FCC Web Documents citing 1.18

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-29A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-29A1.pdf
  • citing Development and Implementation of a Public Safety National Plan and Amendment of Part 90 to Establish Service Rules and Technical Standards for Use of the 821-824/866-869 MHz Bands by the Public Safety Services, GEN Docket No. 87-112, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 905 (1987). Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, September 1996, Vol. 1, Sec. 1.18. See AASHTO Comments at 9. See id. See, e.g., AASHTO Comments at 8-9; AASHTO Reply Comments at 3; APCO Comments at 3; EWA Reply Comments at 5; IAFC/IMSA Comments at 6-7; LMCC Comments at 13-14; and NPSTC Comments at 7-8. In this regard, LMCC observes that a rule change that would license an independent private entity to operate on public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1092A1.txt
  • the FSS (Earth-to-space) allocation in this band is limited to GSO BSS feederlinks. Also, in Region 2, as per S5.517, an allocation to the BSS in the band 17.3-17.7 GHz shall come into effect on 1 April 2007. Radiolocation systems, including aeronautical systems, operate worldwide in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band (on a secondary basis). Furthermore, there is an agenda item (1.18) of WRC-03 to possibly introduce a primary FS allocation in the 17.3-17.7 GHz sub-band for Region 1. Many administrations have submitted ITU filings for FSS systems in the 17.7 - 20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth)/27.5 - 30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) and in the 40-42 GHz (space-to-Earth)/ 48.2-50.2 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands. Many of these FSS filings propose using all or portions of these bands
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.txt
  • U.S. 1.16 "Forstmann Little" means Forstmann Little & Co. Equity Partnership-VII, L.P. and Forstmann Little & Co. Subordinated Debt and Equity Management Buyout Partnership-VIII, L.P. 1.17 "Governmental Authority" or "Governmental Authorities" means any government, or any governmental, administrative, or regulatory entity, authority, commission, board, agency, instrumentality, bureau or political subdivision and any court, tribunal, judicial or arbitral body. VA01 /GRIFJ/20093.12 1.18 "Hosting Services" means Web hosting (whether shared or dedicated, and including design, server management, maintenance and telecommunications services), Web site traffic management, electronic commerce, streamed media services, server collocation and management, application hosting, and all other similar services offered by X0 or any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches or other components. 1.19 "Intercept" or "Intercepted" has the meaning
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.txt
  • and (0 access to, or acquisition or interception of, or preservation of communications or information as described in (a) through (e) above and comparable State laws. 1.15. `TF' means the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1.16. means n0rrU.S. `Toreign" where used in this Agreement, whether capitalized or lower case, 1.17. "GCL" - means Global Crossing Ltd., a Bermuda corporation. Page 6 1.18. "Governmental Authoritv` ' or "Governmental Authorities" means any government, or any governmental, administrative, or regulatory entity, authority, commission, board, agency, instrumentality, bureau, or political subdivision, and any court, tribunal, judicial, or arbitral body. 1.19. `9nterceDt" or ``Intercepted" has the meaning defined in 18 U.S.C. 2510(4). 1.20. "LawfUl U.S. Process" means lawful U.S. Federal, state, or local Electronic Surveillance or other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1698A1.txt
