FCC Web Documents citing 61.54

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.pdf
  • motion is granted. NECA Tariff, � 6.1 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. See Commodity News Services, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Initial Decision, 29 FCC 1208, 1213, aff'd, 29 FCC 1205 (1960). Under Commission rules, a carrier may include a tariff user's guide explaining how to use its tariff. 47 C.F.R. � 61.54(e). NECA Tariff at 30 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. Second Supplement Opposition at 10. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-7. supra. Farmers also asserts that the tariff cannot be read to limit the definition of ``end users'' to purchasers of tariffed services because it has purportedly used that term in a contrary manner in other parts of the tariff.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.txt
  • Iowa Telecom's interstate access tariff revision. DisCUSSION We find that WorldCom raises substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Iowa Telecom's tariff revision that require further investigation. WorldCom questions whether the revision is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act and whether the language of the revision is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. WorldCom further questions whether Iowa Telecom has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Iowa Telecom's FCC Tariff No. 1, Transmittal No. 22 require further investigation, and suspend it for five months. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.txt
  • FCC No. 1. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of BellSouth's tariff revision that require further investigation. They question whether the revision violates a Commission prescription, is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, and whether the language of the revision is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether BellSouth has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of BellSouth's FCC Tariff No. 1, Transmittal No. 657 require further investigation, and we suspend it for five months. The specific
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.txt
  • DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether SBC has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. Finally, certain petitioners claim that SBC's revisions conflict with provisions of the bankruptcy code. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's FCC Tariffs Nos. 2, 1,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.txt
  • DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Verizon's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether Verizon has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. Finally, certain petitioners claim that Verizon's revisions conflict with provisions of the bankruptcy code and FCC and state commission rules regarding discontinuance of service. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.txt
  • tariffs, and we suspend for one day and set for investigation Verizon's revisions to its interstate access Tariff FCC Nos. 1 and 11. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Verizon's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules, whether the revisions, including provisioning of the PARTS offering, are unjust, unreasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the revisions violate Verizon's obligations to provide notice of network changes to affected carriers under section 251(c)(5) of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules. Petitioners further question whether
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.txt
  • We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of NECA's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of section 202(a) of the Act, and are impermissibly vague in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. WorldCom further questions whether NECA has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of NECA's FCC Tariff No. 5, Transmittal No. 951 require further investigation, and we suspend it for five months. The specific
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.txt
  • deposit, if applicable; and/or 4) a customer represents a significant financial risk based on objective financial standards such as but not limited to Moody's Investor Services, Standard and Poor's, D&B, and ratings issued by independent and non-affiliated regional analysts of financial information.'' WorldCom asserts that the proposed security deposit language is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules and is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b). Discussion The first issue designated for investigation is whether the revised security deposit provisions applicable to interstate access customers, both new and existing, are reasonable and not so vague as to permit Iowa Telecom to discriminate unreasonably among its interstate access customers, whether they be interexchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.txt
  • Customer's estimated billing for service(s), calculated by using an average of the most recent three (3) months of undisputed charges.'' Several carriers petitioned against the BellSouth Transmittal No. 657. These parties allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act; (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules; (3) permit BellSouth too much discretion in determining whether a customer is credit worthy; and (4) have the potential to be anticompetitive because BellSouth could impose unnecessary and burdensome credit requirements on its carrier customers that are also its competitors. US LEC states that a requirement for two months' cash deposit by all network providers could
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2522A1.pdf
  • seven days the notice period before which Verizon can refuse to process new orders or discontinue service. Several carriers petitioned against the Verizon Transmittal No. 226. These petitioners allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules, and (3) permit Verizon too much discretion in determining whether to require a security deposit or advance payments for services. In addition, several petitioners assert that requiring a security deposit or advance payment from any customer that has ``commenced a voluntary receivership or bankruptcy proceeding (or had a receivership or bankruptcy proceeding initiated against it)'' conflicts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.txt
  • Treasury Bill. SBC will pay interest only on deposits, not prepayments. Several carriers petitioned against the SBC Transmittal Nos. 1312, 20, 77, 772, and 2906. These parties allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. In addition, ALTS, ASCENT, and WorldCom argue that the $1 million dollar threshold is unjust and unreasonably discriminatory. ALTS, ASCENT, Nextel, Sprint, and WorldCom assert that an entity's credit standing in the investment community has no direct bearing on its ability to pay its bills on a timely basis. ALTS also asserts that the interest paid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.txt
  • published by Dun & Bradstreet of at least ``average.'' Several carriers petitioned against NECA's Transmittal No. 951. These parties question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of section 202(a) of the Act, and are impermissibly vague in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. Discussion The initial issue designated for investigation is whether the revised security deposit provisions applicable to interstate access customers are reasonable and not so vague as to permit carriers participating in the NECA tariff to discriminate unreasonably among interstate access customers, whether they be interexchange carriers, competitive LECs, or business end-user subscribers. The interstate access market
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.txt
  • offering are unreasonably high and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act; whether Verizon's tariff revisions, including provisioning of the PARTS offering, are unjust, unreasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act; whether the language of the tariff revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules; and whether Verizon is complying with its obligations to provide notice of network changes to affected carriers, under section 251(c)(5) of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules. When Verizon provides information responsive to a particular paragraph, including supporting documents, Verizon is directed to segregate and mark the responsive information as ``Responsive to Paragraph __,'' by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.txt
  • 39, and 73. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's tariff transmittals that require further investigation. They question whether SBC's tariff transmittals are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Sprint further questions whether SBC has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's FCC Tariffs Nos. 2, 1, 1, 39 and 73, Transmittal Nos. 1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022, respectively, require
