FCC Web Documents citing 1.1406

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.pdf
  • that NextG is violating section 224(f) by refusing to allow NextG to attach wireless telecommunications devices to the tops of PSE&G's utility poles. On January 22, 2008, PSE&G filed a Response to the Complaint in which it asserted, inter alia, that the Commission should dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 224(c)(1) of the Act and section 1.1406 of the Commission's rules. On April 25, 2008, NextG and PSE&G filed a Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice. In their Joint Request, the parties state that they have reached a confidential settlement and have agreed to seek withdrawal of the Complaint with prejudice. The parties assert that withdrawal of the Complaint ``will serve the public interest by eliminating
• 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
  • the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16060, ¶ 1123 (1996) (subsequent history omitted). 47 C.F.R. § 1.1409(b). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1409(d) (``The Commission shall deny the complaint if it determines that the complainant has not established a prima facie case . . . .''). 47 C.F.R. § 1.1404(g). 47 C.F.R. § 1.1406(b). Complaint at 5, ¶ 15, Exhibit 9 (Cover Letters and Draft Pole Attachment Agreements from Gulf Power to Cox), Exhibit 10 (Cover Letters and Draft Pole Attachment Agreements from Gulf Power to Comcast), Exhibit 11 (Cover Letters and Draft Pole Attachment Agreements from Gulf Power to Mediacom); Supplement, Exhibit 9. The Cable Formula is the methodology the Commission developed to
• 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
  • that NextG is violating section 224(f) by refusing to allow NextG to attach wireless telecommunications devices to the tops of PSE&G's utility poles. On January 22, 2008, PSE&G filed a Response to the Complaint in which it asserted, inter alia, that the Commission should dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 224(c)(1) of the Act and section 1.1406 of the Commission's rules. On April 25, 2008, NextG and PSE&G filed a Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice. In their Joint Request, the parties state that they have reached a confidential settlement and have agreed to seek withdrawal of the Complaint with prejudice. The parties assert that withdrawal of the Complaint ``will serve the public interest by eliminating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-292A1.txt
  • that third-party to correct the violation at its own cost.''). Complaint at 15, ¶ 40. Georgia Power does not dispute this figure. See Response, Jackson Declaration at 7, ¶ 15 (``Replacing a typical pole costs approximately $2,000.''). Complaint at 16, ¶ 40. Response at 22. Casey Affidavit at 2, ¶ 4. Casey Affidavit at 2, ¶ 4. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1406(b). Knology's Response to Commission's Requests at 10. Georgia Power appears not to dispute this figure. See Georgia Power's Reply to Knology's Response to Commission's Requests at 15-17. Finally, Georgia Power ``renews'' a request - first made after the conclusion of the initial pleading cycle during mediation of this proceeding - that ``any other attachers whom [the Commission] believes owe Knology
• 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
  • 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. 1.1414 State certification. 1.1415 Other orders. 1.1416 Imputation of rates; modification costs. 1.1417 Allocation of Unusable Space Costs. 1.1418 Use of presumptions in calculating the space factor. 1.1420 Timeline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • 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 Other orders. 1.1416 Imputation of rates; modification costs. * * * * * 3. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1555A1.html
  • Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16060, 1123 (1996) (subsequent history omitted). 41 47 C.F.R. 1.1409(b). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.1409(d) (``The Commission shall deny the complaint if it determines that the complainant has not established a prima facie case . . . .''). 42 47 C.F.R. 1.1404(g). 43 47 C.F.R. 1.1406(b). 44 Complaint at 5, 15, Exhibit 9 (Cover Letters and Draft Pole Attachment Agreements from Gulf Power to Cox), Exhibit 10 (Cover Letters and Draft Pole Attachment Agreements from Gulf Power to Comcast), Exhibit 11 (Cover Letters and Draft Pole Attachment Agreements from Gulf Power to Mediacom); Supplement, Exhibit 9. 45 The Cable Formula is the methodology the Commission developed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-292A1.html
