47 C.F.R. Subpart C—Obligations of All Local Exchange Carriers
Title 47 - Telecommunication
The rules governing resale of services by an incumbent LEC are set forth in subpart G of this part. The rules governing number portability are set forth in part 52, subpart C of this chapter. A local exchange carrier (LEC) shall provide local and toll dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service, with no unreasonable dialing delays. Dialing parity shall be provided for all originating telecommunications services that require dialing to route a call. [61 FR 47349, Sept. 6, 1996] A LEC shall permit telephone exchange service customers within a local calling area to dial the same number of digits to make a local telephone call notwithstanding the identity of the customer's or the called party's telecommunications service provider. [61 FR 47349, Sept. 6, 1996] (a) A LEC shall implement throughout each state in which it offers telephone exchange service intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity based on LATA boundaries. When a single LATA covers more than one state, the LEC shall use the implementation procedures that each state has approved for the LEC within that state's borders. (b) A LEC shall implement toll dialing parity through a presubscription process that permits a customer to select a carrier to which all designated calls on a customer's line will be routed automatically. LECs shall allow a customer to presubscribe, at a minimum, to one telecommunications carrier for all interLATA toll calls and to presubscribe to the same or to another telecommunications carrier for all intraLATA toll calls. (c) A LEC may not assign automatically a customer's intraLATA toll traffic to itself, to its subsidiaries or affiliates, to the customer's presubscribed interLATA or interstate toll carrier, or to any other carrier, except when, in a state that already has implemented intrastate, intraLATA toll dialing parity, the subscriber has selected the same presubscribed carrier for both intraLATA and interLATA toll calls. (d) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, states may require that toll dialing parity be based on state boundaries if it deems that the provision of intrastate and interstate toll dialing parity is procompetitive and otherwise in the public interest. [61 FR 47349, Sept. 6, 1996] (a) A LEC that does not begin providing in-region, interLATA or in-region, interstate toll services in a state before February 8, 1999, must implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity throughout that state on February 8, 1999 or an earlier date as the state may determine, consistent with section 271(e)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to be in the public interest. (b) A Bell Operating Company (BOC) that provides in-region, interLATA toll services in a state before February 8, 1999 shall provide intraLATA toll dialing parity throughout that state coincident with its provision of in-region, interLATA toll services. (c) A LEC that is not a BOC that begins providing in-region, interLATA or in-region, interstate toll services in a state before August 8, 1997, shall implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity throughout that state by August 8, 1997. If the LEC is unable to comply with the August 8, 1997 implementation deadline, the LEC must notify the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau by May 8, 1997. In the notification, the LEC must state its justification for noncompliance and must set forth the date by which it proposes to implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity. (d) A LEC that is not a BOC that begins providing in-region, interLATA or in-region, interstate toll services in a state on or after August 8, 1997, but before February 8, 1999 shall implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity throughout that state no later than the date on which it begins providing in-region, interLATA or in-region, interstate toll services. (e) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, a LEC shall implement toll dialing parity under a state order as described below: (1) If the state issued a dialing parity order by December 19, 1995 requiring a BOC to implement toll dialing parity in advance of the dates established by these rules, the BOC must implement toll dialing parity in accordance with the implementation dates established by the state order. (2) If the state issued a dialing parity order by August 8, 1996 requiring a LEC that is not a BOC to implement toll dialing parity in advance of the dates established by these rules, the LEC must implement toll dialing parity in accordance with the implementation dates established by the state order. (f) For LECs that are not Bell Operating Companies, the term in-region, interLATA toll service, as used in this section and §51.213, includes the provision of toll services outside of the LEC's study area. [61 FR 47349, Sept. 6, 1996] (a) A LEC must file a plan for providing intraLATA toll dialing parity throughout each state in which it offers telephone exchange service. A LEC cannot offer intraLATA toll dialing parity within a state until the implementation plan has been approved by the appropriate state commission or the Commission. (b) A LEC's implementation plan must include: (1) A proposal that explains how the LEC will offer intraLATA toll dialing parity for each exchange that the LEC operates in the state, in accordance with the provisions of this section, and a proposed time schedule for implementation; and (2) A proposal for timely notification of its subscribers and the methods it proposes to use to enable subscribers to affirmatively select an intraLATA toll service provider. (3) A LEC that is not a BOC also shall identify the LATA with which it will associate for the purposes of providing intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity under