(a) An incumbent LEC shall provide unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting telecommunications carriers to combine such network elements in order to provide a telecommunications service.
(b) Except upon request, an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines.
(c) Upon request, an incumbent LEC shall perform the functions necessary to combine unbundled network elements in any manner, even if those elements are not ordinarily combined in the incumbent LEC's network, provided that such combination:
(1) Is technically feasible; and
(2) Would not undermine the ability of other carriers to obtain access to unbundled network elements or to interconnect with the incumbent LEC's network.
(d) Upon request, an incumbent LEC shall perform the functions necessary to combine unbundled network elements with elements possessed by the requesting telecommunications carrier in any technically feasible manner.
(e) An incumbent LEC that denies a request to combine elements pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) or paragraph (d) of this section must prove to the state commission that the requested combination is not technically feasible.
(f) An incumbent LEC that denies a request to combine unbundled network elements pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section must demonstrate to the state commission that the requested combination would undermine the ability of other carriers to obtain access to unbundled network elements or to interconnect with the incumbent LEC's network.
[61 FR 45619, Aug. 29, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 52294, Sept. 2, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 535 U.S. 467 (2002).
· cites it 18× “The Eighth Circuit also held that the FCC misconstrued the plain language of § 251(c)(3) in implementing a set of "combination" rules, 47 CFR §§ 51.315 (b)(f) (1997), the most important of which provided that "an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that…”
In Re Verizon New England, Inc., 795 A.2d 1196 (Vt. 2002).
· cites it 10× “One part of that rule, 47 C.F.R. § 51.315 (b) states, “an incumbent LEC shall not separate requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines.”
At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999).
· cites it 2× “47 CFR § 51.315 (b) (1997). Taken together, the two rules allowed requesting carriers to lease the incumbent's entire, preassembled network.”
At & T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 86 F. Supp. 2d 932 (W.D. Mo. 1999).
· cites it 6× “Although FCC regulations once required incumbents to combine elements, 47 C.F.R. § 51.315 (c) — (f), these regulations were vacated by the Eighth Circuit in July 1997.”
S. New England Tel. Co. v. MCI Worldcom Commc'ns, Inc., 353 F. Supp. 2d 287 (D. Conn. 2005).
· cites it 3× “The FCC’s implementing regulations further specify that: *302 Upon request, an incumbent LEC shall perform the functions necessary to combine unbundled network elements in any manner, even if those elements are not ordinarily combined in the incumbent LEC’s network, proved that…”
U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jennings, 46 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Ariz. 1999).
· cites it 2× “West expressed concern about the length of time that has elapsed since the ACC first began the reconsideration process, with little progress evident to date.”
At & T Commc'ns of S. States, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D.N.C. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, the Commission’s rule, 47 C.F.R. § 51.315 (b), which prohibits an incumbent LEC from separating network elements that it may currently combine, is contrary to § 251(c)(3) because the rule would permit the new entrant access to the incumbent LEC’s network elements on…”
GTE South Inc. v. Morrison, 6 F. Supp. 2d 517 (E.D. Va. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 47 CFR § 51.315 (a), “[a]n incumbent LEC shall provide unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting telecommunications carriers to combine such network elements in order to provide a telecommunications service.”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. GTE Nw., Inc., 41 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Or. 1999).
“To implement that section, the FCC promulgated 47 C.F.R. § 51.315 (“Rule 315”). Rule 315(b) prohibits an ILEC from separating “requested network elements that the incumbent LEC currently combines” unless asked to by the requesting CLEC.”
Iowa Utils. Bd. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Combination of Network Elements We also believe that the FCC’s rule requiring incumbent LECs, rather than the requesting carriers, to recombine network elements that are purchased by the requesting carriers on an unbundled basis, 47 C.F.R. § 51.315 (c)-(f), cannot be squared…”
— 47 C.F.R. § 51.315(c) — 3 cases
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n Sheila A. Lumpe M. Dianne Drainer, Vice-Chair Harold Crumpton, Comm'r Robert Schemenauer, Comm'r Connie Murray, Comm'r, All the Above Parties in Their Off. Capacities as Commissioners of the Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n At&t Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc., Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n Sheila A. Lumpe M. Dianne Drainer, Vice-Chair Harold Crumpton, Comm'r Connie Murray, Comm'r, All the Above Parties in Their Off. Capacities as Commissioners of the Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n At&t Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc., 236 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2001).
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.