47 U.S.C. § 205

Commission authorized to prescribe just and reasonable charges; penalties for violations

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

(a) Whenever, after full opportunity for hearing, upon a complaint or under an order for investigation and hearing made by the Commission on its own initiative, the Commission shall be of opinion that any charge, classification, regulation, or practice of any carrier or carriers is or will be in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, the Commission is authorized and empowered to determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable charge or the maximum or minimum, or maximum and minimum, charge or charges to be thereafter observed, and what classification, regulation, or practice is or will be just, fair, and reasonable, to be thereafter followed, and to make an order that the carrier or carriers shall cease and desist from such violation to the extent that the Commission finds that the same does or will exist, and shall not thereafter publish, demand, or collect any charge other than the charge so prescribed, or in excess of the maximum or less than the minimum so prescribed, as the case may be, and shall adopt the classification and shall conform to and observe the regulation or practice so prescribed.(b) Any carrier, any officer, representative, or agent of a carrier, or any receiver, trustee, lessee, or agent of either of them, who knowingly fails or neglects to obey any order made under the provisions of this section shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $12,000 for each offense. Every distinct violation shall be a separate offense, and in case of continuing violation each day shall be deemed a separate offense.(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 205, 48 Stat. 1072; Pub. L. 101–239, title III, § 3002(c), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2131.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), 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

1989—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–239 substituted “$12,000” for “$1,000”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 66 cases, 1942–2017 · leading case: Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc. v. Metrophones Telecomm., Inc., 550 U.S. 45 (2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc. v. Metrophones Telecomm., Inc., 550 U.S. 45 (2007). · cites it 2× “" See 47 U.S.C. § 205 (authorizing the FCC to prescribe reasonable rates and practices in order to preclude rates or practices that violate § 201(b)); 5 U.”

Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 168 F.3d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “A separate section of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 205 , empowers the Commission to deal with rates or practices of carriers that it finds to be in violation of the Act.”

MCI Commc'ns Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 462 F. Supp. 1072 (N.D. Ill. 1978). · cites it 3× “47 U.S.C. § 205 (a). The Commission may enforce its order by enjoining the carrier to cease and desist from violations and by assessing a $1,000.”

Telecomm. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “The Rate of Return on Interstate and Foreign Services in 1978 In 1976, acting under the ratemaking authority conferred by 47 U.S.C. § 205 (a), the FCC set the maximum rate of return for AT&T interstate and foreign operations at 9.”

Essential Commc'n Sys., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 446 F. Supp. 1090 (D.N.J. 1978). · cites it 3× “6 If “after full opportunity for hearing” the FCC determines that any rate or practice is in violation of the act, then it is empowered to “determine and prescribe” practices and rates that will be just, fair, and reasonable and to require carriers to conform to those rates and…”

Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. At&t, Michael Gilmartin & Richard Stotts, 138 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 1998). “See 47 U.S.C. § 205 (a). Beginning in 1991, the FCC adopted rules and regulations allowing carriers to establish “contract tariffs.”

Litton Sys., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 487 F. Supp. 942 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 205 (a). It may enforce its orders by injunction and by a fine of $1,000 for each day of violation.”

Essential Commc'ns Sys., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., W. Elec. Co. & New Jersey Bell Tel. Co., 610 F.2d 1114 (3rd Cir. 1979). “” 47 U.S.C. § 205 (a). Thus the tariff scheme of the 1934 Act carries forward the pre-ex-isting power of the ICC to review carrier initiated tariffs, and to enforce the obligation of fair and reasonable charges.”

United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 498 F. Supp. 353 (D.D.C. 1980). “40 With respect to all of the dockets, AT&T was afforded and took advantage of its “full opportunity for hearing” required by section 205(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 205 (a), allowing it to file written comments with the FCC, and replies to comments made by other…”

LinkLine Commc'ns, Inc. v. SBC California, Inc., 503 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 205 . In practice, however, the FCC tends to rely on market players bringing complaints to its attention.”

ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 290 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “3 (b), or cause the Commission to start proceedings under 47 U.S.C. § 205 to prescribe new rates “to be thereafter followed.”

The Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, & United States of Am., 523 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “The second reason argued by the ACLU for compelling common carrier status for cable television operators is that 47 U.S.C. § 205 (a) provides for FCC regulation of charges by any “carriers” as defined by 47 U.”

Show all 66 citing cases →

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.