  • FSS at 47.2-47.5 GHz and 47.9-48.2 GHz has been answered in the affirmative. With that, there no longer is any need for Resolution 122, the restrictions it perpetuates on FSS notices in Region 1 and 3, or the limitless privileges it extends to HAPS notices. Resolution 122 should be suppressed. DRAFT UNITED STATES PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-07 WRC-07 Agenda Item 1.18: to review pfd limits in the band 17.7-19.7 GHz for satellite systems using highly inclined orbits, in accordance with Resolution 141 (WRC-03); ISSUE: Suitability of Current Non-GSO FSS Power Flux-Density Limits for Non-GSO FSS Satellites in Highly-Inclined Elliptical Orbits BACKGROUND: The ITU-R has been considering the sharing aspects of highly elliptical orbit (HEO) satellite systems in a number of contexts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1698A1_Erratum.doc
  • FSS at 47.2-47.5 GHz and 47.9-48.2 GHz has been answered in the affirmative. With that, there no longer is any need for Resolution 122, the restrictions it perpetuates on FSS notices in Region 1 and 3, or the limitless privileges it extends to HAPS notices. Resolution 122 should be suppressed. DRAFT UNITED STATES PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-07 WRC-07 Agenda Item 1.18: to review pfd limits in the band 17.7-19.7 GHz for satellite systems using highly inclined orbits, in accordance with Resolution 141 (WRC-03); ISSUE: Suitability of Current Non-GSO FSS Power Flux-Density Limits for Non-GSO FSS Satellites in Highly-Inclined Elliptical Orbits BACKGROUND: The ITU-R has been considering the sharing aspects of highly elliptical orbit (HEO) satellite systems in a number of contexts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2668A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2668A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2668A2.txt
  • 1.15 ``Foreign'' where used in this Agreement, whether capitalized or lower case, means non-U.S. 1.16 ``Government Authority'' or ``Government Authorities'' means any government, or any governmental, administrative, or regulatory entity, authority, commission, board, agency, instrumentality, bureau or political subdivision and any court, tribunal, judicial or arbitral body. 1.17 ``Intercept'' or ``Intercepted'' has the meaning defined in 18 U.S.C. � 2510(4). 1.18 ``Lawful U.S. Process'' means lawful U.S. federal, state or local Electronic Surveillance or other court orders, processes, or authorizations issued under U.S. federal, state, or local law for physical search or seizure, production of tangible things, or access to or disclosure of Domestic Communications, Call Associated Data, Transactional Data or Subscriber Information. 1.19 ``Network Management Information'' means network management operations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1011A1.txt
  • 739. Reason: This proposal sets forth the appropriate regulatory approach to be taken for this agenda item. The bands to be listed in the [.....] will depend on the result of studies carried out for individual band pairs. INFORMAL WORKING GROUP 2 (IWG-2) Satellite Services and HAPS Document WAC/049(04.04.05): DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE WRC-07 Agenda Item 1.18: to review pfd limits in the band 17.7-19.7 GHz for satellite systems using highly inclined orbits, in accordance with Resolution 141 (WRC-03); ISSUES: Whether the current pfd limits in Article 21 for non-geostationary (non-GSO) systems in the FSS are adequate to protect the fixed service in the 17.7-19.7 GHz band from non-GSO systems using Highly Inclined Orbits (HIO) having an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.txt