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • Index (SBI) value for each affected service category, subcategory or density zone when a price cap tariff filing proposes changes to such categories. Section 61.47 also limits the data that may be included in the required calculations. Section 61.49 was adopted to assist carriers by detailing the information to be filed with each price cap tariff filing as appropriate. Section 61.54 was adopted to inform tariff filers of formatting requirements for each tariff filing. Section 61.55 was adopted to provide the detailed information required when price cap carriers file contract-based tariffs pursuant to section 69.727(a). Section 61.58 was adopted to detail the specific number of days required to provide adequate notice of various types of tariff filings. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280523A1.txt
  • bidders somewhat overbid for the first unit of spectrum, by collectively bidding 260 instead of 201, in all other respects, the experimental bidding conforms exactly to a Type 1 equilibrium. Table 5: Bids Submitted in Session 1 of the Experiment Bidder Bid 1 Bid 2 Price Surplus A 460 240 200 250 B 300 200 200 100 C 80 80 61.54 58.46 D 100 60 76.92 43.08 E 20 20 15.38 44.62 F 10 10 7.69 52.31 G 20 10 15.38 24.62 H 30 20 23.08 16.92 Sum C - H 260 200 200 240 Summary results for all experimental sessions are shown in Table 6. These results show that Type 1 equilibria were obtained in the vast majority of experimental
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • OF ODON 0.00 -1.86 1.89 -12.48 320807 C PERRY-SPENCER RURAL -2.54 -4.38 1.93 -14.93 320809 A COMM CORP OF S. IN 7.93 -6.93 15.97 48.28 320813 C PULASKI-WHITE RURAL -10.62 -5.65 -5.27 -29.00 320815 C ROCHESTER TEL CO 6.38 -8.62 16.41 30.80 320816 A S & W TEL CO 14.08 -4.21 19.09 60.66 320818 C SMITHVILLE COMM. 24.43 -4.73 30.60 61.54 320819 C SE INDIANA RURAL 7.60 -3.07 11.01 10.61 320825 C SUNMAN TELECOMM CORP -11.63 -3.93 -8.02 -31.91 320826 A SWAYZEE TEL CO -0.90 -6.04 5.47 -36.38 320827 A SWEETSER RURAL TEL -4.21 -7.29 3.32 -100.00 320828 C FRONTIER-THORNTOWN -5.06 -3.17 -1.94 0.00 320829 A TIPTON TEL CO -10.41 -8.05 -2.57 0.00 320830 A TRI-COUNTY TEL CO 1.80 -3.86 5.90
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • OF ODON 0.00 -1.86 1.89 -12.48 320807 C PERRY-SPENCER RURAL -2.54 -4.38 1.93 -14.93 320809 A COMM CORP OF S. IN 7.93 -6.93 15.97 48.28 320813 C PULASKI-WHITE RURAL -10.62 -5.65 -5.27 -29.00 320815 C ROCHESTER TEL CO 6.38 -8.62 16.41 30.80 320816 A S & W TEL CO 14.08 -4.21 19.09 60.66 320818 C SMITHVILLE COMM. 24.43 -4.73 30.60 61.54 320819 C SE INDIANA RURAL 7.60 -3.07 11.01 10.61 320825 C SUNMAN TELECOMM CORP -11.63 -3.93 -8.02 -31.91 320826 A SWAYZEE TEL CO -0.90 -6.04 5.47 -36.38 320827 A SWEETSER RURAL TEL -4.21 -7.29 3.32 -100.00 320828 C FRONTIER-THORNTOWN -5.06 -3.17 -1.94 0.00 320829 A TIPTON TEL CO -10.41 -8.05 -2.57 0.00 320830 A TRI-COUNTY TEL CO 1.80 -3.86 5.90
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.txt
  • MR-5-01 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 23.04 13.51 20.09 16.67 19.19 20.00 19.56 38.46 2c,3c,3n Resale Special Services MR-2-01 Network Trouble Report Rate 0.83 1.53 0.81 0.97 0.90 1.12 1.04 1.33 2n,3n MR-4-01 Mean Time To Repair - Total 6.97 6.55 6.20 7.80 5.82 7.68 5.73 7.53 2n MR-4-06 % Out of Service > 4 Hours 59.31 67.31 57.19 61.54 55.67 63.46 50.21 66.67 1n,2n,3n MR-4-08 % Out of Service > 24 Hours 2.15 0.00 2.46 5.13 1.90 1.92 2.05 3.51 2n,3n,4n MR-5-01 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 22.13 25.00 24.32 28.89 24.56 26.92 27.28 25.81 1n,2n,3n UNEs: Ordering All UNE Orders OR-8-01 % Acknowledgements on Time 99.49 98.21 99.05 98.22 OR-9-01 % Acknowledgement Completeness 96.67 99.90 99.23 99.64
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.txt
  • at 8 and Exh. 1 (filed Aug. 15, 2002) (CTC et al. Opposition); BellSouth Tariff FCC No. 1, Transmittal No. 657, Letter from Jonathan D. Lee, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CompTel to Tamara Preiss Chief, Pricing Division [sic] at 2 (filed July 1, 2002) (CompTel July 1 Ex Parte Letter). 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 47 C.F.R. �� 61.2 and 61.54(j). See Petition for Emergency Declaratory and Other Relief, WC Docket No. 02-202, CompTel July 1 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (describing special access [billed in advance] as ``the primary access service that most [competitive] LECs use''). Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-337 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-337 � � � � � � � � � � @ �� ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A1.txt
  • 2.46 16.41 2 12.97 0.65 1,2,3,4,5 MR-4-07-3342 % Out of Service > 12 Hours 53.9 54.55 80 22.22 66.67 35.29 64 25 66.67 27.27 MR-4-08-3342 % Out of Service > 24 Hours 23.1 22.73 20 11.11 44.44 5.88 28 16.67 8.33 0 MR-5 - Repeat Trouble Reports MR-5-01-3342 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 30.8 42.31 45.45 30.77 33.33 52.63 61.54 33.33 33.33 30.77 2-Wire xDSL Line Sharing - Maintenance MR-2 - Trouble Report Rate MR-2-02-3343 Network Trouble Report Rate - Loop 0.15 0 0.13 0 0.12 0 0.17 0 0.07 0 1,2,3,4,5 MR-2-03-3343 Network Trouble Report Rate - Central Office 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.13 0 0.03 0 1,2,3,4,5 MR-3 - Missed Repair Appointments MR-3-01-3343 % Missed Repair
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-163A1.txt
  • 2906 (Com. Car. Bur. 2001); Joint Statement at 4, � 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). Joint Statement at 4, � 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). CT 6831 and COA No. CX003 contain identical terms, with the only difference being that AT&T filed CT 6831 in standard tariff format in accordance with the Commission's requirements. See 47 C.F.R. �� 61.54, 61.55 (1991). Although CT 6831 was available to any other customer ``similarly situated'' to Ryder (Complaint, Ex E-6 (CT 6831) at original page 4, ``Availability''), no other party ordered service from AT&T under CT 6831. Supplement to Answer of AT&T Corp, File No. EB-02-MD-038 (filed Feb. 6, 2003) (``Supplemental Answer'') at 24, � 58. Joint Statement at 5, � 24;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.txt
  • court's March 5 decision as inconsistent with the primary jurisdiction referral, and reordered the parties to bring the issue to the Commission. On July 15, 1996, the aggregators filed a petition with the Commission in which, ``based on established Commission practice, policies, and precedents, the plain language of � 203 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, F.C.C. Rule 61.54(j), and Sections 201 and 202 of the Act,'' they sought declaratory rulings on four issues. By separate cover motion, the aggregators also sought expedited consideration of their petition for declaratory ruling because, they alleged, AT&T was unlawfully billing certain charges to the aggregators' end-users. AT&T filed Comments in Opposition on August 26, 1996, and Petitioners filed Reply Comments on September
• 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
  • 47 U.S.C. � 160(a)(1). See ACS Petition at 29-45. See, e.g., id. at 29. Id.; see also ACS Reply at 11. Specifically, we forbear from applying the following rules only to the extent they apply to dominant carrier switched access and end-user rates and on the condition ACS complies with provisions applicable to nondominant carriers: 47 C.F.R. �� 1.773(a)(iii), 61.38, 61.54, 61.58, 61.59, 63.03(b)(2), 63.71, Part 65, Part 69, Subparts A and B. CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 38. Id. at 9935-36, para. 31. Id. at 9925, para. 3; see also 47 C.F.R. � 61.26. CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 40. Id. at 9938, para. 39. We cap each
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-42A1.txt
  • services will remove them from a customer's Managed Value Plan (MVP) and cause AT&T to violate its merger commitment not to raise rates. The Petitioners also contend that customers who subscribe to an MVP can only meet their Minimum Annual Revenue Commitment (MARC) ``based solely on services set forth in the tariff'' or AT&T will be in violation of section 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. Finally, Sprint also argues that AT&T's detariffing of its Dedicated SONET Ring Service included the DS1 and DS3 port connections that were offered as part of that service, which exceeds the scope of forbearance granted in the AT&T Enterprise Broadband Forbearance Order. On February 6, 2008, AT&T filed an opposition to the TWT/COMPTEL and Sprint/Nextel petitions.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.txt
  • motion is granted. NECA Tariff, � 6.1 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. See Commodity News Services, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Initial Decision, 29 FCC 1208, 1213, aff'd, 29 FCC 1205 (1960). Under Commission rules, a carrier may include a tariff user's guide explaining how to use its tariff. 47 C.F.R. � 61.54(e). NECA Tariff at 30 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. Second Supplement Opposition at 10. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-7. supra. Farmers also asserts that the tariff cannot be read to limit the definition of ``end users'' to purchasers of tariffed services because it has purportedly used that term in a contrary manner in other parts of the tariff.
