FCC Web Documents citing 1.1401

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2015A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2015A1.pdf
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-06-MD-008 (filed Apr. 25, 2007) (``Motion''). Complaint, File No. EB-06-MD-008 (filed July 21, 2006) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. � 224. Complaint
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.pdf
  • ) ) File No. EB-06-MD-002 Adopted: May 23, 2007 Released: May 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a pole attachment complaint filed by Salsgiver Telecom, Inc. (``Salsgiver Telecom'') against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company (``NPTC'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying Salsgiver Telecom access to NPTC's poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way for the placement of Salsgiver's attachments. Salsgiver Telecom requests that the Commission order NPTC, inter alia, to provide Salsgiver Telecom with ``immediate access to NPTC's poles.'' For the reasons stated below, we grant Salsgiver's Complaint and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2514A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2514A1.pdf
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources by the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice, File No. EB-06-MD-001 (filed May 31, 2007) (``Motion''). Complaint, File No. EB-06-MD-001 (filed Jan. 6, 2006) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.pdf
  • 1.1403(b) by failing to grant or deny Salsgiver's November 8, 2005 attachment application within 45 days, inasmuch as we now grant the access that Salsgiver sought in that application. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1408 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1408, that Salsgiver Communications, Inc.'s complaint is GRANTED to the extent that it requests immediate access to North Pittsburgh Telephone Company's poles located in Buffalo Township, the Borough of Freeport, and Harrison Township, Pennsylvania. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.pdf
  • File No. EB-05-MD-027 Adopted: February 2, 2007 Released: February 2, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a Pole Attachment Complaint filed by DQE Communications Network Services, LLC (``DQE CNS'') against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company (``NPTC'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying DQE CNS access to NPTC's poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way for the placement of DQE CNS's attachments. DQE CNS requests that the Commission order NPTC immediately to provide DQE CNS with ``nondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned and/or controlled by NPTC.'' For
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-486A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-486A1.pdf
  • File No. EB-05-MD-014 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 23, 2007 Released: February 23, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a Complaint filed by Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. (``Fibertech'') against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company (``NPTC''), pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying Fibertech access to NPTC's poles for the placement of Fibertech's attachments. Fibertech requests that the Commission grant it immediate access to NPTC's poles, and require NPTC to take all actions necessary to accommodate Fibertech's access. For the reasons stated below, we grant Fibertech's Complaint and order
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.pdf
  • Joint Request will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice IS GRANTED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2481A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2481A1.pdf
  • parties and the Commission and will promote the private resolution of disputes.'' Based on the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that the parties have shown good cause for granting their joint request to dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice IS GRANTED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j),
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2535A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2535A1.pdf
  • TERMINATION Adopted: November 17, 2008 Released: November 18, 2008 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2008, the above-named complainant (``Fibertech'') filed with this Commission an amended pole attachment complaint against Narragansett Electric Company (``Narragansett'') and Verizon New England (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.1401 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Fibertech immediately began settlement discussions with Narragansett and Verizon, and the proceeding was held in abeyance at the parties' request. Neither Narragansett nor Verizon has filed a response to the Complaint. On November 12, 2008, Fibertech filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Amended Pole Attachment Complaint and Request to Terminate Proceeding stating that Fibertech
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-48A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-48A1.pdf
  • the Motion. Dismissing the Complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau . Joint Notice of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-653A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-653A1.pdf
  • States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments, Public Notice, WC Docket No. 07-245, DA 08-450 (rel. Feb 22, 2008). Letter from Thomas B. Getz, Chairman, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, to Marlene A. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 23, 2008) (filed in WC Docket No. 07-245). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1414(b). 47 U.S.C. � 224(c); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Section 1.1402(g) defines the term ``state'' to mean any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1402(g). PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 � ��PNG r v ��"r�9
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1293A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1293A1.pdf
  • the public interest by encouraging parties to work privately to narrow and resolve disputed issues, which may limit or eliminate the need for litigation and the further expenditure of resources by the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 224, and 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, 251, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Consent Motion to Dismiss Complaint Without Prejudice IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 224, and 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, 251, and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1312A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1312A1.pdf
  • June 11, 2009 Released: June 11, 2009 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 13, 2009, complainant Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. (``Fibertech'') filed with this Commission a pole attachment complaint against Verizon Maryland Inc. (``Verizon'') and Potomac Electric Power Company (``Pepco'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.1401 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Fibertech immediately began settlement discussions with Pepco and Verizon, and the proceeding was held in abeyance at the parties' request. Neither Verizon nor Pepco has filed a response to the Complaint. On May 29, 2009, Fibertech, Pepco and Verizon filed a joint motion stating that the parties had settled the disputes giving rise to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.pdf
  • to Withdraw will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Withdraw Petition for Temporary Stay IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-629A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-629A1.pdf
  • RCN will not oppose NextG's withdrawal of its Complaint without prejudice as moot.'' Based on the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that the parties have shown good cause for granting the request to dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Withdraw IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-893A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-893A1.pdf
  • List of States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments, Public Notice, DA No. 08-853, 23 FCC Rcd 4878 (2008). . -- FCC -- Letter from Paul Suskie, Chairman, Arkansas Public Service Commission, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-101 (Oct. 20, 2008). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1414(b). 47 U.S.C. � 224(c); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Section 1.1402(g) defines the term ``state'' to mean any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1402(g). (continued from previous page ...) (continued on next page...) PUBLIC NOTICE DA 10-893 Released: May 19, 2010 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1531A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1531A1.pdf
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources by the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint IS DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice, File No. EB-11-MD-007 (filed August 16, 2011) (``Motion''). Complaint, File No. EB-11-MD-007 (filed June 15, 2011) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.pdf
  • contact the Enforcement Bureau at 202-418-7330. Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, FCC 11-16, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594 (2011) (``Part 1 Order''). Id. at � � 10, 15. Id. at � 10. Id. at � 15. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Note that these new rules do not affect existing section 208 formal complaints or existing section 224 pole attachment complaints. They also do not concern carrier-to-carrier informal complaints. See Id. at Appendix A, (listing new rule �1.49(f)(1)(i) that requires ``[f]ormal complaint proceedings under Section 208 . . . '' to be filed electronically and excluding informal complaints from that rule).
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-17A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-17A1.pdf
  • will serve the public interest by encouraging parties to work privately to narrow and resolve disputed issues, which may limit or eliminate the need for litigation and the further expenditure of resources by the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Notice of Settlement and Voluntary Dismissal IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1476A1.txt
  • that it is reasonable for Respondent to receive compensation for Complainant's use of its poles, including any drop poles. However, we find that drop poles are subject to notification requirements but not prior approval requirements separate from the approval of the attachment for which it is an adjunct. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that the complaint referenced herein IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that the unauthorized attachment penalties in the amount of $50 and $250 are UNREASONABLE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1631A1.txt
  • the proceeding should be terminated. . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1415 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 & 1.1415, that the referenced complaint IS DISMISSED and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello, Acting Chief Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 224. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1631 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-XXX @& @& �|� �� ! 1 A Q a q � ` � � ��� ��� � � � �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0� `j� `j� `j�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-864A1.txt
  • Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, to Michael Tanner and John D. Seiver, dated January 13, 1997 (citations omitted) (Schroeder Letter). At the suggestion of the Common Carrier Bureau, counsel for the parties consented to a bifurcated approach: The conduit rate issues would proceed according to the Commission's pole attachment complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401, et seq., and the common carrier issues would proceed according to the Commission's formal complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720, et seq. The Common Carrier Bureau thus dismissed the common carrier-related claims in the 1996 complaint without prejudice, and invited the complainants to refile the common carrier claims pursuant to section 208 of the Act. Schroeder Letter. 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1332A1.txt
  • attachment rates that has been rejected by the Commission. Respondent has provided no compelling reason why the Commission's procedural rules should be waived to allow this additional filing. Therefore, we will deny Respondent's Motion. Respondent's supplemental response and any reply thereto will be stricken from the record in this proceeding. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion of Georgia Power Company for Leave to File Response to New Evidence and Arguments Submitted in Teleport's Reply IS DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Respondent's Response of Georgia Power
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1339A1.txt
  • a way that adds distinct new issues after the initial pleading cycle has closed. We do not intend as a general matter to permit the tacking on of new issues to pending complaints through supplements or amendments and such supplements or amendments are subject to being dismissed or not addressed. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief Cable Services Bureau 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1407(a). 47 U.S.C. � 224(b)(1) and (2). 47 U.S.C. �224 (b) (1). 47 U.S.C. � 224(b)(1).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1340A1.txt