  • width and 64 QAM modulation. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show measured spectra of the four interferers at equal total power levels. Table 2-1 shows bandwidths of each signal. Table 2-1. Measured Bandwidths of Undesired Signal Sources Signal 3-dB Bandwidth (MHz) 20-dB Bandwidth (MHz) 8-VSB (Bandwidths, neglecting pilot) 5.38 5.90 Gaussian noise (8-VSB width) 5.38 6.32 Gaussian noise (1-MHz width) 1.00 1.18 OFDM DVB-H 4.76 4.80 Desired Signal Levels The ATSC specifies guidelines for interference rejection performance of DTV receivers at three desired signal levels: -68 dBm, -53 dBm, and -28 dBm, which they designate as "weak", "moderate", and "strong", respectively. Our initial intent was to test only at these three signal levels; however, after tests demonstrated that D/U rejection ratios are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3295A1.txt
  • Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership, et al., 17 FCC Rcd 23587, 23589 (MB 2002). WaveDivision Petition at 6, n.15. Auburn (2,768 DBS subscribers � 5,302 Auburn households = 52.21 percent); (2,424 WaveDivision subscribers � 5,302 Auburn households = 45.72 percent%). 47b U.S.C. � 543(1)(1)(A). Mediacom Illinois Petitions at 7. Peoria County (860 Mediacom subscribers � 72,733 Peoria County households = 01.18 percent); Clark County (174 Mediacom subscribers � 6,971 Clark County subscribers = 02.50 percent); Carroll County (317 Mediacom subscibers � 6,794 Carroll County subscribers = 04.66 percent). 47 C.F.R. � 0.283. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3295 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-XXX �@��� �@��� �@��� �@��� t u � � � h � � @& K
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.txt
  • 5.60GameShow 501 0.34 Pelicula 941 0.63Health 2,181 1.47 PublicAffairs 3,240 2.18History 170 0.11 Religious 5,704 3.84Hobbies 1,011 0.68 Special 7,308 4.91HomeGarden 12,994 8.74 Sports 11,701 7.87Infomercial 6,042 4.06 Syndicated 31,942 21.48Missing 18,586 12.50 TVMovie 1,456 0.98Movie 158 0.11 TalkShow 3,773 2.54Music 2,960 1.99 News 1,218 0.82 Other 629 0.42 Outdoor 5,877 3.95 PublicAffairs 2,230 1.50 Reality 5,236 3.52 Religious 1,750 1.18 Shopping 1,388 0.93 Sitcom 13,668 9.19 Spanish 1,817 1.22 Sports 8,468 5.69 Violent 1,298 0.87 Weather 132 0.09 Total 148,724100.00Total 148,724100.00 Source:TMSandauthorcalculations.SeeTable3forallocationofTMSProgramTypestoEstimationProgram Types(i.e.theProgramTypesusedinthisstudy).SeeTables29-31forallocationofTMSCategoriestoEstimation Categories(i.e.theCategoriesusedinthisstudy). 33 Table5:BroadcastNetworksintheEstimationDataset ProgramType Number Share MajorBroadcastNetworks ABC 183 11.56 CBS 185 11.69 NBC 187 11.81 FOX 168 10.61 CW 93 5.87 MNT 74 4.67 IndependentandPublic"Networks" IND1 86 5.43 IND2 40 2.53 IND3 20 1.26 IND4 12
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A5.txt
  • a significant and negative effect on the odds of a zero count. Though the parameter estimate is only marginally significant with a p-value of about 0.09, there is some weak evidence that as the male share of the population increases by a percentage point, the odds of a station in that market airing public affairs increase by a factor of 1.18. The overall marginal effect is large (21.3 seconds or 13%) and marginally significant with a p-value of 13%. The relative sizes of black and Hispanic populations in markets had confounding effects. Each variable had a negative and significant relationship to the quantity of public affairs programming among stations that may air such content. The effects are quite small, decreasing the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.txt
  • Drive 2.18 1.31 0 17.63 165 2.04 1.34 0 15.17 100 Average Block, Music, AM Drive 1.91 2.05 0 8.44 165 2.49 2.69 0 8.44 100 Average Block, News, AM Drive 0.73 0.58 0 3.10 165 0.62 0.50 0 3.67 100 Average Block, Sports, AM Drive 0.64 0.00 0 7.29 165 0.16 0.00 0 2.00 100 Average Block, Advertisements, Evening 1.18 1.04 0 7.50 169 1.07 0.77 0 7.50 114 Average Block, Entertainment/Leisure/DJ Banter, Evening 0.82 0.25 0 7.39 169 0.62 0.28 0 6.25 114 Average Block, Music, Evening 2.57 2.90 0 11.53 169 3.23 3.25 0 11.53 114 Average Block, News, Evening 0.37 0.00 0 2.83 169 0.12 0.00 0 2.15 114 Average Block, Sports, Evening 0.99 0.00 0 13.08
