(a) A local exchange carrier must provide the type of interconnection reasonably requested by a mobile service licensee or carrier, within a reasonable time after the request, unless such interconnection is not technically feasible or economically reasonable. Complaints against carriers under section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 208, alleging a violation of this section shall follow the requirements of §§ 1.711-1.734 of this chapter, 47 CFR 1.711-1.734.
(b) Local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers shall exchange Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic, as defined in § 51.701 of this chapter, under a bill-and-keep arrangement, as defined in § 51.713 of this chapter, unless they mutually agree otherwise.
(c) Local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers shall also comply with applicable provisions of part 51 of this chapter.
(d) Local exchange carriers may not impose compensation obligations for traffic not subject to access charges upon commercial mobile radio service providers pursuant to tariffs.
(e) An incumbent local exchange carrier may request interconnection from a commercial mobile radio service provider and invoke the negotiation and arbitration procedures contained in section 252 of the Act. A commercial mobile radio service provider receiving a request for interconnection must negotiate in good faith and must, if requested, submit to arbitration by the state commission.
[59 FR 18495, Apr. 19, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 45619, Aug. 29, 1996; 70 FR 16145, Mar. 30, 2005; 76 FR 73852, Nov. 29, 2011; 77 FR 1640, Jan. 11, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
North Cnty. Commc'ns Corp. v. California Catalog & Tech., 594 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 12× “§§ 251 (b)(5), 201(b), 206 and 207, and the implementing Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 , provide the requisite private right of action.”
Autotel v. Nevada Bell Tel. Co., 697 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 6× “30, 2005); 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 (d) (2005). The FCC explained that as of April 29, 2005, the effective date of the new rules, “any existing wireless termination tariffs shall no longer apply” and “[a]fter that date, in the absence of a request for an interconnection agreement, no…”
W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Qwest Corp., 678 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 (e). B. Western’s two petitions for arbitration In this case, Western petitioned the PUC for arbitration twice.”
Verizon Wireless (vaw) LLC v. Sahr, 457 F. Supp. 2d 940 (D.S.D. 2006).
· cites it 9× “See 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 . In particular, the rules required the originating carrier, whether LEC or CMRS provider, to pay reasonable compensation to the terminating carrier in connection with traffic that terminates on the latter’s network facilities.”
MetroPCS California, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 644 F.3d 410 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
“47 C.F.R. § 20.11 (b)(2). The question in this case is whether the Federal Communications Commission erred in allowing a state agency to determine this rate for traffic that is wholly intrastate.”
Fitch v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 261 F. App'x 788 (5th Cir. 2008).
“Affordable recognizes that the FCC prefers that LECCMRS disputes are handled through the negotiation/arbitration process that was adopted in §§ 251/252 of the 1996 amendments, but Affordable nevertheless asserts that the FCC has also “taken great care to ensure that where § 332…”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Fitch, 801 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D. Tex. 2011).
“2d 835 (1999); see also 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 (e). 4 . Deposition of F.”
Big Bend Tel. Co. v. Halo Wireless, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 558 (W.D. Tex. 2012).
“See 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 (e). Halo removed this case under the bankruptcy removal statute, which provides for removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases wherein the district court has jurisdiction of the claim or cause of action under bankruptcy law.”
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 844 F. Supp. 2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2012).
“47 C.F.R. § 20.11 .”). Section 251(b) provides further obligations for “local exchange carriers,” including the duty: (1) not to prohibit or impose unreasonable conditions on the resale of telecommunications services; (2) to provide, to the extent feasible, number portability;…”
North Cnty. Comm v. Cellco P'ship (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 14× “§§ 251 (b)(5), 201(b), 206 and 207, and the implementing Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 20.11 , provide the requisite private right of action.”
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.