this subpart. (c) A LEC must file its implementation plan with the state commission for each state in which the LEC provides telephone exchange service, except that if a LEC determines that a state commission has elected not to review the plan or will not complete its review in sufficient time for the LEC to meet the toll dialing parity implementation deadlines in §51.211, the LEC must file its plan with the Commission: (1) No later than 180 days before the date on which the LEC will begin providing toll dialing parity in the state, or no later than 180 days before February 8, 1999, whichever occurs first; or (2) For LECs that begin providing in-region, interLATA or in-region, interstate toll service (see §51.211(f)) before August 8, 1997, no later than December 5, 1996. (d) The Commission will release a public notice of any LEC implementation plan that is filed with the Commission under paragraph (c) of this section. (1) The LEC's plan will be deemed approved on the fifteenth day following release of the Commission's public notice unless, no later than the fourteenth day following the release of the Commission's public notice; either (i) The Common Carrier Bureau notifies the LEC that its plan will not be deemed approved on the fifteenth day; or (ii) An opposition to the plan is filed with the Commission and served on the LEC that filed the plan. Such an opposition must state specific reasons why the LEC's plan does not serve the public interest. (2) If one or more oppositions are filed, the LEC that filed the plan will have seven additional days (i.e., until no later than the twenty-first day following the release of the Commission's public notice) within which to file a reply to the opposition(s) and serve it on all parties that filed an opposition. The response shall: (i) Include information responsive to the allegations and concerns identified by the opposing party; and (ii) Identify possible revisions to the plan that will address the opposing party's concerns. (3) If a LEC's plan is opposed under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the Common Carrier Bureau will act on the plan within ninety days of the date on which the Commission released its public notice. In the event the Bureau fails to act within ninety days, the plan will not go into effect pending Bureau action. If the plan is not opposed, but it did not go into effect on the fifteenth day following the release of the Commission's public notice (see paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section), and the Common Carrier Bureau fails to act on the plan within ninety days of the date on which the Commission released its public notice, the plan will be deemed approved without further Commission action on the ninety-first day after the date on which the Commission released its public notice of the plan's filing. [61 FR 47349, Sept. 6, 1996] (a) A LEC may recover the incremental costs necessary for the implementation of toll dialing parity. The LEC must recover such costs from all providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service in the area served by the LEC, including that LEC. The LEC shall use a cost recovery mechanism established by the state. (b) Any cost recovery mechanism for the provision of toll dialing parity pursuant to this section that a state adopts must not: (1) Give one service provider an appreciable cost advantage over another service provider, when competing for a specific subscriber (i.e., the recovery mechanism may not have a disparate effect on the incremental costs of competing service providers seeking to serve the same customer); or (2) Have a disparate effect on the ability of competing service providers to earn a normal return on their investment. [61 FR 47350, Sept. 6, 1996] (a) Definitions. As used in this section, the following definitions apply: (1) Competing provider. A “competing provider” is a provider of telephone exchange or telephone toll services that seeks nondiscriminatory access from a local exchange carrier (LEC) in that LEC's service area. (2) Nondiscriminatory access. “Nondiscriminatory access” refers to access to telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance and directory listings that is at least equal to the access that the providing local exchange carrier (LEC) itself receives. Nondiscriminatory access includes, but is not limited to: (i) Nondiscrimination between and among carriers in the rates, terms, and conditions of the access provided; and (ii) The ability of the competing provider to obtain access that is at least equal in quality to that of the providing LEC. (3) Providing local exchange carrier (LEC). A “providing local exchange carrier” is a local exchange carrier (LEC) that is required to permit nondiscriminatory access to a competing provider. (b) General rule. A local exchange carrier (LEC) that provides operator services, directory assistance services or directory listings to its customers, or provides telephone numbers, shall permit competing providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service to have nondiscriminatory access to that service or feature, with no unreasonable dialing delays. (c) Specific requirements. A LEC subject to paragraph (b) of this section must also comply with the following requirements: (1) Telephone numbers. A LEC shall permit competing providers to have access to telephone numbers that is identical to the access that the LEC provides to itself. (2) Operator services. A LEC must permit telephone service customers to connect to the operator services offered by that customer's chosen local service provider by dialing “0,” or “0” plus the desired telephone number, regardless of the identity of the customer's local telephone service provider. (3) Directory assistance services and directory listings—(i) Access to directory assistance. A LEC shall permit competing providers to have access to its directory