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.txt
  • Difference in means is (cross-owned less non-cross- owned); ***p<.01, **p<.05, and *p<.10. 35 Table 3: Total News Coverage (in seconds) Independent variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Local station ownership Cross-owned newspaper 35.1 (0.41) 87.0 (0.77) 29.5 (0.32) 99.1 (1.56) 65.7** (2.19) Cross-owned radio station -432.3*** (2.70) -361.8** (2.27) -172.1* (1.87) -41.8 (1.11) Cross-owned radio and newspaper 150.6 (0.67) 233.4 (1.18) 117.4 (0.86) -37.6 (0.66) Parent company coverage of all television households (%) 22.0*** (2.81) 12.8** (2.36) -2.9 (1.05) Network owned and operated -332.6* (1.84) -281.3** (2.13) 37.7 (0.60) Network affiliation (omitted category is CW\MyNetwork) ABC -244.5 (1.34) -33.2 (0.29) CBS -350.6* (1.95) -52.6 (0.47) FOX 411.1** (2.18) 72.4 (1.30) NBC -351.3* (1.90) -49.3 (0.43) Other control variables Time and length
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A8.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A8.txt
  • 71 Arts,Entertainment,Recreation 103,824 16.2047.91 12.26 23.64 72 Accommodation&FoodSvcs. 434,441 20.0555.24 19.75 4.96 81 OtherServices(exceptpublic) 392,656 21.8559.04 15.35 3.76 AllNon-FarmBusinesses 5,524,563 16.5063.64 12.89 6.97 17 Table8:OwnershipbyRace(IncludingPublicFirms) Percent NAICSName HispanicWhiteBlackAmIndAsian 22 Utilities 0.39 44.38 0.52 0.41 0.66 23 Construction 3.45 93.98 1.20 0.66 1.01 31-33 Manufacturing 3.33 88.19 0.67 0.45 3.81 42 WholesaleTrade 3.58 85.31 0.56 0.23 7.07 44-45 RetailTrade 3.47 86.28 1.18 0.40 8.27 48-49 Transportation&Warehousing 5.29 88.82 2.82 0.51 1.98 51 Information 2.48 81.84 1.82 0.35 3.81 515112 RadioStations 3.06 76.84 3.58 0.14 1.87 515120 TVStations 3.66 53.98 2.96 0.00 3.65 511110 NewspaperPublishers 1.48 87.68 2.29 0.94 3.04 52 FinanceandInsurance 2.71 85.31 1.52 0.34 2.27 53 RealEstate,Rental,Leasing 2.18 86.35 0.95 0.24 3.24 54 Prof.,Scienti�c,Tech.Svcs. 2.66 89.79 1.51 0.45 4.12 55 Mgmt.ofCompanies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-763A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-763A2.txt
  • WRC-07), considering c. 48 of the view that BSS of Regions 1 & 3 should comply with the pfd limits specified in Recommendation ITU-R BO.1776 but only on territories of Region 2 countries. The US supports inclusion of appropriate pfd limits in Article 21, Section V. ---------------------------------------- 49 Document WAC/022(31.03.09) UNITED STATES DRAFT PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-11 WRC-11 Agenda Item: 1.18 to consider extending the existing primary and secondary radiodetermination-satellite service (space-to-Earth) allocations in the band 2 483.5-2 500 MHz in order to make a global primary allocation, and to determine the necessary regulatory provisions based upon the results of ITU-R studies, in accordance with Resolution 613 (WRC-07); ISSUE: This agenda item invites the ITU-R to conduct appropriate studies to determine
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-372A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-372A2.txt
  • 5.338A MOBILE 5.149 Reason: This allocation proposal fulfills the requirements of the agenda item and ensures protection of all services in the allocation 22.55-23.15 GHz. Allocation to services Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 22.55-22.8523.55 FIXED INTER-SATELLITE 5.338A MOBILE SPACE RESEARCH SERVICE 5.149 9 DOCUMENT WAC/062(02.03.10) United States of America DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE Agenda Item 1.18: to consider extending the existing primary and secondary radiodetermination- satellite service (space-to-Earth) allocations in the band 2483.5-2500 MHz in order to make a global primary allocation, and to determine the necessary regulatory provisions based upon the results of ITU-R studies, in accordance with Resolution 613 (WRC-07); Background information The 2 483.5-2 500 MHz band is allocated globally on a primary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-372A2_Rcd.pdf