  • at (202) 418-7200 by June 4, 2001 to schedule a meeting for the week of June 11, 2001. The parties should be prepared to discuss settlement of the issues at the meeting. This Order is not to be construed as a stay of the Commission's resolution of the pending Complaint. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Complainant and Respondent SHALL MEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief Cable Services Bureau 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. See letter to the Federal Communications Commission dated May 23, 2001 from John D. Seiver, counsel for Complainant. Complainant points out that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1639A1.txt
  • controversy and the proceeding should be terminated. . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1415 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1415, that the referenced complaint IS DISMISSED and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello, Acting Chief Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. Federal Communications Commission DA 01-XXXX Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1639 ������������������ @& @& �|� �� ! 1 A Q a q � ` � � ��� ��� � � � �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2653A1.txt
  • five years starting on February 8, 2001. For areas with an average of five attachers, the first year rate is $7.23 and for areas with an average of three attachers, the first year rate is $8.24. Consequently, we find that Respondent's pole attachment rate of $53.35 is not just and reasonable. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.321 and �� 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $53.35 IS UNREASONABLE and IS TERMINATED, effective upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2712A1.txt
  • on those negotiations and any new relevant facts and information concerning their dispute. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1403 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1403, that the Petition for Temporary Stay IS HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING FURTHER ACTION BY THE COMMISSION. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Respondent shall continue to GRANT ACCESS to Complainant pending the negotiation in good faith of a new agreement. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Petitioner and Respondent SHALL NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2713A1.txt
  • on those negotiations and any new relevant facts and information concerning their dispute. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1403 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1403, that the Petition for Temporary Stay IS HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING FURTHER ACTION BY THE COMMISSION. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Respondent shall continue to GRANT ACCESS to Complainant pending the negotiation in good faith of a new agreement. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Petitioner and Respondent SHALL NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2714A1.txt
  • on those negotiations and any new relevant facts and information concerning their dispute. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1403 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1403, that the Petition for Temporary Stay IS HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING FURTHER ACTION BY THE COMMISSION. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Respondent shall continue to GRANT ACCESS to Complainant pending the negotiation in good faith of a new agreement. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Petitioner and Respondent SHALL NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-647A1.txt
  • together concerning the jointly owned poles. Pending such agreement, Complainant is not obligated to remit pole attachment fees to BGE for jointly owned poles that are covered by agreements with BAM and for which it has remitted fees to BAM. Complainant's requests for costs and attorneys fees will be denied. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that the referenced complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1418 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Respondents' motions ARE DENIED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1020A1.txt
  • Released: May 3, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: . On December 7, 2001, Knology, Inc. (``Knology'') filed the captioned complaint against Gulf Power Company (``Gulf Power'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 224, and Subpart J of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. 2. The parties recently entered into negotiations for the purpose of settling their dispute. On April 26, 2002, they filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss (``Motion'') the complaint pending against Gulf Power with prejudice. 3. We are satisfied that dismissing the Complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1733A1.txt
  • in Georgia pay a rate of $4.20 and the rate was set for a previous year, not 1998. Given our decision requiring BellSouth to lower its rate to $4.27, we need not reach the issue of whether the $5.03 rate constitutes discrimination in violation of the Pole Attachment Act. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1414, that the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $5.03, effective April 1, 1998, IS UNREASONABLE. 19. IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1930A1.txt
  • 25, 2002, the Commission transferred responsibility for resolving pole attachment complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 47 U.S.C. � 224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. 47 U.S.C. � 224 (b) (1). 47 U.S.C. � 224 (b) and (c). Nevada has not certified that it regulates rates, terms and conditions of pole attachments. See Public Notice, "States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments," 7 FCC Rcd 1498 (1992). 47 U.S.C. � 224 (b)(1). See Adoption of Rules for the Regulation of Cable Television Pole
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1931A1.txt
  • attachment complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-XXXX Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1931 @& ���� � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1932A1.txt
  • attachment complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-XXXX Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1932 @& ����
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1966A1.txt
  • attachment complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-XXXX Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1966 @& ����
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2922A1.txt
  • to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1415 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1415, that the referenced complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN and this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-2922 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-2922 ... (c) " � � � ... � (c) (c) � " � � @& ���� (c) �� ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3319A1.txt
  • Commission must regulate the rates, terms, and conditions for attachments by a cable television system or telecommunications service provider to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by utilities. 47 U.S.C. � 224(b), (c). To this end, the Commission has established procedures to resolve complaints regarding the rates, terms, and conditions relating to pole attachments. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401 et seq. June 7 Bureau Order at 9567, � 9. Id. at 9567, � 9. June 7 Bureau Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9573-4, 9578, �� 21, 33-34. Cavalier Telephone, LLC v. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17962 (Cable Serv. Bur. 2000) (``September 18 Bureau Order''). September 18 Bureau Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 17963-4, �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3485A1.txt
  • year rate is $7.48; for areas with an average of three and one-half attachers, the first year rate is $8.16; for areas with an average of three attachers, the first year rate is $8.53. Consequently, we find that Respondent's actual pole attachment rate of $47.25 is not just and reasonable. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and �� 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $47.25 IS UNREASONABLE and IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1555A1.txt
  • agreements in good faith using the Cable Formula as a guide to establishing a reasonable rate. To the extent the Cable Operators have paid the $38.06 rate, we order refunds of the difference between the $38.06 rate and the rates contained in the parties' prior pole attachment agreements. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $38.06 IS UNREASONABLE and IS TERMINATED, effective upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1774A1.txt
  • harm from the actual or threatened termination of that agreement in the absence of a stay. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau Petition To Stay Termination Of Pole Attachment Rights, File No. EB-03-MD-005 (filed April 8, 2003) (``Stay Petition'' or ``Petition''). 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1403(d) and 1.1415. Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-005 (filed April 8, 2003) (``Complaint''). Sections 1.1401 - 1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.1401 - 1.1418, provide complaint and enforcement procedures to ensure that telecommunications carriers and cable system operators have non-discriminatory access to utility poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way on rates, terms and conditions that are just and reasonable. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1401. Although the Complaint does not cite to these rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2613A1.txt
  • given the difficulties the parties have had in negotiating the New Contract, we are not sanguine that ninety days is a sufficient time frame to re-negotiate a contract. Accordingly, we order the parties to negotiate based on business needs and industry practice a reasonable termination clause. conclusion and ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.1410, and 1.1415 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, 1.1410, 1.1415, that Georgia Power cease and desist from enforcing the New Contract's provisions found
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-857A1.txt
  • terms, and conditions, and has developed a formula methodology to determine maximum allowable pole attachment rates to ensure that such rates are just and reasonable. Omnipoint filed its Complaint pursuant to the Commission's pole attachment complaint rules. In its Complaint, Omnipoint requests the Commission to: a) admonish PECO that it is bound by section 224 of the Act and sections 1.1401 to 1.1416 of the Commission's rules; b) order PECO to provide information and supporting documentation required by section 1.1404(g) of the Commission's rules; c) require PECO to set a fair and reasonable pole attachment rate; d) order PECO to provide Omnipoint access to its poles, ducts, conduits, rights-of-way, and transmission towers on reasonable rates and terms; e) grant Omnipoint costs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3048A1.txt
  • 25, 2002, the Commission transferred responsibility for resolving pole attachment complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 47 U.S.C. � 224. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. The ``Cable Formula'' is the methodology that the Commission developed to calculate the maximum allowable pole attachment rate that a specific utility may charge a cable operator providing cable services. See Amendment of Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6453, 6457, � 5 (2000), review denied sub nom., Southern Co. Serv., Inc. v. FCC,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-959A1.txt
  • carrier,'' as that term is defined by section 3 of the Act, and therefore is entitled to attach to KCPL's poles pursuant to section 224 of the Act and the Commission's rules regarding pole attachments. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion for Consent Order IS GRANTED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1583A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Letter from Yaron Dori, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, File No. EB-05-MDIC-0011 (filed May 20, 2005) (``Motion'').
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2012A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of the associated time and resources of the parties and the Commission, and will promote the private resolution of disputes. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 224, sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-440A1.txt
  • required to file a Response to the Complaint pursuant to section 1.1407 of the Commission's rules, within 30 days following the issuance of an order re-converting the Complaint back to active status. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and sections 1.1401-1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P., d/b/a Time Warner Cable's Complaint be converted to an inactive complaint with a file number of EB-05-MDIC-0011 and a filing date of December 3, 2004. IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2309A1.txt
  • serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 224, sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Stipulation IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-33A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-05-MD-008 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion''). Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-008 (filed May 23, 2005) (``Complaint''). Complaint at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-34A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-04-MD-009 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion''). Complaint, File No. EB-04-MD-009 (filed June 29, 2004) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-35A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-04-MD-004 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion''). Complaint, File No. EB-04-MD-004 (filed Mar. 4, 2004) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-494A1.txt
