Northern Valley to revise its tariff within ten days of the date of release of this Order. BACKGROUND The Parties Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications service throughout the United States. Northern Valley
• 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
  • for dial-around 1+ services, for customers that have contacted them to change their primary interexchange carrier, for international inbound collect calls, and for ``on demand'' Mobile Satellite Services). For example, domestic operator service providers (OSPs) must file informational tariffs pursuant to the Act and the Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. § 226(h); 47 C.F.R. § 64.709. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.20-.23. ``The tariff must be submitted on a 3 ½ inch (8.89 cm) diskette, or a 5 inch CD-ROM, formatted in an IBM-compatible form using either WordPerfect 5.1, Microsoft Word 6, or Microsoft Word 97 software.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.22(a). ETFS NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 9517, para. 7. Id. at 9517, para. 8. Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.txt
  • Act). In brief, AT&T Texas alleges that, as applied to AT&T Texas, certain provisions in a FeatureGroup IP federal tariff pertaining to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act, because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II). As explained below, we grant Count I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. BACKGROUND Factual Background AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas. FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas. At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection Agreement or Agreement
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Communications Corp. d/b/a FeatureGroup IP, File No. EB-11-MD-008 (filed Nov. 10, 2011) (FeatureGroup IP Reply Brief). 1735 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act,2because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II).3As explained below, we grantCount I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 2. AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas.4 FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas.5At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection Agreement or Agreement
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • Hoc BayRing CTSI, Inc. Cox e.spire Communications, Inc., KMC Telecom, Inc., Talk.com Holding Corp. and XO Communications, Inc. Eschelon FairPoint Focal and Winstar Minnesota CLEC Consortium RICA Sprint Z-Tel APPENDIX B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Part 61, Subpart C, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended by adding section 61.26 as follows: 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange access services. Definitions. For purposes of this paragraph 61.26, the following definitions shall apply: ``CLEC'' shall mean a provider of interstate exchange access services that does not fall within the definition of ``incumbent local exchange carrier'' in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h). ``Competing ILEC'' shall mean the incumbent local exchange carrier, as
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2700A1.html
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25, 2008) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201, 203; 47 C.F.R. S: 61.26. Letter from Rashann R. Duvall, counsel to Verizon, to Alexander P. Starr, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed Dec. 11, 2008) ("Motion"). (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Complaint alleges that Northern Valley's interstate switched access service tariff ("Tariff") violates section 201(b) of the Act, and it requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-148A1.html
  • with the Commission. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications services throughout the United States. The Tariff at issue in the Order purported to allow Northern Valley to charge IXCs for originating or terminating calls to individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers telecommunications for free. 4. In the Order, the Commission found that the Tariff violated Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and therefore also violated section 201(b) of the Act. Rule 61.26, which is entitled "Tariffing of competitive [LEC] interstate switched exchange access services," requires that tariffed CLEC charges for "interstate switched exchange access services" be for services that are the "functional equivalent" of ILEC interstate exchange access services. In the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-170A1.html
  • Reconsideration Order, we likewise deny Northern Valley's instant Petition and incorporate by reference our holdings and discussion in those orders. III. ORDERING CLAUSE 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 405, and sections 1.106 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.106 and 61.26, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Northern Valley is DISMISSED to the extent indicated and is otherwise DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Petition for Reconsideration of Northern Valley Communications, LLC, File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Aug. 17, 2011) ("Petition"). 47 U.S.C. S: 405; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Counts I, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII. We note that, in these Counts, AT&T raises credible allegations that, inter alia, YMax's switched interstate access charges violate the "functional equivalent" standard and the rate-mirroring standard of section 61.26 of the Commission's rules. We also note that we need not, and do not, address issues regarding the intercarrier compensation obligations, if any, associated with Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") traffic in this Order. "The Commission has never addressed whether interconnected VoIP is subject to intercarrier compensation rules and, if so, the applicable rate for such traffic," and is "seek[ing]
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-87A1.html
  • tariff. 2. As explained below, we find that Northern Valley's tariff is unlawful. As Qwest argues, and Northern Valley does not dispute, Northern Valley's tariff purports to allow Northern Valley to impose tariffed switched access charges on IXCs for calls placed or received by individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers free services. The tariff therefore violates Commission rule 61.26 as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and accordingly also violates section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Qwest's Complaint and direct Northern Valley to revise its tariff within ten days of the date of release of this Order. II. BACKGROUND A. The Parties 3. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications service throughout the United
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • Act). In brief, AT&T Texas alleges that, as applied to AT&T Texas, certain provisions in a FeatureGroup IP federal tariff pertaining to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act, because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II). As explained below, we grant Count I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 2. AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas. FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas. At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • Hoc BayRing CTSI, Inc. Cox e.spire Communications, Inc., KMC Telecom, Inc., Talk.com Holding Corp. and XO Communications, Inc. Eschelon FairPoint Focal and Winstar Minnesota CLEC Consortium RICA Sprint Z-Tel APPENDIX B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Part 61, Subpart C, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended by adding section 61.26 as follows: 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange access services. Definitions. For purposes of this paragraph 61.26, the following definitions shall apply: ``CLEC'' shall mean a provider of interstate exchange access services that does not fall within the definition of ``incumbent local exchange carrier'' in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h). ``Competing ILEC'' shall mean the incumbent local exchange carrier, as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 19931994199519961997199819992000200120022003 220043 New Mexico Alamogordo 31.86 31.96 31.96 31.86 31.86 31.86 31.86 30.00 31.99 32.01 32.01 32.09 New York Binghamton 62.48 62.42 62.71 62.59 62.47 62.41 62.41 57.13 61.53 55.00 61.61 61.61 New York Buffalo 64.19 64.13 63.83 63.71 63.59 63.53 63.53 58.17 62.57 55.00 62.68 62.68 New York Massena 62.69 62.63 62.34 62.22 62.10 62.05 62.05 57.33 61.18 55.00 61.26 61.26 New York New York 64.64 64.58 64.29 64.02 63.90 63.84 63.84 58.32 62.47 55.00 62.62 62.62 New York Ogdensburg 64.46 64.39 64.09 63.97 63.85 63.79 63.79 57.33 62.83 55.00 62.91 62.91 New York Rochester 47.01 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 North Carolina Raleigh 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 42.75 44.03 45.32
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2001/dd011018.html
  • Communications Commission 445 12th St., SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Vol. 20 No. 203 News media information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 202/418-2555 October 18, 2001 __________________________________________________________________ THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Released: 10/18/2001. TARIFF TRANSMITTALS PUBLIC REFERENCE LOG. CCB [1]DOC-216985A1.pdf [2]DOC-216985A1.txt Released: 10/18/2001. Z-TEL PETITION FOR WAIVER OF COMMISSION RULE 61.26(D) PERTAINING TO CLEC ACCESS SERVICES CCB/CPD FILE NO. 01-19. (DA No. 01-2425) Pleading Cycle Established. Comments Due: 11/02/2001. Reply Comments Due: 11/12/2001. CCB. Contact: Anna Curtis at (202) 418-1520, TTY: (202) 418-0484 [3]DA-01-2425A1.doc [4]DA-01-2425A1.pdf [5]DA-01-2425A1.txt Released: 10/18/2001. CORE COMMUNICATIONS FILES PETITION FOR WAIVER OF THE COMMISSION'S GROWTH CAP AND NEW MARKET RULES PERTAINING TO INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION FOR ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC CCB/CPD
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/dd040519.html
  • ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TELENOR SATELLITE SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC. Granted Telenor Satellite, Inc.'s Requests with conditions. Action by: Chief, Satellite Systems Analysis Branch, Satellite Division, International Bureau. Adopted: 05/18/2004 by LETTER. (DA No. 04-1391). IB [76]DA-04-1391A1.pdf [77]DA-04-1391A1.txt ACCESS CHARGE REFORM/REFORM OF ACCESS CHARGES IMPOSED BY COMPETITIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS/PETITION OF Z-TEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR TEMPORARY WAIVER OF COMMISSION RULE 61.26(D) TO FACILITATE DEPLOYMENT OF COMPETITIVE SERVICE IN CERTAIN. Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The FCC clarified rules governing interstate access services provided by competitive local exchange carriers to interexchange carriers (IXCs). By Eighth R&O and FifthOrder on Reconsideration. (Dkt No. 96-262). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 05/13/2004 by ORDER. (FCC No. 04-110). WCB [78]FCC-04-110A1.doc [79]FCC-04-110A2.doc [80]FCC-04-110A1.pdf [81]FCC-04-110A2.pdf [82]FCC-04-110A1.txt [83]FCC-04-110A2.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247374A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/dd040827.html
  • Issued Order to Show Cause why its license should not be modified to specify operation as a Class C0 station on Channel 248C0, Tulsa, Oklahoma. (Dkt No. RM-11064). Action by: Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. Comments Due: 10/12/2004. Adopted: 08/25/2004 by Order to Show Cause. (DA No. 04-2669). MB [270]DA-04-2669A1.doc [271]DA-04-2669A1.pdf [272]DA-04-2669A1.txt SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE GUIDE FOR 47 C.F.R. 61.26 - TARIFFING OF COMPETITIVE INTERSTATE SWITCHED EXCHANGE ACCESS SERVICE. (Dkt No. 96-262) by Compliance guide. (DA No. 04-2691). OCBO , WCB. Contact Allan Manuel at (202) 418-1164 [273]DA-04-2691A1.doc [274]DA-04-2691A1.pdf [275]DA-04-2691A1.txt ERRATUM - UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND. Issued Erratum correcting Order Granting Extension of Time,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd080828.html
  • REPORT ON THE STATUS OF TV BROADCASTERS AT THE FINAL SIX MONTHS OF THE DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION. August 18, 2008. Action by: Chief, Media Bureau by REPORT. MB [95]DOC-284765A1.doc [96]DOC-284765A1.pdf [97]DOC-284765A1.txt PETITION OF ORBITCOM, INC. FOR FORBEARANCE FROM CLEC ACCESS CHARGE RULES. Denied the Petition filed by OrbitCom requesting that the Commission forbear from tariff regulations set forth in sections 61.26(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules. (Dkt No. 08-162). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 08/27/2008 by MO&O. (FCC No. 08-197). WCB [98]FCC-08-197A1.doc [99]FCC-08-197A2.doc [100]FCC-08-197A3.doc [101]FCC-08-197A1.pdf [102]FCC-08-197A2.pdf [103]FCC-08-197A3.pdf [104]FCC-08-197A1.txt [105]FCC-08-197A2.txt [106]FCC-08-197A3.txt SACRED WIND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND QWEST CORPORATION. Granted the request from Sacred Wind Communications, Inc. (Sacred Wind) to extend the timing of the waiver of sections 36.611 and 36.612 of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2010/dd100114.html
  • AN EVOLVING MEDIA LANDSCAPE. Extended to February 24,2010 and March 26, 2010, respectively for filing comments and reply comments in response to NOI. (Dkt No. 09-194 ). Action by: Chief, Media Bureau. Comments Due: 02/24/2010. Reply Comments Due: 03/26/2010. Adopted: 01/13/2010 by ORDER. (DA No. 10-70). MB [49]DA-10-70A1.doc [50]DA-10-70A1.pdf [51]DA-10-70A1.txt PETITION OF NORTHERN TELEPHONE & DATA CORP.FOR WAIVER OF SECTION 61.26(B)(1) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Denied the Petition for Waiver. Action by: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 01/13/2010 by ORDER. (DA No. 10-72). WCB [52]DA-10-72A1.doc [53]DA-10-72A1.pdf [54]DA-10-72A1.txt CBEYOND, INC. PETITION FOR EXPEDITED RULEMAKING TO REQUIRE UNBUNDLING OF HYBRID, FTTH, AND FTTC LOOPS PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. SECTION 251(C)(3) OF THE ACT. Issued a Protective Order in this proceeding. (Dkt No. 09-223
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2700A1.html
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25, 2008) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201, 203; 47 C.F.R. S: 61.26. Letter from Rashann R. Duvall, counsel to Verizon, to Alexander P. Starr, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed Dec. 11, 2008) ("Motion"). (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Complaint alleges that Northern Valley's interstate switched access service tariff ("Tariff") violates section 201(b) of the Act, and it requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-148A1.html
  • with the Commission. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications services throughout the United States. The Tariff at issue in the Order purported to allow Northern Valley to charge IXCs for originating or terminating calls to individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers telecommunications for free. 4. In the Order, the Commission found that the Tariff violated Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and therefore also violated section 201(b) of the Act. Rule 61.26, which is entitled "Tariffing of competitive [LEC] interstate switched exchange access services," requires that tariffed CLEC charges for "interstate switched exchange access services" be for services that are the "functional equivalent" of ILEC interstate exchange access services. In the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-170A1.html
  • Reconsideration Order, we likewise deny Northern Valley's instant Petition and incorporate by reference our holdings and discussion in those orders. III. ORDERING CLAUSE 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 405, and sections 1.106 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.106 and 61.26, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Northern Valley is DISMISSED to the extent indicated and is otherwise DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Petition for Reconsideration of Northern Valley Communications, LLC, File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Aug. 17, 2011) ("Petition"). 47 U.S.C. S: 405; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Counts I, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII. We note that, in these Counts, AT&T raises credible allegations that, inter alia, YMax's switched interstate access charges violate the "functional equivalent" standard and the rate-mirroring standard of section 61.26 of the Commission's rules. We also note that we need not, and do not, address issues regarding the intercarrier compensation obligations, if any, associated with Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") traffic in this Order. "The Commission has never addressed whether interconnected VoIP is subject to intercarrier compensation rules and, if so, the applicable rate for such traffic," and is "seek[ing]
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-87A1.html
  • tariff. 2. As explained below, we find that Northern Valley's tariff is unlawful. As Qwest argues, and Northern Valley does not dispute, Northern Valley's tariff purports to allow Northern Valley to impose tariffed switched access charges on IXCs for calls placed or received by individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers free services. The tariff therefore violates Commission rule 61.26 as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and accordingly also violates section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Qwest's Complaint and direct Northern Valley to revise its tariff within ten days of the date of release of this Order. II. BACKGROUND A. The Parties 3. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications service throughout the United
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • Act). In brief, AT&T Texas alleges that, as applied to AT&T Texas, certain provisions in a FeatureGroup IP federal tariff pertaining to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act, because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II). As explained below, we grant Count I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 2. AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas. FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas. At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2004archive.html
  • Carrier Charges. Comments Due: 06/15/2004. Reply Comments Due: 06/25/2004. [136][Word] [137][Acrobat] 5/28/2004 Public Notice: Amendment To Rate Integration Plan Filed By American Samoa Telecommunications Authority. (Dkt No 96-61). Comments Due: 06/17/2004. Reply Comments Due: 06/28/2004. [138][Word] [139][Acrobat] 5/18/2004 Order:Access Charge Reform/Reform Of Access Charges Imposed By Competitive Local Exchange Carriers/Petition Of Z-Tel Communications, Inc., For Temporary Waiver Of Commission Rule 61.26(D) To Facilitate Deployment Of Competitive Service In Certain. Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The FCC clarified rules governing interstate access services provided by competitive local exchange carriers to interexchange carriers (IXCs). [140][Word] [141][Acrobat] [142]Compliance Manual 5/13/2004 News Release:FCC Maintains Lower Access Rates Charged By Competitive Carriers. News Release. (Dkt No 96-262). Adopted: 05/13/2004. [143][Word] [144][Acrobat] 5/12/2004 Order: Verizon Petition For Pricing Flexibility
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2008archive.html
  • Petition For Election Of Price Cap Regulation And For Limited Waiver Of Pricing And Universal Service Rules. (Dkt No 08-191). Comments Due: 10/09/2008. Reply Comments Due: 10/24/2008. [39][Word] [40][Acrobat] 8/27/2008 Order: Petition Of Orbitcom, Inc. For Forbearance From CLEC Access Charge Rules. Denied the Petition filed by OrbitCom requesting that the Commission forbear from tariff regulations set forth in sections 61.26(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules. (Dkt No. 08-162). [41][Word] [42][Acrobat] [43][Word] [44][Acrobat] [45][Word] [46][Acrobat] 8/13/2008 Public Notice: Wireline Competition Bureau Grants Extension Of Time To File Comments On AT&T'S Petition For An Interim Declaratory Ruling And Limited Waivers. (Dkt No 08-152). Comments Due: 08/21/2008. Reply Comments Due: 09/02/2008. [47][Word] [48][Acrobat] 8/7/2008 Public Notice: AT&T Files Cost Allocation Manual Revision.