• 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
  • filing? We also invite comment on the numbering of special permission applications pursuant to section 61.17. If mandatory electronic filing is required, should the first special permission application filed electronically for a carrier start with number one or should the special permission application continue to be numbered sequentially from the last non-electronically filed special permission request? Currently, sections 61.52 and 61.54 of our rules, which require specific formatting and composition of tariffs, apply only to dominant carriers. Because we will be requiring all carriers to file tariffs electronically, we believe that it may be beneficial for the public and Commission staff to have consistent formatting of all tariffs. Accordingly, we propose that all carriers should be required to comply with 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
  • Report and Order, 104 FCC 2d 958, paras. 214-17, 220-22 (1986) (requiring the identification and tariffing of certain Basic Service Elements underlying enhanced services). See also, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 61.2(a) (``In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all tariff publications must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations.''); 47 C.F.R. � 61.54(j) (``The general rules (including definitions), regulations, exceptions, and conditions which govern the tariff must be stated clearly and definitely.''). . . AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. at 384. Compare CBeyond et al. USF/ICC Transformation NPRM Comments at 10-11 with Global Crossing USF/ICC Transformation NPRM Comments at 12-13. See iBasis August 3 PN Comments at 1-2. 47 U.S.C. �
• 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
  • electronic filings because there would be duplicate transmittal and application numbers. We agree and clarify that for carriers converting from non-electronic filings, transmittal numbers must continue sequentially from the last non-electronic filing, consistent with section 61.15 of our rules. Special permission application numbers must also continue to be numbered sequentially from the last non-electronically filed application. Currently, sections 61.52 and 61.54 of our rules, which require specific formatting and composition of tariffs, apply only to dominant carriers. Because we will be requiring all carriers to file tariffs electronically, in the ETFS NPRM, we proposed that all carriers be required to comply with the formatting and composition requirements of our rules. This would ensure that all tariffs have a basic uniformity that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-206A1.txt
  • for expanded interconnection, as defined in Section 69.121 of this chapter, must also be accompanied by: * * * 13. Add � 61.55 to read as follows: � 61.55 Contract-based tariffs. (a) This section shall apply to price cap LECs permitted to offer contract-based tariffs under Section 69.727(a) of this chapter. (b) Composition of contract-based tariffs shall comply with Sections 61.54(b) through (i) of this part. (c) Contract-based tariffs shall include the following: (1) The term of contract, including any renewal options; (2) A brief description of each of the services provided under the contract; (3) Minimum volume commitments for each service; Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-206 B-9 (4) The contract price for each service or services at the volume levels
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • price cap regulation. * * * (l) Above the bottom margin of each page of cost support material submitted pursuant to this section, the carrier shall indicate the transmittal number under which that page was submitted. 56. Delete Section 61.50. 57. Delete Section 61.51. 58. Redesignate Section 61.53 as Section 61.83. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 29 59. Revise Section 61.54(b)(3) to read as follows: � 61.54 Composition of Tariffs. * * * (b) * * * (3) Expiration Date. Subject to Section 61.59, when the entire tariff or supplement is to expire with a fixed date, the expiration date must be shown in connection with the effective date in the following manner. Changes in expiration date must be made pursuant
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.wp
  • for expanded interconnection, as defined in Section 69.121 of this chapter, must also be accompanied by: * * * 13. Add � 61.55 to read as follows: � 61.55 Contract-based tariffs. (a) This section shall apply to price cap LECs permitted to offer contract-based tariffs under Section 69.727(a) of this chapter. (b) Composition of contract-based tariffs shall comply with Sections 61.54(b) through (i) of this part. (c) Contract-based tariffs shall include the following: (1) The term of contract, including any renewal options; (2) A brief description of each of the services provided under the contract; (3) Minimum volume commitments for each service; Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-206 B-9 (4) The contract price for each service or services at the volume levels
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-163A1.html
  • FCC Rcd 2906 (Com. Car. Bur. 2001); Joint Statement at 4, 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). 17 Joint Statement at 4, 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). CT 6831 and COA No. CX003 contain identical terms, with the only difference being that AT&T filed CT 6831 in standard tariff format in accordance with the Commission's requirements. See 47 C.F.R. 61.54, 61.55 (1991). Although CT 6831 was available to any other customer ``similarly situated'' to Ryder (Complaint, Ex E-6 (CT 6831) at original page 4, ``Availability''), no other party ordered service from AT&T under CT 6831. Supplement to Answer of AT&T Corp, File No. EB-02-MD-038 (filed Feb. 6, 2003) (``Supplemental Answer'') at 24, 58. 18 Joint Statement at 5, 24; Answer,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-103A1.html
  • motion is granted. NECA Tariff, S: 6.1 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. See Commodity News Services, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Initial Decision, 29 FCC 1208, 1213, aff'd, 29 FCC 1205 (1960). Under Commission rules, a carrier may include a tariff user's guide explaining how to use its tariff. 47 C.F.R. S: 61.54(e). NECA Tariff at 30 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. Second Supplement Opposition at 10. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-7. See n.85 supra. Farmers also asserts that the tariff cannot be read to limit the definition of "end users" to purchasers of tariffed services because it has purportedly used that term in a contrary manner in other parts of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • price cap regulation. * * * (l) Above the bottom margin of each page of cost support material submitted pursuant to this section, the carrier shall indicate the transmittal number under which that page was submitted. 56. Delete Section 61.50. 57. Delete Section 61.51. 58. Redesignate Section 61.53 as Section 61.83. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 29 59. Revise Section 61.54(b)(3) to read as follows: � 61.54 Composition of Tariffs. * * * (b) * * * (3) Expiration Date. Subject to Section 61.59, when the entire tariff or supplement is to expire with a fixed date, the expiration date must be shown in connection with the effective date in the following manner. Changes in expiration date must be made pursuant
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.wp
  • for expanded interconnection, as defined in Section 69.121 of this chapter, must also be accompanied by: * * * 13. Add � 61.55 to read as follows: � 61.55 Contract-based tariffs. (a) This section shall apply to price cap LECs permitted to offer contract-based tariffs under Section 69.727(a) of this chapter. (b) Composition of contract-based tariffs shall comply with Sections 61.54(b) through (i) of this part. (c) Contract-based tariffs shall include the following: (1) The term of contract, including any renewal options; (2) A brief description of each of the services provided under the contract; (3) Minimum volume commitments for each service; Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-206 B-9 (4) The contract price for each service or services at the volume levels
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf
  • 81,032 44,930 55.45% 36,092 44.54% 10 0.01% 1981 82,581 40,425 48.95 42,099 50.98 57 0.07 1982 83,819 36,813 43.92 46,803 55.84 203 0.24 1983 86,186 32,652 37.89 52,919 61.40 615 0.71 1984 88,630 30,074 33.93 56,404 63.64 2,151 2.43 1985 91,455 24,778 27.09 58,532 64.00 8,145 8.91 1986 93,630 19,491 20.82 59,252 63.28 14,886 15.90 1987 96,593 14,205 14.71 59,442 61.54 22,946 23.76 1988 99,564 8,707 8.74 60,364 60.63 30,493 30.63 1989 102,684 5,646 5.50 58,846 57.31 38,192 37.19 1990 105,641 3,216 3.04 56,973 53.93 45,452 43.02 1991 107,388 1,876 1.75 53,450 49.77 52,061 48.48 1992 109,997 717 0.65 48,952 44.50 60,324 54.84 1993 113,368 264 0.23 41,912 36.97 71,192 62.80 1994 117,345 115 0.10 33,191 28.28 84,040 71.62 1995 122,266
