Source: https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-96A1.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:15:08+00:00

Document:
Core's Point of Presence (``POP'') in Damascus, Maryland.
interoffice facility on Verizon's network to Core's POP.
Core an Access Service Request form (``ASR'') for the DS-3s.
Verizon experienced a union work stoppage (i.e., a strike).
[D]ate'' in the ASR -- to November 15, 2000).
conditions of [its interconnection] agreement''69 with Core.
Core as to the existence and probable duration of the delay.
interconnection to Core on just and reasonable terms.
A.   The Commission Has Jurisdiction Under Section 208.
here.71  Therefore, for the reasons stated in CoreComm v.
Core's claims alleging a violation of section 251(c)(2).
Maryland SGAT would not violate the Communications Act.
that it enters into pursuant to sections 251 and 252.
both 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(2)(D) and 47 C.F.R. � 51.305(a)(5).
the Commission.''78  Verizon's argument is unpersuasive.
unbundling disputes arising from interconnection agreements.
will remain central, as Congress intended.
alleged violation of section 251 of the Act.  In Trinko v.
Trinko does not undermine our conclusion here, however.
Commission to do so.87  Verizon's argument lacks merit.
Section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act.
and conditions that are just and reasonable.
interconnection on just and reasonable terms.
delay, violated Verizon's statutory obligations.
that interconnection would be delayed.
efficient competition and fosters consumer choice.
capacity on the K36 and K43 cross-connect machines.
provided on or about July 14.
notice to Core of that circumstance.
competitive LEC and time is usually of the essence ... .
not realize until too late that the K43 was near exhaust.
delayed interconnection with Core for four months.
regarding the flow of its own traffic.
passivity was an unreasonable response to Core's dilemma.
E.  We Dismiss or Deny Core's Other Claims.
on February 15, 2000 and the remainder on April 30, 2000.
the K36, requesting completion by August 30, 2000.
1st:  The last spare K43 OC-12 port is used.
installation will not be complete until October 20, 2000.
D[ue] D[ate]'' is July 14, 2000.
1 Formal  Complaint of Core Communications,  Inc., File No.
EB-01-MD-007 (filed Mar. 21, 2001) (``Complaint'').
2 47 U.S.C. � 208.
3 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(2)(D).
4 See Part III (D), infra.
Dictionary (16th ed.) at 505-506.
7 Joint Statement at 1, �� 1-2.
exchange carrier's  network ... .'' 47  U.S.C. � 251(c)(2).
deployment of new telecommunications technologies.'').
252... .''  47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(2)(D).
12 47 U.S.C. �� 251-252.
13 47 U.S.C. � 252(f)(1).
competitive LEC so requests.  47 U.S.C. � 252(f)(5).
15 Joint Statement at 1, � 1.
seek to negotiate a different schedule for interconnection.
See, e.g., Answer at 4, � 5; Joint Statement at 1, � 3.
``agree to be bound by the terms of the Statement'').
19 Joint Statement at 1, � 3.
Joint Statement at 2, �� 5-8.
Statement at 2, �� 5-6.
23 Joint Statement at 3, � 11.
24 Apr. 10 Albert Dec'n at 2, � 4; Declaration of Donald E.
23 Albert Dec'n'') at 3, � 5.
traffic.  Apr. 10 Albert Dec'n  at 3-4, �� 8-9; Answer, Ex.
26 Joint Statement at 3, � 13.
Aff.'') at 2, � 6; Joint Statement at 3, � 14.
28 Mingo Aff. at 2, � 6; Joint Statement at 3, � 14.
Verizon); Joint Statement at 3, � 15.
30 Joint Statement at 3, � 18; Answer, Exs. 9-13.
Core, to Steven Hartmann, counsel to Verizon).
32 Joint Statement at 3-4, �� 17-18.
34 Joint Statement at 4, � 22.
File No. EB-01-MD-007 (filed May 7, 2001) at 3, �� 5, 7.
36 Complaint at 3; Joint Statement at 4, � 22.
capacity exhaust is attached as an appendix.
Aff. at 7, � 15.
Interrogatories 8-13'') at 5-6 (Answer to Interrogatory no.
10(c)); July 23 Albert Dec'n at 2, � 2.
carried  the traffic,  via OC-12  connections, to  the K43.
July 23 Albert Dec'n at 4, �� 6-7.
at 3 (Answer to Interrogatory no. 8(f)).
Interrogatories 1-7,  at 3-4  (Answer to  Interrogatory no.
Request), and 6 (Telephone Equipment Order).
47 Verizon's Supplemental Responses at 6, 7-8.
(Answer to Interrogatory no. 11(b)).
