Sections 251 & 252 & Related Rules

05-04-2004   CoreComm Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications Inc., Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al.   denied Z-Tel's petition that the Commission reconsider its prior order denying Z-Tel's claim that Pacific Bell's refusal to allow Z-Tel to use the shared transport UNE to transport intraLATA toll traffic violated sections 201(b), 251(c) and Commission rules. 04-21-2004   Starpower Communications, LLC v. Verizon South Inc.   denied joint motion for vacatur regarding M.O.&O. awarding $12 million in damages to Competitive Local Exchange Carrier for violation by Verizon of interconnection agreement provision regarding reciprocal compensation for delivery of Internet traffic. 03-12-2004   Qwest Corporation   $9 million proposed forfeiture for failure to file interconnection agreements 11-07-2003   Starpower Communications, LLC v. Verizon South Inc.   awarded $12 million in damages to Competitive Local Exchange Carrier for violation by Verizon of interconnection agreement provision regarding reciprocal compensation for delivery of Internet traffic. 04-23-2003   Core Communications, Inc. v. Verizon Maryland Inc.   reaffirmed FCC jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints alleging violations of section 251 and held that Verizon violated section 251 by failing to provide interconnection on just and reasonable terms. 04-17-2003   CoreComm Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, The Southern New England Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc.   reaffirmed that SBC had violated shared transport condition in SBC-Ameritech merger order. 10-09-2002   SBC Communications, Inc.   $6 million forfeiture for violation of shared transport merger condition in SBC-Ameritech merger order. 07-24-2002   Qwest Communications International, Inc.   Order issuing $96,000 consent decree relating to Internet posting of exhausted collocation space. 05-28-2002   SBC Communications, Inc.   $3.6 million consent decree for inaccurate affidavits filed in connection with section 271 applications. 05-10-2002   Cox Virginia Telcom, Inc. v. Verizon South Inc.   found that Verizon violated its interconnection agreement by refusing to pay reciprocal compensation for delivery of ISP-bound traffic. 04-08-2002   Starpower Communications, LLC, v. Verizon South Inc.; Starpower Communications, LLC, v. Verizon Virginia Inc.   found Verizon violated its interconnection agreement by refusing to pay reciprocal compensation for the delivery of ISP-bound traffic. 02-28-2002   Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Verizon New England, Inc., and Verizon Virginia, Inc.   found that Verizon violated a condition in the Bell Atlantic-GTE merger order by refusing to permit Global NAPs to opt in to certain provisions of an interconnection agreement. 02-25-2002   SBC Communications Inc.   affirm $84,000 forfeiture for violating requirement for Internet posting of exhausted collocation space. 09-14-2001   Verizon Communications, Inc.   $77,000 consent decree relating to Internet posting of exhausted collocation space. 02-16-2001   AT&T Corp. v. U S West Communications, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. U S West Communications, Inc.   found US West violated section 271 through premature provision of long distance service via teaming arrangements with long distance carriers. 11-02-2000   BellSouth Corporation   Order concerning $750,000 consent decree relating to good faith negotiation requirements. 11-02-2000   BellSouth Corporation   $750,000 consent decree relating to good faith negotiation requirements. 10-19-2000   MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan & Ohio Bell Telephone Companies & Wisconsin Bell Inc. d/b/a Ameritech Operating Companies & Ameritech Communications, Inc.   found Ameritech violated section 271 through premature provision of long-distance service via teaming arrangements with long distance carriers. 08-01-2000   GTE Service Corporation   Order concerning $2.7 million consent decree regarding compliance with collocation rules. 08-01-2000   GTE Service Corporation   $2.7 million consent decree regarding compliance with collocation rules. 03-09-2000   Bell Atlantic-New York, Enforcement Action Under Secton 271 of Communications Act   $3 million consent decree regarding lost or mishandled orders of local competitors.