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2010archive.html
  • Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.'s Proposed 2010 Modification Of Average Schedule Formulas. (Dkt No 09-221 ) Pleading Cycle Established. Comments Due: 02/16/2010. Reply Comments Due: 02/26/2010. [136][Word] [137][Acrobat] 1/22/2010 Public Notice: NECA Files Annual Update Cost Allocation Manual Revision. Comments Due: 02/22/2010. Reply Comments Due: 03/08/2010. [138][Word] [139][Acrobat] 1/13/2010 Order: Petition Of Northern Telephone & Data Corp. For Waiver Of Section 61.26(B)(1) Of The Commission's Rules. Denied the Petition for Waiver. [140][Word] [141][Acrobat] last reviewed/updated on January 06, 2012 __________________________________________________________________ [142]Skip Bottom FCC Navigation Links and Contact Info [143]FCC Home | [144]Search | [145]RSS | [146]Updates | [147]E-Filing | [148]Initiatives | [149]Consumers | [150]Find People __________________________________________________________________ Please send questions about the Pricing Policy Division website to [151]our webmaster __________________________________________________________________ [152]Skip FCC Footer
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ComplianceManual.doc
  • Requirements Requirements for tariffing of competitive interstate access services Guidelines for setting rates for components of competitive interstate access services Exemption for competitive interstate access services provided in rural areas 2. Internet Links Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, FCC 04-110, Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed By Competitive Local Exchange Carriers 47 C.F.R. § 61.26 Compliance Requirements General Objective The primary objective of the rules governing the access charges of competitive local exchange carriers is to ensure that such charges are just and reasonable in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 201(b)). Important Definitions Local Exchange Carrier (47 U.S.C. § 153(26)) The term ``local exchange carrier'' means any person that is
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ComplianceManualCLEC.doc
  • Requirements Requirements for tariffing of competitive interstate access services Guidelines for setting rates for components of competitive interstate access services Exemption for competitive interstate access services provided in rural areas 2. Internet Links Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, FCC 04-110, Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed By Competitive Local Exchange Carriers 47 C.F.R. § 61.26 Compliance Requirements General Objective The primary objective of the rules governing the access charges of competitive local exchange carriers is to ensure that such charges are just and reasonable in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 201(b)). Important Definitions Local Exchange Carrier (47 U.S.C. § 153(26)) The term ``local exchange carrier'' means any person that is
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html
  • References Visible links 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/ 2. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html#skiptopnav 3. http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html 4. http://www.fcc.gov/rss/ 5. http://www.fcc.gov/updates.html 6. http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ 7. http://www.fcc.gov/initiatives.html 8. http://fcc.gov/consumers/ 9. http://www.fcc.gov/people.html 10. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html#skipcrumb 11. http://www.fcc.gov/ 12. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/welcome.html 13. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/welcome.html#divisions 14. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ 15. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=search_tips&ref=w 16. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=advanced_search&ref=w 17. http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fccdotgov 18. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html#skippagenav 19. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ 20. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/IntercarrierCompensation/ 21. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 22. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/IntercarrierCompensation/proceedings.html 23. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html 24. http://www.fcc.gov/fees/ 25. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/47cfr61_07.html 26. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffing1.html 27. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffingorders.html 28. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffing2.html 29. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/octqtr/pdf/47cfr61.26.pdf 30. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1347+1++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(201))%3ACITE 31. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1348+1++()%20%20A 32. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbill.html 33. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/RAOLetters.html 34. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 35. http://www.fcc.gov/css.html 36. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/archive.html 37. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 38. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2002archive.html 39. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2003archive.html 40. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2004archive.html 41. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2005archive.html 42. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2006archive.html 43. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2007archive.html 44. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/ 45. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/ 46. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/ 47. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/ 48. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/depreciation/depIndex.html 49. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://www.usa.gov/ 50. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd2008.html 51. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2008archive.html 52. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 53. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2002archive.html 54. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2003archive.html 55. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2004archive.html 56. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2005archive.html 57. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2006archive.html 58. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2007archive.html 59. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html
  • links 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/ 2. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#skiptopnav 3. http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html 4. http://www.fcc.gov/rss/ 5. http://www.fcc.gov/updates.html 6. http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ 7. http://www.fcc.gov/initiatives.html 8. http://fcc.gov/consumers/ 9. http://www.fcc.gov/people.html 10. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#skipcrumb 11. http://www.fcc.gov/ 12. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ 13. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html 14. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=search_tips&ref=w 15. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=advanced_search&ref=w 16. http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fccdotgov 17. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#investigations 18. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#cancellation 19. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#detariffing 20. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#etfs 21. http://www.fcc.gov/fees/ 22. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/IntercarrierCompensation/ 23. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/47cfr61_08.html 24. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1439+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(201))%3ACITE 25. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1440+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(202))%3ACITE 26. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1441+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(203))%3ACITE 27. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1442+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(204))%3ACITE 28. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1443+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(205))%3ACITE 29. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ 30. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/octqtr/pdf/47cfr61.26.pdf 31. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1439+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(201))%3ACITE 32. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1440+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(202))%3ACITE 33. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/47cfr61_08.html 34. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ 35. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#top 36. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLECOVERLETTER.doc 37. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLETARIFFSUPPLEMENt.doc 38. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLECHECKSHEET.doc 39. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLESPECIALPERMISSION.doc 40. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLECONSOLIDATEDCOVERLETTER.doc 41. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLETARIFFSUPPLEMENT2.doc 42. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SampleCheckSheet2.doc 43. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#top 44. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffing1.html 45. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da001028.pdf 46. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002586.doc 47. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffingorders.html 48. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffing2.html 49. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Public_Notices/2001/da011126.txt 50. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/News_Releases/2001/nrin0103.txt 51. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbill.html 52. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ComplianceManualCLEC.doc 53. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.pdf 54. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#top 55. http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ccb/etfs/ 56. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#top 57. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#skipbottomnav 58. http://transition.fcc.gov/ 59. http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html 60. http://www.fcc.gov/rss/
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 203; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. Letter from Rashann R. Duvall, counsel to Verizon, to Alexander P. Starr, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed Dec. 11, 2008) (``Motion''). (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700  € $ $ 0
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf
  • 1934, as amended (``Act''). The Complaint alleges that Northern Valley's interstate switched access service tariff (``Tariff'') violates section 201(b) of the Act, and it requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not ``clear and explicit'' as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.pdf
  • filed with the Commission. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications services throughout the United States. The Tariff at issue in the Order purported to allow Northern Valley to charge IXCs for originating or terminating calls to individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers telecommunications for free. In the Order, the Commission found that the Tariff violated Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and therefore also violated section 201(b) of the Act. Rule 61.26, which is entitled ``Tariffing of competitive [LEC] interstate switched exchange access services,'' requires that tariffed CLEC charges for ``interstate switched exchange access services'' be for services that are the ``functional equivalent'' of ILEC interstate exchange access services. In the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.pdf
  • Qwest Reconsideration Order, we likewise deny Northern Valley's instant Petition and incorporate by reference our holdings and discussion in those orders. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 405, and sections 1.106 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106 and 61.26, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Northern Valley is DISMISSED to the extent indicated and is otherwise DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Petition for Reconsideration of Northern Valley Communications, LLC, File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Aug. 17, 2011) (``Petition''). 47 U.S.C. § 405; 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.pdf
  • Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Counts I, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII. We note that, in these Counts, AT&T raises credible allegations that, inter alia, YMax's switched interstate access charges violate the ``functional equivalent'' standard and the rate-mirroring standard of section 61.26 of the Commission's rules. We also note that we need not, and do not, address issues regarding the intercarrier compensation obligations, if any, associated with Voice over Internet Protocol (``VoIP'') traffic in this Order. ``The Commission has never addressed whether interconnected VoIP is subject to intercarrier compensation rules and, if so, the applicable rate for such traffic,'' and is ``seek[ing]
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.pdf
  • the tariff. As explained below, we find that Northern Valley's tariff is unlawful. As Qwest argues, and Northern Valley does not dispute, Northern Valley's tariff purports to allow Northern Valley to impose tariffed switched access charges on IXCs for calls placed or received by individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers free services. The tariff therefore violates Commission rule 61.26 as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and accordingly also violates section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Qwest's Complaint and direct Northern Valley to revise its tariff within ten days of the date of release of this Order. BACKGROUND The Parties Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications service throughout the United States. Northern Valley
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf
  • Act). In brief, AT&T Texas alleges that, as applied to AT&T Texas, certain provisions in a FeatureGroup IP federal tariff pertaining to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act, because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II). As explained below, we grant Count I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. BACKGROUND Factual Background AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas. FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas. At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection Agreement or Agreement
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2425A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 01-2425 Released: October 18, 2001 Z-Tel Files Petition for Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) Pertaining to CLEC Access Services CCB/CPD File No. 01-19 Pleading Cycle Established COMMENT DATE: November 2, 2001 REPLY COMMENT DATE: November 12, 2001 On August 3, 2001, Z-Tel Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications of Virginia, Inc., (collectively, Z-Tel) filed a petition for waiver of Rule 61.26(d), 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(d), which prohibits competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) from tariffing interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2411A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2411A2.txt
  • 5W ROCHESTER MONROE NY 56.08 173.74 43 6 50N 77 37 15W ROCHESTER MONROE NY 51.51 8.53 40 35 56N 73 45 12W NEWYORK QUEENS NY 46.94 15.24 40 44 30N 73 52 60W NEWYORK QUEENS NY 7.32 42.67 41 59 6N 73 57 56W KINGSTON ULSTER NY 70.1 200.56 41 29 7N 81 41 29W Highland Heights Cuyahoga OH 61.26 209.09 41 27 43N 81 41 51W Tremont Cuyahoga OH 8 Tower Locations That Appear To Require FCC Registration 72.24 198.12 39 21 30N 82 6 24W Rosemount Scioto OH 78.03 354.18 41 16 31N 81 37 28W East Center Summit OH 56.39 263.04 40 4 56N 83 7 44W COLUMBUS FRANKLIN OH 49.68 263.35 40 3 8N 82 25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2691A1.txt
  • Requirements Requirements for tariffing of competitive interstate access services Guidelines for setting rates for components of competitive interstate access services Exemption for competitive interstate access services provided in rural areas 2. Internet Links Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, FCC 04-110, Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed By Competitive Local Exchange Carriers 47 C.F.R. § 61.26 Compliance Requirements General Objective The primary objective of the rules governing the access charges of competitive local exchange carriers is to ensure that such charges are just and reasonable in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 201(b)). Important Definitions Local Exchange Carrier (47 U.S.C. § 153(26)) The term ``local exchange carrier'' means any person that is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3652A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 04-3652 Released: November 24, 2004 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR PETITION OF PRAIRIEWAVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR WAIVER OF CLEC ACCESS CHARGE RULES CC Docket No. 96-262 COMMENTS DUE: December 17, 2004 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: January 7, 2005 On November 12, 2004, PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. (PrairieWave) filed a Petition for Waiver of sections 61.26(b) and 61.26(c) of the Commission's rules to permit it to tariff rates for interstate switched access services consistent with its costs. Sections 61.26(b) and 61.26(c) of the Commission's rules generally provide that a competitive LEC may not tariff interstate access charges above the rate charged for such services by the competing incumbent LEC. PrairieWave completed a forward-looking economic cost study
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3909A1.txt
  • D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Access Charge Reform Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-262 PROTECTIVE ORDER Adopted: December 14, 2004 Released: December 14, 2004 By the Chief, Pricing Policy Division: On November 12, 2004, PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. (PrairieWave) filed a Petition for Waiver of sections 61.26(b) and 61.26(c) of the Commission's rules to permit it to tariff cost-based rates for interstate switched access services. PrairieWave requested confidential treatment for certain information filed with its waiver petition. In response, the Bureau issues the following Protective Order. This Protective Order is intended to facilitate and expedite the review of documents containing trade secrets and commercial or financial information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-936A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 04-936 Released: April 2, 2004 PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED FOR PETITION OF SOUTHEAST TELEPHONE INC. FOR WAIVER OF CLEC ACCESS CHARGE RULES CC Docket No. 96-262 COMMENTS DUE: April 23, 2004 REPLY COMMENTS DUE: May 3, 2004 On March 30, 2004, Southeast Telephone, Inc. (Southeast) filed a Petition for Waiver of section 61.26(a)(6) of the Commission's rules to permit it to serve customers in metropolitan locations and maintain its eligibility for the ``rural exemption'' described in section 61.26(e) of the Commission's rules. Section 61.26(a)(6) of the Commission's rules defines a ``rural CLEC'' as ``a CLEC that does not serve (i.e., terminate traffic to or originate traffic from) any end users located within either:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.txt
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 203; 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. Letter from Rashann R. Duvall, counsel to Verizon, to Alexander P. Starr, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed Dec. 11, 2008) (``Motion''). (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700  € $ $ 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-72A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Petition of Northern Telephone & Data Corp. for Waiver of Section 61.26(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 09-216 ORDER Adopted: January 13, 2010 Released: January 13, 2010 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Order, we deny a waiver petition filed by Northern Telephone & Data Corp. (NTD) because it fails to allege or show any of the criteria necessary to establish
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-298A1.txt
  • ILEC access service, and therefore entitled to charge the full `benchmark' rate level, whenever it is providing telephone numbers and some portion of the interconnection with the PSTN, and regardless of how or by whom the last-mile transmission is provided.'' Stated differently, YMax seeks guidance from the Commission as to whether the revised rule language in Part 61, specifically, section 61.26(f) permits a competitive LEC to tariff and charge the full benchmark rate even if it includes functions that neither it nor its VoIP retail partner are actually providing. YMax asserts that the purpose of the Commission's revisions to section 61.26(f) was to ``defin[e] the minimum access functionality necessary in order for a CLEC to be allowed to collect access charges
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213228A1.txt
  • first sentence of paragraph 28 is revised to read, ``Tariffs require IXCs to pay . . . . '' The first sentence of paragraph 82 is revised to read, ``As previously indicated, we conclude that a CLEC . . . .'' The first sentence of paragraph 143 is revised to read, ``This proceeding will continue . . . .'' Section 61.26(a) of the final rules in Appendix B is revised by replacing ``paragraph'' with ``section.'' Section 61.26(b) of the final rules in Appendix B is revised to read, ``Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section, a CLEC . . . .'' Section 61.26(b)(2)(i) of the final rules in Appendix B is revised to read, ``The benchmark rate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217195A1.txt
  • (202) 418-0484 TTY. CC 99-200; PN 10/17/01; DA 01-2419 The Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on the National Thousands-Block Number Pooling Rollout Schedule. The Commission seeks comment on the above-captioned proceeding. Comments due November 6; replies due November 16. Contact: Sanford Williams at (202) 418-2320 (voice), (202) 418-0484 TTY. PN 10/18/01; DA 01-2425 Z-Tel Petition for Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) Pertaining to CLEC Access Services CCB/CPD File No. 01-19. On August 3, 2001, Z-Tel Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications of Virginia, Inc. filed a petition for Waiver of Rule 61.26(d), 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(d) that prohibits competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) from tariffing interstate access services at rates higher than those charged by the competing incumbent LEC in a metropolitan
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-217358A1.txt
  • (202) 418-0484 TTY. CC 99-200; PN 10/17/01; DA 01-2419 The Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on the National Thousands-Block Number Pooling Rollout Schedule. The Commission seeks comment on the above-captioned proceeding. Comments due November 6; replies due November 16. Contact: Sanford Williams at (202) 418-2320 (voice), (202) 418-0484 TTY. PN 10/18/01; DA 01-2425 Z-Tel Petition for Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) Pertaining to CLEC Access Services CCB/CPD File No. 01-19. On August 3, 2001, Z-Tel Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications of Virginia, Inc. filed a petition for Waiver of Rule 61.26(d), 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(d) that prohibits competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) from tariffing interstate access services at rates higher than those charged by the competing incumbent LEC in a metropolitan
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246980A1.txt
  • CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau will present a progress report on number portability implementation. 2 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: Access Charge Reform (CC Docket No. 96-262); Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers; and Petition of Z-tel Communications, Inc. for Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider an Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration concerning amendments to and clarification of the rules governing the tariffing of interstate switched exchange access services provided by competitive LECs. 3 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250449A1.txt
  • Register). See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. ________________________________________________________________________ ______ Subject: In the Matter of Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers; Petition of Z-Tel Communications, Inc., for Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CC Docket No. 96-262) NUMBER OF PETITIONS FILED: 1 Marlene H. Dortch, B " Ã A B I J K L M B K M j k l m € " ­ (R) ¯ ° ² ³ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º " M h i j k
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261167A1.txt
  • meters ANTENNA ID: AVL-12MUSA 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W 61.92 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 7M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 7M00D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Points of Communication: ENG-9 - PERMITTED LIST - () E050261 SES-LIC-20050916-01265E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Authority State of Nevada EZ Nature of Service:Fixed Satellite Service Page 3 of 7