assistance services, including directory assistance databases, so that any customer of a competing provider can obtain directory listings, except as provided in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section, on a nondiscriminatory basis, notwithstanding the identity of the customer's local service provider, or the identity of the provider for the customer whose listing is requested. A LEC must supply access to directory assistance in the manner specified by the competing provider, including transfer of the LECs' directory assistance databases in readily accessible magnetic tape, electronic or other convenient format, as provided in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section. Updates to the directory assistance database shall be made in the same format as the initial transfer (unless the requesting LEC requests otherwise), and shall be performed in a timely manner, taking no longer than those made to the providing LEC's own database. A LEC shall accept the listings of those customers served by competing providers for inclusion in its directory assistance/operator services databases. (ii) Access to directory listings. A LEC that compiles directory listings shall share directory listings with competing providers in the manner specified by the competing provider, including readily accessible tape or electronic formats, as provided in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section. Such data shall be provided in a timely fashion. (iii) Format. A LEC shall provide access to its directory assistance services, including directory assistance databases, and to its directory listings in any format the competing provider specifies, if the LEC's internal systems can accommodate that format. (A) If a LEC's internal systems do not permit it provide directory assistance or directory listings in the format the specified by the competing provider, the LEC shall: (1) Within thirty days of receiving the request, inform the competing provider that the requested format cannot be accommodated and tell the requesting provider which formats can be accommodated; and (2) Provide the requested directory assistance or directory listings in the format the competing provider chooses from among the available formats. (B) [Reserved] (iv) Unlisted numbers. A LEC shall not provide access to unlisted telephone numbers, or other information that its customer has asked the LEC not to make available, with the exception of customer name and address. The LEC shall ensure that access is permitted to the same directory information, including customer name and address, that is available to its own directory assistance customers. (v) Adjuncts to services. Operator services and directory assistance services must be made available to competing providers in their entirety, including access to any adjunct features (e.g., rating tables or customer information databases) necessary to allow competing providers full use of these services. (d) Branding of operator services and directory assistance services. The refusal of a providing local exchange carrier (LEC) to comply with the reasonable request of a competing provider that the providing LEC rebrand its operator services and directory assistance, or remove its brand from such services, creates a presumption that the providing LEC is unlawfully restricting access to its operator services and directory assistance. The providing LEC can rebut this presumption by demonstrating that it lacks the capability to comply with the competing provider's request. (e) Disputes—(1) Disputes involving nondiscriminatory access. In disputes involving nondiscriminatory access to operator services, directory assistance services, or directory listings, a providing LEC shall bear the burden of demonstrating with specificity: (i) That it is permitting nondiscriminatory access, and (ii) That any disparity in access is not caused by factors within its control. “Factors within its control” include, but are not limited to, physical facilities, staffing, the ordering of supplies or equipment, and maintenance. (2) Disputes involving unreasonable dialing delay. In disputes between providing local exchange carriers (LECs) and competing providers involving unreasonable dialing delay in the provision of access to operator services and directory assistance, the burden of proof is on the providing LEC to demonstrate with specificity that it is processing the calls of the competing provider's customers on terms equal to that of similar calls from the providing LEC's own customers. [61 FR 47350, Sept. 6, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 51911, Sept. 27, 1999] Effective Date Note: At 64 FR 51911, Sept. 27, 1999, §51.217 was amended by revising paragraph (c)(3). This paragraph contains information collection and recordkeeping requirements and will not become effective until approval has been given by the Office of Management and Budget. The rules governing access to rights of way are set forth in part 1, subpart J of this chapter. The rules governing reciprocal compensation are set forth in subpart H of this part. (a) A state may not impose the obligations set forth in section 251(c) of the Act on a LEC that is not classified as an incumbent LEC as defined in section 251(h)(1) of the Act, unless the Commission issues an order declaring that such LECs or classes or categories of LECs should be treated as incumbent LECs. (b) A state commission, or any other interested party, may request that the Commission issue an order declaring that a particular LEC be treated as an incumbent LEC, or that a class or category of LECs be treated as incumbent LECs, pursuant to section 251(h)(2) of the Act. (a) An advanced services loop technology is presumed acceptable for deployment under any one of the following circumstances, where the technology: (1) Complies with existing industry standards; or (2) Is approved by