Sections 271 & 272

07-27-2004   Verizon Telephone Companies, Inc.   FCC and Verizon Enter into $300,000 Consent Decree Concerning Accounting and Other Local Competition Safeguards. 06-29-2004   Qwest Communications International Inc.   Public Notice Seeking Comment on Section 272 Biennial Audit Report 05-28-2004   Qwest Communications International Inc.   $100,000 consent decree for premature provision of long distance service. 03-25-2004   BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.   $75,000 proposed forfeiture regarding violation of separate subsidiary rules. 10-01-2003   SBC Communications Inc.   $1.35 million consent decree for premature provision of long distance service. 09-08-2003   Verizon Telephone Companies, Inc.   $283,800 proposed forfeiture for violation of the Commission's affiliate transaction rules. 07-17-2003   BellSouth Corporation   $1.4 million consent decree for (1) premature marketing and provisioning of long distance service and (2) issues regarding discrimination relating to provision of Bell South long distance service to CLEC end-users. As part of the decree, Bell South agreed to continuation of section 272 separate affiliate and audit requirements until such requirements expire in the last Bell South state, and also agreed to improved procedures for CLEC customers obtaining long distance service from Bell South. 05-07-2003   Qwest Communications International Inc.   $6.5 million consent decree for premature marketing and provisioning of long distance service. 04-23-2003   Core Communications, Inc. v. Verizon Maryland Inc.   reaffirmed FCC jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints alleging violations of section 251 and held that Verizon violated section 251 by failing to provide interconnection on just and reasonable terms. 04-17-2003   CoreComm Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, The Southern New England Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc.   reaffirmed that SBC had violated shared transport condition in SBC-Ameritech merger order. 03-04-2003   Verizon Telephone Companies   Order concerning $5.7 million consent decree for premature marketing of long distance service. 03-04-2003   Verizon Telephone Companies   $5.7 million consent decree for premature marketing of long distance service. 10-09-2002   SBC Communications, Inc.   $6 million forfeiture for violation of shared transport merger condition in SBC-Ameritech merger order. 08-20-2002   Verizon Communications Inc.   Order concerning $260,000 consent decree relating to performance reporting conditions in Bell Atlantic-GTE merger order. 08-20-2002   Verizon Communications Inc.   $260,000 consent decree relating to performance reporting conditions in Bell Atlantic-GTE merger order. 05-28-2002   SBC Communications, Inc.   $3.6 million consent decree for inaccurate affidavits filed in connection with section 271 applications. 02-25-2002   SBC Communications Inc.   affirm $84,000 forfeiture for violating requirement for Internet posting of exhausted collocation space. 02-16-2001   AT&T Corp. v. U S West Communications, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. U S West Communications, Inc.   found US West violated section 271 through premature provision of long distance service via teaming arrangements with long distance carriers. 10-19-2000   MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan & Ohio Bell Telephone Companies & Wisconsin Bell Inc. d/b/a Ameritech Operating Companies & Ameritech Communications, Inc.   found Ameritech violated section 271 through premature provision of long-distance service via teaming arrangements with long distance carriers. 03-09-2000   Bell Atlantic-New York, Enforcement Action Under Secton 271 of Communications Act   $3 million consent decree regarding lost or mishandled orders of local competitors.

Section 275

10-27-2000   Enforcement of Section 275(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Against Ameritech Corporation   consent decree requiring SBC to divest the alarm monitoring operations it obtained as part of the its merger with Ameritech or pay $1 million in light of issues relating to compliance with alarm monitoring provisions of the Act.

Merger Orders

05-07-2003   Qwest Communications International Inc.   $6.5 million consent decree for premature marketing and provisioning of long distance service. 04-17-2003   CoreComm Communications, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, The Southern New England Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc.   reaffirmed that SBC had violated shared transport condition in SBC-Ameritech merger order. 10-09-2002   SBC Communications, Inc.   $6 million forfeiture for violation of shared transport merger condition in SBC-Ameritech merger order. 08-20-2002   Verizon Communications Inc.   Order concerning $260,000 consent decree relating to performance reporting conditions in Bell Atlantic-GTE merger order. 08-20-2002   Verizon Communications Inc.   $260,000 consent decree relating to performance reporting conditions in Bell Atlantic-GTE merger order. 02-28-2002   Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Verizon New England, Inc., and Verizon Virginia, Inc.   found that Verizon violated a condition in the Bell Atlantic-GTE merger order by refusing to permit Global NAPs to opt in to certain provisions of an interconnection agreement. 03-15-2001   SBC Communications Inc.   $88,000 forfeiture for violation of performance reporting conditions in SBC-Ameritech merger order.

Other Matters

04-15-2002   SBC Communications, Inc.   $100,000 forfeiture for violating order requiring a sworn statement attesting to the accuracy of response to an investigatory letter of inquiry.