  • and 1.1411, and 1.1415, that the above-captioned complaint proceeding IS DESIGNATED FOR A HEARING before an ALJ, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the issues specified in paragraph 18 of this Order; IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, that Entergy's request to dismiss certain claims for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 224, and section 1.1404(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1404(a), that Entergy's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-494A1_Erratum.doc
  • and 1.1411, and 1.1415, that the above-captioned complaint proceeding IS DESIGNATED FOR A HEARING before an ALJ, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the issues specified in paragraph 18 of this Order; IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, that Entergy's request to dismiss certain claims for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 224, and section 1.1404(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1404(a), that Entergy's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2015A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-06-MD-008 (filed Apr. 25, 2007) (``Motion''). Complaint, File No. EB-06-MD-008 (filed July 21, 2006) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. � 224. Complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2150A1.txt
  • ) ) File No. EB-06-MD-002 Adopted: May 23, 2007 Released: May 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a pole attachment complaint filed by Salsgiver Telecom, Inc. (``Salsgiver Telecom'') against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company (``NPTC'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying Salsgiver Telecom access to NPTC's poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way for the placement of Salsgiver's attachments. Salsgiver Telecom requests that the Commission order NPTC, inter alia, to provide Salsgiver Telecom with ``immediate access to NPTC's poles.'' For the reasons stated below, we grant Salsgiver's Complaint and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2514A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources by the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice, File No. EB-06-MD-001 (filed May 31, 2007) (``Motion''). Complaint, File No. EB-06-MD-001 (filed Jan. 6, 2006) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.txt
  • 1.1403(b) by failing to grant or deny Salsgiver's November 8, 2005 attachment application within 45 days, inasmuch as we now grant the access that Salsgiver sought in that application. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1408 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1408, that Salsgiver Communications, Inc.'s complaint is GRANTED to the extent that it requests immediate access to North Pittsburgh Telephone Company's poles located in Buffalo Township, the Borough of Freeport, and Harrison Township, Pennsylvania. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.txt
  • File No. EB-05-MD-027 Adopted: February 2, 2007 Released: February 2, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: Introduction In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a Pole Attachment Complaint filed by DQE Communications Network Services, LLC (``DQE CNS'') against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company (``NPTC'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying DQE CNS access to NPTC's poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way for the placement of DQE CNS's attachments. DQE CNS requests that the Commission order NPTC immediately to provide DQE CNS with ``nondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned and/or controlled by NPTC.'' For
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-486A1.txt
  • File No. EB-05-MD-014 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 23, 2007 Released: February 23, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: introduction In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a Complaint filed by Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. (``Fibertech'') against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company (``NPTC''), pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act'') and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying Fibertech access to NPTC's poles for the placement of Fibertech's attachments. Fibertech requests that the Commission grant it immediate access to NPTC's poles, and require NPTC to take all actions necessary to accommodate Fibertech's access. For the reasons stated below, we grant Fibertech's Complaint and order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.txt
  • Joint Request will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice IS GRANTED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2481A1.txt
  • parties and the Commission and will promote the private resolution of disputes.'' Based on the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that the parties have shown good cause for granting their joint request to dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice IS GRANTED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2535A1.txt
  • TERMINATION Adopted: November 17, 2008 Released: November 18, 2008 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On May 12, 2008, the above-named complainant (``Fibertech'') filed with this Commission an amended pole attachment complaint against Narragansett Electric Company (``Narragansett'') and Verizon New England (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.1401 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Fibertech immediately began settlement discussions with Narragansett and Verizon, and the proceeding was held in abeyance at the parties' request. Neither Narragansett nor Verizon has filed a response to the Complaint. On November 12, 2008, Fibertech filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Amended Pole Attachment Complaint and Request to Terminate Proceeding stating that Fibertech
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-450A1.txt
  • (tty). For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Jon Reel, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1580. - FCC - Letter from Thomas B. Getz, Chairman, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, to Marlene A. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 23, 2008) (filed in WC Docket No. 07-245). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1414(b). 47 U.S.C. � 224(c); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Section 1.1402(g) defines the term ``state'' to mean any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1402(g). PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 - � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-48A1.txt
  • the Motion. Dismissing the Complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau . Joint Notice of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-653A1.txt
  • States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments, Public Notice, WC Docket No. 07-245, DA 08-450 (rel. Feb 22, 2008). Letter from Thomas B. Getz, Chairman, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, to Marlene A. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 23, 2008) (filed in WC Docket No. 07-245). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1414(b). 47 U.S.C. � 224(c); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Section 1.1402(g) defines the term ``state'' to mean any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1402(g). PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 � ��PNG r v ��"r�9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1293A1.txt
  • the public interest by encouraging parties to work privately to narrow and resolve disputed issues, which may limit or eliminate the need for litigation and the further expenditure of resources by the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 224, and 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, 251, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Consent Motion to Dismiss Complaint Without Prejudice IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 224, and 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, 251, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1312A1.txt
  • June 11, 2009 Released: June 11, 2009 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On March 13, 2009, complainant Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. (``Fibertech'') filed with this Commission a pole attachment complaint against Verizon Maryland Inc. (``Verizon'') and Potomac Electric Power Company (``Pepco'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and section 1.1401 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Fibertech immediately began settlement discussions with Pepco and Verizon, and the proceeding was held in abeyance at the parties' request. Neither Verizon nor Pepco has filed a response to the Complaint. On May 29, 2009, Fibertech, Pepco and Verizon filed a joint motion stating that the parties had settled the disputes giving rise to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.txt
  • to Withdraw will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Withdraw Petition for Temporary Stay IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-629A1.txt
  • RCN will not oppose NextG's withdrawal of its Complaint without prejudice as moot.'' Based on the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that the parties have shown good cause for granting the request to dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Withdraw IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-893A1.txt
  • List of States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments, Public Notice, DA No. 08-853, 23 FCC Rcd 4878 (2008). . -- FCC -- Letter from Paul Suskie, Chairman, Arkansas Public Service Commission, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-101 (Oct. 20, 2008). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1414(b). 47 U.S.C. � 224(c); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Section 1.1402(g) defines the term ``state'' to mean any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1402(g). (continued from previous page ...) (continued on next page...) PUBLIC NOTICE DA 10-893 Released: May 19, 2010 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1531A1.txt
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources by the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint IS DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice, File No. EB-11-MD-007 (filed August 16, 2011) (``Motion''). Complaint, File No. EB-11-MD-007 (filed June 15, 2011) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-967A1.txt
  • contact the Enforcement Bureau at 202-418-7330. Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, FCC 11-16, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594 (2011) (``Part 1 Order''). Id. at � � 10, 15. Id. at � 10. Id. at � 15. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720-1.736. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Note that these new rules do not affect existing section 208 formal complaints or existing section 224 pole attachment complaints. They also do not concern carrier-to-carrier informal complaints. See Id. at Appendix A, (listing new rule �1.49(f)(1)(i) that requires ``[f]ormal complaint proceedings under Section 208 . . . '' to be filed electronically and excluding informal complaints from that rule).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-17A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-17A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-17A1.txt
  • will serve the public interest by encouraging parties to work privately to narrow and resolve disputed issues, which may limit or eliminate the need for litigation and the further expenditure of resources by the parties and this Commission. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Notice of Settlement and Voluntary Dismissal IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-290290A1.pdf
  • an association of utilities, a telecommunications carrier or an association of telecommunications carriers alleging that it has been denied non-discriminatory access to a utility pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way and/or that a rate, term or condition for the attachment is not just and reasonable. The Commission's procedures regarding the review and resolution of such complaints are set forth in Sections 1.1401-1.1418, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. Mailing Address Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau P.O. Box 979094 ST. Louis, MO 63197-9000 III. SECTION 8 FEE SCHEDULE AND FILING GUIDE A. Common Carrier Formal Complaints TYPE OF APPLICATION FORM NO. FEE AMOUNT FEE CODE 1. Formal Complaint Written Request and Form 159 $200.00 CIZ B. Common Carrier Accounting and Audits 1.Field Audit N/A $103,215.00 BMA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308193A1.pdf
  • association of utilities, a telecommunications carrier or an association of telecommunications carriers alleging that it has been denied non-discriminatory access to a utility pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way and/or that a rate, term or condition for the attachment is not just and reasonable. The Commission's procedures regarding the filing, review and resolution of such complaints are set forth in Sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Mailing Address Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau P.O. Box 979094 ST. Louis, MO 63197-9000 III. SECTION 8 FEE SCHEDULE AND FILING GUIDE A. Common Carrier Formal Complaints TYPE OF APPLICATION FORM NO. FEE AMOUNT FEE CODE [this column needs a heading] 1. Formal Complaint Written Request and Form 159 $210.00 CIZ B.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-366A1_Erratum.pdf
