47 C.F.R. § 51.503
General pricing standard
(a) An incumbent LEC shall offer elements to requesting telecommunications carriers at rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.
(b) An incumbent LEC's rates for each element it offers shall comply with the rate structure rules set forth in §§ 51.507 and 51.509, and shall be established, at the election of the state commission—
(1) Pursuant to the forward-looking economic cost-based pricing methodology set forth in §§ 51.505 and 51.511; or
(2) Consistent with the proxy ceilings and ranges set forth in § 51.513.
(c) The rates that an incumbent LEC assesses for elements shall not vary on the basis of the class of customers served by the requesting carrier, or on the type of services that the requesting carrier purchasing such elements uses them to provide.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1999–2015 · leading case: At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999).
At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). “[3] See 47 CFR §§ 51.503 , 51.505 (1997). The Court of Appeals agreed, and vacated the pricing rules, and several other aspects of the order, as reaching beyond the Commission's jurisdiction.”
MCI Worldcom, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 844 A.2d 1239 (Pa. 2004). “” 47 C.F.R. § 51.503 (b)(1). Section 51.505 describes the “Total element long-run incremental cost” methodology or “TEL-RIC.”
Iowa Utils. Bd. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000). “See *757 47 C.F.R. § 51.503 (b) (emphasis added). The word “shall” is language of a mandatory nature.”
Qwest Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 567 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009). “6 Section 252(a) permits carriers to negotiate an interconnection agreement voluntarily without regard to the duties otherwise imposed under Section 251(b) or (c). If, like here, negotiations fail, pursuant to Section 252(b)(1) either' party “may petition a State commission to…”
Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Bie, 340 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2003). “For example, 47 C.F.R. § 51.503 (b) provides in pertinent part: (b) An incumbent LEC’s rates for each element it offers shall comply with the rate structure rules set forth in §§ 51.”
MCI WorldCom Commc'ns, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 446 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir. 2006). “See 47 C.F.R. § 51.503 (b) (“An incumbent LEC’s rates for each element it offers .”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 112 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (N.D. Fla. 2000). “See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.503 , 51.505. Nothing in the Telecommunications Act specifies which of these two methodologies must be followed.”
At & T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 86 F. Supp. 2d 932 (W.D. Mo. 1999). “See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.503 , 51.505 (1999). On October 15, 1996, however, the Eighth Circuit stayed these regulations in part because it found that the FCC lacked jurisdiction to issue them.”
At & T Commc'ns of California, Inc. v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., 228 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “¶¶ 672-732; 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.503 , 51.505, 51.507. Under TELRIC, the forward-looking economic cost of an element is the sum of (1) the “total element long-run incremental cost” of the element (the forward-looking cost over the long run of the facilities and functions directly…”
Qwest Corp. v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 672 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “47 C.F.R. § 51.503 (b). Specifically, the rules direct state commissions to calculate the forward-looking economic cost-based price of a UNE to be the sum of “the total element long-run incremental cost of the element” and “a reasonable allocation of forward-looking common costs.”
Sprintcom, Inc. v. Commissioners of the Illinois Com. Comm'n, 790 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2015). “§ 252 (d)(l)(A)(i); 47 C.F.R. § 51.503 . But there’s a hitch: the FCC is tasked by 47 U.”
Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Aliant Midwest, 619 N.W.2d 809 (Neb. 2000). “Pursuant to § 252(d)(1) of the 1996 Act, the FCC promulgated 47 C.F.R. § 51.503 (1999), which sets forth the general pricing standard governing what ILECs should charge CLECs for interconnection and for furnishing of network elements on an unbundled basis.”
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.