FCC Web Documents citing 69.607

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.pdf
  • received by cost companies that are representative of average schedule companies.''). See also 47 C.F.R. § 69.606 (``Payments [to average schedule companies] shall be made in accordance with a formula approved or modified by the Commission. Such formula shall be designed to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate the disbursements that would be received pursuant to § 69.607 by a [cost] company that is representative of average schedule companies.''). Farmers' Reply Brief at 7-8. supra. See Small Carrier Tariff Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3814, ¶ 25 (directing cost companies to base rates on a cost study but permitting average schedule companies to rely on previous years' NECA settlements as a surrogate for cost studies). We also note
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1769A1.txt
  • approved formula accurately simulate ``disbursements'' to average schedule carriers. According to NECA, this provision requires that the Bureau approve a formula, such as the EAPL formula, that predicts average schedule carriers' expense adjustments per loop, rather than a formula that predicts their costs per loop. Section 69.606(a), however, relates only to access settlements distributed to cost companies pursuant to section 69.607, not to universal service support provided pursuant to Part 36 of the Commission's rules. We therefore find that we are not required to adopt a formula based on its ability to predict expense adjustments per loop, i.e., ``disbursements,'' compared to a formula's ability to predict costs per loop. For the reasons discussed above, we hereby adopt the CPL formula presented
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3587A1.txt
  • & n. 15. In the Bureau's 2002 Order, we rejected NECA's claim that we must adopt an EAPL formula because section 69.606(a) of the Commission's rules require that the approved formula accurately simulate ``disbursements'' to average schedule carriers. 2002 Order, 17 FCC Rcd 14240-41 para. 10. Section 69.606(a) relates only to access settlements distributed to cost companies pursuant to section 69.607, not to universal service support provided pursuant to Part 36 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 69.606(a). We again find that we are not required to adopt a formula based on its ability to predict expense adjustments per loop, i.e., ``disbursements,'' compared to a formula's ability to predict costs per loop. Commission 1999 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1820-22
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4063A1.txt
  • Order at 26207-8 para. 8 and n. 22, citing Commission 1999 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1820-22 para. 4 and n. 15 (affirming Bureau's rejection of NECA's proposed EAPL formula because it did not reasonably estimate cost per loop). As we stated in the 2003 Order, Section 69.606(a) relates only to access settlements distributed to cost companies pursuant to section 69.607, not to universal service support provided pursuant to Part 36 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 69.606(a). We again find that we are not required to adopt a formula based on its ability to predict expense adjustments per loop, i.e., ``disbursements,'' compared to a formula's ability to predict costs per loop. Commission 1999 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1820-22
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4070A1.txt
  • We again find that we are not required to adopt a formula based on its ability to predict expense adjustments per loop, i.e., ``disbursements,'' compared to a formula's ability to predict costs per loop. As we stated in the 2003 Order, section 69.606(a) is not applicable because it relates only to access settlements distributed to cost companies pursuant to section 69.607, not to universal service support provided pursuant to Part 36 of the Commission's rules. The Bureau has consistently held, and the Commission has upheld, that the appropriate high-cost loop support formula should reasonably approximate the cost per loop of the sample average schedule companies and allocate funds accurately to average schedule companies. Because the CPL formula provided by NECA in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.txt
  • received by cost companies that are representative of average schedule companies.''). See also 47 C.F.R. § 69.606 (``Payments [to average schedule companies] shall be made in accordance with a formula approved or modified by the Commission. Such formula shall be designed to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate the disbursements that would be received pursuant to § 69.607 by a [cost] company that is representative of average schedule companies.''). Farmers' Reply Brief at 7-8. supra. See Small Carrier Tariff Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3814, ¶ 25 (directing cost companies to base rates on a cost study but permitting average schedule companies to rely on previous years' NECA settlements as a surrogate for cost studies). We also note
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-175A1.html
  • received by cost companies that are representative of average schedule companies."). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 69.606 ("Payments [to average schedule companies] shall be made in accordance with a formula approved or modified by the Commission. Such formula shall be designed to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate the disbursements that would be received pursuant to S: 69.607 by a [cost] company that is representative of average schedule companies."). Farmers' Reply Brief at 7-8. See paragraph 21 supra. See Small Carrier Tariff Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3814, P: 25 (directing cost companies to base rates on a cost study but permitting average schedule companies to rely on previous years' NECA settlements as a surrogate for cost studies).
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-175A1.html
  • received by cost companies that are representative of average schedule companies."). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 69.606 ("Payments [to average schedule companies] shall be made in accordance with a formula approved or modified by the Commission. Such formula shall be designed to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate the disbursements that would be received pursuant to S: 69.607 by a [cost] company that is representative of average schedule companies."). Farmers' Reply Brief at 7-8. See paragraph 21 supra. See Small Carrier Tariff Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3814, P: 25 (directing cost companies to base rates on a cost study but permitting average schedule companies to rely on previous years' NECA settlements as a surrogate for cost studies).