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262218A1.txt
  • 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W 61.92 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 7M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 7M00D7W Page 1 of 14 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Points of Communication: ENG-9 - PERMITTED LIST - () E050261 SES-LIC-20050916-01265E Date Effective: Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Authority State of Nevada Nature of Service:Fixed Satellite Service 39 ° 9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 19941995199619971998199920002001200220032004 22005 3 New Mexico Alamogordo 31.96 31.96 31.86 31.86 31.86 31.86 30.00 31.99 32.01 32.01 32.09 32.27 New York Binghamton 62.42 62.71 62.59 62.47 62.41 62.41 57.13 61.53 55.00 61.61 63.32 63.18 New York Buffalo 64.13 63.83 63.71 63.59 63.53 63.53 58.17 62.57 55.00 62.68 64.56 64.42 New York Massena 62.63 62.34 62.22 62.10 62.05 62.05 57.33 61.18 55.00 61.26 62.50 62.63 New York New York 64.58 64.29 64.02 63.90 63.84 63.84 58.32 62.47 55.00 62.62 64.60 64.53 New York Ogdensburg 64.39 64.09 63.97 63.85 63.79 63.79 57.33 62.83 55.00 62.91 64.42 64.28 New York Rochester 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 North Carolina Raleigh 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 42.75 44.03 45.32
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266998A1.txt
  • 161KG1W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E060318 SES-LIC-20060816-01376E Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority The Curators of the University of Missouri Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: 1 CONUS - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI, VARIOUS LOCATION: AVL TECHNOLOGIES 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 1200K DSNG DIGITAL COMPRESSED VIDEO 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00G7F 61.26 dBW DIGITAL COMPRESSED VIDEO CARRIER 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00G7F Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E060319 SES-LIC-20060816-01391E Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority Mammoth Recreations Inc. EZ Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: 1 (MAMMOTH) LOCATION: ADVENT KU Sat 1.5 meters ANTENNA ID: NewsSwift 1.5M SNG 67.50 dBW One digital carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267506A1.txt
  • Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority WTVD TELEVISION, LLC EZ Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service Page 5 of 10 SITE ID: UNIT5 LOCATION: AVL 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 1200K DSNG 60.88 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 5M50D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Points of Communication: UNIT5 -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267622A1.txt
  • E060318 SES-LIC-20060816-01376E Date Effective: 09/25/2006 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Grant of Authority 09/25/2006 - 09/25/2021 Application for Authority The Curators of the University of Missouri Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: 1 CONUS - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI, VARIOUS LOCATION: AVL TECHNOLOGIES 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 1200K DSNG DIGITAL COMPRESSED VIDEO 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00G7F 61.26 dBW DIGITAL COMPRESSED VIDEO CARRIER 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00G7F Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E060319 SES-LIC-20060816-01391E Date Effective: 09/25/2006 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Grant of Authority 09/25/2006 - 09/25/2021 Application for Authority MAMMOTH RECREATIONS, INC. Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: 1 (MAMMOTH) LOCATION: ADVENT KU Sat 1.5 meters ANTENNA ID:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268284A1.txt
  • Station Grant of Authority 10/25/2006 - 10/25/2021 Application for Authority WTVD TELEVISION, LLC EZ Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: UNIT5 LOCATION: AVL 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 1200K DSNG 60.88 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 5M50D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Points of Communication: UNIT5 -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276423A1.txt
  • Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority Gray Television Licensee, Inc. EZ Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: ENG-1 LOCATION: AVL 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: AVL-12MUSA 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W 60.88 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Page 1 of 6 Points
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277412A1.txt
  • 10/11/2007 - 10/11/2022 Application for Authority Gray Television Licensee, Inc. Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: ENG-1 VARIOUS LOCATION: Page 1 of 22 AVL 1 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: AVL-12MUSA 62.51 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 8M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 8M00D7W 61.26 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 6M00D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 6M00D7W 60.88 dBW Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Digital Video (QPSK) with associated audio and data 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 5M50D7W Points of Communication: ENG-1 -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 31.96 31.96 31.86 31.86 31.86 31.86 30.00 31.99 32.01 32.01 32.09 32.27 33.60 33.49 New York Binghamton 62.42 62.71 62.59 62.47 62.41 62.41 57.13 61.53 55.00 61.61 63.32 63.18 63.06 63.18 New York Buffalo 64.13 63.83 63.71 63.59 63.53 63.53 58.17 62.57 55.00 62.68 64.56 64.42 64.51 64.63 New York Massena 62.63 62.34 62.22 62.10 62.05 62.05 57.33 61.18 55.00 61.26 62.50 62.63 62.71 62.83 New York New York 64.58 64.29 64.02 63.90 63.84 63.84 58.32 62.47 55.00 62.62 64.60 64.53 64.53 64.58 New York Ogdensburg 64.39 64.09 63.97 63.85 63.79 63.79 57.33 62.83 55.00 62.91 64.42 64.28 64.36 64.48 New York Rochester 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 38.01 North Carolina Raleigh 44.03
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287377A1.pdf
  • On the merits, this petition must be viewed in light of a decade-long FCC process aimed at ensuring competition in the telecommunications market between those carriers in exis- tence at the time of the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ILECs, and the newcomers entering the mar- ket after that enactment, the CLECs. See47 U.S.C. §251(h); 47 C.F.R. §61.26(a)(1). That process culminated in the Trien- nial Review Remand Order of 2005 ("TRRO"), in which, after full notice and comment, the FCC required CLECs to end their dependence on unbundled services provided by the older, better established ILECs. Prior to the TRRO, Fones4All 16487 FONES4ALL CORP. v. FCC Case: 06-75388 12/16/2008 Page: 3 of 19 DktEntry: 6740117 had contracts to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-146A1.txt
  • Hoc BayRing CTSI, Inc. Cox e.spire Communications, Inc., KMC Telecom, Inc., Talk.com Holding Corp. and XO Communications, Inc. Eschelon FairPoint Focal and Winstar Minnesota CLEC Consortium RICA Sprint Z-Tel APPENDIX B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Part 61, Subpart C, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended by adding section 61.26 as follows: 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange access services. Definitions. For purposes of this section 61.26, the following definitions shall apply: ``CLEC'' shall mean a provider of interstate exchange access services that does not fall within the definition of ``incumbent local exchange carrier'' in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h). ``Competing ILEC'' shall mean the incumbent local exchange carrier, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.txt
  • $0.900 Standard error 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 No. of satellite channels 46.61 44.38 42.89 33.75 25.29 Standard error 0.68 0.77 0.71 1.23 1.63 Rate per satellite channel $0.711 $0.735 $.0.764 $1.019 $1.211 Standard error 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 July 1, 1999 Programming total $30.68 $29.75 $29.72 $29.68 $26.34 Standard error 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.33 0.83 Number of channels 61.26 57.64 53.20 41.54 32.24 Standard error 0.87 0.95 0.82 1.29 1.67 Rate per channel † $0.508 $0.531 $0.579 $0.759 $0.870 Standard error 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 † Equals the number of channels divided by the monthly rate for programming. This average cannot be computed using the numbers in this Attachment, because the number of channels and the monthly rate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-323A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd at 16094-96, paras. 263 and 265. See 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(1). See also, e.g., Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC; Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). CALLS Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 12979, para. 42. See Petition at 35-36; 47 U.S.C. § 254(g). See 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(2). See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(c). CLECs competing against Iowa Telecom currently can charge access rates no greater than 1.8 cents per minute, and they will reach Iowa Telecom's rate level no later than June 20, 2004. See Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96-262, Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9923 (2001). See Access Charge Reform Order, 12
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ~ Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Access Charge Reform Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers Petition of Z-Tel Communications, Inc. For Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-262 CCB/CPD File No. 01-19 EIGHTH REPORT AND ORDER AND FIFTH ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: May 13, 2004 Released: May 18, 2004 By the Commission: Chairman Powell issuing a statement. Table of Contents Paragraph
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A2.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Statement of Chairman Michael K. Powell Re: In the Matter of Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Petition of Z-Tel Communications, Inc. For Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket 96-262 Today's Order removes a regulatory quirk that has for too long led carriers into regulatory arbitrage schemes. It represents the culmination of our efforts, begun in 2001, to quiet the financial and regulatory uncertainty for both competitive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-252A1.txt
  • Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers, Fourteenth Report and Order, Twenty-Second Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-45, and Report and Order in CC Docket No. 00-256, 16 FCC Rcd 11244, 11327, para. 211 (2001) (Rural Task Force Order). 47 C.F.R. § 54.305. (describing proposals by Western Wireless). 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(e). A ``rural CLEC'' is defined as a competitive LEC ``that does not serve (i.e., terminate traffic to or originate traffic from) any end users located within either: (i) Any incorporated place of 50,000 inhabitants or more . . . or (ii) [a]n urbanized area, as defined by the Census Bureau.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.26(a)(6). For example,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-33A1.txt
  • Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 96-262, Seventh Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9923 (2001) (``CLEC Access Charge Order'') (establishing benchmark rates for CLEC access charges), recon., Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Petition of Z-Tel Communications, Inc. For Temporary Waiver of Commission Rule 61.26(d) to Facilitate Deployment of Competitive Service in Certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas, CC Docket No. 96-262 and CCB/CPD File No. 01-19, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (2004) (CLEC Access Charge Recon. Order); see also Petitions of Sprint PCS and AT&T Corp. For Declaratory Ruling Regarding CMRS Access Charges, WT Docket No. 01-316, Declaratory
• 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
  • contemplate imposing incumbent LEC status on more than one carrier in an area). Although we only address dominant carrier regulation in this Order, we explicitly state that this Order does not prejudge a future Qwest request for forbearance from additional regulation. This would include the interstate switched exchange access benchmark, among other requirements, pending further action. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. See Mid-Rivers Petition at 3; Notice, 19 FCC Rcd at 23078, para. 14 n.50; Mid-Rivers July 25, 2006 Ex Parte Letter. See Mid-Rivers Petition at 3. See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat.
