C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE › Subpart J—Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures

47 C.F.R. § 1.1401

Purpose

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The rules and regulations contained in subpart J of this part provide complaint and enforcement procedures to ensure that telecommunications carriers and cable system operators have nondiscriminatory access to utility poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way on rates, terms, and conditions that are just and reasonable. They also provide complaint and enforcement procedures for incumbent local exchange carriers (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 251(h)) to ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions of their access to pole attachments are just and reasonable.

[83 FR 44838, Sept. 4, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1994–2003 · leading case: Gulf Power Co. Alabama Power Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Tampa Elec. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Florida Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Texas Utils. Elec. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Union Elec. Co., D.B.A. Amerenue v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Elec. Power Servs. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Duke Energy Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Duquesne Light Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., 208 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gulf Power Co. Alabama Power Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Tampa Elec. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Florida Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Texas Utils. Elec. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Union Elec. Co., D.B.A. Amerenue v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Elec. Power Servs. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Duke Energy Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Duquesne Light Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., 208 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “6777 (1998) (codified at 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 -1.1418 (1999)) ("Report and Order "), the FCC promulgated a formula for computing that rent.”
Ameritech Corp. v. United States, 867 F. Supp. 721 (N.D. Ill. 1994). “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1401 et seq. Moreover, it is hard to view network discrimination as a significant problem when, according to the FCC, cable operators already have their own networks which give access to more than 90 percent of American homes.”
Pub. Serv. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 328 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “” 47 C.F.R. § 1.1401 . If a cable company believes that a particular rate, term, or condition of a pole attachment agreement is unjust or unreasonable, it is expected to attempt to renegotiate with the utility.”
Gulf Power Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 208 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “" 47 C.F.R. § 1.1401 (1978). The rule set forth (1) the procedure for filing a complaint about rents or conditions of attachment, see id.”
Alabama Power Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 311 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2002). “§ 224 (d) 2 and the FCC’s implementation of the rate methodology in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1401 et seq. We hold that based on the particular facts of this case, the petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proof.”
Gulf Power Co. v. FCC (11th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “6777 (1998) (codified at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1401 -1.1418 (1999)) (“Report and Order”), the FCC promulgated a formula for computing that rent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.