47 C.F.R. § 51.713

Bill-and-keep arrangements

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

Bill-and-keep arrangements are those in which carriers exchanging telecommunications traffic do not charge each other for specific transport and/or termination functions or services.

[76 FR 73856, Nov. 29, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1998–2014 · leading case: Iowa Network Servs., Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 363 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Iowa Network Servs., Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 363 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2004). ““[B]ill-and-keep arrangements are those in which neither of the two interconnecting carriers charges the other for the termination of telecommunications traffic that originates on the other carrier’s network,” 47 C.F.R. § 51.713 (a), and are appropriate when “the amount of…”

Atlas Tel. Co. v. Corp. Com'n of Oklahoma, 309 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (W.D. Okla. 2004). · cites it 3× “Bill and keep is a compensation arrangement whereby interconnecting carriers do not charge each other for the termination of telecommunications traffic which originates on the other carrier's network.”

At & T Commc'ns of CaliFornia, Inc. v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 651 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 51.713 (a). carrier: With some exceptions not relevant to this case, “any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy.”

Iowa Network Servs., Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 385 F. Supp. 2d 850 (S.D. Iowa 2005). “" '[B]ill-and-keep arrangements are those in which neither of the two interconnecting carriers charges the other for the termination of telecommunications traffic that originates on the other carrier's network,’ 47 C.”

U S West Commc'ns, Inc. v. AT & T Commc'ns of Pac. Nw., Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 839 (D. Or. 1998). “See 47 C.F.R. § 51.713 . Although bill-and-keep may not have been the only permissible decision, the PUC’s decision to utilize that method here was reasonable and will not be disturbed by this court.”

MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. U.S. West Commc'ns, 204 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2000). “47 C.F.R. § 51.713 (c). It does not require the presumption, but rather clarifies that such a presumption is not foreclosed by the FCC’s own regulations.”

Lowell Feldman Liquidating Tr. of UPH Liquidating Trust v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (In re UPH Holdings, Inc.), 516 B.R. 873 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2014). · cites it 3× “at 17913 ; see also 47 C.F.R. § 51.713 (b) (1997) (“A state commission may impose bill-and-keep arrangements if the state commission determines that the amount of telecommunications traffic from one network to the other is roughly balanced with the amount of telecommunications…”

Iowa Network Serv. v. Qwest Corp. (8th Cir. 2004). “"[B]ill-and-keep arrangements are those in which neither of the two interconnecting carriers charges the other for the termination of telecommunications traffic that originates on the other carrier's network," 47 C.F.R. § 51.713 (a), and are appropriate when "the amount of…”

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.