Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 364.16 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 364.16 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 364.16 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 364.16

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXVII
RAILROADS AND OTHER REGULATED UTILITIES
Chapter 364
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
View Entire Chapter
364.16 Local interconnection, unbundling, and resale.
(1) The Legislature finds that the competitive provision of local exchange service requires appropriate continued regulatory oversight of carrier-to-carrier relationships in order to provide for the development of fair and effective competition.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that in resolving disputes, the commission treat all providers of telecommunications services fairly by preventing anticompetitive behavior, including, but not limited to, predatory pricing.
(3) The commission shall, upon request, arbitrate and enforce interconnection agreements pursuant to 47 U.S.C. ss. 251 and 252 and the Federal Communications Commission’s orders and regulations implementing those sections. The commission has the authority to resolve disputes among carriers concerning violations of this chapter and under the authority conferred by federal law to resolve such disputes, including, but not limited to, federal law addressing resale of services, local interconnection, unbundling, number portability, dialing parity, access to rights-of-way, access to poles and conduits, and reciprocal compensation. However, this section does not confer jurisdiction on the commission for services that are exempt from commission jurisdiction under s. 364.011 or s. 364.013. Additionally, a competitive local exchange telecommunications company is entitled to interconnection with a local exchange telecommunications company to transmit and route voice traffic between both the competitive local exchange telecommunications company and the local exchange telecommunications company regardless of the technology by which the voice traffic is originated by and terminated to an end user. The commission shall afford the competitive local exchange telecommunications company all substantive and procedural rights available to such companies regarding interconnection under the law.
(4) A telecommunications company may not knowingly deliver traffic, for which terminating access service charges would otherwise apply, through a local interconnection arrangement without paying the appropriate charges for such terminating access service. Any party having a substantial interest may petition the commission for an investigation of any suspected violation of this subsection. If a telecommunications company knowingly violates this subsection, the commission has jurisdiction to arbitrate bona fide complaints arising from the requirements of this subsection and shall, upon such complaint, have access to all relevant customer records and accounts of any telecommunications company.
(5) The commission shall adopt rules to prevent the unauthorized changing of a subscriber’s telecommunications service. Such rules shall be consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provide for specific verification methodologies, provide for the notification to subscribers of the ability to freeze the subscriber’s choice of carriers at no charge, allow for a subscriber’s change to be considered valid if verification was performed consistent with commission rules, provide remedies for violations of the rules, and allow for the imposition of other penalties available under this chapter. The commission shall resolve on an expedited basis any complaints of anticompetitive behavior concerning a local preferred carrier freeze. The telecommunications company that is asserting the existence of a local preferred carrier freeze, which is the subject of a complaint, has the burden of proving through competent evidence that the subscriber did in fact request the freeze.
(6) Upon petition, the commission may conduct a limited or expedited proceeding to consider and act upon any matter under this section. The commission shall determine the issues to be considered during such a proceeding and may grant or deny any request to expand the scope of the proceeding to include other matters. The commission shall implement an expedited process to facilitate the quick resolution of disputes between telecommunications companies. The process implemented by the commission shall, to the greatest extent feasible, minimize the time necessary to reach a decision on a dispute. The commission may limit the use of the expedited process based on the number of parties, the number of issues, or the complexity of the issues. For any proceeding conducted pursuant to the expedited process, the commission shall make its determination within 120 days after a petition is filed or a motion is made. The commission shall adopt rules to administer this subsection.
(7) In order to ensure that consumers have access to different local exchange service providers without being disadvantaged, deterred, or inconvenienced by having to give up the consumer’s existing local telephone number, the commission must make sure that all providers of local exchange services have access to local telephone numbering resources and assignments on equitable terms that include a recognition of the scarcity of such resources and that are in accordance with national assignment guidelines.
(8) When requested, each certificated telecommunications company shall provide access to any poles, conduits, rights-of-way, and like facilities that it owns or controls to any local exchange telecommunications company or competitive local exchange telecommunications company pursuant to reasonable rates and conditions mutually agreed to which do not discriminate between similarly situated companies.
History.s. 17, ch. 6525, 1913; RGS 4409; CGL 6373; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 16, 32, ch. 80-36; s. 2, ch. 81-318; ss. 6, 7, ch. 89-163; ss. 20, 48, 49, ch. 90-244; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 14, ch. 95-403; s. 7, ch. 2000-334; s. 11, ch. 2003-32; s. 22, ch. 2011-36.

F.S. 364.16 on Google Scholar

F.S. 364.16 on CourtListener

Amendments to 364.16


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 364.16

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Sprint-Florida, Inc. v. Jaber, 885 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2004).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2004 WL 2051837

...gated multiple times, it decided to establish a default definition that was as competitively neutral as possible. Sprint and Verizon, however, argue that section 364.01(4) provides only a general pronouncement of legislative intent and that sections 364.16(3)(a) and 364.163, Florida Statutes (2002), [8] more specifically prohibit the Commission's action....
...allows ALECs to limit the charge to be paid to ILECs for terminating ALEC-originating calls by enlarging the ALECs' local calling areas. This practice, they argue, would run counter to the purposes behind the Legislature's 1995 enactment of sections 364.16(3)(a) and 364.163, which were to take away from the Commission the authority to adjust access charges and to prevent a diminution of access revenues to which ILECs are entitled. Sprint and Verizon argue that the specific provisions within sections 364.16(3)(a) and 364.163, therefore, must control over the general provisions of section 364.01(4). In response, the Commission acknowledges that sections 364.16(3)(a) and 364.163 restrict its authority in the area of access charges but also asserts that those provisions relate to access charges once the local calling scope has been defined....
...The Commission also acknowledges that the Legislature has reserved for itself the authority to determine access charge rates but asserts that revenues and rates are distinct entities in intercarrier compensation schemes and under the law. Sprint and Verizon do not argue that sections 364.16(3) and 364.163 expressly and directly prohibit the Commission from establishing a definition of local calling area. Rather, Sprint and Verizon argue that the Commission's choice for the default, i.e., the originating carrier's local calling areas, will create a situation in which ALECs may circumvent access charges in violation of sections 364.16(3) and 364.163....
...1034 (footnote omitted). [7] Section 364.01(2) states, "It is the legislative intent to give exclusive jurisdiction in all matters set forth in this chapter to the Florida Public Service Commission in regulating telecommunications companies...." [8] Section 364.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), provides: No local exchange telecommunications company or alternative local exchange telecommunications company shall knowingly deliver traffic, for which terminating access service charges would otherwise apply, through a local interconnection arrangement without paying the appropriate charges for such terminating access service. Section 364.163, Florida Statutes (2002), provides caps and adjustments to access charges for network service access....
...Specifically, Telenet was using those services to route calls in such a way that the calls would always be local and access charges would not apply. The Commission found Telenet was knowingly avoiding the payment of applicable access charges, in violation of section 364.16(3)(a)....
...We find that rather than establishing that the Commission acted without authority in the present case, the Telenet order demonstrates that ALECs that are tempted to circumvent access charges in the manner suggested by Sprint and Verizon may likewise be found in violation of section 364.16(3)(a)....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.