  • SeeLetterfromKathleenQ.Abernathy,VicePresident,BroadBandOffice,toMagalieRomanSalas,Secretary, FCC,datedApril13,2000(enclosinghandoutfromApril13,2000 expartemeetingwithCommercialWireless Divisionstaff).AnotherexampleisthebuildingLECOnSiteAccess,Inc.,forwhichRecksonServiceIndustries,an affiliateoftherealestateinvestmenttrustRecksonAssociatesRealty,isaprincipalfinancialbacker.Letterfrom JosephM.Sandri,Jr.,WinStarCommunications,Inc.,toMagalieRomanSalas,Secretary,FCC,datedNovember 22,1999(notingthat,atsomepoint,Recksonhelda42%equitystakeinOnSiteaccess). 23050 FederalCommunicationsCommission FCC00-366 155. BuildingLECsmaypromotethegoalsofthe1996Actbybringingcompetitionand advancedservicestoMTEsthatotherwisemightnotseecompetitiveprovidersforquitesometime.At thesametime,weareconcernedthatthesebuildingLECrelationshipsmaycreateincentivesfor unreasonablediscriminationbybuildingownersandthusunderminecompetitioninMTEs.345We thereforeseektocreatearecordonthesenewdevelopmentsinordertodeterminetheireffectonthe marketandwhat,ifany,particularizedregulationofbuildingownersinthesecontextsmaybe appropriate.Specifically,weseekcommenton:(1)thetypesofservicesofferedbybuildingLECs;(2) thenatureandscopeoftherelationshipsbetweenbuildingownersorrealestateinvestmenttrustsandthe competitiveLECsinwhichtheymaintainafinancialinterest;and(3)whetherandhowtheseagreements affectcompetitionforlocaltelecommunicationsservices. 4. PotentialImplementationIssues 156. Ifweweretoadoptanondiscriminatoryaccessrule,anumberofimplementationissues wouldarise.Weseektodevelopafullerrecordontheseissues.Specifically,weseekcomment regardinghowtheCommissionwoulddefinenondiscriminatoryaccessforallprovidersgiventhe significantvariationsinthetypeandextentofaccessrequiredbyeachprovider.Forexample,wireless technologiesrequireaccesstotherooforotherlocationsuitableforplacinganantenna,whereaswireline technologiestypicallyenterthebuildingatorbelowgroundandinterconnecttothebuildingwiringata basementorgroundfloorequipmentcloset.Theaccessrequiredmayalsovarydependingonthetypeof servicesrequiredbyaparticularenduser.Inaddition,weseekcommentonhowanondiscriminatory accessrulecouldbetailoredtoaddresstheramificationsofrequestsfordifferenttypesofaccesson buildingmanagement. In particular,weareinterestedincommentsaddressingtheissuesof accommodatingbuildingspacelimitationsandensuringbuildingsafetyandsecurity. 157. Ifthe weretoadoptanondiscriminatoryaccessrule,weseekcommenton whethersuchanobligationshouldbetriggeredonlyifatenantrequestsaparticularcarrier.Althoughwe soughtcommentonthisissueintheCompetitiveNetworksNPRM,346ourcurrentrecordisinsufficienton thisissue.WenoteagainthatthenondiscriminatoryaccessregulationsinstatesofTexasand Connecticutcontainsuchprovisions.347Inaddition,ifweadoptarulethatistriggeredbyatenant request,weseekcommentonhowwewouldascertainwhetheranyparticularrequestisabonafide requestforservice,andnotmerelyashamarrangementtogetaparticularproviderintoanMTE. 158. Wefurtherseekcommentonhowanynondiscriminatoryaccessruleshouldbeenforced. Forexample,commentersshouldconsiderwhetheraggrievedpartiesshouldinvoketheCommission's generalproceduresforcomplaintsagainstcommoncarriers,348orwhetherweshouldimplementsome specialcomplaintprocedure.349Partiesshouldalsoconsidertheadvisabilityofalternativedispute resolutionprocedures,aswellaswhetherthestatesshouldhavearoleintheenforcementprocess.We particularlyinvitecommentregardingtheburdensthatanyenforcementschemewouldimposeon 345SeeLetterfromRobert1.Aamoth,CounselforEdgeConnections,Inc.,toMagalieRomanSalas,Secretary,FCC, datedSeptember7,2000(referringtoalleged12-monthblackoutperiodinMTEservedbyBroadbandOffice, limitingservicebyotherCLECs). 346CompetitiveNetworksNPRM,14FCCRedat12706. 347SeeConn.Gen.Stat.Ann.�16-2471(1997);16TexasAdmin.Code�26.129(Sept.7,2000). -48 ,See47C.F.R.�1.711etseq. 349See,e.g.,47C.F.R.�1.1401etseq.(establishingproceduresforcomplaintsunderthePoleAttachmentsAct). 23051 FederalCommunicationsCommission FCC00-366 telecommunicationscarriers,propertyowners,consumers,andtheCommission,aswellassuggestions forreducingthoseburdens.Inaddressingenforcementissues,partiesshouldconsidertheeffectsbothof directregulationofpropertyownersandofregulationofcarriers. 159. Finally,weseekcommentonanyotheractionsweshouldtaketoensurethatcustomers inMTEswillhaveaccesstothetelecommunicationsserviceprovideroftheirchoice. B. ExclusiveContracts 160. In thissection,werequestcommentonwhethertoday'sprohibitiononexclusiveaccess contractsincommercialMTEsshouldbeextendedtoresidentialMTEs,andonwhetherweshould prohibitcarriersfromenforcingexclusiveaccessprovisionsinexistingcontractsineithercommercialor residentialMTEs. 1. ResidentialExclusiveContracts 161. Werequestcommentonwhetherweshouldextendtoday'sprohibitiononexclusive accesscontractsincommercialbuildingstoresidentialbuildings.WenotetheRealAccessAlliance's argumentthatexclusivecontractsshouldnotbeprohibitedinresidentialMTEsbecause,inthesesettings, landlordsneedtoofferLECsexclusivecontractstoensurehigh-quality,inexpensivetelecommunications servicefortheirtenants.350Ontheotherhand,commentersthatadvocateprohibitingexclusivecontracts generallydonotdistinguishbetweencommercialandresidentialmarkets.351However,wenotethatthere maybesignificantdifferencesbetweenresidentialandcommercialbuildingsandtheimpactexclusive contractsmayhaveoneach. 162. Werecognizethatbothresidentialandcommercialtenantshavelimitedrecoursein addressingthelackoftelecommunicationschoicesofferedinbuildingsservicedunderexclusive contracts.Typically,theonlyrecourseforthetenantistoacceptthelackofchoiceormove.Although residentialandcommercialtenantsleasespaceinagenerallycompetitivemarket,bothtypesoftenants arelimitedintheirabilitytomoveimmediatelybycontractualleasingterms.Commercialtenants,whose leasetermstendtorun5to15years,canbeespeciallyaffectedasopposedtoresidentialtenants,whose leasetermsaremuchshorter,typicallyI-yearandmonth-to-month.352Residentialtenantsalsodiffer fromcommercialtenantsinthatcommercialtenantsfacesignificantdisincentivesintheformof relocationcostswhenmeasuredrelativetothebenefitstheymayforgounderanexclusiveprovider arrangement.Commercialtenantsmayhaverecourseinplinciple,butbecauseoftheirlongleaseterms andotherimpedimentstheymayfacestrongerincentivesnottopursuetheirrelocationoptions,as comparedwithresidentialtenants.Forthesereasons,wedistinguishedcommercialandresidential buildingsandwedecidedatpresenttoprohibitexclusivecontractsonlyinthecommercialcontext. However,giventhepaucityofrecordevidenceandinlightofourexperiencewiththeuseofvideo programmingexclusivecontractsinresidentialMTEs,werequestfurthercommentonwhetherweshould continuetoallowtelecommunicationsproviderstoenterintoexclusivecontractswithownersof residentialMTEs. 350 SeeLetterfromMatthewC.Ames,CounselforRealAccessAlliance,toMagalieRomanSalas,Secretary,FCC, filedJune16,2000. 351 See,e.g.,AT&TCommentsatV.;TeligentCommentsat17. 352 RealAccessAllianceCommentsat7. 23052 FederalCommunicationsCommission 2. ExclusiveAccessProvisionsinExistingContracts FCC00-366 163. Weseekcommentonwhetherweshouldprohibitcarriersfromenforcingexclusive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-170A1.txt
  • Business Administration ("SBA"). As we described in the FRFA analyses in the Fee Order and Telecom Order, we estimate that there are small business entities that might be affected by those orders. In this Reconsideration Order, we affirm most of our prior conclusions in the Fee Order and Telecom Order. We have, among other things, amended certain requirements of Sections 1.1401-1.1418 of our rules. These amendments serve to simplify our formulas for calculating pole attachment rates. Specifically, we provide a simplified equation of our formula for telecommunications attachers; we simplify the geographic categories for determining average numbers of attaching entities; and we allow parties to a pole attachment proceeding to substitute presumptive numbers of attaching entities in the formula in order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-181A1.txt
  • question of whether compensation was just in this particular proceeding. ### A listing of the documents filed in this matter and reviewed by the Commission is attached as an exhibit to this order. Alabama Cable Telecommunications Assoc., et al. v. Alabama Power Company, PA 00-003, DA 00-2078, 15 FCC Rcd 17346 (released September 8, 2000). 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. 47 U.S.C. �224 (b) (1). 47 U.S.C. � 224(b)(1) and (2). Alabama has not certified that it regulates rates, terms and conditions of pole attachments. See Public Notice, "States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments," DA 92-201, 7 FCC Rcd 1498 (1992). 47 U.S.C. � 224(b)(1). See Adoption of Rules for the Regulation of Cable Television Pole Attachments,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-305A1.txt
  • Maryland Sept. 7, 2001 ex parte at Appendix. See, e.g., Idaho Comments at 4; Florida Comments at 5; Maryland Comments at 3; NARUC Comments at 5; New York Comments at 2; ALTS Reply Comments at 9; AT&T Reply Comments at 8; XO Communications Reply Comments at 11-12. New York Comments at 2. See 47 U.S.C. � 224; 47 C.F.R. � 1.1401-1.1418; Amendment of Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, CS Docket No. 97-98, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6453 (2000), aff'd in pertinent part Consolidated Partial Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-170, 16 FCC Rcd 12103 (2001). See also Florida Comments at note 2; Idaho Comments at 4; Maryland Comments at 3; NARUC Comments at 5 & Reply Comments at 3-4;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-270A1.txt
  • application for review should be denied. 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.115, that the Application for Review of Teleport Communications Atlanta, Inc. v. Georgia Power Co., DA 01-2653, 16 FCC Rcd 20238 (2001) IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 47 U.S.C. � 224. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. GPC also filed a petition for review of the Bureau Order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit while its Application for Review is pending before the Commission. See Georgia Power v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 02-10222-B (filed January 11, 2002). 47 U.S.C. � 224 (b) (1). 47 U.S.C. � 224 (b) and (c). Georgia has not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-87A1.txt
  • Montana, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Cable Services v. Energy Northwest, Inc., File No. PA 00-002, DA 00-1901, 15 FCC Rcd 15130 (2000) IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary In the Matter of TCI Cablevision of Montana, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Cable Services v. Energy Northwest, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 15130 (2000). 47 U.S.C. � 224. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Respondent filed an opposition to the Application and Complainant filed a reply. Complainant also filed a subsequent history supplement to the record, updating a previously filed exhibit. 47 U.S.C. � 224 (b) (1). 47 U.S.C. � 224(b) and (c). The term "utility", as it is used in the Pole Attachment Act, "does not include . . . any person who
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-94A1.txt
  • 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.115, that the Application for Review of In the Matter of Texas Cable and Telecommunications Association v. GTE Southwest Incorporated, PA 96-006, DA 99-348, 14 FCC Rcd 2975 (1999) IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary , 14 FCC Rcd 2975 (1999). 47 U.S.C. � 224. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Complainant filed an opposition to the Application. 47 U.S.C. � 224 (b) (1). 47 U.S.C. � 224(b) and (c). 47 U.S.C. � 224(b)(1). The Commission has developed a formula methodology to determine the maximum allowable pole attachment rate. See Adoption of Rules for the Regulation of Cable Television Pole Attachments, First Report and Order, 68 F.C.C.2d 1585 (1978); Second Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-95A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-95A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-95A1.txt
  • Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.115, that In the Matter of Mile Hi Cable Partners, LP, et al. v. Public Service Company of Colorado, PA 98-003, DA 00-1476, 15 FCC Rcd 11450 (2000) IS AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary Company of Colorado, 15 FCC Rcd 11450 (2000). 47 U.S.C. � 224. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Pole attachment contracts generally provide for an application process by which an attacher notifies a utility pole owner of the poles to which it wishes to attach. Unauthorized attachments are those attachments for which no application was filed. Mainline poles are typically poles along roads and other public rights of way. A drop pole is typically a pole that takes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-187A1.txt
  • Order on Reconsideration); 47 U.S.C. � 224(f)(1) (stating that ``a utility shall provide . . . any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it''); 47 U.S.C. � 224(a)(5) (stating that ``[f]or purposes of this section, the term `telecommunications carrier' does not include any incumbent local exchange carrier.''); 47 C.F.R. � 1.1401 (``Purpose: The rules and regulations contained in . . . this part provide complaint and enforcement procedures to ensure that telecommunications carriers and cable system television systems have nondiscriminatory access to utility poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way on rates, terms, and conditions that are just and reasonable.''). See USTelecom Petition, RM-11293, at 1-3. See 47 U.S.C. � 224(a)(5) (``For purposes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07D-01A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07D-01A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07D-01A1.txt
  • any attachments to its poles belonging to the Cable Operators and, if so, the amount of any such compensation. HDO at Para. 11. Background Complainants filed a complaint against Gulf Power on July 10, 2000, alleging that Gulf Power violated Section 224 of the Communications Act (``Act'') [47 U.S.C. � 224] and the Commission's pole attachments rules (47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418) by terminating existing agreements with the Complainants, forcing them to execute new pole attachment agreements with higher pole attachment rates, and refusing to renegotiate new rates in good faith in accordance with the FCC Cable Formula. (47 C.F.R. �1.1409(e)(i).) Gulf Power unilaterally decided that an attachment rate based on the Cable Formula does not provide just compensation, and that an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.txt