Creation Request), 5 (Telephone Equipment Order).
Interrogatories  8-13 at  7  (Answer  to Interrogatory  no.
52 Verizon's Supplemental Responses at 6.
Interrogatories  8-13 at  3  (Answer  to Interrogatory  no.
to Interrogatory no. 8(f)),  7 (Answer to Interrogatory no.
11(c)); July 23  Albert Dec'n at 4, � 8.
56 Verizon's Supplemental Responses at 2.
Dec'n at 6, � 15.
status after June 23, 2000.
Answers to Interrogatories 8-13 at Attachments 1, 2.
60 Joint Statement at 4, � 22.
11(c)); July 23 Albert Dec'n at 4, � 8.
proceedings, Core's assertion has not been tested.
from Verizon end-user customers to long-distance carriers.
(``Verizon's Reply Br.'') at 2.
Verizon's Reply Br. at 2-8.
2002) (``Verizon's Opp. Br.'') at 35-43.
69 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(2)(D).
01-MD-017, FCC No. 03-83 (rel. Apr. 17, 2003) at �� 13-19.
72 CoreComm v. SBC,  at �� 13-19.
Verizon's Opening Br. at 9-10.
75  47 U.S.C. � 252(f); Joint Statement at 1, � 3.
77  47 C.F.R. � 41.305(a)(5) (emphasis added).
78 Verizon's Opening Br. at 13.
79 Verizon's Reply Br. at 8.
Verizon's  Reply Br. at 8-9.
82  Trinko v.  Bell Atlantic  Corp., 309  F.3d 89  (2d Cir.
pet. for  cert. granted in  part on other grounds  sub nom.
83 305 F.3d at 104 (emphasis added).
Transmission Services, Inc., 317 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.
88 See Part III (A)-(B), supra.
v. SBC, -- FCC Rcd --, at n.46.
Atlantic Corp.,  15 FCC  Rcd 17066  (2000), aff'd  sub nom.
Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 12530 (1999)).
Atlantic Corp., 15  FCC Rcd at 17071, �  12; MCIWorldCom v.
Jersey PUC  had already completed the  proceeding at issue.
Global NAPs, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd at 12538-39, �� 17-18.
here will  not duplicate any  efforts of the  Maryland PUC.
95 47 U.S.C. � 251(f)(1) (emphasis added).
96 47 U.S.C. � 252(f)(2).
97 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(2).
here is consistent with general principles of contract law.
law.  See, e.g., Williston on Contracts � 30.20.
Order''); 47 U.S.C. � 51.305(g).
103  Answer at  6-7,  �  12; Verizon's  Opp.  Br. at  9-12.
of the circuit(s) involved.''  Id.
104 Joint Statement at 3, � 12.
105 Joint Statement at 3, � 14.
106 Verizon's Opp. Br. at 28.
107 Verizon's Opp. Br. at 28.
109 Dawson Aff. at 14, � 30.
110 Initial Brief [of]  Core Communications, Inc., File No.
(``Core's Reply Br.'') at 8-9.
111 Core's Initial Br. at 8; Core's Reply Br. at 17.
112 Core's Initial Br. at 15-20; Core's Reply Br. at 20-21.
provide  probative  evidence  supporting  this  allegation.
[Core's] Responses to [Verizon's] Interrogatories, File No.
entrance  facility  would  be completed  before  June  28).
in constructing the entrance facility to have been flawed.
complete installation until October 2000.
117 Verizon's Supplemental Responses at 2-3.
Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22615 n.782, 22617, � 295.
121 July 23 Albert Dec'n at 5, � 10.
122 Verizon's Supplemental Responses at 5.
123 See April  10 Albert Dec'n at 2, �  5; Verizon Opp. Br.
at 8; Joint Statement at 2, �� 5-6; Dawson Aff. at 9, � 20.
124 See April  10 Albert Dec'n at 2, �  5; Verizon Opp. Br.
126 July 23 Albert Dec'n at 5, �10.
127 Verizon's Supplemental Responses, Exs. 8-10.
128 Verizon's Opp. Br. at 39-41.
Interrogatories  8-13 at  5  (Answer  to interrogatory  no.
pertaining  to  the  Washington   Hub  K36  and  K43.   Id.
132 Complaint at 8-9, � 29; Core's Initial Br. at 21-23.
133 Verizon Opening Br. at 2-9; Verizon's Reply Br. at 1-7.
134 Verizon Opp. Br. at 32-35.
LATA during this  same period of time.   Core's Initial Br.
Verizon Opening Br. at 2-9.
140 Complaint at 8, 9.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.