(a) Each LEC shall establish Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation arrangements for transport and termination of Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic with any requesting telecommunications carrier.
(b) A LEC may not assess charges on any other telecommunications carrier for Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic that originates on the LEC's network.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Commission's rules, a LEC shall be entitled to assess and collect the full charges for the transport and termination of Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic, regardless of whether the local exchange carrier assessing the applicable charges itself delivers such traffic to the called party's premises or delivers the call to the called party's premises via contractual or other arrangements with an affiliated or unaffiliated provider of interconnected VoIP service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(25), or a non-interconnected VoIP service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(36), that does not itself seek to collect Non-Access Reciprocal Compensation charges for the transport and termination of that Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic. In no event may the total charges that a LEC may assess for such service to the called location exceed the applicable transport and termination rate. For purposes of this section, the facilities used by the LEC and affiliated or unaffiliated provider of interconnected VoIP service or a non-interconnected VoIP service for the transport and termination of such traffic shall be deemed an equivalent facility under § 51.701.
[76 FR 73855, Nov. 29, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Qwest Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 252 F.3d 462 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 3× “This case concerns the Federal Communications Commission’s rule forbidding any LEC charge to the paging company for carrying such calls, 47 CFR § 51.703 (b). The Commission enforced this no-compensation rule through adjudication of complaints brought by providers of one-way…”
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Finley, 674 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 5× “The CMRS Providers next argue that the NCUC’s determination regarding their responsibility to pay transit costs for RLEC-originated traffic is prohibited by 47 C.F.R. § 51.703 (b). The CMRS Providers rely in particular on MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc.”
Level 3 Commc'ns, LLC v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Colorado, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Colo. 2003).
· cites it 21× “) Level 3 argues that (1) CPUC erred by not applying 47 C.F.R. § 51.703 (b), 47 C.F.R. § 51.709 (b), and certain case law to its determination, and (2) CPUC erred by applying the logic of a bill-and-keep mechanism (Issue 2) to its determination of relative use (Issue 6).”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Fitch, 801 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D. Tex. 2011).
· cites it 6× “§ 251 (b) and 47 C.F.R. § 51.703 , governed the agreement and did not allow the ILEC, Southwestern Bell, to charge the CLEC, AT & T, for traffic originating on Southwestern Bell’s network.”
W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Qwest Corp., 678 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2012).
“The competing LEC argued that this contravened 47 C.F.R. § 51.703 (b), the FCC regulation expressly prohibiting a LEC from assessing charges for traffic that originates on its own network.”
Puerto Rico Tel. Co., Inc. v. Sprintcom, Inc., 662 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2011).
“§ 251 (b)(5); see also 47 C.F.R. § 51.703 . Under a reciprocal compensation arrangement, “each of the two carriers receives compensation from the other carrier for the transport and termination on each carrier’s network facilities of telecommunications traffic that originates on…”
North Cnty. Commc'ns Co v. Qwest Corp., 824 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2016).
“47 C.F.R. § 51.703 . In an effort to charge North County for the proportion of Qwest — North County traffic that originates with North County, the 2011 ICAs employ a so-called “relative use factor” that assigns 99 percent of the costs to Qwest and 1 percent of the costs to North…”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Texas, 348 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, AT&T contends that allowing Southwestern Bell to impose charges for hauling its originating traffic to the POI selected by AT&T simply because the POI is outside Southwestern Bell’s local calling area is expressly precluded by the FCC’s “reciprocal compensation rules”…”
Verizon New York, Inc. v. Global NAPS, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 2d 330 (E.D.N.Y 2006).
“§ 251 (b), which is further defined by 47 C.F.R. § 51.703 : (a) Each LEC shall establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic with any requesting telecommunications carrier.”
Pac. Bell v. Cook Telecom, Inc., 197 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Next, 47 C.F.R. § 51.703 (a) states that “[e]aeh LEC shall establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for transport and termination of local telecommunications traffic with any requesting telecommunications carrier.”
— 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b) — 1 case
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Fitch, 801 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D. Tex. 2011).
“§ 251 (b) and 47 C.F.R. § 51.703 , governed the agreement and did not allow the ILEC, Southwestern Bell, to charge the CLEC, AT & T, for traffic originating on Southwestern Bell’s network.”
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.