an industry standards body, the Commission, or any state commission; or (3) Has been successfully deployed by any carrier without significantly degrading the performance of other services. (b) An incumbent LEC may not deny a carrier's request to deploy a technology that is presumed acceptable for deployment unless the incumbent LEC demonstrates to the relevant state commission that deployment of the particular technology will significantly degrade the performance of other advanced services or traditional voiceband services. (c) Where a carrier seeks to establish that deployment of a technology falls within the presumption of acceptability under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the burden is on the requesting carrier to demonstrate to the state commission that its proposed deployment meets the threshold for a presumption of acceptability and will not, in fact, significantly degrade the performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band services. Upon a successful demonstration by the requesting carrier before a particular state commission, the deployed technology shall be presumed acceptable for deployment in other areas. [65 FR 1345, Jan. 10, 2000] (a) An incumbent LEC must provide to requesting carriers that seek access to a loop or high frequency portion of the loop to provide advanced services: (1) Uses in determining which services can be deployed; and information with respect to the spectrum management procedures and policies that the incumbent LEC. (2) Information with respect to the rejection of the requesting carrier's provision of advanced services, together with the specific reason for the rejection; and (3) Information with respect to the number of loops using advanced services technology within the binder and type of technology deployed on those loops. (b) A requesting carrier that seeks access to a loop or a high frequency portion of a loop to provide advanced services must provide to the incumbent LEC information on the type of technology that the requesting carrier seeks to deploy. (1) Where the requesting carrier asserts that the technology it seeks to deploy fits within a generic power spectral density (PSD) mask, it also must provide Spectrum Class information for the technology. (2) Where a requesting carrier relies on a calculation-based approach to support deployment of a particular technology, it must provide the incumbent LEC with information on the speed and power at which the signal will be transmitted. (c) The requesting carrier also must provide the information required under paragraph (b) of this section when notifying the incumbent LEC of any proposed change in advanced services technology that the carrier uses on the loop. [65 FR 1345, Jan. 10, 2000] (a) With the exception of loops on which a known disturber is deployed, the incumbent LEC shall be prohibited from designating, segregating or reserving particular loops or binder groups for use solely by any particular advanced services loop technology. (b) Any party seeking designation of a technology as a known disturber should file a petition for declaratory ruling with the Commission seeking such designation, pursuant to §1.2 of this chapter. [65 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 2000] (a) Where a carrier claims that a deployed advanced service is significantly degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional voiceband services, that carrier must notify the deploying carrier and allow the deploying carrier a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem. Where the carrier whose services are being degraded does not know the precise cause of the degradation, it must notify each carrier that may have caused or contributed to the degradation. (b) Where the degradation asserted under paragraph (a) of this section remains unresolved by the deploying carrier(s) after a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem, the carrier whose services are being degraded must establish before the relevant state commission that a particular technology deployment is causing the significant degradation. (c) Any claims of network harm presented to the deploying carrier(s) or, if subsequently necessary, the relevant state commission, must be supported with specific and verifiable information. (d) Where a carrier demonstrates that a deployed technology is significantly degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band services, the carrier deploying the technology shall discontinue deployment of that technology and migrate its customers to technologies that will not significantly degrade the performance of other such services. (e) Where the only degraded service itself is a known disturber, and the newly deployed technology satisfies at least one of the criteria for a presumption that it is acceptable for deployment under §51.230, the degraded service shall not prevail against the newly-deployed technology. [65 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 2000]
Title 47: Telecommunication
PART 51—INTERCONNECTION
Subpart C—Obligations of All Local Exchange Carriers
§ 51.201 Resale.
§ 51.203 Number portability.
§ 51.205 Dialing parity: General.
§ 51.207 Local dialing parity.
§ 51.209 Toll dialing parity.
§ 51.211 Toll dialing parity implementation schedule.
§ 51.213 Toll dialing parity implementation plans.
§ 51.215 Dialing parity: Cost recovery.
§ 51.217 Nondiscriminatory access: Telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance services, and directory listings.
§ 51.219 Access to rights of way.
§ 51.221 Reciprocal compensation.
§ 51.223 Application of additional requirements.
§ 51.230 Presumption of acceptability for deployment of an advanced services loop technology.
§ 51.231 Provision of information on advanced services deployment.
§ 51.232 Binder group management.
§ 51.233 Significant degradation of services caused by deployment of advanced services.
