47 C.F.R. § 51.613
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1997–2012 · leading case: BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. v. Sanford, 494 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 2007).
BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. v. Sanford, 494 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 2007). “§ 251 (c)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (a), (b). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the Commissioners of the NC Commission.”
CGM, LLC v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 664 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 2011). “47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (a). 47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (a) prevents incumbent LECs from devising retail promotional schemes enabling them to offer discounts *50 to their retail customers without extending the value of those discounts to competitive LECs.”
At & T Commc'ns of S. States, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D.N.C. 1998). “One party objected to the FCC’s determination in 47 C.F.R. § 51.613 that discounted and promotional offerings be subject to the resale requirement of § 251(e)(4).”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d 674 (E.D.N.C. 1998). “47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (b). 2. Subloops The NCUC ruling denied MCI’s request to require BellSouth to allow MCI access to what are called local subloops.”
U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jennings, 46 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Ariz. 1999). “47 C.F.R. § 51.613 . In other words, the states may always impose cross-class restrictions on the resale of residential services.”
U S West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Hix, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Colo. 2000). “” 47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (b); see also AT & T Communications Inc.”
DSCI Corp. v. Dep't of Telecomm. & Energy, 870 N.E.2d 1096 (Mass. 2007). “See 47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (b) (2006). The FCC regulations give State commissions, such as the department, authority to determine whether a condition imposed by an ILEC “is reasonable and nondiscriminatory.”
Bell Atl.-Delaware, Inc. v. McMahon, 80 F. Supp. 2d 218 (D. Del. 2000). “80 at 28 (quoting Local Competition Order ¶ 939, at 466 and implementing regulations at 47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (b)). This, AT & T claims, Bell did not do because Bell failed to “even identify all of the material location or usage criteria that it would ‘infer’ from ‘ascertainable…”
U S West Commc'ns, Inc. v. AT & T Commc'ns of Pac. Nw., Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 839 (D. Or. 1998). “” 47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (b). See also Local Competition Order, ¶¶ 939, 964.”
At & T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 86 F. Supp. 2d 932 (W.D. Mo. 1999). “47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (a)(2); see also Iowa Utils.”
Iowa Utils. Bd. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997). “See 47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (a)(2); First Report and Order, ¶¶ 948-50.”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 40 F. Supp. 2d 416 (E.D. Ky. 1999). “47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (a)(2); See MCI Telecomm, 7 F.”
— 47 C.F.R. § 51.613(a)(2) — 1 case
BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. v. Sanford, 494 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 2007). “§ 251 (c)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 51.613 (a), (b). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the Commissioners of the NC Commission.”
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.