• 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
  • effectively unable either to pass through access charges to their end users or to create other incentives for end users to choose LECs with low access rates, the party causing the costs - the end user that chooses the high-priced LEC - has no incentive to minimize costs. As a result, the Commission imposed a permissive detariffing regime through section 61.26 that permits the filing of tariffs on one day's notice without cost support (and presumes the access charges that competitive LECs charge their carrier customers to be just and reasonable) where the rates are at or below a benchmark that is ``the rate of the competing ILEC.'' Competitive LECs are subject to mandatory detariffing of any rates that exceed that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-176A1.txt
  • lower, than the prescribed rate of return that incumbent LECs are allowed to earn under rate-of-return regulation. Price cap LECs are not subject to complaints for excess earnings. Price cap LECs file access tariffs annually to become effective on July 1. Competitive local exchange carriers. Competitive LECs are considered nondominant carriers and are thus subject to minimal rate regulation. Section 61.26 allows competitive LECs to tariff interstate access charges if the charges are no higher than the rate charged for such services by the competing incumbent LEC (the benchmarking rule). The Commission established an exemption for rural competitive LECs competing against non-rural incumbent LECs, pursuant to which rural competitive LECs may file tariffs provided that their rates are no higher than
• 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
  • 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 at 3-4 n.3 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.03,
• 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
  • 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 forbearance criteria and the Commission's dominance analysis, particularly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-197A1.txt
  • Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 08-162 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: August 27, 2008 Released: August 27, 2008 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring and issuing separate statements. INTRODUCTION In this Order, we deny a petition filed by OrbitCom, Inc. (OrbitCom) requesting that the Commission forbear from tariff regulations set forth in sections 61.26(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules. OrbitCom's petition fails to address in any manner the statutory criteria for a grant of forbearance or to provide any showing that those criteria are met by its request. Accordingly, we deny the petition. Background On August 27, 2007, OrbitCom filed its one page petition seeking forbearance from tariff regulations set forth in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-262A1.txt
  • IXCs will have a constraining effect on non-incumbent LEC pricing.'' Id. at 16141, para. 362. This reliance on a market-based approach proved misplaced. In subsequent years, competitive LECs, instead of reducing access charges, frequently raised them above the regulated rates of incumbent LECs. As a result, the Commission was forced to regulate competitive LEC access charges. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26; Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 96-262, Seventh Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9923, 9924, paras. 1-3 (2001) (CLEC Access Charge Order) (establishing benchmark rates for competitive LEC access charges), recon., Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Petition of Z-Tel Commc'ns Inc.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-49A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit p Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Access Charge Reform PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. Petition for Waiver of Sections 61.26(b) and (c) or in the Alternative Section 61.26(a)(6) of the Commission's Rules SouthEast Telephone, Inc. Petition for Waiver of Section 61.26(a)(6) of the Commission's Rules Cox Communications, Inc. Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-262 ORDER Adopted: February 12, 2008 Released: February 14,
• 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
  • the CLEC Access Charge Reform Order concerned rates for access charged by competitive LECs rather than incumbents, the distinction made there between end-user customers, that may choose among competitive 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
• 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
  • the amount of traffic priced at each rate, with respect to calls for which operator services are provided. Any changes in such 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 U.S.C. § 226(h)(1)(A). See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.709. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. In 1997, the Commission released an order establishing permissive detariffing for non-incumbent LEC providers of interstate exchange access services and sought comment on the mandatory detariffing of such services. Hyperion Telecommunications, Inc. Petition Requesting Forbearance, CC Docket No. 97-146, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 8596 (1997) (Hyperion Order). The Commission took no further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-111A1.txt
  • 1934, as amended (``Act''). The Complaint alleges that Northern Valley's interstate switched access service tariff (``Tariff'') violates section 201(b) of the Act, and it requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not ``clear and explicit'' as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-13A1.txt
  • sharing occurs when a rate-of-return ILEC or a CLEC enters into an access revenue sharing agreement that will result in a net payment to the other party (including affiliates) to the access revenue sharing agreement, over the course of the agreement. A rate-of-return ILEC or a CLEC meeting this trigger is subject to revised interstate switched access charge rules. Section 61.26 is amended by revising subsections (b), (d) and (e) and adding new paragraph (g) as follows: § 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange access services. * * * * * (b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of this section, a CLEC shall not file a tariff for its interstate switched exchange access services that prices
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-148A1.txt
  • filed with the Commission. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications services throughout the United States. The Tariff at issue in the Order purported to allow Northern Valley to charge IXCs for originating or terminating calls to individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers telecommunications for free. In the Order, the Commission found that the Tariff violated Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and therefore also violated section 201(b) of the Act. Rule 61.26, which is entitled ``Tariffing of competitive [LEC] interstate switched exchange access services,'' requires that tariffed CLEC charges for ``interstate switched exchange access services'' be for services that are the ``functional equivalent'' of ILEC interstate exchange access services. In the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • terminating intrastate switched access service above the rate for such service in effect on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (2) In the case of Competitive LEC operating in an area served by an incumbent local exchange carrier that is a Rate-of-Return Carrier or Competitive LECs that are subject to the rural exemption in §61.26(e) of this chapter, no such Competitive LEC may increase the rate for any originating or terminating intrastate switched access service above the rate for such service in effect on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], with the exception of intrastate originating access service. For such Competitive LECs, intrastate originating access service subject to this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-170A1.txt
  • Qwest Reconsideration Order, we likewise deny Northern Valley's instant Petition and incorporate by reference our holdings and discussion in those orders. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 405, and sections 1.106 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106 and 61.26, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Northern Valley is DISMISSED to the extent indicated and is otherwise DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Petition for Reconsideration of Northern Valley Communications, LLC, File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Aug. 17, 2011) (``Petition''). 47 U.S.C. § 405; 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-59A1.txt
  • Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Counts I, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII. We note that, in these Counts, AT&T raises credible allegations that, inter alia, YMax's switched interstate access charges violate the ``functional equivalent'' standard and the rate-mirroring standard of section 61.26 of the Commission's rules. We also note that we need not, and do not, address issues regarding the intercarrier compensation obligations, if any, associated with Voice over Internet Protocol (``VoIP'') traffic in this Order. ``The Commission has never addressed whether interconnected VoIP is subject to intercarrier compensation rules and, if so, the applicable rate for such traffic,'' and is ``seek[ing]
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-87A1.txt
  • the tariff. As explained below, we find that Northern Valley's tariff is unlawful. As Qwest argues, and Northern Valley does not dispute, Northern Valley's tariff purports to allow Northern Valley to impose tariffed switched access charges on IXCs for calls placed or received by individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers free services. The tariff therefore violates Commission rule 61.26 as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and accordingly also violates section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Qwest's Complaint and direct Northern Valley to revise its tariff within ten days of the date of release of this Order. BACKGROUND The Parties Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications service throughout the United States. Northern Valley
• 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
  • for dial-around 1+ services, for customers that have contacted them to change their primary interexchange carrier, for international inbound collect calls, and for ``on demand'' Mobile Satellite Services). For example, domestic operator service providers (OSPs) must file informational tariffs pursuant to the Act and the Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. § 226(h); 47 C.F.R. § 64.709. See 47 C.F.R. § 61.26. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.20-.23. ``The tariff must be submitted on a 3 ½ inch (8.89 cm) diskette, or a 5 inch CD-ROM, formatted in an IBM-compatible form using either WordPerfect 5.1, Microsoft Word 6, or Microsoft Word 97 software.'' 47 C.F.R. § 61.22(a). ETFS NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 9517, para. 7. Id. at 9517, para. 8. Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1.txt
  • Act). In brief, AT&T Texas alleges that, as applied to AT&T Texas, certain provisions in a FeatureGroup IP federal tariff pertaining to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act, because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II). As explained below, we grant Count I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. BACKGROUND Factual Background AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas. FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas. At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection Agreement or Agreement
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-19A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Communications Corp. d/b/a FeatureGroup IP, File No. EB-11-MD-008 (filed Nov. 10, 2011) (FeatureGroup IP Reply Brief). 1735 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-19 to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act,2because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II).3As explained below, we grantCount I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 2. AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas.4 FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas.5At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection Agreement or Agreement
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • Hoc BayRing CTSI, Inc. Cox e.spire Communications, Inc., KMC Telecom, Inc., Talk.com Holding Corp. and XO Communications, Inc. Eschelon FairPoint Focal and Winstar Minnesota CLEC Consortium RICA Sprint Z-Tel APPENDIX B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Part 61, Subpart C, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended by adding section 61.26 as follows: 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange access services. Definitions. For purposes of this paragraph 61.26, the following definitions shall apply: ``CLEC'' shall mean a provider of interstate exchange access services that does not fall within the definition of ``incumbent local exchange carrier'' in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h). ``Competing ILEC'' shall mean the incumbent local exchange carrier, as
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2700A1.html
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25, 2008) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201, 203; 47 C.F.R. S: 61.26. Letter from Rashann R. Duvall, counsel to Verizon, to Alexander P. Starr, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed Dec. 11, 2008) ("Motion"). (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Complaint alleges that Northern Valley's interstate switched access service tariff ("Tariff") violates section 201(b) of the Act, and it requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-148A1.html