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend504.pdf
  • 81,032 44,930 55.45% 36,092 44.54% 10 0.01% 1981 82,581 40,425 48.95 42,099 50.98 57 0.07 1982 83,819 36,813 43.92 46,803 55.84 203 0.24 1983 86,186 32,652 37.89 52,919 61.40 615 0.71 1984 88,630 30,074 33.93 56,404 63.64 2,151 2.43 1985 91,455 24,778 27.09 58,532 64.00 8,145 8.91 1986 93,630 19,491 20.82 59,252 63.28 14,886 15.90 1987 96,593 14,205 14.71 59,442 61.54 22,946 23.76 1988 99,564 8,707 8.74 60,364 60.63 30,493 30.63 1989 102,684 5,646 5.50 58,846 57.31 38,192 37.19 1990 105,641 3,216 3.04 56,973 53.93 45,452 43.02 1991 107,388 1,876 1.75 53,450 49.77 52,061 48.48 1992 109,997 717 0.65 48,952 44.50 60,324 54.84 1993 113,368 264 0.23 41,912 36.97 71,192 62.80 1994 117,345 115 0.10 33,191 28.28 84,040 71.62 1995 122,266
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
  • 81,032 44,930 55.45% 36,092 44.54% 10 0.01% 1981 82,581 40,425 48.95 42,099 50.98 57 0.07 1982 83,819 36,813 43.92 46,803 55.84 203 0.24 1983 86,186 32,652 37.89 52,919 61.40 615 0.71 1984 88,630 30,074 33.93 56,404 63.64 2,151 2.43 1985 91,455 24,778 27.09 58,532 64.00 8,145 8.91 1986 93,630 19,491 20.82 59,252 63.28 14,886 15.90 1987 96,593 14,205 14.71 59,442 61.54 22,946 23.76 1988 99,564 8,707 8.74 60,364 60.63 30,493 30.63 1989 102,684 5,646 5.50 58,846 57.31 38,192 37.19 1990 105,641 3,216 3.04 56,973 53.93 45,452 43.02 1991 107,388 1,876 1.75 53,450 49.77 52,061 48.48 1992 109,997 717 0.65 48,952 44.50 60,324 54.84 1993 113,368 264 0.23 41,912 36.97 71,192 62.80 1994 117,345 115 0.10 33,191 28.28 84,040 71.62 1995 122,266
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend803.pdf
  • 81,032 44,930 55.45% 36,092 44.54% 10 0.01% 1981 82,581 40,425 48.95 42,099 50.98 57 0.07 1982 83,819 36,813 43.92 46,803 55.84 203 0.24 1983 86,186 32,652 37.89 52,919 61.40 615 0.71 1984 88,630 30,074 33.93 56,404 63.64 2,151 2.43 1985 91,455 24,778 27.09 58,532 64.00 8,145 8.91 1986 93,630 19,491 20.82 59,252 63.28 14,886 15.90 1987 96,593 14,205 14.71 59,442 61.54 22,946 23.76 1988 99,564 8,707 8.74 60,364 60.63 30,493 30.63 1989 102,684 5,646 5.50 58,846 57.31 38,192 37.19 1990 105,641 3,216 3.04 56,973 53.93 45,452 43.02 1991 107,388 1,876 1.75 53,450 49.77 52,061 48.48 1992 109,997 717 0.65 48,952 44.50 60,324 54.84 1993 113,368 264 0.23 41,912 36.97 71,192 62.80 1994 117,345 115 0.10 33,191 28.28 84,040 71.62 1995 122,266
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • 23.46 9,395,591 7.36 North Dakota 112,751 2,273,776 20.17 1,705,835 15.13 567,941 5.04 Northern Mariana Is. 9,692 95,401 9.84 43,940 4.53 51,461 5.31 Ohio 1,836,554 46,183,574 25.15 37,485,305 20.41 8,698,269 4.74 Oklahoma 627,032 36,633,689 58.42 27,341,726 43.60 9,291,962 14.82 Oregon 545,033 11,504,640 21.11 7,754,864 14.23 3,749,776 6.88 Pennsylvania 1,816,716 80,918,564 44.54 55,276,576 30.43 25,641,988 14.11 Puerto Rico 613,019 67,205,918 109.63 37,723,470 61.54 29,482,448 48.09 Rhode Island 156,454 7,881,029 50.37 5,488,540 35.08 2,392,490 15.29 South Carolina 666,780 38,920,136 58.37 28,356,513 42.53 10,563,623 15.84 South Dakota 131,037 2,194,936 16.75 1,307,010 9.97 887,926 6.78 Tennessee 916,202 66,302,487 72.37 46,872,395 51.16 19,430,092 21.21 Texas 3,991,783 146,743,131 36.76 119,959,948 30.05 26,783,183 6.71 Utah 480,255 5,293,094 11.02 4,434,828 9.23 858,266 1.79 Vermont 104,559 1,712,000 16.37 997,705 9.54 714,295
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-163A1.html
  • FCC Rcd 2906 (Com. Car. Bur. 2001); Joint Statement at 4, 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). 17 Joint Statement at 4, 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). CT 6831 and COA No. CX003 contain identical terms, with the only difference being that AT&T filed CT 6831 in standard tariff format in accordance with the Commission's requirements. See 47 C.F.R. 61.54, 61.55 (1991). Although CT 6831 was available to any other customer ``similarly situated'' to Ryder (Complaint, Ex E-6 (CT 6831) at original page 4, ``Availability''), no other party ordered service from AT&T under CT 6831. Supplement to Answer of AT&T Corp, File No. EB-02-MD-038 (filed Feb. 6, 2003) (``Supplemental Answer'') at 24, 58. 18 Joint Statement at 5, 24; Answer,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-103A1.html
  • motion is granted. NECA Tariff, S: 6.1 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. See Commodity News Services, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Initial Decision, 29 FCC 1208, 1213, aff'd, 29 FCC 1205 (1960). Under Commission rules, a carrier may include a tariff user's guide explaining how to use its tariff. 47 C.F.R. S: 61.54(e). NECA Tariff at 30 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. Second Supplement Opposition at 10. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-7. See n.85 supra. Farmers also asserts that the tariff cannot be read to limit the definition of "end users" to purchasers of tariffed services because it has purportedly used that term in a contrary manner in other parts of
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1996/swbell.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1996/swbell.wp
  • new rates were not discriminatory because they would be available to similarly situated customers; and the deviation would foster economic efficiency. The Commission ultimately concluded that the tariff amendment was unlawful, on what it claimed were three "independent" grounds. The Commission found that the tariff amendment's language was vague and ambiguous in violation of Commission rules, see 47 C.F.R. 61.2, 61.54(j) (1995), requiring tariff language to be clear and explicit. The Commission also determined--although Southwestern Bell had never contended to the contrary, and does not now--that the tariff amendment was inconsistent with the Commission's geographically averaged rate requirement and did not comply with the Commission's explicitly recognized deviations from that requirement. And the tariff failed the first prong of the competitive
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.pdf
  • motion is granted. NECA Tariff, � 6.1 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. See Commodity News Services, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Initial Decision, 29 FCC 1208, 1213, aff'd, 29 FCC 1205 (1960). Under Commission rules, a carrier may include a tariff user's guide explaining how to use its tariff. 47 C.F.R. � 61.54(e). NECA Tariff at 30 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. Second Supplement Opposition at 10. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-7. supra. Farmers also asserts that the tariff cannot be read to limit the definition of ``end users'' to purchasers of tariffed services because it has purportedly used that term in a contrary manner in other parts of the tariff.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1732A1.txt
  • Iowa Telecom's interstate access tariff revision. DisCUSSION We find that WorldCom raises substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Iowa Telecom's tariff revision that require further investigation. WorldCom questions whether the revision is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act and whether the language of the revision is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. WorldCom further questions whether Iowa Telecom has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Iowa Telecom's FCC Tariff No. 1, Transmittal No. 22 require further investigation, and suspend it for five months. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1886A1.txt
  • FCC No. 1. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of BellSouth's tariff revision that require further investigation. They question whether the revision violates a Commission prescription, is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, and whether the language of the revision is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether BellSouth has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of BellSouth's FCC Tariff No. 1, Transmittal No. 657 require further investigation, and we suspend it for five months. The specific
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2039A1.txt
  • DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether SBC has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. Finally, certain petitioners claim that SBC's revisions conflict with provisions of the bankruptcy code. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's FCC Tariffs Nos. 2, 1,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2055A1.txt
  • DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Verizon's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Petitioners further question whether Verizon has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. Finally, certain petitioners claim that Verizon's revisions conflict with provisions of the bankruptcy code and FCC and state commission rules regarding discontinuance of service. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2140A1.txt
  • tariffs, and we suspend for one day and set for investigation Verizon's revisions to its interstate access Tariff FCC Nos. 1 and 11. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of Verizon's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules, whether the revisions, including provisioning of the PARTS offering, are unjust, unreasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the revisions violate Verizon's obligations to provide notice of network changes to affected carriers under section 251(c)(5) of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules. Petitioners further question whether
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2141A1.txt
  • We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of NECA's tariff revisions that require further investigation. They question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of section 202(a) of the Act, and are impermissibly vague in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. WorldCom further questions whether NECA has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of NECA's FCC Tariff No. 5, Transmittal No. 951 require further investigation, and we suspend it for five months. The specific
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2317A1.txt
  • deposit, if applicable; and/or 4) a customer represents a significant financial risk based on objective financial standards such as but not limited to Moody's Investor Services, Standard and Poor's, D&B, and ratings issued by independent and non-affiliated regional analysts of financial information.'' WorldCom asserts that the proposed security deposit language is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules and is unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b). Discussion The first issue designated for investigation is whether the revised security deposit provisions applicable to interstate access customers, both new and existing, are reasonable and not so vague as to permit Iowa Telecom to discriminate unreasonably among its interstate access customers, whether they be interexchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2318A1.txt
  • Customer's estimated billing for service(s), calculated by using an average of the most recent three (3) months of undisputed charges.'' Several carriers petitioned against the BellSouth Transmittal No. 657. These parties allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act; (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules; (3) permit BellSouth too much discretion in determining whether a customer is credit worthy; and (4) have the potential to be anticompetitive because BellSouth could impose unnecessary and burdensome credit requirements on its carrier customers that are also its competitors. US LEC states that a requirement for two months' cash deposit by all network providers could
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2522A1.pdf
  • seven days the notice period before which Verizon can refuse to process new orders or discontinue service. Several carriers petitioned against the Verizon Transmittal No. 226. These petitioners allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules, and (3) permit Verizon too much discretion in determining whether to require a security deposit or advance payments for services. In addition, several petitioners assert that requiring a security deposit or advance payment from any customer that has ``commenced a voluntary receivership or bankruptcy proceeding (or had a receivership or bankruptcy proceeding initiated against it)'' conflicts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2577A1.txt
  • Treasury Bill. SBC will pay interest only on deposits, not prepayments. Several carriers petitioned against the SBC Transmittal Nos. 1312, 20, 77, 772, and 2906. These parties allege that the tariff revisions: (1) are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and (2) are vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. In addition, ALTS, ASCENT, and WorldCom argue that the $1 million dollar threshold is unjust and unreasonably discriminatory. ALTS, ASCENT, Nextel, Sprint, and WorldCom assert that an entity's credit standing in the investment community has no direct bearing on its ability to pay its bills on a timely basis. ALTS also asserts that the interest paid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2948A1.txt
  • published by Dun & Bradstreet of at least ``average.'' Several carriers petitioned against NECA's Transmittal No. 951. These parties question whether the revisions violate a Commission prescription, are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of the Act, are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of section 202(a) of the Act, and are impermissibly vague in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. Discussion The initial issue designated for investigation is whether the revised security deposit provisions applicable to interstate access customers are reasonable and not so vague as to permit carriers participating in the NECA tariff to discriminate unreasonably among interstate access customers, whether they be interexchange carriers, competitive LECs, or business end-user subscribers. The interstate access market
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3196A1.txt
  • offering are unreasonably high and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act; whether Verizon's tariff revisions, including provisioning of the PARTS offering, are unjust, unreasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act; whether the language of the tariff revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules; and whether Verizon is complying with its obligations to provide notice of network changes to affected carriers, under section 251(c)(5) of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules. When Verizon provides information responsive to a particular paragraph, including supporting documents, Verizon is directed to segregate and mark the responsive information as ``Responsive to Paragraph __,'' by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4048A1.txt
  • 39, and 73. DisCUSSION We find that petitioners raise substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's tariff transmittals that require further investigation. They question whether SBC's tariff transmittals are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory in violation of sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, and whether the language of the revisions is vague and ambiguous in violation of sections 61.2 and 61.54 of the Commission's rules. Sprint further questions whether SBC has demonstrated substantial cause for a material change by a dominant carrier in a provision of a term plan. For these reasons, we conclude that substantial questions regarding the lawfulness of SBC's FCC Tariffs Nos. 2, 1, 1, 39 and 73, Transmittal Nos. 1430, 84, 187, 843, and 3022, respectively, require
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • Index (SBI) value for each affected service category, subcategory or density zone when a price cap tariff filing proposes changes to such categories. Section 61.47 also limits the data that may be included in the required calculations. Section 61.49 was adopted to assist carriers by detailing the information to be filed with each price cap tariff filing as appropriate. Section 61.54 was adopted to inform tariff filers of formatting requirements for each tariff filing. Section 61.55 was adopted to provide the detailed information required when price cap carriers file contract-based tariffs pursuant to section 69.727(a). Section 61.58 was adopted to detail the specific number of days required to provide adequate notice of various types of tariff filings. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-96-712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-96-712A1.txt
  • and facilities-based carriers that seek to change their tariffs, or applicants that seek to implement new international tariffs, may file such tariffs on one days' notice. Thus, international tariffs may be filed on May 9th and the tariffs will be presumed lawful and effective on May 10th. Until further notice, applicants will continue to file international tariffs pursuant to Section 61.54 of the Commission's Rules. -Having a one day notice period will accelerate the entry of new carriers and the introduction of new service offerings into the U.S. international telecommunications market. The Commission adopted the one day notice period for international tariffs in a comprehensive Report and Order issued on March 13, 1996, that streamlined the international Section 214 authorization process
