47 C.F.R. § 51.311

Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements

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

(a) The quality of an unbundled network element, as well as the quality of the access to the unbundled network element, that an incumbent LEC provides to a requesting telecommunications carrier shall be the same for all telecommunications carriers requesting access to that network element.

(b) To the extent technically feasible, the quality of an unbundled network element, as well as the quality of the access to such unbundled network element, that an incumbent LEC provides to a requesting telecommunications carrier shall be at least equal in quality to that which the incumbent LEC provides to itself. If an incumbent LEC fails to meet this requirement, the incumbent LEC must prove to the state commission that it is not technically feasible to provide the requested unbundled network element, or to provide access to the requested unbundled network element, at a level of quality that is equal to that which the incumbent LEC provides to itself.

(c) Previous successful access to an unbundled element at a particular point in a network, using particular facilities, is substantial evidence that access 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 provision of access to an unbundled element at a particular point in a network at a particular level of quality is substantial evidence that access is technically feasible at that point, or at substantially similar points, at that level of quality.

[61 FR 45619, Aug. 29, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 52294, Sept. 2, 2003]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1999–2007 · leading case: At&T Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 220 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

At&T Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 220 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “47 C.F.R. § 51.311 (b). Appellants argue that Rule 311(b) applies to hot cuts because the FCC said in the order approving Bell Atlantic’s application that the standard for compliance absent retail analogues (as in the case of hot cuts) is no weaker than the standard where there…”

MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 79 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Mich. 1999). “; 47 C.F.R. § 51.311 (b). “An incumbent LEC that claims that it cannot satisfy such request [for access to unbundled elements] because of adverse network reliability impacts must prove to the state commission by clear and convincing evidence that such interconnection, access, or…”

Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 380 F. Supp. 2d 627 (E.D. Pa. 2005). “47 C.F.R. § 51.311 (b) (mandating that the quality of access to UNEs that an incumbent provides to a competitor be at least equal in quality to that which the incumbent provides to itself).”

At&T Commc'ns of Virginia, Inc. v. Bell Atl.-Virginia, Inc., 197 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 1999). “See 47 C.F.R. 51.311(b) (1999); First Report and Order at ¶218.”

NuVox Commc'ns, Inc. v. Edgar, 511 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (N.D. Fla. 2007). “BellSouth counters by claiming that such extensive conditioning would essentially provide a “superior” network above and beyond the “at least equal” standard enumerated in 47 C.F.R. § 51.311 (b). The main controversy stems from two seemingly inconsistent clauses in 47 C.”

— 47 C.F.R. § 51.311(b) — 2 cases

At&T Commc'ns of Virginia, Inc. v. Bell Atl.-Virginia, Inc., 197 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 1999). “See 47 C.F.R. 51.311(b) (1999); First Report and Order at ¶218.”

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.