C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER B—COMMON CARRIER SERVICES › PART 51—INTERCONNECTION › Subpart D—Additional Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers

47 C.F.R. § 51.305

Interconnection

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

(a) An incumbent LEC shall provide, for the facilities and equipment of any requesting telecommunications carrier, interconnection with the incumbent LEC's network:

(1) For the transmission and routing of telephone exchange traffic, exchange access traffic, or both;

(2) At any technically feasible point within the incumbent LEC's network including, at a minimum:

(i) The line-side of a local switch;

(ii) The trunk-side of a local switch;

(iii) The trunk interconnection points for a tandem switch;

(iv) Central office cross-connect points;

(v) Out-of-band signaling transfer points necessary to exchange traffic at these points and access call-related databases; and

(vi) The points of access to unbundled network elements as described in § 51.319;

(3) That is at a level of quality that is equal to that which the incumbent LEC provides itself, a subsidiary, an affiliate, or any other party. At a minimum, this requires an incumbent LEC to design interconnection facilities to meet the same technical criteria and service standards that are used within the incumbent LEC's network. This obligation is not limited to a consideration of service quality as perceived by end users, and includes, but is not limited to, service quality as perceived by the requesting telecommunications carrier; and

(4) On terms and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of any agreement, the requirements of sections 251 and 252 of the Act, and the Commission's rules including, but not limited to, offering such terms and conditions equally to all requesting telecommunications carriers, and offering such terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions upon which the incumbent LEC provides such interconnection to itself. This includes, but is not limited to, the time within which the incumbent LEC provides such interconnection.

(b) A carrier that requests interconnection solely for the purpose of originating or terminating its interexchange traffic on an incumbent LEC's network and not for the purpose of providing to others telephone exchange service, exchange access service, or both, is not entitled to receive interconnection pursuant to section 251(c)(2) of the Act.

(c) Previous successful interconnection at a particular point in a network, using particular facilities, constitutes substantial evidence that interconnection is technically feasible at that point, or at substantially similar points, in networks employing substantially similar facilities. Adherence to the same interface or protocol standards shall constitute evidence of the substantial similarity of network facilities.

(d) Previous successful interconnection at a particular point in a network at a particular level of quality constitutes substantial evidence that interconnection is technically feasible at that point, or at substantially similar points, at that level of quality.

(e) An incumbent LEC that denies a request for interconnection at a particular point must prove to the state commission that interconnection at that point is not technically feasible.

(f) If technically feasible, an incumbent LEC shall provide two-way trunking upon request.

(g) An incumbent LEC shall provide to a requesting telecommunications carrier technical information about the incumbent LEC's network facilities sufficient to allow the requesting carrier to achieve interconnection consistent with the requirements of this section.

[61 FR 45619, Aug. 29, 1996, as amended at 61 FR 47351, Sept. 6, 1996; 68 FR 52294, Sept. 2, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1997–2017 · leading case: Talk Am., Inc. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 131 S. Ct. 2254 (2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Talk Am., Inc. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 131 S. Ct. 2254 (2011). · cites it 2× “See 47 CFR §§51.305 (e), 51.321(d); see also §§51.”
Iowa Utils. Bd. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “The Supreme Court did not address the part of our opinion vacating the superior quality rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.305 (a)(4) and 51.311(c), and the additional combination of network elements rule, 47 C.”
Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Covad Commc'ns Co., 597 F.3d 370 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “47 C.F.R. § 51.305 . The FCC's other pertinent regulation — its counterpart to its "interconnection facility" requirement — is its rule that ILECs are not obligated to provide "entrance facilities": Entrance facilities.”
Iowa Utils. Bd. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “Subsection 251(c)(2)(C) requires incumbent LECs to provide interconnection “that is at least equal in quality to that provided by the local exchange carrier to itself.”
WorldNet Telecomm., Inc. v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 497 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “is explained in part by the FCC’s regulation at issue, which required that incumbent carriers provide superior service so long as technically feasible "if so requested" by another carrier, 47 C.F.R. § 51.305 (a)(4) (1997); as the: Eighth Circuit explained, this regulation forced…”
US West Commc'ns v. MFS Intelenet, Inc., 193 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “The plain language requires local exchange carriers to permit interconnection at any technically feasible point within the carrier’s network. An incumbent carrier denying a request for interconnection at a particular point must prove interconnection at that point is not…”
Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Core Commc'ns, Inc., 405 F. App'x 706 (4th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 251 (b)-(c); 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.305 , 51.311, 51.313; Verizon Md.”
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Core Commc'ns, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Maryland 2009). · cites it 2× “” 47 C.F.R. § 51.305 (a)(3). Before the Hearing Examiner, Core argued that the “equal in quality” interconnection standard required Verizon to provide interconnection on the same time twenty business-day time interval Verizon provided for retail customers requesting DS-3 special…”
W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Qwest Corp., 734 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D. Or. 2010). · cites it 4× “Title 47 C.F.R. § 51.305 (a)(2)(iii) provides that interconnection at a tandem switch is technically feasible.”
Verizon New York, Inc. v. Global NAPS, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 2d 330 (E.D.N.Y 2006). “See 47 C.F.R. § 51.305 (e). See also US West Comms.”
Verizon North Inc. v. Telnet Worldwide, Inc., 440 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 3× “47 C.F.R. § 51.305 (a)(l)-(2) (emphasis added).”
Sprintcom, Inc. v. Commissioners of the Illinois Com. Comm'n, 790 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2015). “is not entitled to” interconnection at TELRIC rates, 47 C.F.R. § 51.305 (b) (emphasis added), unless it demonstrates that such free riding is necessary to enable it to compete.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— 47 C.F.R. § 51.305(a) — 1 case
Verizon North Inc. v. Telnet Worldwide, Inc., 440 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Mich. 2006). “47 C.F.R. § 51.305 (a)(l)-(2) (emphasis added).”
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.