  • changes its safety standards, renegotiates an attachment agreement, or otherwise causes a formerly permitted and safe attachment to lose that status)? How could the Oregon standards be enforced - through provisions in pole attachment agreements, through the complaint resolution mechanism in section 224 of the Act, or through both? Would changes to the Commission's pole attachment rules (47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418) be necessary to enable utilities to bring unauthorized attachment complaints? If the Oregon system is not adopted, what are alternative penalty systems that would deter unauthorized attachments? Are there other models the Commission should consider? What are the contours of such alternatives, including notice to attachers, safe harbors, opportunities for correction, exceptions for safety violations caused/contributed to by pole owners,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.txt
  • all pleadings, including permissible ex parte submissions, notices of ex parte presentations, comments, reply comments, and petitions for reconsideration and replies thereto, must be filed in electronic format: (i) Formal complaint proceedings under Section 208 of the Act and rules in �� 1.720 through 1.736, and pole attachment complaint proceedings under Section 224 of the Act and rules in �� 1.1401 through 1.1418; (ii) Proceedings, other than rulemaking proceedings, relating to customer proprietary network information (CPNI); (iii) Proceedings relating to cable special relief petitions; (iv) Proceedings involving Over-the-Air Reception Devices; and (v) Common carrier certifications under rule in � 54.314 of this chapter. (2) Unless required under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, in the following types of proceedings, all pleadings, including
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-44A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-44A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-44A1.txt
  • utility is directly compensated and as such are excluded from expenses used in the rate calculation.''). Initial Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 1999, para. 4 & n.5. Pursuant to the Pole Attachments Act, the Commission has adopted rules that authorize aggrieved parties to file complaints when they have a dispute with a utility concerning pole attachments. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418. Florida Cable v. Gulf Power, 18 FCC Rcd at 9599; see also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1418 (Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures); 47 C.F.R. �� 0.111(a)(12), 0.311 (authority delegated to the Enforcement Bureau to resolve complaints regarding pole attachments filed under Section 224 of the Communications Act). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1409(e). 18 FCC Rcd at 9609, paras. 3-5. Florida Cable Telecomm'ns Ass'n,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.txt
  • for Reconsideration or Clarification filed by the Cable Providers is DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary APPENDIX A Final Rules Part 1, Subpart J of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: The table of contents of Part 1 is revised to read as follows: * * * Subpart J-Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures 1.1401 Purpose. 1.1402 Definitions. 1.1403 Duty to provide access; modifications; notice of removal, increase or modification; petition for temporary stay; and cable operator notice. 1.1404 Complaint. 1.1405 File numbers. 1.1406 Dismissal of complaints. 1.1407 Response and reply. 1.1408 Numbers of copies and form of pleadings. 1.1409 Commission consideration of the complaint. 1.1410 Remedies. 1.1411 Meetings and hearings. 1.1412 Enforcement. 1.1413 Forfeiture.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 1. Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows: PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 2. The table of contents of part 1 is revised to read as follows: * * * * * Subpart J - Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures 1.1401 Purpose. 1.1402 Definitions. 1.1403 Duty to provide access; modifications; notice of removal, increase or modification; petition for temporary stay. 1.1404 Complaint. 1.1405 File numbers. 1.1406 Dismissal of complaints. 1.1407 Response and reply. 1.1408 Number of copies and form of pleadings. 1.1409 Commission consideration of the complaint. 1.1410 Remedies. 1.1411 Meetings and hearings. 1.1412 Enforcement. 1.1413 Forfeiture. 1.1414 State certification. 1.1415
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.txt
  • Secretary, FCC, dated September 7, 2000 (referring to alleged 12-month blackout period in MTE served by Broadband Office, limiting service by other CLECs). Competitive Networks NPRM, 14 FCC Rcd at 12706. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. � 16-2471 (1997); 16 Texas Admin. Code � 26.129 (Sept. 7, 2000). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.711 et seq. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 1.1401 et seq. (establishing procedures for complaints under the Pole Attachments Act). See Letter from Matthew C. Ames, Counsel for Real Access Alliance, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, filed June 16, 2000. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at V.; Teligent Comments at 17. Real Access Alliance Comments at 7. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 28. The Commission has the power to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1020A1.html
  • 2, 2002 Released: May 3, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: ????????????????????????1. On December 7, 2001, Knology, Inc. (``Knology'') filed the captioned complaint against Gulf Power Company (``Gulf Power'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224, and Subpart J of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. 2. The parties recently entered into negotiations for the purpose of settling their dispute. On April 26, 2002, they filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss (``Motion'') the complaint pending against Gulf Power with prejudice. 3. We are satisfied that dismissing the Complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1733A1.html
  • in Georgia pay a rate of $4.20 and the rate was set for a previous year, not 1998. Given our decision requiring BellSouth to lower its rate to $4.27, we need not reach the issue of whether the $5.03 rate constitutes discrimination in violation of the Pole Attachment Act. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1414, that the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $5.03, effective April 1, 1998, IS UNREASONABLE. 19. IT IS FURTHER
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1930A1.html
  • Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 2 Nevada State Cable Television Association v. Nevada Bell, PA 96-001, DA 98-1175, 13 FCC Rcd 16774 (CSB 1998). 3 47 U.S.C. 224. 4 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. 5 47 U.S.C. 224 (b) (1). 6 47 U.S.C. 224 (b) and (c). Nevada has not certified that it regulates rates, terms and conditions of pole attachments. See Public Notice, "States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments," 7 FCC Rcd 1498 (1992). 747 U.S.C. 224 (b)(1). 8 See Adoption of Rules for the Regulation of Cable Television Pole
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1931A1.html
  • from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 2 Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224. 3 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1931A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1931A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1932A1.html
  • from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 2 Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224. 3 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1932A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1932A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1966A1.html
  • from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 2 Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224. 3 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1966A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1966A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2922A1.html
  • 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1415 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1415, that the referenced complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN and this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224. 2 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2922A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2922A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3319A1.html
  • state, the Commission must regulate the rates, terms, and conditions for attachments by a cable television system or telecommunications service provider to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by utilities. 47 U.S.C. 224(b), (c). To this end, the Commission has established procedures to resolve complaints regarding the rates, terms, and conditions relating to pole attachments. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 et seq. 8 June 7 Bureau Order at 9567, 9. 9 Id. at 9567, 9. 10 June 7 Bureau Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9573-4, 9578, 21, 33-34. 11 Cavalier Telephone, LLC v. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17962 (Cable Serv. Bur. 2000) (``September 18 Bureau Order''). 12 September 18 Bureau Order, 15 FCC Rcd at
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3485A1.html
  • rate is $7.48; for areas with an average of three and one-half attachers, the first year rate is $8.16; for areas with an average of three attachers, the first year rate is $8.53. Consequently, we find that Respondent's actual pole attachment rate of $47.25 is not just and reasonable. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $47.25 IS UNREASONABLE and IS TERMINATED, effective
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-270A1.html
  • the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.115, that the Application for Review of Teleport Communications Atlanta, Inc. v. Georgia Power Co., DA 01-2653, 16 FCC Rcd 20238 (2001) IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 Teleport Communications Atlanta, Inc. v. Georgia Power Company, DA 01-2653, 16 FCC Rcd 20238 (2001). 2 47 U.S.C. 224. 3 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. GPC also filed a petition for review of the Bureau Order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit while its Application for Review is pending before the Commission. See Georgia Power v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 02-10222-B (filed January 11, 2002). 4 47 U.S.C. 224 (b) (1). 5 47 U.S.C. 224 (b) and (c). Georgia has not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1555A1.html
  • good faith using the Cable Formula as a guide to establishing a reasonable rate. To the extent the Cable Operators have paid the $38.06 rate, we order refunds of the difference between the $38.06 rate and the rates contained in the parties' prior pole attachment agreements. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 1. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $38.06 IS UNREASONABLE and IS TERMINATED, effective upon the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1774A1.html
  • actual or threatened termination of that agreement in the absence of a stay. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Petition To Stay Termination Of Pole Attachment Rights, File No. EB-03-MD-005 (filed April 8, 2003) (``Stay Petition'' or ``Petition''). 2 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(d) and 1.1415. 3 Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-005 (filed April 8, 2003) (``Complaint''). Sections 1.1401 - 1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 - 1.1418, provide complaint and enforcement procedures to ensure that telecommunications carriers and cable system operators have non-discriminatory access to utility poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way on rates, terms and conditions that are just and reasonable. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1401. Although the Complaint does not cite to these rules, we will
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2613A1.html
  • the parties have had in negotiating the New Contract, we are not sanguine that ninety days is a sufficient time frame to re- negotiate a contract. Accordingly, we order the parties to negotiate based on business needs and industry practice a reasonable termination clause. III. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 39. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.1410, and 1.1415 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.1410, 1.1415, that Georgia Power cease and desist from enforcing the New Contract's provisions found by
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-857A1.html
  • and conditions,6 and has developed a formula methodology to determine maximum allowable pole attachment rates to ensure that such rates are just and reasonable.7 3. Omnipoint filed its Complaint pursuant to the Commission's pole attachment complaint rules. In its Complaint, Omnipoint requests the Commission to: a) admonish PECO that it is bound by section 224 of the Act and sections 1.1401 to 1.1416 of the Commission's rules; b) order PECO to provide information and supporting documentation required by section 1.1404(g) of the Commission's rules; c) require PECO to set a fair and reasonable pole attachment rate; d) order PECO to provide Omnipoint access to its poles, ducts, conduits, rights-of-way, and transmission towers on reasonable rates and terms; e) grant Omnipoint costs
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3048A1.html
