';


Title 47 Part 51 → Subpart C

Title 47 → Chapter I → Subchapter B → Part 51 → Subpart C

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations e-CFR

Title 47 Part 51 → Subpart C

e-CFR data is current as of December 5, 2019

Title 47Chapter ISubchapter BPart 51 → Subpart C


Title 47: Telecommunication
PART 51—INTERCONNECTION


§51.201   Resale.

The rules governing resale of services by an incumbent LEC are set forth in subpart G of this part.

return arrow Back to Top

§51.203   Number portability.

The rules governing number portability are set forth in part 52, subpart C of this chapter.

return arrow Back to Top

§51.205   Dialing parity: General.

A local exchange carrier (LEC) shall provide local dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange service, with no unreasonable dialing delays. Dialing parity shall be provided for originating telecommunications services that require dialing to route a call.

[83 FR 42052, Aug. 20, 2018]

return arrow Back to Top

§51.207   Local dialing parity.

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]

return arrow Back to Top

§51.217   Nondiscriminatory access: Telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance services, and directory listings.

(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]

return arrow Back to Top

§51.219   Access to rights of way.

The rules governing access to rights of way are set forth in part 1, subpart J of this chapter.

return arrow Back to Top

§51.221   Reciprocal compensation.

The rules governing reciprocal compensation are set forth in subpart H of this part.

return arrow Back to Top

§51.223   Application of additional requirements.

(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.

return arrow Back to Top

§51.230   Presumption of acceptability for deployment of an advanced services loop technology.

(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]

return arrow Back to Top

§51.231   Provision of information on advanced services deployment.

(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]

return arrow Back to Top

§51.232   Binder group management.

(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]

return arrow Back to Top

§51.233   Significant degradation of services caused by deployment of advanced services.

(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]

return arrow Back to Top