  • that third-party to correct the violation at its own cost.''). 122 Complaint at 15, 40. Georgia Power does not dispute this figure. See Response, Jackson Declaration at 7, 15 (``Replacing a typical pole costs approximately $2,000.''). 123 Complaint at 16, 40. 124 Response at 22. 125 Casey Affidavit at 2, 4. 126 Casey Affidavit at 2, 4. 127 47 C.F.R. 1.1406(b). 128 Knology's Response to Commission's Requests at 10. Georgia Power appears not to dispute this figure. See Georgia Power's Reply to Knology's Response to Commission's Requests at 15-17. 129 Finally, Georgia Power ``renews'' a request - first made after the conclusion of the initial pleading cycle during mediation of this proceeding - that ``any other attachers whom [the Commission] believes
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1046A1.html
  • that NextG is violating section 224(f) by refusing to allow NextG to attach wireless telecommunications devices to the tops of PSE&G's utility poles. On January 22, 2008, PSE&G filed a Response to the Complaint in which it asserted, inter alia, that the Commission should dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 224(c)(1) of the Act and section 1.1406 of the Commission's rules. 2. On April 25, 2008, NextG and PSE&G filed a Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice. In their Joint Request, the parties state that they have reached a confidential settlement and have agreed to seek withdrawal of the Complaint with prejudice. The parties assert that withdrawal of the Complaint "will serve the public interest by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001270.doc
  • or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof." Because Murphy Electric Power Board is owned by the City of Murphy, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, we do not have jurisdiction to resolve this complaint. Therefore, we will grant Respondent's motion 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001901.doc
  • on Respondent's ability to operate as a cooperative in providing service to its patrons. We find that Respondent is "cooperatively organized" as the term is used in the Pole Attachment Act. Therefore, we find that the Commission is without 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • 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 Other orders. 1.1416 Imputation of rates; modification costs. * * * * * 3. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1555A1.html
  • Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16060, 1123 (1996) (subsequent history omitted). 41 47 C.F.R. 1.1409(b). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.1409(d) (``The Commission shall deny the complaint if it determines that the complainant has not established a prima facie case . . . .''). 42 47 C.F.R. 1.1404(g). 43 47 C.F.R. 1.1406(b). 44 Complaint at 5, 15, Exhibit 9 (Cover Letters and Draft Pole Attachment Agreements from Gulf Power to Cox), Exhibit 10 (Cover Letters and Draft Pole Attachment Agreements from Gulf Power to Comcast), Exhibit 11 (Cover Letters and Draft Pole Attachment Agreements from Gulf Power to Mediacom); Supplement, Exhibit 9. 45 The Cable Formula is the methodology the Commission developed
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-292A1.html
  • that third-party to correct the violation at its own cost.''). 122 Complaint at 15, 40. Georgia Power does not dispute this figure. See Response, Jackson Declaration at 7, 15 (``Replacing a typical pole costs approximately $2,000.''). 123 Complaint at 16, 40. 124 Response at 22. 125 Casey Affidavit at 2, 4. 126 Casey Affidavit at 2, 4. 127 47 C.F.R. 1.1406(b). 128 Knology's Response to Commission's Requests at 10. Georgia Power appears not to dispute this figure. See Georgia Power's Reply to Knology's Response to Commission's Requests at 15-17. 129 Finally, Georgia Power ``renews'' a request - first made after the conclusion of the initial pleading cycle during mediation of this proceeding - that ``any other attachers whom [the Commission] believes
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1046A1.html
  • that NextG is violating section 224(f) by refusing to allow NextG to attach wireless telecommunications devices to the tops of PSE&G's utility poles. On January 22, 2008, PSE&G filed a Response to the Complaint in which it asserted, inter alia, that the Commission should dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 224(c)(1) of the Act and section 1.1406 of the Commission's rules. 2. On April 25, 2008, NextG and PSE&G filed a Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice. In their Joint Request, the parties state that they have reached a confidential settlement and have agreed to seek withdrawal of the Complaint with prejudice. The parties assert that withdrawal of the Complaint "will serve the public interest by