C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER B—COMMON CARRIER SERVICES › PART 51—INTERCONNECTION › Subpart F—Pricing of Elements

47 C.F.R. § 51.507

General rate structure standard

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

(a) Element rates shall be structured consistently with the manner in which the costs of providing the elements are incurred.

(b) The costs of dedicated facilities shall be recovered through flat-rated charges.

(c) The costs of shared facilities shall be recovered in a manner that efficiently apportions costs among users. Costs of shared facilities may be apportioned either through usage-sensitive charges or capacity-based flat-rated charges, if the state commission finds that such rates reasonably reflect the costs imposed by the various users.

(d) Recurring costs shall be recovered through recurring charges, unless an incumbent LEC proves to a state commission that such recurring costs are de minimis. Recurring costs shall be considered de minimis when the costs of administering the recurring charge would be excessive in relation to the amount of the recurring costs.

(e) State commissions may, where reasonable, require incumbent LECs to recover nonrecurring costs through recurring charges over a reasonable period of time. Nonrecurring charges shall be allocated efficiently among requesting telecommunications carriers, and shall not permit an incumbent LEC to recover more than the total forward-looking economic cost of providing the applicable element.

(f) State commissions shall establish different rates for elements in at least three defined geographic areas within the state to reflect geographic cost differences.

(1) To establish geographically-deaveraged rates, state commissions may use existing density-related zone pricing plans described in § 69.123 of this chapter, or other such cost-related zone plans established pursuant to state law.

(2) In states not using such existing plans, state commissions must create a minimum of three cost-related rate zones.

[61 FR 45619, Aug. 29, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 32207, June 16, 1999; 64 FR 68637, Dec. 8, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1999–2009 · leading case: Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 274 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 274 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “See 47 C.F.R. § 51.507 (e). Our inquiry in this section focuses on SBC’s non-recurring charges in Kansas.”
Qwest Corp. v. Boyle, 589 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “” Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions, 11 F.”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. GTE Nw., Inc., 41 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Or. 1999). “MCI argues that an FCC regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 51.507 (f), now mandates deaver-aging into at least 3 zones.”
U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jennings, 46 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Ariz. 1999). “Some CLECs argue that an FCC regulation, 47 C.F.R. 51.507(f), now mandates deaveraging into at least 3 zones.”
MCI WorldCom Commc'ns, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 446 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir. 2006). “See 47 C.F.R. § 51.507 (f). The only requirements imposed by the section are (1) the method must be based on “geographic areas within the state,” (2) the method must “reflect geographic cost differences,” and (3) there must be “a minimum of three cost-related rate zones.”
At & T Commc'ns of S. States, Inc. v. GTE Florida, Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (N.D. Fla. 2000). · cites it 2× “2000), I conclude that (1) the Florida Commission’s adoption of statewide averaged rates, on a transitional basis, did not violate the Act and was not arbitrary and capricious, but that (2) effective as of May 1, 2000, the Florida Commission became obligated to deaverage rates…”
At & T Commc'ns of S. States, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 122 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (N.D. Fla. 2000). · cites it 2× “More recently, however, the FCC stayed its own rule, recognizing the need to allow states time to implement deaveraging.”
Worldnet Telecomm., Inc. v. Telecomm. Regulatory Bd., 707 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.P.R. 2009). · cites it 2× “The FCC observed that its own “rules suggest” the former view, citing the requirement in 47 C.F.R. § 51.507 (e) that “[n]on-recurring charges .”
MPower Commc'ns Corp. v. Hurley, 381 F. Supp. 2d 738 (N.D. Ill. 2005). “” Local Competition Order ¶ 764; 47 C.F.R. § 51.507 (f) (“State commissions shall establish different rates for elements in at least three defined geographic areas within the state to reflect geographic cost differences.”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jennings, 304 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2002). “Geographic Deaveraging The CLECs argue that the interconnection agreements provide for geographically averaged rates for unbundled local loops in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 51.507 (f). That regulation, requiring geographic deaverag-ing of local loop rates, was temporarily stayed…”
Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Aliant Midwest, 619 N.W.2d 809 (Neb. 2000). “First, the rates must comply with the rate structure standards of 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.507 and 51.509 (1999). Second, the rates must be established in compliance with either 47 C.”
Qwest Corp. v. Anne Boyle (8th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “” Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions, 11 F.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 47 C.F.R. § 51.507(e) — 1 case
Worldnet Telecomm., Inc. v. Telecomm. Regulatory Bd., 707 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.P.R. 2009). “The FCC observed that its own “rules suggest” the former view, citing the requirement in 47 C.F.R. § 51.507 (e) that “[n]on-recurring charges .”
— 47 C.F.R. § 51.507(f) — 1 case
U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jennings, 46 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Ariz. 1999). “Some CLECs argue that an FCC regulation, 47 C.F.R. 51.507(f), now mandates deaveraging into at least 3 zones.”
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.