Source: http://www.utilityregulation.com/sections/orders/tstates/fcc.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 23:53:07
Document Index: 586743456

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 15', 'art 15', 'arts 1', 'art 43', 'arts 5', 'art 69', 'art 69', 'art 69', 'art 69']

In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers
Docket No. 02-386
Febuary 10, 2005 Approximately 56 Pages
In the Matter of AT&T Corp. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Enhanced Prepaid Calling Card Services
Docket No. 032-133
Febuary 23, 2005 Approximately 30 Pages
In the Matter of Unbundled Access to Network Elements
Febuary 4, 2005 Approximately 185 Pages
News Release RE: TRO
FCC Adopts New Rules for Network Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Phone Carriers December 15, 2004 Approximately 2 Pages
In the Matter of Vonage Holdings Corporation Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning an Order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Docket No. 03-211
November 12, 2004 Approximately 41 Pages
In the Matter of Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband Over Power Line Systems Docket No. 04-37
October 28, 2004 Approximately 86 Pages
In the Matter of Applications of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., and Cingular Wireless Corporation For Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations
Docket No. 04-70
October 22, 2004	Approximately 142 Pages
In the Matter of Primus Telecommunications, Inc. Compliance with the Commission's Rules and Regulations Governing the National Do-Not-Call Directory
Docket No. DA 04-2847
September 7, 2004 Approximately 9 Pages
In the Matter of Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations Of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
Docket No. 01-338
August 9, 2004 Approximately 20 Pages
July 13, 2004 Approximately 45 Pages
In the Matter of WorldCom, Inc. Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber�s Telecommunications Carrier Docket No. 04-1352
In the Matter of Verizon Petition for Pricing Flexibility for Special Access and Dedicated Transport Services Docket No. 04-01
In the Matter of Section 272(b)(1)�s �Operate Independently� Requirement for Section 272 Affiliates Docket No. 03-228
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
Docket No. 96-45
In the Matter of Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems Amendment of Part 15 regarding new requirements and measurement guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems Docket No. 03-104
In the Matter of Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Docket No. 00-256, 96-45
Approximately 86 Pages
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the Matter of Telephone Number Portability CTIA Petitions for Declaratory Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues Docket No. 95-116
In the Matter of The Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Docket No. 96-128
October 3, 2003 Approximately 48 Pages
In the Matter of Review of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements and the Resale of Service by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
Docket No. 03-173
Herein, the Commission opens a proceeding to consider whether its pricing methodology is working as intended, and whether it is conductive to efficient facilities investment. The FCC proposes to simplify TELRIC pricing, while simuataneously improving the accuracy of its pricing signals. The Commission seeks comment on an approach that bases UNE prices on a cost inquiry that is more firmly rooted in the real-world attributes of the existing network.
In the Matter of Petition of WorldCom, Inc. Regarding Interconnection Disputes with Verizon Virginia Inc.
In the Matter of Petition of AT&T Communications of Virginia Inc., Regarding Interconnection Disputes with Verizon Virginia Inc.
Docket No. 00-218, 00-251
In this order, the FCC resolves disputes regarding the rates that Verizon may charge AT&T and WorldCom for access to UNEs, interconnection, and resale. The Commission chooses a cost model and corresponding inputs to set rates for unbundled loops. Parties are directed to submit compliance filings.
Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99-200 and CC Docket No. 95-116, and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200
In the Matter of Numbering Resource Optimization Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Telephone Number Portability Docket No. 99-200, 95-116
June 18, 2003 Approximately 35 Pages
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal ServiceDocket No. 96-45
In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable And Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps To Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Docket No. 98-146
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forefiture
In the Matter of SBC Communications, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
File No. EB-01-IH-0030 NAL/Acct. No. 200232080004
In the Matter of Enron Corp.
File No. EB-00-IH-0395 NAL/Acct. No. 200232080003
In the Matter of Net2000 Communications, Inc., Complainant, v. Verizon - Washington, D.C., Inc., Verizon - Maryland, Inc., and Verizon - Virginia, Inc., Defendants
File No. EB-00-018
In the Matter of Joint Application by BellSouth Corporation, and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania
Docket No. 01-277
In the Matter of Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Recommended TRS Cost Recovery Guidelines; Request by Hamilton Telephone Company for Clarification and Temporary Waivers
Docket No. 98-67
In the Matter of Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of the Local Compet it ion Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability
Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98, 98-147
In the Matter of Review of Regulatory Requirements for Incumbent LEC Broadband Telecommunications Services
Docket No. 01-337December 12, 2001
Docket Nos. 00-256, 96-45, 98-77, 98-166
In the matter of Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Access Charge Reform for Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Subject to Rate-of-Return Regulation, Prescribing the Authorized Rate of Return for Interstate Services of Local Exchange Carriers
In the Matter of Revision of ARMIS Annual Summary Report (FCC Report 43-01), ARMIS USOA Report (FCC Report 43-02), ARMIS Joint Cost Report (FCC Report 43-03), ARMIS Access Report (FCC Report 43-04), ARMIS Service Quality Report (FCC Report 43-05), ARMIS Customer Satisfaction Report (FCC Report 43-06), ARMIS Infrastructure Report (FCC Report 43-07), ARMIS Operating Data Report (FCC Report 43-08), ARMIS Forecast of Investment Usage Report (FCC Report 495A), and ARMIS Actual Usage of Investment Report (FCC Report 495B) for Certain Class A and Tier 1 Telephone Companies
Docket No. 86-182
In the Matter of Joint Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long Distance Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Connecticut
Approximately 183 Pages
File No. EB-01-IH-0642 NAL/Acct. No. 200232080001
In the Matter of SBC Communications, Inc.