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.pdf
  • received by cost companies that are representative of average schedule companies.''). See also 47 C.F.R. § 69.606 (``Payments [to average schedule companies] shall be made in accordance with a formula approved or modified by the Commission. Such formula shall be designed to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate the disbursements that would be received pursuant to § 69.607 by a [cost] company that is representative of average schedule companies.''). Farmers' Reply Brief at 7-8. supra. See Small Carrier Tariff Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3814, ¶ 25 (directing cost companies to base rates on a cost study but permitting average schedule companies to rely on previous years' NECA settlements as a surrogate for cost studies). We also note
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1769A1.txt
  • approved formula accurately simulate ``disbursements'' to average schedule carriers. According to NECA, this provision requires that the Bureau approve a formula, such as the EAPL formula, that predicts average schedule carriers' expense adjustments per loop, rather than a formula that predicts their costs per loop. Section 69.606(a), however, relates only to access settlements distributed to cost companies pursuant to section 69.607, not to universal service support provided pursuant to Part 36 of the Commission's rules. We therefore find that we are not required to adopt a formula based on its ability to predict expense adjustments per loop, i.e., ``disbursements,'' compared to a formula's ability to predict costs per loop. For the reasons discussed above, we hereby adopt the CPL formula presented
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3587A1.txt
  • & n. 15. In the Bureau's 2002 Order, we rejected NECA's claim that we must adopt an EAPL formula because section 69.606(a) of the Commission's rules require that the approved formula accurately simulate ``disbursements'' to average schedule carriers. 2002 Order, 17 FCC Rcd 14240-41 para. 10. Section 69.606(a) relates only to access settlements distributed to cost companies pursuant to section 69.607, not to universal service support provided pursuant to Part 36 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 69.606(a). We again find that we are not required to adopt a formula based on its ability to predict expense adjustments per loop, i.e., ``disbursements,'' compared to a formula's ability to predict costs per loop. Commission 1999 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1820-22
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4063A1.txt
  • Order at 26207-8 para. 8 and n. 22, citing Commission 1999 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1820-22 para. 4 and n. 15 (affirming Bureau's rejection of NECA's proposed EAPL formula because it did not reasonably estimate cost per loop). As we stated in the 2003 Order, Section 69.606(a) relates only to access settlements distributed to cost companies pursuant to section 69.607, not to universal service support provided pursuant to Part 36 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 69.606(a). We again find that we are not required to adopt a formula based on its ability to predict expense adjustments per loop, i.e., ``disbursements,'' compared to a formula's ability to predict costs per loop. Commission 1999 Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1820-22
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4070A1.txt
  • We again find that we are not required to adopt a formula based on its ability to predict expense adjustments per loop, i.e., ``disbursements,'' compared to a formula's ability to predict costs per loop. As we stated in the 2003 Order, section 69.606(a) is not applicable because it relates only to access settlements distributed to cost companies pursuant to section 69.607, not to universal service support provided pursuant to Part 36 of the Commission's rules. The Bureau has consistently held, and the Commission has upheld, that the appropriate high-cost loop support formula should reasonably approximate the cost per loop of the sample average schedule companies and allocate funds accurately to average schedule companies. Because the CPL formula provided by NECA in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-175A1.txt
  • received by cost companies that are representative of average schedule companies.''). See also 47 C.F.R. § 69.606 (``Payments [to average schedule companies] shall be made in accordance with a formula approved or modified by the Commission. Such formula shall be designed to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate the disbursements that would be received pursuant to § 69.607 by a [cost] company that is representative of average schedule companies.''). Farmers' Reply Brief at 7-8. supra. See Small Carrier Tariff Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3814, ¶ 25 (directing cost companies to base rates on a cost study but permitting average schedule companies to rely on previous years' NECA settlements as a surrogate for cost studies). We also note
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-175A1.html
  • received by cost companies that are representative of average schedule companies."). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 69.606 ("Payments [to average schedule companies] shall be made in accordance with a formula approved or modified by the Commission. Such formula shall be designed to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate the disbursements that would be received pursuant to S: 69.607 by a [cost] company that is representative of average schedule companies."). Farmers' Reply Brief at 7-8. See paragraph 21 supra. See Small Carrier Tariff Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3814, P: 25 (directing cost companies to base rates on a cost study but permitting average schedule companies to rely on previous years' NECA settlements as a surrogate for cost studies).
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-175A1.html
  • received by cost companies that are representative of average schedule companies."). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 69.606 ("Payments [to average schedule companies] shall be made in accordance with a formula approved or modified by the Commission. Such formula shall be designed to produce disbursements to an average schedule company that simulate the disbursements that would be received pursuant to S: 69.607 by a [cost] company that is representative of average schedule companies."). Farmers' Reply Brief at 7-8. See paragraph 21 supra. See Small Carrier Tariff Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3814, P: 25 (directing cost companies to base rates on a cost study but permitting average schedule companies to rely on previous years' NECA settlements as a surrogate for cost studies).