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280523A1.txt
  • bidders somewhat overbid for the first unit of spectrum, by collectively bidding 260 instead of 201, in all other respects, the experimental bidding conforms exactly to a Type 1 equilibrium. Table 5: Bids Submitted in Session 1 of the Experiment Bidder Bid 1 Bid 2 Price Surplus A 460 240 200 250 B 300 200 200 100 C 80 80 61.54 58.46 D 100 60 76.92 43.08 E 20 20 15.38 44.62 F 10 10 7.69 52.31 G 20 10 15.38 24.62 H 30 20 23.08 16.92 Sum C - H 260 200 200 240 Summary results for all experimental sessions are shown in Table 6. These results show that Type 1 equilibria were obtained in the vast majority of experimental
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • OF ODON 0.00 -1.86 1.89 -12.48 320807 C PERRY-SPENCER RURAL -2.54 -4.38 1.93 -14.93 320809 A COMM CORP OF S. IN 7.93 -6.93 15.97 48.28 320813 C PULASKI-WHITE RURAL -10.62 -5.65 -5.27 -29.00 320815 C ROCHESTER TEL CO 6.38 -8.62 16.41 30.80 320816 A S & W TEL CO 14.08 -4.21 19.09 60.66 320818 C SMITHVILLE COMM. 24.43 -4.73 30.60 61.54 320819 C SE INDIANA RURAL 7.60 -3.07 11.01 10.61 320825 C SUNMAN TELECOMM CORP -11.63 -3.93 -8.02 -31.91 320826 A SWAYZEE TEL CO -0.90 -6.04 5.47 -36.38 320827 A SWEETSER RURAL TEL -4.21 -7.29 3.32 -100.00 320828 C FRONTIER-THORNTOWN -5.06 -3.17 -1.94 0.00 320829 A TIPTON TEL CO -10.41 -8.05 -2.57 0.00 320830 A TRI-COUNTY TEL CO 1.80 -3.86 5.90
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • OF ODON 0.00 -1.86 1.89 -12.48 320807 C PERRY-SPENCER RURAL -2.54 -4.38 1.93 -14.93 320809 A COMM CORP OF S. IN 7.93 -6.93 15.97 48.28 320813 C PULASKI-WHITE RURAL -10.62 -5.65 -5.27 -29.00 320815 C ROCHESTER TEL CO 6.38 -8.62 16.41 30.80 320816 A S & W TEL CO 14.08 -4.21 19.09 60.66 320818 C SMITHVILLE COMM. 24.43 -4.73 30.60 61.54 320819 C SE INDIANA RURAL 7.60 -3.07 11.01 10.61 320825 C SUNMAN TELECOMM CORP -11.63 -3.93 -8.02 -31.91 320826 A SWAYZEE TEL CO -0.90 -6.04 5.47 -36.38 320827 A SWEETSER RURAL TEL -4.21 -7.29 3.32 -100.00 320828 C FRONTIER-THORNTOWN -5.06 -3.17 -1.94 0.00 320829 A TIPTON TEL CO -10.41 -8.05 -2.57 0.00 320830 A TRI-COUNTY TEL CO 1.80 -3.86 5.90
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.txt
  • MR-5-01 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 23.04 13.51 20.09 16.67 19.19 20.00 19.56 38.46 2c,3c,3n Resale Special Services MR-2-01 Network Trouble Report Rate 0.83 1.53 0.81 0.97 0.90 1.12 1.04 1.33 2n,3n MR-4-01 Mean Time To Repair - Total 6.97 6.55 6.20 7.80 5.82 7.68 5.73 7.53 2n MR-4-06 % Out of Service > 4 Hours 59.31 67.31 57.19 61.54 55.67 63.46 50.21 66.67 1n,2n,3n MR-4-08 % Out of Service > 24 Hours 2.15 0.00 2.46 5.13 1.90 1.92 2.05 3.51 2n,3n,4n MR-5-01 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 22.13 25.00 24.32 28.89 24.56 26.92 27.28 25.81 1n,2n,3n UNEs: Ordering All UNE Orders OR-8-01 % Acknowledgements on Time 99.49 98.21 99.05 98.22 OR-9-01 % Acknowledgement Completeness 96.67 99.90 99.23 99.64
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.txt
  • at 8 and Exh. 1 (filed Aug. 15, 2002) (CTC et al. Opposition); BellSouth Tariff FCC No. 1, Transmittal No. 657, Letter from Jonathan D. Lee, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CompTel to Tamara Preiss Chief, Pricing Division [sic] at 2 (filed July 1, 2002) (CompTel July 1 Ex Parte Letter). 47 U.S.C. � 208. See 47 C.F.R. �� 61.2 and 61.54(j). See Petition for Emergency Declaratory and Other Relief, WC Docket No. 02-202, CompTel July 1 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (describing special access [billed in advance] as ``the primary access service that most [competitive] LECs use''). Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-337 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-337 � � � � � � � � � � @ �� ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A1.txt
  • 2.46 16.41 2 12.97 0.65 1,2,3,4,5 MR-4-07-3342 % Out of Service > 12 Hours 53.9 54.55 80 22.22 66.67 35.29 64 25 66.67 27.27 MR-4-08-3342 % Out of Service > 24 Hours 23.1 22.73 20 11.11 44.44 5.88 28 16.67 8.33 0 MR-5 - Repeat Trouble Reports MR-5-01-3342 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 30.8 42.31 45.45 30.77 33.33 52.63 61.54 33.33 33.33 30.77 2-Wire xDSL Line Sharing - Maintenance MR-2 - Trouble Report Rate MR-2-02-3343 Network Trouble Report Rate - Loop 0.15 0 0.13 0 0.12 0 0.17 0 0.07 0 1,2,3,4,5 MR-2-03-3343 Network Trouble Report Rate - Central Office 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.13 0 0.03 0 1,2,3,4,5 MR-3 - Missed Repair Appointments MR-3-01-3343 % Missed Repair
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-163A1.txt
  • 2906 (Com. Car. Bur. 2001); Joint Statement at 4, � 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). Joint Statement at 4, � 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). CT 6831 and COA No. CX003 contain identical terms, with the only difference being that AT&T filed CT 6831 in standard tariff format in accordance with the Commission's requirements. See 47 C.F.R. �� 61.54, 61.55 (1991). Although CT 6831 was available to any other customer ``similarly situated'' to Ryder (Complaint, Ex E-6 (CT 6831) at original page 4, ``Availability''), no other party ordered service from AT&T under CT 6831. Supplement to Answer of AT&T Corp, File No. EB-02-MD-038 (filed Feb. 6, 2003) (``Supplemental Answer'') at 24, � 58. Joint Statement at 5, � 24;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-244A1.txt
  • court's March 5 decision as inconsistent with the primary jurisdiction referral, and reordered the parties to bring the issue to the Commission. On July 15, 1996, the aggregators filed a petition with the Commission in which, ``based on established Commission practice, policies, and precedents, the plain language of � 203 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, F.C.C. Rule 61.54(j), and Sections 201 and 202 of the Act,'' they sought declaratory rulings on four issues. By separate cover motion, the aggregators also sought expedited consideration of their petition for declaratory ruling because, they alleged, AT&T was unlawfully billing certain charges to the aggregators' end-users. AT&T filed Comments in Opposition on August 26, 1996, and Petitioners filed Reply Comments on September
• 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
  • 47 U.S.C. � 160(a)(1). See ACS Petition at 29-45. See, e.g., id. at 29. Id.; see also ACS Reply at 11. Specifically, we forbear from applying the following rules only to the extent they apply to dominant carrier switched access and end-user rates and on the condition ACS complies with provisions applicable to nondominant carriers: 47 C.F.R. �� 1.773(a)(iii), 61.38, 61.54, 61.58, 61.59, 63.03(b)(2), 63.71, Part 65, Part 69, Subparts A and B. CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 38. Id. at 9935-36, para. 31. Id. at 9925, para. 3; see also 47 C.F.R. � 61.26. CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 40. Id. at 9938, para. 39. We cap each
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-42A1.txt
  • services will remove them from a customer's Managed Value Plan (MVP) and cause AT&T to violate its merger commitment not to raise rates. The Petitioners also contend that customers who subscribe to an MVP can only meet their Minimum Annual Revenue Commitment (MARC) ``based solely on services set forth in the tariff'' or AT&T will be in violation of section 61.54(j) of the Commission's rules. Finally, Sprint also argues that AT&T's detariffing of its Dedicated SONET Ring Service included the DS1 and DS3 port connections that were offered as part of that service, which exceeds the scope of forbearance granted in the AT&T Enterprise Broadband Forbearance Order. On February 6, 2008, AT&T filed an opposition to the TWT/COMPTEL and Sprint/Nextel petitions.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.txt
  • motion is granted. NECA Tariff, � 6.1 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. See Commodity News Services, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Initial Decision, 29 FCC 1208, 1213, aff'd, 29 FCC 1205 (1960). Under Commission rules, a carrier may include a tariff user's guide explaining how to use its tariff. 47 C.F.R. � 61.54(e). NECA Tariff at 30 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. Second Supplement Opposition at 10. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-7. supra. Farmers also asserts that the tariff cannot be read to limit the definition of ``end users'' to purchasers of tariffed services because it has purportedly used that term in a contrary manner in other parts of the tariff.