File No. EB-01-IH-0339 NAL/Acct. No. 200132080059
In the Matter of 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Comprehensive Review of the Accounting Requirements and ARMIS Reporting Requirements for Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers: Phase 2; Amendments to the Uniform System of Accounts for Interconnection; Jurisdictional Separations Reform and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board; Local Competition and Broadband ReportingDocket Nos. 00-199, 97-212, 80-286, 99-301
In the Matter of AT&T Corp., Complainant, v. NYNEX Corporation, New York Telephone Company, and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Defendant.
File No. E-97-05B
In the Matter of Application of Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc. for Authorization To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Pennsylvania
Docket No. 01-138
Approximately 142 Pages
In the Matter of Verizon Communications, IncFile No. EB-01-IH-0236 Acct. No. 200132080058
Third Notice of Inquiry
In the Matter of Application of Verizon New York Inc., Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc., for Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Connecticut
Docket No. 01-100
In the Matter of AirTouch Cellular,Complainant, v. Pacific Bell, Defendant
File No. E-97-46July 6, 2001
In the Matter of Application by SBC Communications Inc, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long Distance Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 To Provided In-Region, InterLATA Services in Missouri
Docket No. 01-88
In the matter of SBC Communications Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
File No. EB-00-IH-0432 NAL/Acct. No. 200132080011
File No. EB-00-IH-0326a Acct. No. 200132080015
Fourteenth Report and Order, Twenty-Second Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-45, and Report and Order in CC Docket No. 00-256
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers
Docket Nos. 00-256 & 96-45
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlined Contributor Reporting Requirements Associated with Administration of Telecommunications Relay Service, North American Numbering Plan, Local Number Portability, and Universal Service Support Mechanisms Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Administration of the North American Numbering Plan and North American Numbering Plan Cost Recovery Contribution Factor and Fund Size Number Resource Optimization Telephone Number Portability
Docket Nos. 98-171, 96-45, 90-571, 92-237, 99-200, 95-116
In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic
Docket Nos. 99-68 & 96-98
Approximately 72 Pages
Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers
With this order, the FCC attempts to continue its effort to establish a "pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework" for the United States' telecommunications industry by addressing a number of interrelated issues concerning competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) charges for interstate switched access services and the obligations of interexchange carriers (IXCs) to exchange access traffic with CLECs. It does so by limiting the application of its tariff rules to CLEC access services in order to prevent use of the regulatory process to impose excessive access charges on IXCs and their customers.
Based on its review of the universe and concentration of tariffed access rates being charged to AT&T, Sprint and WorldCom, the FCC concluded that its safe harbor for CLEC tariffed access rates would begin at 2.5 cents. Over time, it stated that the benchmark figure would decrease until it reaches the rate of the ILEC with which a CLEC competes. One year after the effective date of these rules, the benchmark rate would drop from 2.5 to 1.8 cents per minute, or the ILEC rate, whichever is higher. On the second anniversary of the rules' effective date, the rate would drop to 1.2 cents per minute, or the ILEC rate, whichever is higher. Finally, three years after the rules become effective, the benchmark figure would drop to the switched access rate of the competing ILEC. It will remain at that level through the rules fourth year. The benchmark rate for CLEC switched access does not require any particular rate elements or rate structure; for example, it does not dictate whether a CLEC must use flat-rate charges or per-minute charges, so long as the composite rate does not exceed the benchmark. Rather it is based on a per-minute cap for all interstate switched access service charges.
Additionally, the FCC concluded that the record supported the creation of a rural exemption to permit rural CLECs competing with non-rural ILECs to charge access rates above those charged by the competing ILEC. It adopted the NECA tariff for switched access service as the standard most appropriately reflective of the considerations that should go into pricing the access service of rural CLECs. And regarding the effect of these rulings on interconnection, the FCC held that an IXC that refuses to provide service to an end user of a CLEC charging rates within the safe harbor, while serving the customers of other LECs within the same geographic area, would violate section 201(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 pertaining to interconnection among carriers.
In the Matter of Joint Application of NorthPoint Communications, Inc. and Verizon Communications for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Transfer Control of Blanket Authorization to Provide Domest ic Interstate Telecommunications Services As a Non-Dominant Carrier
Docket No. 00-157
In the Matter ofApplication of Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions) And Verizon Global Networks Inc., For Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in Massachusetts
Order No. 01-9
Approximately 164 Pages
In the Matters of Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al.,Complainants,v.Frontier Communications Services, Inc., et al.,Defendants. Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al., Complainants, v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.,
File No. E-98-49 File No. E-98-48
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board onUniversal Service Petition for Reconsideration filedby AT&T
In the Matter of AT&T Corp., Complainant, v. U S West Communications, INC., Defendant.
In the Matter of MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Complainant, v. U S West Communications, INC.
File No. E-97-40A & File No. E-97-28
Docket No. 00-217
In the Matter of Wisconsin Energy Corporation
File No. EB-00-IH-0127, GS Acct. No. 200132080013
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board On Universal ServiceBell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.,Petition for Waiver of Section 54.409(b) ofthe Commission's Rules and Regulations
In the Matter of AT&T Communications, Inc.