  • with the Commission. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications services throughout the United States. The Tariff at issue in the Order purported to allow Northern Valley to charge IXCs for originating or terminating calls to individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers telecommunications for free. 4. In the Order, the Commission found that the Tariff violated Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and therefore also violated section 201(b) of the Act. Rule 61.26, which is entitled "Tariffing of competitive [LEC] interstate switched exchange access services," requires that tariffed CLEC charges for "interstate switched exchange access services" be for services that are the "functional equivalent" of ILEC interstate exchange access services. In the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-170A1.html
  • Reconsideration Order, we likewise deny Northern Valley's instant Petition and incorporate by reference our holdings and discussion in those orders. III. ORDERING CLAUSE 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 405, and sections 1.106 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.106 and 61.26, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Northern Valley is DISMISSED to the extent indicated and is otherwise DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Petition for Reconsideration of Northern Valley Communications, LLC, File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Aug. 17, 2011) ("Petition"). 47 U.S.C. S: 405; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Counts I, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII. We note that, in these Counts, AT&T raises credible allegations that, inter alia, YMax's switched interstate access charges violate the "functional equivalent" standard and the rate-mirroring standard of section 61.26 of the Commission's rules. We also note that we need not, and do not, address issues regarding the intercarrier compensation obligations, if any, associated with Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") traffic in this Order. "The Commission has never addressed whether interconnected VoIP is subject to intercarrier compensation rules and, if so, the applicable rate for such traffic," and is "seek[ing]
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-87A1.html
  • tariff. 2. As explained below, we find that Northern Valley's tariff is unlawful. As Qwest argues, and Northern Valley does not dispute, Northern Valley's tariff purports to allow Northern Valley to impose tariffed switched access charges on IXCs for calls placed or received by individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers free services. The tariff therefore violates Commission rule 61.26 as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and accordingly also violates section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Qwest's Complaint and direct Northern Valley to revise its tariff within ten days of the date of release of this Order. II. BACKGROUND A. The Parties 3. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications service throughout the United
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • Act). In brief, AT&T Texas alleges that, as applied to AT&T Texas, certain provisions in a FeatureGroup IP federal tariff pertaining to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act, because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II). As explained below, we grant Count I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 2. AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas. FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas. At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01146.txt
  • Hoc BayRing CTSI, Inc. Cox e.spire Communications, Inc., KMC Telecom, Inc., Talk.com Holding Corp. and XO Communications, Inc. Eschelon FairPoint Focal and Winstar Minnesota CLEC Consortium RICA Sprint Z-Tel APPENDIX B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Part 61, Subpart C, of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended by adding section 61.26 as follows: 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange access services. Definitions. For purposes of this paragraph 61.26, the following definitions shall apply: ``CLEC'' shall mean a provider of interstate exchange access services that does not fall within the definition of ``incumbent local exchange carrier'' in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h). ``Competing ILEC'' shall mean the incumbent local exchange carrier, as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 19931994199519961997199819992000200120022003 220043 New Mexico Alamogordo 31.86 31.96 31.96 31.86 31.86 31.86 31.86 30.00 31.99 32.01 32.01 32.09 New York Binghamton 62.48 62.42 62.71 62.59 62.47 62.41 62.41 57.13 61.53 55.00 61.61 61.61 New York Buffalo 64.19 64.13 63.83 63.71 63.59 63.53 63.53 58.17 62.57 55.00 62.68 62.68 New York Massena 62.69 62.63 62.34 62.22 62.10 62.05 62.05 57.33 61.18 55.00 61.26 61.26 New York New York 64.64 64.58 64.29 64.02 63.90 63.84 63.84 58.32 62.47 55.00 62.62 62.62 New York Ogdensburg 64.46 64.39 64.09 63.97 63.85 63.79 63.79 57.33 62.83 55.00 62.91 62.91 New York Rochester 47.01 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 North Carolina Raleigh 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 44.03 42.75 44.03 45.32
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2001/dd011018.html
  • Communications Commission 445 12th St., SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Vol. 20 No. 203 News media information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 202/418-2555 October 18, 2001 __________________________________________________________________ THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Released: 10/18/2001. TARIFF TRANSMITTALS PUBLIC REFERENCE LOG. CCB [1]DOC-216985A1.pdf [2]DOC-216985A1.txt Released: 10/18/2001. Z-TEL PETITION FOR WAIVER OF COMMISSION RULE 61.26(D) PERTAINING TO CLEC ACCESS SERVICES CCB/CPD FILE NO. 01-19. (DA No. 01-2425) Pleading Cycle Established. Comments Due: 11/02/2001. Reply Comments Due: 11/12/2001. CCB. Contact: Anna Curtis at (202) 418-1520, TTY: (202) 418-0484 [3]DA-01-2425A1.doc [4]DA-01-2425A1.pdf [5]DA-01-2425A1.txt Released: 10/18/2001. CORE COMMUNICATIONS FILES PETITION FOR WAIVER OF THE COMMISSION'S GROWTH CAP AND NEW MARKET RULES PERTAINING TO INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION FOR ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC CCB/CPD
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/dd040519.html
  • ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TELENOR SATELLITE SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC. Granted Telenor Satellite, Inc.'s Requests with conditions. Action by: Chief, Satellite Systems Analysis Branch, Satellite Division, International Bureau. Adopted: 05/18/2004 by LETTER. (DA No. 04-1391). IB [76]DA-04-1391A1.pdf [77]DA-04-1391A1.txt ACCESS CHARGE REFORM/REFORM OF ACCESS CHARGES IMPOSED BY COMPETITIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS/PETITION OF Z-TEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR TEMPORARY WAIVER OF COMMISSION RULE 61.26(D) TO FACILITATE DEPLOYMENT OF COMPETITIVE SERVICE IN CERTAIN. Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The FCC clarified rules governing interstate access services provided by competitive local exchange carriers to interexchange carriers (IXCs). By Eighth R&O and FifthOrder on Reconsideration. (Dkt No. 96-262). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 05/13/2004 by ORDER. (FCC No. 04-110). WCB [78]FCC-04-110A1.doc [79]FCC-04-110A2.doc [80]FCC-04-110A1.pdf [81]FCC-04-110A2.pdf [82]FCC-04-110A1.txt [83]FCC-04-110A2.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247374A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2004/dd040827.html
  • Issued Order to Show Cause why its license should not be modified to specify operation as a Class C0 station on Channel 248C0, Tulsa, Oklahoma. (Dkt No. RM-11064). Action by: Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. Comments Due: 10/12/2004. Adopted: 08/25/2004 by Order to Show Cause. (DA No. 04-2669). MB [270]DA-04-2669A1.doc [271]DA-04-2669A1.pdf [272]DA-04-2669A1.txt SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE GUIDE FOR 47 C.F.R. 61.26 - TARIFFING OF COMPETITIVE INTERSTATE SWITCHED EXCHANGE ACCESS SERVICE. (Dkt No. 96-262) by Compliance guide. (DA No. 04-2691). OCBO , WCB. Contact Allan Manuel at (202) 418-1164 [273]DA-04-2691A1.doc [274]DA-04-2691A1.pdf [275]DA-04-2691A1.txt ERRATUM - UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND. Issued Erratum correcting Order Granting Extension of Time,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd080828.html
  • REPORT ON THE STATUS OF TV BROADCASTERS AT THE FINAL SIX MONTHS OF THE DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION. August 18, 2008. Action by: Chief, Media Bureau by REPORT. MB [95]DOC-284765A1.doc [96]DOC-284765A1.pdf [97]DOC-284765A1.txt PETITION OF ORBITCOM, INC. FOR FORBEARANCE FROM CLEC ACCESS CHARGE RULES. Denied the Petition filed by OrbitCom requesting that the Commission forbear from tariff regulations set forth in sections 61.26(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules. (Dkt No. 08-162). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 08/27/2008 by MO&O. (FCC No. 08-197). WCB [98]FCC-08-197A1.doc [99]FCC-08-197A2.doc [100]FCC-08-197A3.doc [101]FCC-08-197A1.pdf [102]FCC-08-197A2.pdf [103]FCC-08-197A3.pdf [104]FCC-08-197A1.txt [105]FCC-08-197A2.txt [106]FCC-08-197A3.txt SACRED WIND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND QWEST CORPORATION. Granted the request from Sacred Wind Communications, Inc. (Sacred Wind) to extend the timing of the waiver of sections 36.611 and 36.612 of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2010/dd100114.html
  • AN EVOLVING MEDIA LANDSCAPE. Extended to February 24,2010 and March 26, 2010, respectively for filing comments and reply comments in response to NOI. (Dkt No. 09-194 ). Action by: Chief, Media Bureau. Comments Due: 02/24/2010. Reply Comments Due: 03/26/2010. Adopted: 01/13/2010 by ORDER. (DA No. 10-70). MB [49]DA-10-70A1.doc [50]DA-10-70A1.pdf [51]DA-10-70A1.txt PETITION OF NORTHERN TELEPHONE & DATA CORP.FOR WAIVER OF SECTION 61.26(B)(1) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Denied the Petition for Waiver. Action by: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 01/13/2010 by ORDER. (DA No. 10-72). WCB [52]DA-10-72A1.doc [53]DA-10-72A1.pdf [54]DA-10-72A1.txt CBEYOND, INC. PETITION FOR EXPEDITED RULEMAKING TO REQUIRE UNBUNDLING OF HYBRID, FTTH, AND FTTC LOOPS PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. SECTION 251(C)(3) OF THE ACT. Issued a Protective Order in this proceeding. (Dkt No. 09-223
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2700A1.html
  • authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint of Verizon, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed July 25, 2008) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201, 203; 47 C.F.R. S: 61.26. Letter from Rashann R. Duvall, counsel to Verizon, to Alexander P. Starr, File No. EB-08-MD-004 (filed Dec. 11, 2008) ("Motion"). (Continued from previous page) (continued ...) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2700 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2700A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-111A1.html
  • 1934, as amended ("Act"). The Complaint alleges that Northern Valley's interstate switched access service tariff ("Tariff") violates section 201(b) of the Act, and it requests that the Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order; that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as required by Commission rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and we direct Northern
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-148A1.html
  • with the Commission. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications services throughout the United States. The Tariff at issue in the Order purported to allow Northern Valley to charge IXCs for originating or terminating calls to individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers telecommunications for free. 4. In the Order, the Commission found that the Tariff violated Commission rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and therefore also violated section 201(b) of the Act. Rule 61.26, which is entitled "Tariffing of competitive [LEC] interstate switched exchange access services," requires that tariffed CLEC charges for "interstate switched exchange access services" be for services that are the "functional equivalent" of ILEC interstate exchange access services. In the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-170A1.html
  • Reconsideration Order, we likewise deny Northern Valley's instant Petition and incorporate by reference our holdings and discussion in those orders. III. ORDERING CLAUSE 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 208, and 405, and sections 1.106 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.106 and 61.26, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Northern Valley is DISMISSED to the extent indicated and is otherwise DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Petition for Reconsideration of Northern Valley Communications, LLC, File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Aug. 17, 2011) ("Petition"). 47 U.S.C. S: 405; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-59A1.html
  • Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Counts I, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII. We note that, in these Counts, AT&T raises credible allegations that, inter alia, YMax's switched interstate access charges violate the "functional equivalent" standard and the rate-mirroring standard of section 61.26 of the Commission's rules. We also note that we need not, and do not, address issues regarding the intercarrier compensation obligations, if any, associated with Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") traffic in this Order. "The Commission has never addressed whether interconnected VoIP is subject to intercarrier compensation rules and, if so, the applicable rate for such traffic," and is "seek[ing]
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/FCC-11-87A1.html
  • tariff. 2. As explained below, we find that Northern Valley's tariff is unlawful. As Qwest argues, and Northern Valley does not dispute, Northern Valley's tariff purports to allow Northern Valley to impose tariffed switched access charges on IXCs for calls placed or received by individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers free services. The tariff therefore violates Commission rule 61.26 as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, and accordingly also violates section 201(b) of the Act. Thus, we grant Qwest's Complaint and direct Northern Valley to revise its tariff within ten days of the date of release of this Order. II. BACKGROUND A. The Parties 3. Qwest is an IXC providing interstate telecommunications service throughout the United