• 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
  • filing? We also invite comment on the numbering of special permission applications pursuant to section 61.17. If mandatory electronic filing is required, should the first special permission application filed electronically for a carrier start with number one or should the special permission application continue to be numbered sequentially from the last non-electronically filed special permission request? Currently, sections 61.52 and 61.54 of our rules, which require specific formatting and composition of tariffs, apply only to dominant carriers. Because we will be requiring all carriers to file tariffs electronically, we believe that it may be beneficial for the public and Commission staff to have consistent formatting of all tariffs. Accordingly, we propose that all carriers should be required to comply with 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
  • Report and Order, 104 FCC 2d 958, paras. 214-17, 220-22 (1986) (requiring the identification and tariffing of certain Basic Service Elements underlying enhanced services). See also, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 61.2(a) (``In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all tariff publications must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations.''); 47 C.F.R. � 61.54(j) (``The general rules (including definitions), regulations, exceptions, and conditions which govern the tariff must be stated clearly and definitely.''). . . AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. at 384. Compare CBeyond et al. USF/ICC Transformation NPRM Comments at 10-11 with Global Crossing USF/ICC Transformation NPRM Comments at 12-13. See iBasis August 3 PN Comments at 1-2. 47 U.S.C. �
• 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
  • electronic filings because there would be duplicate transmittal and application numbers. We agree and clarify that for carriers converting from non-electronic filings, transmittal numbers must continue sequentially from the last non-electronic filing, consistent with section 61.15 of our rules. Special permission application numbers must also continue to be numbered sequentially from the last non-electronically filed application. Currently, sections 61.52 and 61.54 of our rules, which require specific formatting and composition of tariffs, apply only to dominant carriers. Because we will be requiring all carriers to file tariffs electronically, in the ETFS NPRM, we proposed that all carriers be required to comply with the formatting and composition requirements of our rules. This would ensure that all tariffs have a basic uniformity that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-206A1.txt
  • for expanded interconnection, as defined in Section 69.121 of this chapter, must also be accompanied by: * * * 13. Add � 61.55 to read as follows: � 61.55 Contract-based tariffs. (a) This section shall apply to price cap LECs permitted to offer contract-based tariffs under Section 69.727(a) of this chapter. (b) Composition of contract-based tariffs shall comply with Sections 61.54(b) through (i) of this part. (c) Contract-based tariffs shall include the following: (1) The term of contract, including any renewal options; (2) A brief description of each of the services provided under the contract; (3) Minimum volume commitments for each service; Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-206 B-9 (4) The contract price for each service or services at the volume levels
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • price cap regulation. * * * (l) Above the bottom margin of each page of cost support material submitted pursuant to this section, the carrier shall indicate the transmittal number under which that page was submitted. 56. Delete Section 61.50. 57. Delete Section 61.51. 58. Redesignate Section 61.53 as Section 61.83. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 29 59. Revise Section 61.54(b)(3) to read as follows: � 61.54 Composition of Tariffs. * * * (b) * * * (3) Expiration Date. Subject to Section 61.59, when the entire tariff or supplement is to expire with a fixed date, the expiration date must be shown in connection with the effective date in the following manner. Changes in expiration date must be made pursuant
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.wp
  • for expanded interconnection, as defined in Section 69.121 of this chapter, must also be accompanied by: * * * 13. Add � 61.55 to read as follows: � 61.55 Contract-based tariffs. (a) This section shall apply to price cap LECs permitted to offer contract-based tariffs under Section 69.727(a) of this chapter. (b) Composition of contract-based tariffs shall comply with Sections 61.54(b) through (i) of this part. (c) Contract-based tariffs shall include the following: (1) The term of contract, including any renewal options; (2) A brief description of each of the services provided under the contract; (3) Minimum volume commitments for each service; Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-206 B-9 (4) The contract price for each service or services at the volume levels
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-163A1.html
  • FCC Rcd 2906 (Com. Car. Bur. 2001); Joint Statement at 4, 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). 17 Joint Statement at 4, 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). CT 6831 and COA No. CX003 contain identical terms, with the only difference being that AT&T filed CT 6831 in standard tariff format in accordance with the Commission's requirements. See 47 C.F.R. 61.54, 61.55 (1991). Although CT 6831 was available to any other customer ``similarly situated'' to Ryder (Complaint, Ex E-6 (CT 6831) at original page 4, ``Availability''), no other party ordered service from AT&T under CT 6831. Supplement to Answer of AT&T Corp, File No. EB-02-MD-038 (filed Feb. 6, 2003) (``Supplemental Answer'') at 24, 58. 18 Joint Statement at 5, 24; Answer,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-103A1.html
  • motion is granted. NECA Tariff, S: 6.1 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. See Commodity News Services, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Initial Decision, 29 FCC 1208, 1213, aff'd, 29 FCC 1205 (1960). Under Commission rules, a carrier may include a tariff user's guide explaining how to use its tariff. 47 C.F.R. S: 61.54(e). NECA Tariff at 30 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. Second Supplement Opposition at 10. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-7. See n.85 supra. Farmers also asserts that the tariff cannot be read to limit the definition of "end users" to purchasers of tariffed services because it has purportedly used that term in a contrary manner in other parts of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98164.wp
  • price cap regulation. * * * (l) Above the bottom margin of each page of cost support material submitted pursuant to this section, the carrier shall indicate the transmittal number under which that page was submitted. 56. Delete Section 61.50. 57. Delete Section 61.51. 58. Redesignate Section 61.53 as Section 61.83. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-164 29 59. Revise Section 61.54(b)(3) to read as follows: � 61.54 Composition of Tariffs. * * * (b) * * * (3) Expiration Date. Subject to Section 61.59, when the entire tariff or supplement is to expire with a fixed date, the expiration date must be shown in connection with the effective date in the following manner. Changes in expiration date must be made pursuant