File No. EB-00-TC-006 NAL/Acct. No.200132170015
Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 94-1 and Second Report and Order in CC Docket no. 96-262
In the Matter of Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers Access Charge Reform
Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1
Approximately 139 Pages
Third Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147 Fourth Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98 Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-147 Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-98 In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability And Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Docket Nos. 96-98 & 98-147
In the Matter of Application of Verizon New England Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions) and Verizon Global Networks Inc., For Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in MassachusettsDocket No. 00-176
In the Matter of Joint Applications of OnePoint Communications Corp. and Verizon Communications for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, To Transfer Control of Authorizations to Provide Domestic Interstate and International Telecommunications Services as a Non-Dominant Carrier
Docket No. 00-170
In the Matter of AT&T Communications, Inc
In the Matter of BellSouth Corporation
File No. EB-00-IH-0134 Acct. No. X32080035
In the Matter of MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Complainant v.Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, INC.,Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, INC., d/b/a/ Ameritech Operating Companies and Ameritech Communications, INC.,
File No. E-97-19A
In the Matter of Verizon Communications
File No. EB-00-TC-053 Acct. No. X3217-010
In the Matter of AT&T Corp.,Complainant, v. New York Telephone Company, d/b/a Bell Atlantic - New York,
File No. EB-00-MD-011
In the Matter of LG&E Energy CORP.
File No. EB-00-IH-0148/GS Acct. No. X32080032
In the Matter of Firstenergy Corp., ET AL.
File No. EB-00-IH-0069 Acct. No. X32080028
In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company Of New York, INC.
File No. EB-00-IH-0076/GS Acct. No. X32080027
View the document>
In the Matter of AT&T Corporation, Complainant, v. Bell Atlantic Corporation, Defendant, and
File No. E-98-12
In the Matter of MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmissions Services, Inc. Complainants, v. Bell Atlantic Corporation
File No. E-98-05
Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Complainant, V. Bell Atlantic - Pennsylvania,et al.,
File Nos. E-95-032, E-95-036, E-95-037, E-95-041, E-95-042, E-95-043
Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-147 and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-98
In the Matters of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local Competition	Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission
In re: Applications of SPRINT CORPORATION, Transferor, And MCI WORLDCOM, INC. Transferee For Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Authorizations Pursuant to Section 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 1, 21, 24, 63, 73, 78, 90, and 101
Docket No. 99-333
In the Matter of GTE Service Corporation
File No. EB-00-IH-0113 Acct. No. X32080012
In the Matter of Qwest Communications International, Inc.
File No. ENF-99-11 NAL/Acct. No. 916EF008
In the Matter ofNumbering Resource Optimization and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Docket Nos. 99-200 & 96-98
In the Matter of Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, And Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long Distance Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services In Texas
Docket No. 00-65
Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the Matters of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas Western Wireless Corporation, Crow Reservation in Montana Smith Bagley, Inc. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority Western Wireless Corporation, Wyoming Cellco Partnership d/b/a/ Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. Petitions for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier and for Related Waivers to Provide Universal Service
In re Application of GTE Corporation, Transferor, and Bell Atlantic Corporation, Transferee For Consent to Transfer Control of Domestic and International Sections 214 and 310 Authorizations and Application to Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing License
Docket No. 98-184
Approximately 226 Pages
In the Matter of MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.
File No. EB-00-TC-055 NAL/Acct. No. X3217-008
Supplemental Order Clarification
In the Matter of Implementation of theLocal Competition Provisions Of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Docket No. 96-98
Sixth Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 96-262 and 94-1 Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99-249 Eleventh Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45
In the Matter of Access Charge Reform Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers Low-Volume Long-Distance Users Federal-State Joint Board On Universal Service
Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 99-249, 96-45
In the Matter of Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture of INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
File No. 99-2273 NAL/Acct No.920EF0047
In the Matter of Deaveraged Rate Zones for Unbundled Network Elements
In the Matter ofApplication by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southwestern Bell Long DistancePursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services In Texas
Docket No. 00-4
In the Matter of Sprint Communications Company, LP
File No. ENF-00-TC-002 Acct. No. X3217-003
In the Matter ofQwest Communications International Inc.and US WEST, Inc.Applications for Transfer of Control of Domestic and International Sections 214 and 310 Authorizations and Application to Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing License
Docket No. 99-272
In the Matter of Bell Atlantic-New York Authorization Under Section 271 of the Communications Act to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service In the State of New York
File No. EB-00-IH-0085 Acct. No. X32080004
In the Matter of MCI WORLDCOM, INC
File No. ENF-99-04 Acct No. X3217-002<
br>March 1, 2000
In the Matter of Application by Bell Atlantic New York for Authorization Under Section 271 of the Communications Act To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in the State of New York
Docket No. 99-295
Approximately 244 Pages
In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --Review of Depreciation Requirements	for Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
United States Telephone Association's Petition for Forbearance from Depreciation Regulation of Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers
CC Docket 98-137
ASD 98-91
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-137
Memorandum Opinion and Order in ASD 98-91
In this Order, as part of the Commission's 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), it addresses proposals set forth in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reform its depreciation prescription process.
Accordingly, the Commission ordered that Part 43 of the Commission's rules be amended. It further ordered that the report and order be adopted, effective 60 days after publication of a summary in the Federal Register. The Commission further ordered that the Petition for Forbearance from Depreciation Regulation of Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers filed by the United States Telephone Association is hereby denied. And it further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
With this Order, the Commission greatly streamlines the depreciation requirements for price cap incumbent local exchange carriers. It adopts proposals to permit summary filings, eliminate the prescription of depreciation rates for certain incumbent LECs, expand the prescribed range for the digital switching plant account, and eliminate the theoretical reserve study requirement for mid-sized incumbent LECs.
Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147 Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98
In the Matters of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Third Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed RuleMaking
Approximately 262 Pages
Ninth Report & Order and Eighteenth Order on Reconsideration
Consistent with the 1996 Federal Act, and based on the recommendations of the Joint Board, we adopt in this Order a new federal forward-looking high-cost support mechanism to enable states to ensure the reasonable comparability of non-rural carriers' intrastate rates. Specifically, we are adjusting and finalizing the framework of the new mechanism for non-rural carriers that we adopted on May 27, 1999, in the Seventh Report and Order. The forward-looking costs estimated by the cost model are averaged at the statewide level.
The national benchmark is set at 135 percent of the national average forward-looking cost per line of providing supported services.
The forward-looking high-cost support mechanism provides support for all intrastate forward-looking costs per line that exceed the national benchmark.
States must certify that non-rural carriers receiving federal high-cost support will use that support in compliance with section 254(e) of the Act.
No non-rural carrier in a particular state will receive any federal support after January 1, 2001, if that particular state has not filed the required certification with the Commission.
The Commission will use this methodology to provide high-cost universal service support to non-rural carriers effective January 1, 2000.
The support mechanism for rural carriers will remain unchanged at least until January 1, 2001, and reform will be undertaken only after the Commission, the Joint Board, and a Rural Task Force appointed by the Joint Board have selected an appropriate methodology for rural support.
Tenth Report and Order
CC Docket No. 96-45, CC Docket No. 97-160
In this Report and Order, we complete the selection of a model to estimate forward-looking cost by selecting input values for the synthesis model we previously adopted. These input values include such things as the cost of switches, cables, and other network components necessary to provide supported services, in addition to various capital cost parameters. The forward-looking cost of providing supported services estimated by the model will be used as part of the Commission's methodology to determine high-cost support for non-rural carriers beginning January 1, 2000. This methodology is established in a companion order.
Sixteenth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45 Eighth Report and Order in CC Docket 96-45 Sixth Report and Order in CC Docket 96-262
In the Matters of Federal-State Joint Board On Universal Service Access Charge Reform
Docket Nos. 96-262	& 96-45
In re Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor,	and SBC Communications INC., Transferee, For Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
Docket No. 98-141
In the Matter of Low-Volume Long-Distance Users
Docket No. 99-249
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission / In the Matter of the Petition for Agreement with Designation of Rural Company Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Service Areas and for Approval of the Use of Disaggregation of Study Areas for the Purpose of Distributing Portable Federal Universal Service Support
Issued and Effective: September 9, 1999
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Washington Commission) and twenty rural incumbent local exchange carriers (rural LEC Petitioners) filed a petition that requests the FCC's agreement with the Washington Commission's designation of the individual exchanges of fifteen rural LECs to be their service areas. Specifically, the petition proposes to disaggregate federal high cost support currently given at the study area level, by using the Benchmark Cost Proxy Model (BCPM) to estimate the cost of providing service in density zones within each exchange served by the rural carriers. The rural LEC petitioners' support of the request for service area designation is conditioned on this Commission's approval of the request for disaggregated study area support. For the reasons discussed herein, we agree with the Washington Commission's proposed service area designation, and grant the requested waiver to permit the disaggregation of federal high cost support currently given at the study area level.
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service: Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas
In the Matter of Access Charge Reform Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carrier Purchases of Switched Access Services Offered by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Petition of U S West Communications, Inc. for Forbearance from Regulation as a Dominant Carrier in the Phoenix, Arizona MSA
Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-63, 98-157
Approximately 171 Pages
Seventh Report & Order and Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45 Fourth Report & Order in CC Docket No. 96-262 and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Access Charge Reform
Docket Nos. 96-45 & 96-262May 28, 1999
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Forward-Looking Mechanism for High Cost Support for Non-Rural LECs
Docket Nos. 96-45 & 97-160
Commission Adopts Framework for Federal Universal Service High-Cost Support Mechanism
CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 96-262
The Commission today took a major step in reforming the high-cost universal service support mechanism for non-rural carriers. The Commission, in consultation with the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, adopted the framework for a new, forward-looking, high- cost support mechanism that will provide support for carriers that do not meet the Communications Act's definition of a rural telephone company.
The Commission's efforts regarding high-cost support are intended to fulfill Congress's directive that universal service be preserved and advanced in a manner that encourages competition. In November 1998, the Joint Board made recommendations on the issues referred to it by the Commission earlier that year. Today, the Commission adopted many of the Joint Board's recommendations. In a combined Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission established the forward-looking methodology for calculating federal universal service support for non-rural carriers providing service in high-cost areas of the Nation, and sought comment on certain implementation issues regarding the new forward- looking mechanism.
In the Matter of AVR, L.P. d/b/a Hyperion of Tennessee, L.P. Petition for Preemption of Tennessee Code Annotated � 65-4-201(d) and Tennessee Regulatory Authority Decision Denying Hyperion's Application Requesting Authority to Provide Service in Tennessee Rural LEC Service Areas
CC Docket No. 98-92
On May 29, 1998, AVR, L.P. d/b/a/ Hyperion of Tennessee, L.P. (Hyperion) filed the above-captioned petition (Petition) asking the Commission to: (i) preempt Tenn. Code Ann. � 65-4-201(d), and (ii) preempt the enforcement of the April 9, 1998, order of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (Authority or Tennessee Authority) denying Hyperion a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to provide local exchange service in areas of Tennessee served by the Tennessee Telephone Company (Denial Order). Hyperion also asks the Commission to direct the Tennessee Authority to grant Hyperion's application for a CPCN. Hyperion asserts that the Tennessee Authority's Denial Order and Tenn. Code Ann. � 65-4-201(d) violate section 253(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, fall outside the scope of authority reserved to the states by section 253(b) of the Act, and thus satisfy the requirements for preemption by the Commission pursuant to section 253(d) of the Act.
