(a) An incumbent LEC shall make available without unreasonable delay to any requesting telecommunications carrier any agreement in its entirety to which the incumbent LEC is a party that is approved by a state commission pursuant to section 252 of the Act, upon the same rates, terms, and conditions as those provided in the agreement. An incumbent LEC may not limit the availability of any agreement only to those requesting carriers serving a comparable class of subscribers or providing the same service (i.e., local, access, or interexchange) as the original party to the agreement.
(b) The obligations of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply where the incumbent LEC proves to the state commission that:
(1) The costs of providing a particular agreement to the requesting telecommunications carrier are greater than the costs of providing it to the telecommunications carrier that originally negotiated the agreement, or
(2) The provision of a particular agreement to the requesting carrier is not technically feasible.
(c) Individual agreements shall remain available for use by telecommunications carriers pursuant to this section for a reasonable period of time after the approved agreement is available for public inspection under section 252(h) of the Act.
[69 FR 43771, July 22, 2004]
Notes of Decisions
Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., 396 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2005).
· cites it 6× “The regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 51.809 (b), provides two express limitations to a CLEC’s opt in rights under § 252(i): an incumbent need not make available the terms of an interconnection agreement to a particular competitor 1) if it shows that the costs of providing a service will…”
Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc. v. Se. Tel., Inc. & Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Kentucky, 462 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 6× “The final version of the rule, which was codified at 47 C.F.R. § 51.809 (1997), highlighted the importance of expeditiously processing claims by requiring ILECs to make the covered services and facilities available to CLECs “without unreasonable delay.”
Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 535 U.S. 467 (2002).
· cites it 2× “…pursuant to section 252 of the Act, upon the same rates, terms, and conditions as those provided in the agreement." 47 CFR § 51.809 (a) (1997).”
Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. T-Mobile Puerto Rico LLC, 678 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2012).
· cites it 6× “” 47 C.F.R. § 51.809 (b) (1997). Third, other carriers could only opt-in to the agreement “for a reasonable period of time after the *60 approved agreement is available for public inspection.”
Connect Commc'ns Corp. v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P., 467 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “§ 252 (I); 47 C.F.R. § 51.809 . The APSC approved the SWBT-Connect Interconnection Agreement on October 24, 1997, and neither party sought review of the Interconnection Agreement in federal district court pursuant to 47 U.”
U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 275 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” Section 252(i), entitled “Availability to other telecommunications carriers,” provides: A local exchange carrier shall make available any interconnection, service, or network element provided under an agreement approved under this section to which it is a party to any other…”
Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc. v. Universal Telecom, Inc., 454 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 5× “Under a regulation promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an entrant seeking to adopt an approved agreement must do so within “a reasonable period of time after the approved agreement is available for public inspection,” 47 C.F.R. § 51.809 (c), which is to…”
U S West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Hix, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Colo. 2000).
· cites it 6× “809, 47 C.F.R. § 51.809 . This Rule states in pertinent part that [a]n incumbent LEC shall make available without unreasonable delay to any requesting telecommunication carrier any individual interconnection, service, or network element arrangement contained in any agreement to…”
New Edge Network, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 461 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 6× “” 27 The FCC 'codified the all-or-nothing rule at 47 C.F.R. § 51.809 . 28 III. Discussion We review the FCC’s adoption of the all-or-nothing rule under the two-step framework established in Chevron U.”
Core Commc'ns, Inc. v. Verizon Maryland LLC, 744 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2014).
“” See47C.F.R§ 51.809(a). 2 . On August 20, 1999, Core amended its initial notification to request that its interconnection with Verizon be deferred from September 10, 1999, until September 18, 1999.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Waller Creek Commc'ns, Inc., 221 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “47 C.F.R. § 51.809 (a) (1998). SWBT argues that the MFN clause may not be invoked to adopt certain provisions of an earlier agreement if the CLEC also seeks to create additional provisions not covered in the earlier agreement.”
— 47 C.F.R. § 51.809(a) — 2 cases
Core Commc'ns, Inc. v. Verizon Maryland LLC, 744 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2014).
“” See47C.F.R§ 51.809(a). 2 . On August 20, 1999, Core amended its initial notification to request that its interconnection with Verizon be deferred from September 10, 1999, until September 18, 1999.”
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.