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.wp
  • for expanded interconnection, as defined in Section 69.121 of this chapter, must also be accompanied by: * * * 13. Add � 61.55 to read as follows: � 61.55 Contract-based tariffs. (a) This section shall apply to price cap LECs permitted to offer contract-based tariffs under Section 69.727(a) of this chapter. (b) Composition of contract-based tariffs shall comply with Sections 61.54(b) through (i) of this part. (c) Contract-based tariffs shall include the following: (1) The term of contract, including any renewal options; (2) A brief description of each of the services provided under the contract; (3) Minimum volume commitments for each service; Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-206 B-9 (4) The contract price for each service or services at the volume levels
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf
  • 81,032 44,930 55.45% 36,092 44.54% 10 0.01% 1981 82,581 40,425 48.95 42,099 50.98 57 0.07 1982 83,819 36,813 43.92 46,803 55.84 203 0.24 1983 86,186 32,652 37.89 52,919 61.40 615 0.71 1984 88,630 30,074 33.93 56,404 63.64 2,151 2.43 1985 91,455 24,778 27.09 58,532 64.00 8,145 8.91 1986 93,630 19,491 20.82 59,252 63.28 14,886 15.90 1987 96,593 14,205 14.71 59,442 61.54 22,946 23.76 1988 99,564 8,707 8.74 60,364 60.63 30,493 30.63 1989 102,684 5,646 5.50 58,846 57.31 38,192 37.19 1990 105,641 3,216 3.04 56,973 53.93 45,452 43.02 1991 107,388 1,876 1.75 53,450 49.77 52,061 48.48 1992 109,997 717 0.65 48,952 44.50 60,324 54.84 1993 113,368 264 0.23 41,912 36.97 71,192 62.80 1994 117,345 115 0.10 33,191 28.28 84,040 71.62 1995 122,266
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend504.pdf
  • 81,032 44,930 55.45% 36,092 44.54% 10 0.01% 1981 82,581 40,425 48.95 42,099 50.98 57 0.07 1982 83,819 36,813 43.92 46,803 55.84 203 0.24 1983 86,186 32,652 37.89 52,919 61.40 615 0.71 1984 88,630 30,074 33.93 56,404 63.64 2,151 2.43 1985 91,455 24,778 27.09 58,532 64.00 8,145 8.91 1986 93,630 19,491 20.82 59,252 63.28 14,886 15.90 1987 96,593 14,205 14.71 59,442 61.54 22,946 23.76 1988 99,564 8,707 8.74 60,364 60.63 30,493 30.63 1989 102,684 5,646 5.50 58,846 57.31 38,192 37.19 1990 105,641 3,216 3.04 56,973 53.93 45,452 43.02 1991 107,388 1,876 1.75 53,450 49.77 52,061 48.48 1992 109,997 717 0.65 48,952 44.50 60,324 54.84 1993 113,368 264 0.23 41,912 36.97 71,192 62.80 1994 117,345 115 0.10 33,191 28.28 84,040 71.62 1995 122,266
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
  • 81,032 44,930 55.45% 36,092 44.54% 10 0.01% 1981 82,581 40,425 48.95 42,099 50.98 57 0.07 1982 83,819 36,813 43.92 46,803 55.84 203 0.24 1983 86,186 32,652 37.89 52,919 61.40 615 0.71 1984 88,630 30,074 33.93 56,404 63.64 2,151 2.43 1985 91,455 24,778 27.09 58,532 64.00 8,145 8.91 1986 93,630 19,491 20.82 59,252 63.28 14,886 15.90 1987 96,593 14,205 14.71 59,442 61.54 22,946 23.76 1988 99,564 8,707 8.74 60,364 60.63 30,493 30.63 1989 102,684 5,646 5.50 58,846 57.31 38,192 37.19 1990 105,641 3,216 3.04 56,973 53.93 45,452 43.02 1991 107,388 1,876 1.75 53,450 49.77 52,061 48.48 1992 109,997 717 0.65 48,952 44.50 60,324 54.84 1993 113,368 264 0.23 41,912 36.97 71,192 62.80 1994 117,345 115 0.10 33,191 28.28 84,040 71.62 1995 122,266
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend803.pdf
  • 81,032 44,930 55.45% 36,092 44.54% 10 0.01% 1981 82,581 40,425 48.95 42,099 50.98 57 0.07 1982 83,819 36,813 43.92 46,803 55.84 203 0.24 1983 86,186 32,652 37.89 52,919 61.40 615 0.71 1984 88,630 30,074 33.93 56,404 63.64 2,151 2.43 1985 91,455 24,778 27.09 58,532 64.00 8,145 8.91 1986 93,630 19,491 20.82 59,252 63.28 14,886 15.90 1987 96,593 14,205 14.71 59,442 61.54 22,946 23.76 1988 99,564 8,707 8.74 60,364 60.63 30,493 30.63 1989 102,684 5,646 5.50 58,846 57.31 38,192 37.19 1990 105,641 3,216 3.04 56,973 53.93 45,452 43.02 1991 107,388 1,876 1.75 53,450 49.77 52,061 48.48 1992 109,997 717 0.65 48,952 44.50 60,324 54.84 1993 113,368 264 0.23 41,912 36.97 71,192 62.80 1994 117,345 115 0.10 33,191 28.28 84,040 71.62 1995 122,266
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • 23.46 9,395,591 7.36 North Dakota 112,751 2,273,776 20.17 1,705,835 15.13 567,941 5.04 Northern Mariana Is. 9,692 95,401 9.84 43,940 4.53 51,461 5.31 Ohio 1,836,554 46,183,574 25.15 37,485,305 20.41 8,698,269 4.74 Oklahoma 627,032 36,633,689 58.42 27,341,726 43.60 9,291,962 14.82 Oregon 545,033 11,504,640 21.11 7,754,864 14.23 3,749,776 6.88 Pennsylvania 1,816,716 80,918,564 44.54 55,276,576 30.43 25,641,988 14.11 Puerto Rico 613,019 67,205,918 109.63 37,723,470 61.54 29,482,448 48.09 Rhode Island 156,454 7,881,029 50.37 5,488,540 35.08 2,392,490 15.29 South Carolina 666,780 38,920,136 58.37 28,356,513 42.53 10,563,623 15.84 South Dakota 131,037 2,194,936 16.75 1,307,010 9.97 887,926 6.78 Tennessee 916,202 66,302,487 72.37 46,872,395 51.16 19,430,092 21.21 Texas 3,991,783 146,743,131 36.76 119,959,948 30.05 26,783,183 6.71 Utah 480,255 5,293,094 11.02 4,434,828 9.23 858,266 1.79 Vermont 104,559 1,712,000 16.37 997,705 9.54 714,295
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-163A1.html
  • FCC Rcd 2906 (Com. Car. Bur. 2001); Joint Statement at 4, 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). 17 Joint Statement at 4, 18; Complaint, Ex. E-6 (CT 6831). CT 6831 and COA No. CX003 contain identical terms, with the only difference being that AT&T filed CT 6831 in standard tariff format in accordance with the Commission's requirements. See 47 C.F.R. 61.54, 61.55 (1991). Although CT 6831 was available to any other customer ``similarly situated'' to Ryder (Complaint, Ex E-6 (CT 6831) at original page 4, ``Availability''), no other party ordered service from AT&T under CT 6831. Supplement to Answer of AT&T Corp, File No. EB-02-MD-038 (filed Feb. 6, 2003) (``Supplemental Answer'') at 24, 58. 18 Joint Statement at 5, 24; Answer,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-103A1.html
  • motion is granted. NECA Tariff, S: 6.1 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. See Commodity News Services, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Initial Decision, 29 FCC 1208, 1213, aff'd, 29 FCC 1205 (1960). Under Commission rules, a carrier may include a tariff user's guide explaining how to use its tariff. 47 C.F.R. S: 61.54(e). NECA Tariff at 30 (emphasis added). Second Supplement Opposition at 6-10. Second Supplement Opposition at 10. Second Supplement Opposition at 6-7. See n.85 supra. Farmers also asserts that the tariff cannot be read to limit the definition of "end users" to purchasers of tariffed services because it has purportedly used that term in a contrary manner in other parts of
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1996/swbell.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1996/swbell.wp
  • new rates were not discriminatory because they would be available to similarly situated customers; and the deviation would foster economic efficiency. The Commission ultimately concluded that the tariff amendment was unlawful, on what it claimed were three "independent" grounds. The Commission found that the tariff amendment's language was vague and ambiguous in violation of Commission rules, see 47 C.F.R. 61.2, 61.54(j) (1995), requiring tariff language to be clear and explicit. The Commission also determined--although Southwestern Bell had never contended to the contrary, and does not now--that the tariff amendment was inconsistent with the Commission's geographically averaged rate requirement and did not comply with the Commission's explicitly recognized deviations from that requirement. And the tariff failed the first prong of the competitive