First Report and Order and Further Notice of RuleMaking
In the Matters of Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability
Docket No. 98-147
In the Matter of Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended Petitions for Forbearance
December 31, 1998 In this order, the Federal Corporation Commission addresses seven petitions for reconsideration or, in the alternative, petitions for forbearance, of the Commission's Rate Integration Reconsideration Order, in which they found that the rate integration requirements of section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), apply to the interstate, interexchange services of Commercial Mobile Radio Service ("CMRS") providers. The petitioners request that the Commission reconsiders that determination. In the alternative, if they find that section 254(g) applies to CMRS providers, the petitioners request that the Commission forbear from applying section 254(g) to the interstate, interexchange services offered by CMRS providers pursuant to section 10 of the Act.
In this order, the FCC reaffirms their earlier determination that, based on the plain language of the statute, the rate integration requirements of section 254(g) apply to interstate, interexchange services offered by CMRS providers, and therefore deny the petitions for reconsideration of this determination. The Commission clarifies, however, that CMRS traffic within a major trading area (MTA) (intra-MTA traffic) is not "interexchange" traffic and thus not subject to the rate integration requirements of section 254(g). They deny the petitions seeking forbearance from the application of rate integration to separately-billed toll charges. On the basis of the record before us, they find that forbearance from rate integration of separately-billed toll charges is not consistent with the public interest prong of the three-part forbearance test. The FCC also denies the other requests for forbearance relief from rate integration. With respect to these issues, they determine that they have insufficient information on which to determine whether the test for the grant of forbearance under section 10 of the Act is satisfied.
The Commission also here states their intent to issue a Further Notice seeking comment on issues relating to air time and roaming charges associated with interstate, interexchange calls for which a separate charge is stated; wide-area CMRS calling plans; and the affiliation requirements that should be applicable to services subject to the rate integration requirement. Pending further rulemaking, they keep in place the Order adopted by the Commission on October 2, 1997, in which the Commission stayed the application of the requirement that providers of interstate, interexchange services integrate rates across affiliates, as well as application of rate integration requirements with respect to wide area rate plans offered by CMRS providers.(Approximately 27 pages)
November 23, 1998 The Joint Board and the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") determined previously that rates generally are affordable. While keeping in mind the need to ensure continued affordability, the Joint Board focuses to a greater degree in this Second Recommended Decision on the issue of reasonable comparability, and how to ensure the sufficiency of federal support to assure both of those important public interest goals. As effective competition develops for high-volume, urban customers, one consequence may be erosion of the implicit support system that protects consumers in rural, insular and high cost areas from unaffordable rates. The Joint Board recommends a federal high cost support mechanism for non-rural carriers that enables rates to remain affordable and reasonably comparable, even as competition develops, but that is no larger than necessary to satisfy that statutory mandate. The Joint Board believes that sizing the fund correctly is essential to ensuring that all consumers across the country benefit from universal service. The transition to a competitive environment requires them to be mindful of two competing goals: (1) supporting high cost areas so that consumers there have affordable and reasonably comparable rates; and (2) maintaining a support system that does not, by its sheer size, over-burden consumers across the nation.
Fifth Report & OrderIn the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Forward-Looking Mechanism for High Cost Support for Non-Rural LECs
CC Docket No. 96-45; CC Docket No. 97-160
Adopted: October 22, 1998; Released: October 28, 1998
In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Congress directed this Commission and states to take the steps necessary to establish explicit support mechanisms to ensure the delivery of affordable telecommunications service to all Americans while opening telecommunications markets to competition. In response to this directive, the Commission has taken action to put in place a universal service support system that will be sustainable in an increasingly competitive marketplace. In the Universal Service Order, the Commission adopted a plan for universal service support for rural, insular, and high cost areas to replace longstanding federal subsidies to incumbent local telephone companies with explicit, competitively neutral federal universal service support mechanisms. The Commission adopted the recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) that an eligible carrier's level of universal service support should be based upon the forward-looking economic cost of constructing and operating the network facilities and functions used to provide the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms. Full implementation of the new universal service support mechanisms is scheduled to take effect for non-rural carriers on July 1, 1999. (Approximately 70 pages or 34,200 words)
In the Matter of Application of BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc., for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Louisiana
Docket No. 98-121
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Forward-Looking Mechanism for High Support for Non-Rural LECs
Adopted: August 7, 1998 Approximately 7 pages
In conjunction with the Commission's proceeding to select a forward-looking economic cost mechanism for determining the level of federal high cost support that eligible non-rural carriers will receive beginning July 1, 1999, the Common Carrier Bureau requests certain revenue information from non-rural local exchange carriers and holding companies. By seeking additional data on revenues, they are not prejudging the outcome of issues raised on reconsideration of the Universal Service Order or the issues referred to the Joint Board, including whether the Commission should reconsider its use of a revenue benchmark. The requested information is necessary to enable the Commission to set, on a timely basis, accurate revenue benchmarks used under the Universal Service Order to determine the level of high cost support.
CC Docket No. 96-45<
br>July 13, 1998 Approximately 11 pages
Section 254 of the Communications Act codified the Commission's long-standing commitment to ensuring the preservation and advancement of universal service in rural, high cost, and insular areas. As section 254 required, the Commission convened a Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and, in light of the Joint Board's recommendations, the Commission on May 8, 1997, released the Universal Service Order, which, among other things, identified the services included within the definition of universal service and established a specific timetable for implementation of revised universal service support programs. The Commission determined that carriers should receive support for serving rural and high cost areas based on the forward-looking cost of providing the supported services. Non-rural carriers would begin to receive high cost support based on forward-looking costs on January 1, 1999, while rural carriers would continue to receive high cost support based on existing support levels pending further review by the Commission, the Joint Board, and a Joint Board-appointed Rural Task Force, but at least until January 1, 2001.
Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Fourth Report and Order
June 12, 1998 Approximately 85 pages
In this Order, the FCC reconsiders, on their own motion, the Commission's decision regarding the funding year for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. They conclude that it is in the public interest to change the funding year for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism from a calendar year cycle (January 1 -December 31) to a fiscal year cycle (July 1 - June 30). Moreover, the Commission concludes that the transition to a fiscal year approach should be implemented immediately. Applications submitted during the initial 75-day filing window and approved for funding will, therefore, be funded through June 30, 1999, within the funding limitations adopted herein.
In the Matter of Performance Measurements and Reporting Requirements for Operations Support Systems, Interconnection, and Operator Services and Directory Assistance
Docket No. 98-56
In the Matter of Application by BellSouth Corporation, et al. Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, To Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services In Louisiana
Docket No. 97-231
Memorandum Opinion and OrderIn the Matter of Application of BellSouth Corporation, et al. Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services In South Carolina
Docket No. 97-208December 24, 1997
Memorandum Report and Order
In the Matter of Beehive Telephone Company, Inc & Beehive Telephone Inc., Nevada, Tariff FCC No. 1
Adopted: January 6, 1998 Docket No. 97-237
By this Order, the Federal Corporation Commission concludes their investigation of Transmittal No. 6 filed on July 22, 1997 by Beehive Telephone Company, Inc. and Beehive Telephone, Inc. of Nevada (collectively "Beehive"). The Commission finds that Beehive has failed to justify its premium and non-premium interstate local switching access rates that are the subject of this investigation. The FCC, therefore, prescribes premium and non-premium local switching access rates for the period of August 6, 1997 through December 31, 1997, and directs Beehive to make refunds for this period of time, with interest.(Approximately 6,700 words or 15 pages)
In the Matter of 1997 Annual Access Tariff Filings
Docket No. 97-149December 1, 1997
Order Concluding Investigation and Denying Application for Review
In the Matter of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Tariff F.C.C. No. 73
Docket No. 97-158
In the Matter of Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Docket No. 96-128
Second Order On Reconsideration and Memorandum Opinion and Order
In the Matter of Access Charge Reform Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers Transport Rate Structure
Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 91-213
In the Matter of Defining Primary Lines
Docket No. 97-181September 5, 1997
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End User Common Line Charge
Docket Nos. 96-45, 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, 95-72
Docket No. 97-137
Adopted: August 19, 1997, Released: August 19, 1997 Approximately 214 pages
On May 21, 1997, Ameritech Michigan (Ameritech) filed an application for authorization under section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to provide in-region, interLATA services in the State of Michigan. For the reasons set forth within the memorandum, the FCC denies Ameritech's application.
The Commission ultimately concludes, as did the Michigan Public Service Commission (Michigan Commission) and the Department of Justice, that Ameritech's May 21, 1997 application to provide in-region interLATA service in Michigan does not demonstrate compliance with all of section 271's requirements. Rather, the FCC's decision here recognizes the complexity of opening historically monopolized local markets to competition, and the clear mandate of Congress that such markets must be open to competition before the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) are to be permitted to provide in-region, interLATA services.
Order Designation Issues for Investigation Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration
Docket No. 97-149
Docket Nos. 96-45 & 97-160Adopted: July 18, 1997, Released: July 18, 1997
For non-rural LECs, the FCC adopted a forward-looking economic cost methodology that calculates universal service support in four steps. First, they estimate the forward-looking economic costs of providing universal service in rural, insular, and high cost areas. Second, they establish a nationwide revenue benchmark calculated on the basis of average revenue per line. Third, they then calculate the difference between the forward-looking economic cost and the benchmark. Fourth, federal support will be 25 percent of that difference, corresponding to the percentage of loop costs allocated to the interstate jurisdiction. They further decided to use forward-looking economic cost studies conducted by state commissions that choose to submit such cost studies to determine universal service support for their states. The states are then asked to elect to conduct such studies by August 15, 1997 and to submit such studies by February 6, 1998. When a state elects not to conduct such a study, the Commission decided to determine the forward-looking economic cost of providing universal service in that state according to a forward-looking economic cost mechanism adopted by the Commission, with assistance from the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board). In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) the FCC seeks comment on the specific mechanisms the Commission should adopt to calculate for non-rural carriers the forward-looking economic cost of providing supported services in states that elect not to submit cost studies.
Docket Nos. 96-45 & 97-21
Adopted: July 17, 1997, Released: July 18, 1997 Approximately 105 pages
In the Universal Service Order released on May 8, 1997, the FCC determined that, subject to changes in its governance, the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) should serve as the temporary administrator of the universal service support mechanisms established pursuant to section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In this Order, they direct NECA to create an independently functioning not-for-profit subsidiary through which it will administer temporarily certain portions of the federal universal service support mechanisms. The Commission concludes that NECA's creation of an independently functioning subsidiary, in accordance with the directives set forth below, will assure significant industry-wide representation in the administration of the universal service support mechanisms.
