47 U.S.C. § 203

Schedules of charges

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Filing; public display

Every common carrier, except connecting carriers, shall, within such reasonable time as the Commission shall designate, file with the Commission and print and keep open for public inspection schedules showing all charges for itself and its connecting carriers for interstate and foreign wire or radio communication between the different points on its own system, and between points on its own system and points on the system of its connecting carriers or points on the system of any other carrier subject to this chapter when a through route has been established, whether such charges are joint or separate, and showing the classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges. Such schedules shall contain such other information, and be printed in such form, and be posted and kept open for public inspection in such places, as the Commission may by regulation require, and each such schedule shall give notice of its effective date; and such common carrier shall furnish such schedules to each of its connecting carriers, and such connecting carriers shall keep such schedules open for inspection in such public places as the Commission may require.

(b) Changes in schedule; discretion of Commission to modify requirements(1) No change shall be made in the charges, classifications, regulations, or practices which have been so filed and published except after one hundred and twenty days notice to the Commission and to the public, which shall be published in such form and contain such information as the Commission may by regulations prescribe.(2) The Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, modify any requirement made by or under the authority of this section either in particular instances or by general order applicable to special circumstances or conditions except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.(c) Overcharges and rebates

No carrier, unless otherwise provided by or under authority of this chapter, shall engage or participate in such communication unless schedules have been filed and published in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and with the regulations made thereunder; and no carrier shall (1) charge, demand, collect, or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such communication, or for any service in connection therewith, between the points named in any such schedule than the charges specified in the schedule then in effect, or (2) refund or remit by any means or device any portion of the charges so specified, or (3) extend to any person any privileges or facilities in such communication, or employ or enforce any classifications, regulations, or practices affecting such charges, except as specified in such schedule.

(d) Rejection or refusal

The Commission may reject and refuse to file any schedule entered for filing which does not provide and give lawful notice of its effective date. Any schedule so rejected by the Commission shall be void and its use shall be unlawful.

(e) Penalty for violations

In case of failure or refusal on the part of any carrier to comply with the provisions of this section or of any regulation or order made by the Commission thereunder, such carrier shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $6,000 for each such offense, and $300 for each and every day of the continuance of such offense.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 203, 48 Stat. 1070; Pub. L. 94–376, § 1, Aug. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1080; Pub. L. 101–239, title III, § 3002(b), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2131; Pub. L. 101–396, § 7, Sept. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 850.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–396 substituted “one hundred and twenty days” for “ninety days” in pars. (1) and (2).

1989—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 101–239 substituted “$6,000” for “$500” and “$300” for “$25”.

1976—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94–376 designated existing provisions as par. (1), substituted “after ninety days notice” for “after thirty days’ notice”, and struck out provision that the Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, modify the requirements made by or under authority of this section in particular instances or by a general order applicable to special circumstances or conditions, and added par. (2).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 296 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994). · cites it 6× “" 47 U. S. C. § 203 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV).”

Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cent. Off. Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214 (1998). · cites it 6× “" 47 U. S. C. § 203 (a). Section 203(c) makes it unlawful for a carrier to *222 "extend to any person any privileges or facilities in such communication, or employ or enforce any classifications, regulations, or practices affecting such charges, except as specified in such…”

CallerID4u, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “See 47 U.S.C. § 203 ; see also Access Charge Reform, 16 FCC Red.”

Panatronic Usa, a California Gen. P'ship Lemar Textile Co. v. At&t Corp., 287 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 4× “The plaintiffs additionally contend that AT&T’s temporary failure to impose the UCC fee on its larger customers contradicted the terms of its published tariffs, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 203 (c). Panatronic and Lemar sought class certification to pursue the claims on behalf of…”

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 47 U.S.C. § 203 (a); ICOM Holding, Inc. v.”

MCI Commc'ns Corp. & MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “47 U.S.C. § 203 (a) (1976); 47 U.S.C.A. § 203 (b) (West Supp.”

Tomi White Bryan, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bellsouth Commc'ns, Inc., 377 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “Billing practices such as recovery of USF contributions are established in a carrier’s “Schedule of Charges,” see 47 U.S.C. § 203 , also known as its “tariff.”

Qwest Commc'ns Co. v. Free Conferencing Corp., 905 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “See generally 47 U.S.C. § 203 (a). Generally, tariffs authorize long-distance carriers like Qwest to route their customers’ traffic through other long-distance carriers when doing so would be less 1 The Honorable Michael J.”

MCI Commc'ns Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 462 F. Supp. 1072 (N.D. Ill. 1978). · cites it 6× “Compare 47 U.S.C.A. § 203 (b)(1) (Supp.1978) (ninety days) with 47 U.”

Ragan v. At & T Corp., 824 N.E.2d 1183 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 4× “Contrary to Boomer, the Ninth Circuit held that it was section 203 of the FCA ( 47 U.S.C. § 203 (2000)), and not sections 201 and 202, which preempted state-law challenges to the rates, terms, and conditions of service of long-distance carriers.”

Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. At&t, Michael Gilmartin & Richard Stotts, 138 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “See 47 U.S.C. § 203 (a). , Carriers are prohibited from providing communications services except pursuant to a filed tariff, and may not charge, demand, collect, or receive a,rate other than the rate listed in the applicable tariff.”

In Re Universal Serv. Fund Tel. Billing Practices Litig., 300 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (D. Kan. 2003). · cites it 3× “47 U.S.C. § 203 . However, the FCC implemented mandatory detariffing effective August 1, 2001.”

Show all 296 citing cases →

— 47 U.S.C. § 203(a) — 1 case

Katz v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 14 F. Supp. 2d 271 (E.D.N.Y 1998).

— 47 U.S.C. § 203(b) — 1 case

Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & the United States of Am., Data Transmission Co., Intervenors, 503 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1974).

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.