47 U.S.C. § 276

Provision of payphone service

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

(a) Nondiscrimination safeguardsAfter the effective date of the rules prescribed pursuant to subsection (b), any Bell operating company that provides payphone service—(1) shall not subsidize its payphone service directly or indirectly from its telephone exchange service operations or its exchange access operations; and(2) shall not prefer or discriminate in favor of its payphone service.(b) Regulations(1) Contents of regulationsIn order to promote competition among payphone service providers and promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public, within 9 months after February 8, 1996, the Commission shall take all actions necessary (including any reconsideration) to prescribe regulations that—(A) establish a compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated, and all rates and charges are just and reasonable, for completed intrastate and interstate communications using their payphone or other calling device, except that emergency calls and telecommunications relay service calls for hearing disabled individuals shall not be subject to such compensation;(B) discontinue the intrastate and interstate carrier access charge payphone service elements and payments in effect on February 8, 1996, and all intrastate and interstate payphone subsidies from basic exchange and exchange access revenues, in favor of a compensation plan as specified in subparagraph (A);(C) prescribe a set of nonstructural safeguards for Bell operating company payphone service to implement the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), which safeguards shall, at a minimum, include the nonstructural safeguards equal to those adopted in the Computer Inquiry-III (CC Docket No. 90–623) proceeding;(D) provide for Bell operating company payphone service providers to have the same right that independent payphone providers have to negotiate with the location provider on the location provider’s selecting and contracting with, and, subject to the terms of any agreement with the location provider, to select and contract with, the carriers that carry interLATA calls from their payphones, unless the Commission determines in the rulemaking pursuant to this section that it is not in the public interest; and(E) provide for all payphone service providers to have the right to negotiate with the location provider on the location provider’s selecting and contracting with, and, subject to the terms of any agreement with the location provider, to select and contract with, the carriers that carry intraLATA calls from their payphones.(2) Public interest telephones

In the rulemaking conducted pursuant to paragraph (1), the Commission shall determine whether public interest payphones, which are provided in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, in locations where there would otherwise not be a payphone, should be maintained, and if so, ensure that such public interest payphones are supported fairly and equitably.

(3) Existing contracts

Nothing in this section shall affect any existing contracts between location providers and payphone service providers or interLATA or intraLATA carriers that are in force and effect as of February 8, 1996.

To the extent that any State requirements are inconsistent with the Commission’s regulations, the Commission’s regulations on such matters shall preempt such State requirements.

(d) “Payphone service” defined

As used in this section, the term “payphone service” means the provision of public or semi-public pay telephones, the provision of inmate telephone service and advanced communications services described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (D), and (E) of section 153(1) of this title in correctional institutions, and any ancillary services.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 276, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title I, § 151(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 10 Stat. 106; amended Pub. L. 117–338, § 2(a), Jan. 5, 2023, 136 Stat. 6156.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2023—Subsec. (b)(1)(A). Pub. L. 117–338, § 2(a)(1), struck out “per call” before “compensation plan” and “each and every” before “completed intrastate”, inserted “, and all rates and charges are just and reasonable,” after “fairly compensated” and “or other calling device” after “their payphone”, and substituted “communications using” for “call using”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 117–338, § 2(a)(2), inserted “and advanced communications services described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (D), and (E) of section 153(1) of this title” after “inmate telephone service”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 58 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Global TelLink v. Federal Communications Commission

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Global TelLink v. Federal Communications Commission (2017) cadc · cites it 15× “47 U.S.C. § 276 (b)(1)(A). “[Pjayphone service” expressly includes “the provision of inmate telephone service in correctional institutions, and any ancillary services.”

Global TelLink v. Federal Communications Commission (2017) cadc · cites it 33× “47 U.S.C. § 276 (b)(1)(A). “[P]ayphone service” expressly includes “the provision of inmate telephone service in correctional institutions, and any ancillary services.”

NetworkIP, LLC v. Federal Communications Commission (2008) cadc · cites it 6× “1997) (citing 47 U.S.C. § 276 ). The FCC must "establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone.”

Ton Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. (2007) ca10 · cites it 7× “one of a number of pending judicial and administrative actions raising the question whether incumbent local exchange carriers (“LECs”) generally, and the former Bell Operating Companies (“BOCs”) in particular, are required to provide refunds to independent payphone service…”

Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc. (2007) scotus · cites it 4× “106 , codified at 47 U.S.C. § 276 (b)(1)(A). The FCC then considered the compensation problem.”

Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. (2008) scotus · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 276 (b)(1)(A) (authorizing the FCC to "prescribe regulations" that "ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for each and every completed [dial-around] call").”

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Department of Telecommunications & Energy (2001) mass · cites it 8× “MCI’s objection to the department’s decision stems from its interpretation of 47 U.S.C. § 276 (a) (1) (1994 & Supp. 1999), which mandates that all Bell operating companies 2 eliminate the subsidies that previously supported their payphone services, and its interpretation of the…”

Precision Pay Phones v. Qwest Communications Corp. (2002) cand · cites it 8× “” 47 U.S.C. § 276 (b)(1)(A). *1110 Pursuant to that charge, the FCC established rules requiring that IXCs compensate PSPs for use of the payphones.”

McGuire v. Ameritech Services, Inc. (2003) ohsd · cites it 5× “To the extent they have entered into agreements with the individual County Defendants, Telephone Defendants, too, may not yet be dismissed from this case.”

Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2001) cadc · cites it 4× “47 U.S.C. § 276 (b)(1)(A), (B). 3 Pursuant to Congress’ direction, the FCC issued orders in 1996 that implemented the provisions of § 276, including paragraphs (A) and (B).”

Illinois Public Telecommunications Ass'n v. Federal Communications Commission (2014) cadc · cites it 5× “See 47 U.S.C. § 276 . This case concerns the remedies available for violations of that prohibition — in particular, whether independent payphone providers who were charged excessive rates by Bell Operating Companies are entitled to refunds or instead are entitled only to…”

Global Network Communications, Inc. v. City of New York (2009) ca2 · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 276 (c). Global argues that the City’s regulatory scheme is inconsistent with an FCC regulation, 47 C.”

Show all 58 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.