In the Matter of Access Charge Reform Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End User Common Line Charges
Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, 91-213, 95-72
In the Matter of Application by SBC Communications Inc., Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,	to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services In Oklahoma
Docket No. 97-121
In the Matter of Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended
Docket No. 96-149
In the Matter of Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as AmendedDocket No. 96-149
Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, 95-72
In the Matter of Local Exchange Carriers' Rates, Terms, and Conditions for Expanded Interconnection Through Physical Collocation for Special Access and Switched Transport
CC Docket No. 93-162, FCC 97-208
Adopted: June 9, 1997, Released: June 13, 1997
Approximately 200 pagees, plus appendices
The FCC concludes in this Order that the LECs subject to this investigation have failed to meet their burden of proving the reasonableness of many of their rates, terms, and conditions. The FCC therefore orders certain direct cost disallowances for their physical collocation services, prescribe maximum permissible overhead loading factors, and order tariff revisions to correct unreasonable rate structures. We also order refunds for overcharges associated with physical collocation service offered by LECs after December 14, 1994. Finally, the FCC rejects certain terms and conditions that we believe to be unjust, unreasonable, and unreasonably discriminatory, and that effectively serve to impede efficient competition. The rate adjustments and tariff revisions that are required by this Order will create, new opportunities for competitors to provide interstate access services, using, in part, essential telecommunications facilities over which the LECs retain bottleneck control.
In this Order, also denied is the petition for reconsideration of the Interim Overhead Order filed by BellSouth, the petition for clarification of the Supplemental Designation Order filed by Bell Atlantic, and applications for review of the Physical Collocation Tariff Suspension Order filed by NYNEX, SWB, and US West.
Approximately 779 Pages
Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 94-1
Second Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-262
Adopted: May 7, 1997; Released: May 21, 1997
CC Docket Nos. 94-1 & 96-262
In this Order, the FCC makes significant revisions to its current price cap plan for regulating incumbent local exchange carriers as part of its plan to construct a dynamic regulatory framework to further the new pro-competitive, deregulatory paradigm set out in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). In conjunction with the Access Reform First Report and Order and the Universal Service Order, this Order adopts reforms needed to set the stage for the progressive deregulation of incumbent LECs with the development of competition. Adopted is a price cap plan that effectively requires price cap LECs to reduce inflation-adjusted prices for interstate access services by approximately 6.5 percent annually. Also eliminated are the sharing requirements of the current rules, which substantially undercut the efficiency incentives of price cap regulation and retained some of the cost-misallocation incentives inherent in rate-of-return regulation.
In the Matter of Access Charge Reform Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers Transport Rate Structure and Pricing End User Common Line Charges
Adopted: May 7, 1997, Released: May 7, 1997, Released: May 16, 1997
This First Report and Order will identify the implicit federal universal service support currently contained in interstate access charges through three methods.
First, reduce usage-sensitive interstate access charges by phasing out local loop and other non-traffic-sensitive (NTS) costs from those charges and directing incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to recover those NTS costs through more economically efficient, flat-rated charges. Second, rely in part on emerging competition in local telecommunications markets, spurred by the adoption of the 1996 Act, to help identify the differences between the rates for interstate access services established by incumbent LECs under price cap regulation and those that competition would set. Third, engage in further deliberations on a forward-looking economic cost-based mechanism that we will use to distribute federal support to rural, insular, and high cost areas, beginning in 1999.
Through this First Report and Order, the FCC directs that federal universal service support received by incumbent LECs be used to reduce or satisfy the interstate revenue requirement otherwise collected through interstate access charges. Accordingly, through both the Universal Service Order and this First Report and Order on access reform, interstate implicit support for universal service will be identified and removed from interstate access charges, and support will be provided through the explicit interstate universal service support mechanisms.
First Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration
In the Matter of Telephone Number Portability
In the Matter of Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:	Telemessaging, Electronic Publishing, and Alarm Monitoring Services
Docket No. 96-152
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Third Report and Order, and Notice of Inquiry
In the Matter of Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, Usage of the Public Switched Network by Information Service and Internet Access Providers
Adopted: December 23, 1996, Released: December 24, 1996
Approximately 153 pages
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of this item, the FCC initiates a comprehensive review of interstate access charge regimes. Next is issued a Report and Order implementing the changes to the LEC price cap rules that were proposed in the Price Cap Second FNPRM. Finally issued is a Notice of Inquiry to examine fundamental issues about the implications of usage of the public switched network by information service and Internet access providers.
In the Matter of Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
In this Report and Order , the FCC addresses the accounting safeguards necessary to satisfy the requirements of sections 260 and 271 through 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In particular, the Order adopts the tentative conclusion in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding that our current cost allocation rules generally satisfy the Act's accounting safeguards requirements when incumbent local exchange carriers, including the BOCs, provide services permitted under sections 260 and 271 through 276 on an integrated basis.
In the Matter of Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
Approximately 172 Pages
In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers
Docket No. 95-185 & 96-98
In the Matter of Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone Compensation; Petition of the Public Telephone Council to Treat Bell Operating Company Payphones as Customer Premises Equipment; Petition of Oncor Communications Requesting Compensation for Competitive Payphone Premises Owners and Presubscribed Operator Services Providers; Petition of the California Payphone Association to Amend and Clarify Section 68.2(a)of the Commission's Rules; Amendment of Section 69.2(m) and (ee) of the Commission's Rules to Include Independent Public Payphones Within the "Public Telephone" Exemption from End User Common Line Access Charges
Docket No. 96-128, 91-35
In the Matter of Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
Docket No. 96-61
Order and Reconsideration
Approximately 737 Pages
Second Report and Order and Memorandum and Opinion and Order
In the Matters of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, Area Code Relief Plan for Dallas and Houston, Ordered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, Administration of the North American Numbering Plan Proposed 708 Relief Plan, and 630 Numbering Plan Area Code by Ameritech-Illinois
Docket No. 96-98, 95-185, & 92-237
Commission Adopts Rules to Implement Local Competition Provisions of Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC DOCKET NO. 96-98)
Approximately 741 Pages
In this Order, the FCC has taken action to remove statutory, regulatory, and operational barriers to local telephone services competition, and established a framework of minimum, national rules that will enable the states and the Commission to begin implementing the local competition provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Commission's Order relies heavily on the states to develop the specific rates and procedures, consistent with the Commission's general rules.