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/FCC-12-19A1.html
  • Act). In brief, AT&T Texas alleges that, as applied to AT&T Texas, certain provisions in a FeatureGroup IP federal tariff pertaining to a call control facilitation service violate section 201(b) of the Act, because those tariff provisions (i) conflict with a preexisting interconnection agreement between the parties (Count I), and (ii) breach the benchmarking and functional equivalent requirements of rule 61.26 (Count II). As explained below, we grant Count I and dismiss Count II without prejudice. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 2. AT&T Texas is an incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) in Texas. FeatureGroup IP is a competitive local exchange carrier (competitive LEC) in Texas. At all relevant times, the parties exchanged calls in Texas under an interconnection agreement (Interconnection
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2004archive.html
  • Carrier Charges. Comments Due: 06/15/2004. Reply Comments Due: 06/25/2004. [136][Word] [137][Acrobat] 5/28/2004 Public Notice: Amendment To Rate Integration Plan Filed By American Samoa Telecommunications Authority. (Dkt No 96-61). Comments Due: 06/17/2004. Reply Comments Due: 06/28/2004. [138][Word] [139][Acrobat] 5/18/2004 Order:Access Charge Reform/Reform Of Access Charges Imposed By Competitive Local Exchange Carriers/Petition Of Z-Tel Communications, Inc., For Temporary Waiver Of Commission Rule 61.26(D) To Facilitate Deployment Of Competitive Service In Certain. Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The FCC clarified rules governing interstate access services provided by competitive local exchange carriers to interexchange carriers (IXCs). [140][Word] [141][Acrobat] [142]Compliance Manual 5/13/2004 News Release:FCC Maintains Lower Access Rates Charged By Competitive Carriers. News Release. (Dkt No 96-262). Adopted: 05/13/2004. [143][Word] [144][Acrobat] 5/12/2004 Order: Verizon Petition For Pricing Flexibility
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2008archive.html
  • Petition For Election Of Price Cap Regulation And For Limited Waiver Of Pricing And Universal Service Rules. (Dkt No 08-191). Comments Due: 10/09/2008. Reply Comments Due: 10/24/2008. [39][Word] [40][Acrobat] 8/27/2008 Order: Petition Of Orbitcom, Inc. For Forbearance From CLEC Access Charge Rules. Denied the Petition filed by OrbitCom requesting that the Commission forbear from tariff regulations set forth in sections 61.26(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules. (Dkt No. 08-162). [41][Word] [42][Acrobat] [43][Word] [44][Acrobat] [45][Word] [46][Acrobat] 8/13/2008 Public Notice: Wireline Competition Bureau Grants Extension Of Time To File Comments On AT&T'S Petition For An Interim Declaratory Ruling And Limited Waivers. (Dkt No 08-152). Comments Due: 08/21/2008. Reply Comments Due: 09/02/2008. [47][Word] [48][Acrobat] 8/7/2008 Public Notice: AT&T Files Cost Allocation Manual Revision.
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2010archive.html
  • Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.'s Proposed 2010 Modification Of Average Schedule Formulas. (Dkt No 09-221 ) Pleading Cycle Established. Comments Due: 02/16/2010. Reply Comments Due: 02/26/2010. [136][Word] [137][Acrobat] 1/22/2010 Public Notice: NECA Files Annual Update Cost Allocation Manual Revision. Comments Due: 02/22/2010. Reply Comments Due: 03/08/2010. [138][Word] [139][Acrobat] 1/13/2010 Order: Petition Of Northern Telephone & Data Corp. For Waiver Of Section 61.26(B)(1) Of The Commission's Rules. Denied the Petition for Waiver. [140][Word] [141][Acrobat] last reviewed/updated on January 06, 2012 __________________________________________________________________ [142]Skip Bottom FCC Navigation Links and Contact Info [143]FCC Home | [144]Search | [145]RSS | [146]Updates | [147]E-Filing | [148]Initiatives | [149]Consumers | [150]Find People __________________________________________________________________ Please send questions about the Pricing Policy Division website to [151]our webmaster __________________________________________________________________ [152]Skip FCC Footer
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ComplianceManual.doc
  • Requirements Requirements for tariffing of competitive interstate access services Guidelines for setting rates for components of competitive interstate access services Exemption for competitive interstate access services provided in rural areas 2. Internet Links Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, FCC 04-110, Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed By Competitive Local Exchange Carriers 47 C.F.R. § 61.26 Compliance Requirements General Objective The primary objective of the rules governing the access charges of competitive local exchange carriers is to ensure that such charges are just and reasonable in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 201(b)). Important Definitions Local Exchange Carrier (47 U.S.C. § 153(26)) The term ``local exchange carrier'' means any person that is
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ComplianceManualCLEC.doc
  • Requirements Requirements for tariffing of competitive interstate access services Guidelines for setting rates for components of competitive interstate access services Exemption for competitive interstate access services provided in rural areas 2. Internet Links Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on Reconsideration, FCC 04-110, Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed By Competitive Local Exchange Carriers 47 C.F.R. § 61.26 Compliance Requirements General Objective The primary objective of the rules governing the access charges of competitive local exchange carriers is to ensure that such charges are just and reasonable in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 201(b)). Important Definitions Local Exchange Carrier (47 U.S.C. § 153(26)) The term ``local exchange carrier'' means any person that is
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html
  • References Visible links 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/ 2. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html#skiptopnav 3. http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html 4. http://www.fcc.gov/rss/ 5. http://www.fcc.gov/updates.html 6. http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ 7. http://www.fcc.gov/initiatives.html 8. http://fcc.gov/consumers/ 9. http://www.fcc.gov/people.html 10. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html#skipcrumb 11. http://www.fcc.gov/ 12. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/welcome.html 13. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/welcome.html#divisions 14. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ 15. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=search_tips&ref=w 16. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=advanced_search&ref=w 17. http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fccdotgov 18. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html#skippagenav 19. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ 20. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/IntercarrierCompensation/ 21. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 22. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/IntercarrierCompensation/proceedings.html 23. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html 24. http://www.fcc.gov/fees/ 25. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/47cfr61_07.html 26. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffing1.html 27. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffingorders.html 28. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffing2.html 29. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/octqtr/pdf/47cfr61.26.pdf 30. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1347+1++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(201))%3ACITE 31. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1348+1++()%20%20A 32. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbill.html 33. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/RAOLetters.html 34. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 35. http://www.fcc.gov/css.html 36. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/archive.html 37. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 38. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2002archive.html 39. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2003archive.html 40. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2004archive.html 41. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2005archive.html 42. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2006archive.html 43. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2007archive.html 44. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/ 45. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/ 46. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/ 47. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/ 48. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/depreciation/depIndex.html 49. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://www.usa.gov/ 50. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd2008.html 51. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2008archive.html 52. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 53. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2002archive.html 54. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2003archive.html 55. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2004archive.html 56. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2005archive.html 57. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2006archive.html 58. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/2007archive.html 59. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html
  • links 1. http://transition.fcc.gov/ 2. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#skiptopnav 3. http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html 4. http://www.fcc.gov/rss/ 5. http://www.fcc.gov/updates.html 6. http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ 7. http://www.fcc.gov/initiatives.html 8. http://fcc.gov/consumers/ 9. http://www.fcc.gov/people.html 10. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#skipcrumb 11. http://www.fcc.gov/ 12. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ 13. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ppdsitemap.html 14. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=search_tips&ref=w 15. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=advanced_search&ref=w 16. http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fccdotgov 17. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#investigations 18. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#cancellation 19. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#detariffing 20. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#etfs 21. http://www.fcc.gov/fees/ 22. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/IntercarrierCompensation/ 23. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/47cfr61_08.html 24. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1439+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(201))%3ACITE 25. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1440+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(202))%3ACITE 26. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1441+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(203))%3ACITE 27. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1442+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(204))%3ACITE 28. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1443+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(205))%3ACITE 29. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ 30. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/octqtr/pdf/47cfr61.26.pdf 31. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1439+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(201))%3ACITE 32. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t45t48+1440+0++()%20%20AND%20((47)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(202))%3ACITE 33. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/47cfr61_08.html 34. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ 35. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#top 36. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLECOVERLETTER.doc 37. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLETARIFFSUPPLEMENt.doc 38. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLECHECKSHEET.doc 39. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLESPECIALPERMISSION.doc 40. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLECONSOLIDATEDCOVERLETTER.doc 41. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SAMPLETARIFFSUPPLEMENT2.doc 42. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/SampleCheckSheet2.doc 43. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#top 44. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffing1.html 45. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/2000/da001028.pdf 46. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002586.doc 47. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffingorders.html 48. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/detariffing2.html 49. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Public_Notices/2001/da011126.txt 50. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/News_Releases/2001/nrin0103.txt 51. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbill.html 52. http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/ComplianceManualCLEC.doc 53. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-110A1.pdf 54. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#top 55. http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ccb/etfs/ 56. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#top 57. http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/ppd/tariffs.html#skipbottomnav 58. http://transition.fcc.gov/ 59. http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html 60. http://www.fcc.gov/rss/