![]() |
|||||||
|
|
|
The FCC 2005
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Order on Remand
2004
News Release RE: TRO
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Report And Order
Memorandum Opinion & Order
Order
Order on Reconsideration
Second Report and Order
Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Report and Order
Recommended Decision
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Report and Order
2003
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Report and Order
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
In the Matter of Petition of AT&T Communications of Virginia Inc., Regarding Interconnection Disputes with Verizon Virginia Inc.
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
2002
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order
Third Report
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forefiture
Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
2001
Order
Order and Order on Reconsideration
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Declaratory Ruling
Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Order
Third Notice of Inquiry
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Order
Order on Review
Order of Forfeiture
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
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Order on Remand and Report and Order
Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Order of Forfeiture
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
2000
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Recommended Decision
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
Order
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 94-1 and Second Report and Order in CC Docket no. 96-262
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
Order
Memorandum and Order
Order of Forfeiture
Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Order
Order of Forfeiture
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
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
Declaratory Ruling
Order
Order
Order
Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Order
Supplemental Order Clarification
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
Order
Order on Reconsideration
Order
Order and Consent Decree
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Order
Order
1999
Memorandum Opinion and Order
In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --Review of Depreciation Requirements for Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
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
Supplemental Order
Third Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed RuleMaking
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
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.
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Notice of Inquiry
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
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.
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Order
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
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Commission Adopts Framework for Federal Universal Service High-Cost Support Mechanism
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
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
1998 Memorandum Opinion & Order
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)
Second Recommended Decision
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 & Order 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)
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Order
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.
Order and Order on Reconsideration
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
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.
Notice of Proposed RuleMaking
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Memorandum Report and Order
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)
1997
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Order Concluding Investigation and Denying Application for Review
Third Report and Order
Second Report and Order
Second Order On Reconsideration and Memorandum Opinion and Order
Notice of Proposed Rule Making
Memorandum Opinion and Order
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
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
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.
Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration
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.
Order on Reconsideration
Order on Reconsideration
Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Second Order on Reconsideration
Order
Order on Reconsideration
Order
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Second Order on Reconsideration
Order
Second Report and Order
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.
Report and Order
Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 94-1
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.
First Report and Order
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
First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed RuleMaking
1996
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Third Report and Order, and Notice of Inquiry
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.
Report And Order
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.
First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Second Order on Reconsideration
Order on Reconsideration
Second Report and Order
Order and Reconsideration
Report and Order
First Report and Order
Second Report and Order and Memorandum and Opinion and Order
Commission Adopts Rules to Implement Local Competition Provisions of Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC DOCKET NO. 96-98)
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.
Order
Notice of Proposed RuleMaking
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
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
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.
1995
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Tariff F.C.C. No. 73
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.
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
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
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
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.
1994
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Energy Orders
|
|
| Copyright ©1996-2008 Ben Johnson Associates, Inc.® All Rights Reserved |