Under the 1996 Act, incumbent local telephone companies and new entrants may voluntarily agree to terms and conditions without regard to the Commission's rules. The Order addresses the three paths of entry into the local telephone market enumerated by the 1996 Act. These three methods of entry are full facilities-based entry, purchasing of unbundled network elements from the incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) and resale of the incumbent's retail services. In addition, the Commission sets forth a methodology for states to use in establishing rates for interconnection and the purchase of unbundled elements. This Order is the first part of a trilogy of actions that will bring competition to the telecommunications market. The second and third parts are universal service and access charge reform.
In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order Establishing Joint Board
In the Matter of NYNEX Telephone Companies Petition for Waiver of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules
Docket No. 96-289
Adopted: March 1, 1996 Released: March 5, 1996
NYNEX filed a petition for waiver of FCC rules to permit them to provide cross-connection service to customers other than interconnectors. Teleport Communications Group (Teleport) filed two opposition pleadings to the NYNEX petition. The FCC concluded that NYNEX does not need a waiver to provide the service it seeks to offer, and therefore the NYNEX petition is dismissed.
In the Matter of Ameritech Operating Companies Petition for Waiver of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules to Restructure Its Rates to Establish a Pay Telephone Use Fee Rate Element; Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Petition for Waiver of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules to Restructure Its Rates to Establish a Pay Telephone Use Fee Rate Element
Docket No. 96-268
Adopted: February 29, 1996; Released: March 1, 1996
Ameritech and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company currently recover the interstate portion of their pay phone costs through the carrier common line charge, which is assessed on interexchange carriers (IXCs) as a per-minute charge for switched access. Ameritech filed a petition requesting a waiver of the FCC Part 69 rules that would permit it to recover the interstate portion of its pay phone costs through a per-call charge to IXCs that receive interstate traffic originating at Ameritech pay phones. Southwestern Bell filed a similar petition. The FCC grants both petitions, subject to conditions.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Tariff F.C.C. No. 73
Docket No. 95-2156
Adopted: October 13, 1995; Released: October 13, 1995
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company proposed to provide 155 Mpbs of protected bandwidth to a particular customer at individual case basis rates. The Bell Company requested confidential treatment of cost support information on the grounds that release of the information, scheduled to become effective October 14, 1995, would result in competitive harm. The FCC denies Southwestern Bell's request for confidential treatment of cost support information.
In the Matter of the Application of AMERITECH NEW MEDIA ENTERPRISES, INC. to construct, operate, own and maintain facilities necessary to provide cable television service for Columbus, Ohio.
Docket No. 95-2067
Adopted: Sept. 28, 1995 Released: Sept. 28, 1995
The FCC accepted application of Ameritech New Media to construct, operate, own and maintain facilities necessary to provide cable television service for Columbus, Ohio. Petitions to deny the above-referenced application were filed by Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc. and by the Michigan Cable Television Association, the Ohio Cable Telecommunications Association, and the Cable Television and Communications Association of Illinois. The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel submitted informal comments in response to the Ameritech New Media application. The FCC grants Ameritech New Media special temporary authority to commence construction of the proposed facilities, subject to the conditions.
In the Matter of Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 10 Rates, Terms, and Regulations for Video Dialtone Service in Dover Township, New Jersey
Docket No. 95-1928Adopted: September 8, 1995; Released: September 8, 1995
On June 9, 1995, the FCC Common Carrier Bureau released an Order which: (1) Inter alia, suspended for one day the video dialtone (VDT) tariff filed by Bell Atlantic for service in Dover Township, New Jersey; (2) Initiated an investigation into the lawfulness of the tariff; (3) Imposed an accounting order. By addressing the issues designated in this Order, the FCC generally seeks information to resolve the following two questions: (1) whether the rates in the Dover Township video dialtone tariff are adequately justified and (2) whether the terms in the Dover Township video dialtone tariff are reasonable.
In the Matter of Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers
Adopted: June 29, 1995 Released: June 30, 1995
The FCC issued an order making interim revisions to its price cap rules for local exchange carriers (LECs). Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company jointly petitioned the Commission to partially stay the First Report and Order, pending disposition of their petition for review of that order. The FCC found that petitioners failed to show that they were entitled to the relief requested and therefore the motion for stay was denied.
In the Matter of Price Cap Regulation of Local Exchange Carriers Rate-of-Return Sharing and Lower Formula Adjustment
Docket No. 95-272
The FCC adopted a rule explicitly incorporating an "add-back" adjustment into the local exchange carrier price cap rules. Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech)requested an emergency stay of the effectiveness of the add-back requirement, and Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company requested that the Commission stay the Add-Back Order.
The FCC found that Ameritech had not shown that it is entitled to the requested relief under FCC standards and found that Bell Atlantic and SWB failed to establish that they were entitled to the requested relief. Therefore, both Ameritech's motion and Bell Atlantic's and SWB's joint petition for stay were denied.
In the Matter of Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities
Docket No. 91-141
Approximately 123 Pages