  • 25, 2002, the Commission transferred responsibility for resolving pole attachment complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 4 47 U.S.C. 224. 5 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. 6 The ``Cable Formula'' is the methodology that the Commission developed to calculate the maximum allowable pole attachment rate that a specific utility may charge a cable operator providing cable services. See Amendment of Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6453, 6457, 5 (2000), review denied sub nom., Southern Co. Serv., Inc. v. FCC,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-959A1.html
  • ``telecommunications carrier,'' as that term is defined by section 3 of the Act,14 and therefore is entitled to attach to KCPL's poles pursuant to section 224 of the Act15 and the Commission's rules regarding pole attachments.16 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion for Consent Order IS GRANTED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1583A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401- 1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Letter from Yaron Dori, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, File No. EB-05-MDIC-0011 (filed May 20,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2012A1.html
  • serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of the associated time and resources of the parties and the Commission, and will promote the private resolution of disputes.5 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 224, sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint, File No.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-440A1.html
  • required to file a Response to the Complaint pursuant to section 1.1407 of the Commission's rules,15 within 30 days following the issuance of an order re-converting the Complaint back to active status. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and sections 1.1401-1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P., d/b/a Time Warner Cable's Complaint be converted to an inactive complaint with a file number of EB-05-MDIC-0011 and a filing date of December 3, 2004. 8. IT IS
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2309A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), and 224, sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Stipulation IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-33A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401- 1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-05-MD-008 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion''). 2 Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-008 (filed May 23, 2005)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-34A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401- 1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-04-MD-009 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion''). 2 Complaint, File No. EB-04-MD-009 (filed June 29, 2004)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-35A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401- 1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-04-MD-004 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion''). 2 Complaint, File No. EB-04-MD-004 (filed Mar. 4, 2004)
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-494A1.html
  • 1.1411, and 1.1415, that the above-captioned complaint proceeding IS DESIGNATED FOR A HEARING before an ALJ, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the issues specified in paragraph 18 of this Order; 24. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1401-1.1418, that Entergy's request to dismiss certain claims for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED; 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 224, and section 1.1404(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1404(a), that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2015A1.html
  • and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-06-MD-008 (filed Apr. 25, 2007) ("Motion"). Complaint, File No. EB-06-MD-008 (filed July 21, 2006) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S 224. Complaint
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2150A1.html
  • OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 23, 2007 Released: May 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. Introduction 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a pole attachment complaint filed by Salsgiver Telecom, Inc. ("Salsgiver Telecom") against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company ("NPTC") pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act") and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying Salsgiver Telecom access to NPTC's poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way for the placement of Salsgiver's attachments. Salsgiver Telecom requests that the Commission order NPTC, inter alia, to provide Salsgiver Telecom with "immediate access to NPTC's poles." For the reasons stated below, we grant Salsgiver's Complaint and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2514A1.html
  • and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources by the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice, File No. EB-06-MD-001 (filed May 31, 2007) ("Motion"). Complaint, File No. EB-06-MD-001 (filed Jan. 6, 2006) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4721A1.html
  • failing to grant or deny Salsgiver's November 8, 2005 attachment application within 45 days, inasmuch as we now grant the access that Salsgiver sought in that application. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 30. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1408 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1408, that Salsgiver Communications, Inc.'s complaint is GRANTED to the extent that it requests immediate access to North Pittsburgh Telephone Company's poles located in Buffalo Township, the Borough of Freeport, and Harrison Township, Pennsylvania. 31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-472A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: February 2, 2007 Released: February 2, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. Introduction 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a Pole Attachment Complaint filed by DQE Communications Network Services, LLC ("DQE CNS") against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company ("NPTC") pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act") and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying DQE CNS access to NPTC's poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way for the placement of DQE CNS's attachments. DQE CNS requests that the Commission order NPTC immediately to provide DQE CNS with "nondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned and/or controlled by NPTC." For
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-486A1.html
  • ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 23, 2007 Released: February 23, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a Complaint filed by Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. ("Fibertech") against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company ("NPTC"), pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act") and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying Fibertech access to NPTC's poles for the placement of Fibertech's attachments. Fibertech requests that the Commission grant it immediate access to NPTC's poles, and require NPTC to take all actions necessary to accommodate Fibertech's access. For the reasons stated below, we grant Fibertech's Complaint and order
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1046A1.html
  • Request will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice IS GRANTED. 5. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2481A1.html
  • and the Commission and will promote the private resolution of disputes." Based on the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that the parties have shown good cause for granting their joint request to dismiss the complaint. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice IS GRANTED. 4. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i),
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2535A1.html
  • Adopted: November 17, 2008 Released: November 18, 2008 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On May 12, 2008, the above-named complainant ("Fibertech") filed with this Commission an amended pole attachment complaint against Narragansett Electric Company ("Narragansett") and Verizon New England ("Verizon") pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and section 1.1401 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Fibertech immediately began settlement discussions with Narragansett and Verizon, and the proceeding was held in abeyance at the parties' request. Neither Narragansett nor Verizon has filed a response to the Complaint. 2. On November 12, 2008, Fibertech filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Amended Pole Attachment Complaint and Request to Terminate Proceeding stating that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-48A1.html
  • Motion. Dismissing the Complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 224.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1293A1.html
  • public interest by encouraging parties to work privately to narrow and resolve disputed issues, which may limit or eliminate the need for litigation and the further expenditure of resources by the parties and this Commission. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 224, and 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, 251, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Consent Motion to Dismiss Complaint Without Prejudice IS GRANTED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 224, and 251 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, 251,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1312A1.html
  • 11, 2009 Released: June 11, 2009 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On March 13, 2009, complainant Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. ("Fibertech") filed with this Commission a pole attachment complaint against Verizon Maryland Inc. ("Verizon") and Potomac Electric Power Company ("Pepco") pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and section 1.1401 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Fibertech immediately began settlement discussions with Pepco and Verizon, and the proceeding was held in abeyance at the parties' request. Neither Verizon nor Pepco has filed a response to the Complaint. 2. On May 29, 2009, Fibertech, Pepco and Verizon filed a joint motion stating that the parties had settled the disputes giving rise
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-279A1.html
  • Withdraw will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Withdraw Petition for Temporary Stay IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-629A1.html
  • will not oppose NextG's withdrawal of its Complaint without prejudice as moot." Based on the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that the parties have shown good cause for granting the request to dismiss the complaint. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Withdraw IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1531A1.html
  • and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources by the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint IS DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice, File No. EB-11-MD-007 (filed August 16, 2011) ("Motion"). Complaint, File No. EB-11-MD-007 (filed June 15, 2011) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-17A1.html
  • serve the public interest by encouraging parties to work privately to narrow and resolve disputed issues, which may limit or eliminate the need for litigation and the further expenditure of resources by the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Notice of Settlement and Voluntary Dismissal IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-08-653A1.html
  • States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments, Public Notice, WC Docket No. 07-245, DA 08-450 (rel. Feb 22, 2008). Letter from Thomas B. Getz, Chairman, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, to Marlene A. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 23, 2008) (filed in WC Docket No. 07-245). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1414(b). 47 U.S.C. S: 224(c); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418. Section 1.1402(g) defines the term "state" to mean any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1402(g). 2 2 PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-653A1.pdf
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-10-893A1.html
  • Rcd 4878 (2008). For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Jonathan Reel, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1580 or jonathan.reel@fcc.gov. -- FCC -- Letter from Paul Suskie, Chairman, Arkansas Public Service Commission, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-101 (Oct. 20, 2008). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1414(b). 47 U.S.C. S: 224(c); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418. Section 1.1402(g) defines the term "state" to mean any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1402(g). PUBLIC NOTICE DA 10-893 Released: May 19, 2010 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY:
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-967A1.html
  • contact the Enforcement Bureau at 202-418-7330. Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, FCC 11-16, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594 (2011) ("Part 1 Order"). Id. at P: P: 10, 15. Id. at P: 10. Id. at P: 15. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418. Note that these new rules do not affect existing section 208 formal complaints or existing section 224 pole attachment complaints. They also do not concern carrier-to-carrier informal complaints. See Id. at Appendix A, (listing new rule S:1.49(f)(1)(i) that requires "[f]ormal complaint proceedings under Section 208 . . . " to be filed electronically and excluding informal complaints from that rule).
