47 U.S.C. § 261
Effect on other requirements
Nothing in this part shall be construed to prohibit the Commission from enforcing regulations prescribed prior to
Nothing in this part shall be construed to prohibit any State commission from enforcing regulations prescribed prior to
Nothing in this part precludes a State from imposing requirements on a telecommunications carrier for intrastate services that are necessary to further competition in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access, as long as the State’s requirements are not inconsistent with this part or the Commission’s regulations to implement this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1997–2015 · leading case: In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 702 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 2005).
In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 702 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 2005). “47 U.S.C. § 261 (c) (2000) (emphasis added).”
Verizon North, Inc. v. John G. Strand, Chairman John C. Shea, Comm'r & David A. Svanda, Comm'r, 309 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2002). “” 47 U.S.C. § 261 (b). See also id. at § 261(c) (permitting state commissions to impose certain additional requirements on telecommunications carriers, “as long as the State’s requirements are not inconsistent with [the FTA]”).”
Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004). “The Act imposes a large number of duties upon incumbent LECs — above and beyond those basic responsibilities it imposes upon all carriers, such as assuring number portability and providing access to rights-of-way, see 47 U. S. C. §§ 261 (b)(2), (4). Under the sharing duties of §…”
BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. v. Greer, 972 S.W.2d 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “See 47 U.S.C.A. § 261 (b), (c) (West Supp. 1997).”
Iowa Network Servs., Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 385 F. Supp. 2d 850 (S.D. Iowa 2005). “§ 253 (b) (relating to State regulatory authority and discussing that nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this section, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal…”
In Re Qwest's Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 678 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “"); [3] 47 U.S.C. § 261 (c) (1996) ("Nothing in this part precludes a State from imposing requirements on a telecommunications carrier for intrastate services that are necessary to further competition in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access, as long as…”
At&T Commc'ns of Pac. Nw., Inc. v. City of Eugene, 35 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “47 USC § 261 (c) (Supp 2001). Fourth, the FCC construes subsection (a) as the only substantive prohibition on state and local governments and subsections (b) and (c) as exceptions to that prohibition.”
Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Bie, 340 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2003). “The Federal Telecommunications Act is explicit Nos. 02-3854, 02-3897 3 that a state commission’s regulations concerning intercon- nection are not preempted “if such regulations are not inconsistent with the provisions of [the Federal Telecommu- nications Act].”
Gte North, Inc. v. John G. Strand, 209 F.3d 909 (6th Cir. 2000). “” 47 U.S.C. § 261 (1996). State commissions may also impose additional requirements on LECs if such requirements "are necessary to further competition in the provision of telephone exchange access, so long as the State’s requirements are not inconsistent with the [Federal…”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Bellsouth Telecomm. Inc., 298 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002). “See 47 U.S.C. § 261 (c)(2). Incumbent local carriers must also allow new competitors to lease unbundled elements of the incumbent’s network and sell retail services at wholesale to the competitor for resale.”
Verizon North, Inc. v. Strand, 140 F. Supp. 2d 803 (W.D. Mich. 2000). “” 47 U.S.C. § 261 . State commissions can also impose additional requirements “that are necessary to further competition in the provisions of telephone exchange service or exchange access, so long as the State’s requirements are not inconsistent with” the FTA or the FCC’s…”
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. RCN Telecom Servs., Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 539 (D. Maryland 2002). “In the first place, the 1996 Act expressly reaffirms the right of states to prescribe and enforce any supplemental regulations — including regulations setting retail rates paid by consumers and even regulations stimulating competition in the provision of intrastate telephone…”
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.