47 C.F.R. § 61.19

Detariffing of international and interstate, domestic interexchange services

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

(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, or by Commission order, carriers that are nondominant in the provision of international and interstate, domestic interexchange services shall not file tariffs for such services.

(b) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of international and domestic, interstate, interexchange services are permitted to file tariffs for dial-around 1 + services. For the purposes of this paragraph, dial-around 1 + calls are those calls made by accessing the interexchange carrier through the use of that carrier's carrier access code.

(c) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of international and domestic, interstate, interexchange services are permitted to file a tariff for such services applicable to those customers who contact the local exchange carrier to designate an interexchange carrier or to initiate a change with respect to their primary interexchange carrier. Such tariff will enable the interexchange carrier to provide service to the customer until the interexchange carrier and the customer consummate a written agreement, but in no event shall the interexchange carrier provide service to its customer pursuant to such tariff for more than 45 days.

(d) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of international inbound collect calls to the United States are permitted to file a tariff for such services.

(e) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of “on-demand” Mobile Satellite Services are permitted to file a tariff for such services applicable to those customers that have not entered into pre-existing service contracts designating a specific provider for such services.

[66 FR 16881, Mar. 28, 2001]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2008 · leading case: At & T CORP. v. Dataway Inc., 577 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

At & T CORP. v. Dataway Inc., 577 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2008). “Complaint ¶ 8; 47 C.F.R. § 61.19 (b). In explaining the reason for creating this exception under the detariffing regime, the FCC concludes that permissive detariffing, as opposed to complete detariffing, with respect to the “dial around 1 + services” is in the public interest.”

Wholesale Telecom Corp. v. ITC Deltacom Commc'ns, Inc., 176 F. App'x 76 (11th Cir. 2006). “47 C.F.R. § 61.19 . Instead, the FCC required non-dominant carriers to make publically available information about their current rates; and if the carrier maintains a website, the rate information must be posted on the website.”

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.