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/Welcome.html
  • Under Section 224, the Commission has a duty to ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions for attachments are just and reasonable, and that cable television systems and telecommunications carriers have non-discriminatory access to utility poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way. The Commission has issued rules governing complaints alleging a violation of section 224 of the Communications Act. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 - 1.1408. Before filing a Section 224 complaint, a party should thoroughly review the procedural requirements in 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 - 1.1408. Recent Section 224 complaint orders may be found at [23]http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/224Items.html. State Certification: Section 1.1404(c) of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. 1.1404(c)) provides that complaints alleging that a rate, term, or condition for attachment is unjust or unreasonable must
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992289.doc
  • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief Cable Services Bureau In the Matter of Time Warner Entertainment/Advance Newhouse Partnership, et al., v. Florida Power & Light Company, DA 99-1886 (released September 16, 1999). See In the Matter of Time Warner Entertainment/Advance Newhouse Partnership, et al., v. Florida Power & Light Company, DA 99-1120 (released June 9, 1999). 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. Pursuant to Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �224, the Commission adjudicates disputes between utilities and cable operators concerning allegedly unjust and unreasonable pole attachment rates, terms, and conditions. 47 C.F.R. �1.115(a). See 47 C.F.R. �1.115(d) ("the application . . . shall be filed within 30 days of public notice of such action, as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992548.doc
  • in controversy and the proceeding should be terminated. . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1415 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. ��0.321 & 1.1415, that the referenced complaint IS DISMISSED and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Patrick A. Boateng Acting Chief Financial Analysis and Compliance Division Cable Services Bureau 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. See Letter dated November 9, 1999 from J. D. Thomas and Frederick W. Giroux, counsel for Complainants. Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2548 Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2548 � I J K m n o p q � ` � � � I � � � � @& @& �� ! 1 A Q a q � ` � � ���
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001250.doc
  • of make-ready costs to which the 28-30% tax surcharge was applied; (2) the FERC account(s) in which the tax surcharge is (are) included; (3) any calculations that support the 10% "margin of error" surcharge and (4) the FERC account(s) in which the margin of error surcharge is (are) included. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that the complaint referenced herein IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Respondent's four motions referenced herein ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001270.doc
  • to dismiss and terminate this proceeding. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1406 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1406, that the referenced motion to dismiss IS GRANTED, the complaint IS DISMISSED, and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. The motion was signed by W. F. Forsyth, Jr., Murphy Electric Power Board Chairman and included a statement, signed under penalty of perjury by John Carringer, General Manager of Murphy Electric Power Board, that the facts stated in the motion to dismiss are true. 47 U.S.C. � 224 (a) (1). 47 U.S.C. � 224 (a) (3). Federal Communications Commission DA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001901.doc
  • jurisdiction to resolve the Complaint and it will be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321, 1.1402 and 1.1406 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321, 1.1402 and 1.1406, that the referenced complaint IS DISMISSED, and the proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau 47 U.S.C. �224. 47 C.F.R. ��1.1401-1.1418. On May 12, 2000, Respondent filed a motion for extension of time to file its response, which was granted. See In the Matter of TCI Cablevision of Montana, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Cable Services v. Energy Northwest, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 8841 (2000). 47 U.S.C. � 224 (a) (1). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.1402 (a). S. Rep. No. 95-580, 95th
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da002078.doc
  • to file a complaint along with its analysis of the information with the Commission. We also emphasize the necessity of Respondent filing a complete, unredacted copy of the FERC Form 1 with the Commission. Additionally, because we resolve the Complaint herein, we will dismiss the Petition for Stay as moot. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that the complaint referenced herein IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418, that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss IS DENIED. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da002119.doc
  • begins from the date the Complaint was filed, November 30, 1999 to the present. Therefore, we will order Respondent to reimburse the Complainant for any charges over the amount of the maximum permitted annual pole attachment rate of $5.12 per pole, beginning November 30, 1999 through the present, plus interest. . Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��0.321 and �� 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.321 and 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $36.00, effective November 30, 1999 through December 31,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00116.doc
  • cooperatively organized, or any person owned by the Federal Government or any State. 47 U.S.C. � 224(a)1). The term "pole attachment" is defined as any attachment by a cable television system or provider of telecommunications service to a pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by a utility. 47 U.S.C. � 224(a)(4). 47 U.S.C. � 224; 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401-1.1416. A list of commenters, as well as the abbreviations used in this Order to refer to such parties, is contained in Appendix B hereto. Commenting electric utilities generally include American Electric, Carolina Power, Chugach, ConEd, Duquesne Light, Edison Electric/UTC, Ohio Edison, Public Service of New Mexico, Southeastern Indiana REMC, and Union Electric. Commenting cable operator interests generally include NCTA, SCBA,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • B - Final Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 1. Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows: PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 2. The table of contents of part 1 is revised to read as follows: * * * * * Subpart J - Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures 1.1401 Purpose. 1.1402 Definitions. 1.1403 Duty to provide access; modifications; notice of removal, increase or modification; petition for temporary stay. 1.1404 Complaint. 1.1405 File numbers. 1.1406 Dismissal of complaints. 1.1407 Response and reply. 1.1408 Number of copies and form of pleadings. 1.1409 Commission consideration of the complaint. 1.1410 Remedies. 1.1411 Meetings and hearings. 1.1412 Enforcement. 1.1413 Forfeiture. 1.1414 State certification. 1.1415
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000864.doc
  • Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, to Michael Tanner and John D. Seiver, dated January 13, 1997 (citations omitted) (Schroeder Letter). At the suggestion of the Common Carrier Bureau, counsel for the parties consented to a bifurcated approach: The conduit rate issues would proceed according to the Commission's pole attachment complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401, et seq., and the common carrier issues would proceed according to the Commission's formal complaint procedures, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720, et seq. The Common Carrier Bureau thus dismissed the common carrier-related claims in the 1996 complaint without prejudice, and invited the complainants to refile the common carrier claims pursuant to section 208 of the Act. Schroeder Letter. 47 U.S.C. �
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00366.txt
  • Secretary, FCC, dated September 7, 2000 (referring to alleged 12-month blackout period in MTE served by Broadband Office, limiting service by other CLECs). Competitive Networks NPRM, 14 FCC Rcd at 12706. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. � 16-2471 (1997); 16 Texas Admin. Code � 26.129 (Sept. 7, 2000). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.711 et seq. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 1.1401 et seq. (establishing procedures for complaints under the Pole Attachments Act). See Letter from Matthew C. Ames, Counsel for Real Access Alliance, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, filed June 16, 2000. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at V.; Teligent Comments at 17. Real Access Alliance Comments at 7. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 28. The Commission has the power to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1020A1.html
  • 2, 2002 Released: May 3, 2002 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: ????????????????????????1. On December 7, 2001, Knology, Inc. (``Knology'') filed the captioned complaint against Gulf Power Company (``Gulf Power'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224, and Subpart J of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. 2. The parties recently entered into negotiations for the purpose of settling their dispute. On April 26, 2002, they filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss (``Motion'') the complaint pending against Gulf Power with prejudice. 3. We are satisfied that dismissing the Complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1733A1.html
  • in Georgia pay a rate of $4.20 and the rate was set for a previous year, not 1998. Given our decision requiring BellSouth to lower its rate to $4.27, we need not reach the issue of whether the $5.03 rate constitutes discrimination in violation of the Pole Attachment Act. 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1414, that the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $5.03, effective April 1, 1998, IS UNREASONABLE. 19. IT IS FURTHER
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1930A1.html
  • Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 2 Nevada State Cable Television Association v. Nevada Bell, PA 96-001, DA 98-1175, 13 FCC Rcd 16774 (CSB 1998). 3 47 U.S.C. 224. 4 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. 5 47 U.S.C. 224 (b) (1). 6 47 U.S.C. 224 (b) and (c). Nevada has not certified that it regulates rates, terms and conditions of pole attachments. See Public Notice, "States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments," 7 FCC Rcd 1498 (1992). 747 U.S.C. 224 (b)(1). 8 See Adoption of Rules for the Regulation of Cable Television Pole
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1931A1.html
  • from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 2 Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224. 3 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1931A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1931A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1932A1.html
  • from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 2 Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224. 3 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1932A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1932A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1966A1.html
  • from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 2 Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224. 3 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1966A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1966A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2922A1.html
  • 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1415 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1415, that the referenced complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN and this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen F. Costello Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 224. 2 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2922A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2922A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3319A1.html
  • state, the Commission must regulate the rates, terms, and conditions for attachments by a cable television system or telecommunications service provider to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by utilities. 47 U.S.C. 224(b), (c). To this end, the Commission has established procedures to resolve complaints regarding the rates, terms, and conditions relating to pole attachments. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 et seq. 8 June 7 Bureau Order at 9567, 9. 9 Id. at 9567, 9. 10 June 7 Bureau Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9573-4, 9578, 21, 33-34. 11 Cavalier Telephone, LLC v. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17962 (Cable Serv. Bur. 2000) (``September 18 Bureau Order''). 12 September 18 Bureau Order, 15 FCC Rcd at
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-3485A1.html
  • rate is $7.48; for areas with an average of three and one-half attachers, the first year rate is $8.16; for areas with an average of three attachers, the first year rate is $8.53. Consequently, we find that Respondent's actual pole attachment rate of $47.25 is not just and reasonable. 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $47.25 IS UNREASONABLE and IS TERMINATED, effective
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-270A1.html
  • the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.115, that the Application for Review of Teleport Communications Atlanta, Inc. v. Georgia Power Co., DA 01-2653, 16 FCC Rcd 20238 (2001) IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _________________________ 1 Teleport Communications Atlanta, Inc. v. Georgia Power Company, DA 01-2653, 16 FCC Rcd 20238 (2001). 2 47 U.S.C. 224. 3 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. GPC also filed a petition for review of the Bureau Order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit while its Application for Review is pending before the Commission. See Georgia Power v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 02-10222-B (filed January 11, 2002). 4 47 U.S.C. 224 (b) (1). 5 47 U.S.C. 224 (b) and (c). Georgia has not
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1555A1.html
  • good faith using the Cable Formula as a guide to establishing a reasonable rate. To the extent the Cable Operators have paid the $38.06 rate, we order refunds of the difference between the $38.06 rate and the rates contained in the parties' prior pole attachment agreements. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 1. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.1410, that the annual pole attachment rate of $38.06 IS UNREASONABLE and IS TERMINATED, effective upon the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1774A1.html
  • actual or threatened termination of that agreement in the absence of a stay. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Petition To Stay Termination Of Pole Attachment Rights, File No. EB-03-MD-005 (filed April 8, 2003) (``Stay Petition'' or ``Petition''). 2 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(d) and 1.1415. 3 Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-005 (filed April 8, 2003) (``Complaint''). Sections 1.1401 - 1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 - 1.1418, provide complaint and enforcement procedures to ensure that telecommunications carriers and cable system operators have non-discriminatory access to utility poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way on rates, terms and conditions that are just and reasonable. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1401. Although the Complaint does not cite to these rules, we will
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2613A1.html
  • the parties have had in negotiating the New Contract, we are not sanguine that ninety days is a sufficient time frame to re- negotiate a contract. Accordingly, we order the parties to negotiate based on business needs and industry practice a reasonable termination clause. III. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 39. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested in the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.1410, and 1.1415 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, 1.1410, 1.1415, that Georgia Power cease and desist from enforcing the New Contract's provisions found by
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-857A1.html
  • and conditions,6 and has developed a formula methodology to determine maximum allowable pole attachment rates to ensure that such rates are just and reasonable.7 3. Omnipoint filed its Complaint pursuant to the Commission's pole attachment complaint rules. In its Complaint, Omnipoint requests the Commission to: a) admonish PECO that it is bound by section 224 of the Act and sections 1.1401 to 1.1416 of the Commission's rules; b) order PECO to provide information and supporting documentation required by section 1.1404(g) of the Commission's rules; c) require PECO to set a fair and reasonable pole attachment rate; d) order PECO to provide Omnipoint access to its poles, ducts, conduits, rights-of-way, and transmission towers on reasonable rates and terms; e) grant Omnipoint costs
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3048A1.html
  • 25, 2002, the Commission transferred responsibility for resolving pole attachment complaints from the former Cable Services Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau. See Establishment of the Media Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other Organizational Changes, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002). 4 47 U.S.C. 224. 5 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418. 6 The ``Cable Formula'' is the methodology that the Commission developed to calculate the maximum allowable pole attachment rate that a specific utility may charge a cable operator providing cable services. See Amendment of Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6453, 6457, 5 (2000), review denied sub nom., Southern Co. Serv., Inc. v. FCC,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-959A1.html
  • ``telecommunications carrier,'' as that term is defined by section 3 of the Act,14 and therefore is entitled to attach to KCPL's poles pursuant to section 224 of the Act15 and the Commission's rules regarding pole attachments.16 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion for Consent Order IS GRANTED. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1583A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401- 1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Letter from Yaron Dori, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, File No. EB-05-MDIC-0011 (filed May 20,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2012A1.html
  • serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of the associated time and resources of the parties and the Commission, and will promote the private resolution of disputes.5 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 224, sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111 and 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau _________________________ 1 Formal Complaint, File No.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-440A1.html
  • required to file a Response to the Complaint pursuant to section 1.1407 of the Commission's rules,15 within 30 days following the issuance of an order re-converting the Complaint back to active status. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and sections 1.1401-1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, that Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P., d/b/a Time Warner Cable's Complaint be converted to an inactive complaint with a file number of EB-05-MDIC-0011 and a filing date of December 3, 2004. 8. IT IS
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2309A1.html
  • the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), and 224, sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111 and 0.311, that the Joint Stipulation IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Rosemary H. McEnery Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-33A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401- 1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-05-MD-008 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion''). 2 Complaint, File No. EB-05-MD-008 (filed May 23, 2005)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-34A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401- 1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-04-MD-009 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion''). 2 Complaint, File No. EB-04-MD-009 (filed June 29, 2004)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-35A1.html
  • disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401- 1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division _________________________ 1 Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, File No. EB-04-MD-004 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) (``Motion''). 2 Complaint, File No. EB-04-MD-004 (filed Mar. 4, 2004)
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-494A1.html
  • 1.1411, and 1.1415, that the above-captioned complaint proceeding IS DESIGNATED FOR A HEARING before an ALJ, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the issues specified in paragraph 18 of this Order; 24. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1401-1.1418, that Entergy's request to dismiss certain claims for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED; 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 224, and section 1.1404(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1404(a), that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2015A1.html
  • and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Motion to Dismiss, File No. EB-06-MD-008 (filed Apr. 25, 2007) ("Motion"). Complaint, File No. EB-06-MD-008 (filed July 21, 2006) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S 224. Complaint
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2150A1.html
  • OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 23, 2007 Released: May 24, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. Introduction 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a pole attachment complaint filed by Salsgiver Telecom, Inc. ("Salsgiver Telecom") against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company ("NPTC") pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act") and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying Salsgiver Telecom access to NPTC's poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way for the placement of Salsgiver's attachments. Salsgiver Telecom requests that the Commission order NPTC, inter alia, to provide Salsgiver Telecom with "immediate access to NPTC's poles." For the reasons stated below, we grant Salsgiver's Complaint and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2514A1.html
  • and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources by the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice, File No. EB-06-MD-001 (filed May 31, 2007) ("Motion"). Complaint, File No. EB-06-MD-001 (filed Jan. 6, 2006) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4721A1.html
  • failing to grant or deny Salsgiver's November 8, 2005 attachment application within 45 days, inasmuch as we now grant the access that Salsgiver sought in that application. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 30. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1408 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1408, that Salsgiver Communications, Inc.'s complaint is GRANTED to the extent that it requests immediate access to North Pittsburgh Telephone Company's poles located in Buffalo Township, the Borough of Freeport, and Harrison Township, Pennsylvania. 31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-472A1.html
  • ORDER Adopted: February 2, 2007 Released: February 2, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. Introduction 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a Pole Attachment Complaint filed by DQE Communications Network Services, LLC ("DQE CNS") against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company ("NPTC") pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act") and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying DQE CNS access to NPTC's poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way for the placement of DQE CNS's attachments. DQE CNS requests that the Commission order NPTC immediately to provide DQE CNS with "nondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned and/or controlled by NPTC." For
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-486A1.html
  • ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 23, 2007 Released: February 23, 2007 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. introduction 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant a Complaint filed by Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. ("Fibertech") against North Pittsburgh Telephone Company ("NPTC"), pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act") and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules. The Complaint alleges that NPTC violated section 224 by denying Fibertech access to NPTC's poles for the placement of Fibertech's attachments. Fibertech requests that the Commission grant it immediate access to NPTC's poles, and require NPTC to take all actions necessary to accommodate Fibertech's access. For the reasons stated below, we grant Fibertech's Complaint and order
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1046A1.html
  • Request will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice IS GRANTED. 5. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2481A1.html
  • and the Commission and will promote the private resolution of disputes." Based on the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that the parties have shown good cause for granting their joint request to dismiss the complaint. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Formal Complaint with Prejudice IS GRANTED. 4. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i),
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2535A1.html
  • Adopted: November 17, 2008 Released: November 18, 2008 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On May 12, 2008, the above-named complainant ("Fibertech") filed with this Commission an amended pole attachment complaint against Narragansett Electric Company ("Narragansett") and Verizon New England ("Verizon") pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and section 1.1401 et seq. of the Commission's rules. Fibertech immediately began settlement discussions with Narragansett and Verizon, and the proceeding was held in abeyance at the parties' request. Neither Narragansett nor Verizon has filed a response to the Complaint. 2. On November 12, 2008, Fibertech filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Amended Pole Attachment Complaint and Request to Terminate Proceeding stating that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-48A1.html
  • Motion. Dismissing the Complaint will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and eliminating the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and the Commission. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the above-captioned complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and the proceeding is TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa B. Griffin Deputy Chief Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 224.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-279A1.html
  • Withdraw will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Withdraw Petition for Temporary Stay IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-629A1.html
  • will not oppose NextG's withdrawal of its Complaint without prejudice as moot." Based on the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that the parties have shown good cause for granting the request to dismiss the complaint. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Motion to Withdraw IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1531A1.html
  • and by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources by the parties and this Commission. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 224, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, and 1.1401-1.1418, that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the Complaint IS DISMISSED with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Joint Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice, File No. EB-11-MD-007 (filed August 16, 2011) ("Motion"). Complaint, File No. EB-11-MD-007 (filed June 15, 2011) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-17A1.html
  • serve the public interest by encouraging parties to work privately to narrow and resolve disputed issues, which may limit or eliminate the need for litigation and the further expenditure of resources by the parties and this Commission. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that the Joint Notice of Settlement and Voluntary Dismissal IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 154(j), 224, and sections
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-08-653A1.html
  • States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments, Public Notice, WC Docket No. 07-245, DA 08-450 (rel. Feb 22, 2008). Letter from Thomas B. Getz, Chairman, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, to Marlene A. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 23, 2008) (filed in WC Docket No. 07-245). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1414(b). 47 U.S.C. S: 224(c); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418. Section 1.1402(g) defines the term "state" to mean any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1402(g). 2 2 PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-653A1.pdf
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-10-893A1.html
  • Rcd 4878 (2008). For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Jonathan Reel, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1580 or jonathan.reel@fcc.gov. -- FCC -- Letter from Paul Suskie, Chairman, Arkansas Public Service Commission, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-101 (Oct. 20, 2008). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1414(b). 47 U.S.C. S: 224(c); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418. Section 1.1402(g) defines the term "state" to mean any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1402(g). PUBLIC NOTICE DA 10-893 Released: May 19, 2010 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY:
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-11-967A1.html
  • contact the Enforcement Bureau at 202-418-7330. Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, FCC 11-16, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1594 (2011) ("Part 1 Order"). Id. at P: P: 10, 15. Id. at P: 10. Id. at P: 15. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.720-1.736. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1401-1.1418. Note that these new rules do not affect existing section 208 formal complaints or existing section 224 pole attachment complaints. They also do not concern carrier-to-carrier informal complaints. See Id. at Appendix A, (listing new rule S:1.49(f)(1)(i) that requires "[f]ormal complaint proceedings under Section 208 . . . " to be filed electronically and excluding informal complaints from that rule).
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/Welcome.html
  • Under Section 224, the Commission has a duty to ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions for attachments are just and reasonable, and that cable television systems and telecommunications carriers have non-discriminatory access to utility poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way. The Commission has issued rules governing complaints alleging a violation of section 224 of the Communications Act. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 - 1.1408. Before filing a Section 224 complaint, a party should thoroughly review the procedural requirements in 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 - 1.1408. Recent Section 224 complaint orders may be found at [23]http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/224Items.html. State Certification: Section 1.1404(c) of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. 1.1404(c)) provides that complaints alleging that a rate, term, or condition for attachment is unjust or unreasonable must
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98-6222.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98-6222.html
  • ______________________________________________ *Honorable Will L. Garwood, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. companies will not accept the rent the providers offer to pay, the Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or ``Commission'') sets the rent. In In re Implementation of Section 703(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 13 F.C.C.R. 6777 (1998) (codified at 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1401 -1.1418 (1999)) (``Report and Order''), the FCC promulgated a formula for computing that rent. The FCC also ruled (in the Report and Order) that the 1996 Act precluded utilities (power and telephone) from receiving rent for wires that were ``overlashed'' to wires previously attached to their poles; that the 1996 Act gave it authority to regulate the placement of wireless
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-14763.html
  • intervenors now ask usto declare that the rate imposed by the FCC does not provide just compensationand therefore violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In essence, thepetitioners are using this case as a vehicle to mount a challenge to the ratemethodology set forth in 47 U.S.C. 224(d)[2]^ (2) and the FCC's implementation of therate methodology in 47 C.F.R. 1.1401 et seq. We hold that based on theparticular facts of this case, the petitioners have failed to meet their burden ofproof. We therefore deny the petitions for review. The factual context of this case is difficult to comprehend without anunderstanding of the economic and legislative climate existing prior to the 1996 Act, as well as the history of Fifth Amendment
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/nextel-motorola/southernreply010901.pdf
  • wishing to roam is not satisfied wilh the cwLr;omc of those negotiations, it may file a complaint containing a complete statement of the 47 rid 4R 49 In the Mutter qf Impkmentation of the Locul Competition Provisions in t/w Telecommunicutions Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First 12epo-t and Order, 11 FCC Red. 15499,15994-95,FCC 96-325, fl1002(1996). 47 c!.P-R $0 1.1401 -1.1418 (1999). 22 comment of soutbem LMC January 5,2001 facts in support of-its claim, along-with any supporting affidavits or other dwumention. Within 30 days, the carrier againsl whonr the complaint was filed must file a response cuntain& a complete statcmetlt of the facts in support of its defense, dong with any supporting affidavits or other docwnentation. The complainant will then