  • 5.338A MOBILE 5.149 Reason: This allocation proposal fulfills the requirements of the agenda item and ensures protection of all services in the allocation 22.55-23.15 GHz. Allocation to services Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 22.55-22.8523.55 FIXED INTER-SATELLITE 5.338A MOBILE SPACE RESEARCH SERVICE 5.149 2159 DOCUMENT WAC/062(02.03.10) United States of America DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE Agenda Item 1.18: to consider extending the existing primary and secondary radiodetermination- satellite service (space-to-Earth) allocations in the band 2483.5-2500 MHz in order to make a global primary allocation, and to determine the necessary regulatory provisions based upon the results of ITU-R studies, in accordance with Resolution 613 (WRC-07); Background information The 2 483.5-2 500 MHz band is allocated globally on a primary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-284A1.txt
  • Monthly Receipts Per Subscriber Percent of Subscribers n All Subscribers Basic Service Subscribers n Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Sample groups overall All Services 749 92.10 0.90 728 100.0% 0.0 100.0% 0.0 Video service only 715 63.92 0.72 728 39.0% 0.7 41.4% 0.7 Double play package 682 107.64 2.04 728 28.1% 0.5 30.7% 0.6 Triple play package 643 145.10 1.18 728 24.7% 0.6 27.9% 0.9 Noncompetitive communities All Services 342 91.54 1.25 328 100.0% 0.0 100.0% 0.0 Video service only 320 63.94 1.04 328 40.9% 1.0 43.1% 1.0 Double play package 291 108.11 3.06 328 27.3% 0.8 29.4% 0.8 Triple play package 263 146.52 1.74 328 24.1% 0.9 27.5% 1.2 All Effective Competition Communities All Services 407 93.27 0.97 400
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A3.txt
  • portion of the VHF-Band by the radiolocation service SUP Consequential suppression as required by US proposal for AI 1.14. 1.14 RES 612 (WRC-07) Use of the radiolocation service between 3 and 50 MHz to support high-frequency oceanographic radar operations NOC 1.15 RES 613 (WRC-07) Global primary allocation to the radiodetermination-satellite service in the frequency band 2483.5 � 2500 MHz NOC 1.18 RES 614 (WRC-07) Use of the band 15.4-15.7 GHz by the radiolocation service SUP Consequential suppression as required by US proposal for AI 1.21. 1.21 RES 641 (Rev.HFBC-87) Use of the frequency band 7 000- 7 100 kHz NOC RES 642 Relating to the bringing into use of earth stations in the amateur-satellite service NOC RES 644 (Rev.WRC-07) Radiocommunication resources
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A3_Rcd.pdf
  • (WRC- 07) Use of the radiol ocation ser vice betwee n 3 and 50 M Hz t o support hi gh-freque ncy ocea nographic rada r ope rations NOC 1.15 RES 613 (WRC-07 ) Glo bal prim ary allo catio n to the radi odeterm ination-satellite service i n the freque ncy band 2483 .5 � 2500 MH z NOC 1.18 RES 614 (WRC-07 ) Use of the b and 15.4-1 5.7 GH z by the radi olocation s ervice SUP Conse quential suppression as require d by US proposal f or A I 1. 21. 1.21 RES 641 (Rev. HFBC -87) Use of t he f reque ncy ba nd 7 000- 7 10 0 kH z NOC RES 642
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.txt
  • 1.08 1.31 1.39 201 - 210 1.10 1.10 1.20 211 - 220 0.50 1.10 0.80 221 - 230 1.00 0.90 1.10 231 - 240 0.90 1.00 1.80 241 - 250 1.40 1.40 1.00 251 - 260 0.90 1.70 1.40 261 - 270 0.70 2.10 2.30 271 - 280 0.40 0.50 0.30 281 - 290 1.00 1.20 1.40 > 290 0.50 1.18 0.67 > 200 0.85 1.22 1.20 Table 3 presents additional information on the distribution of LPFM stations within markets. As demonstrated, about one-third of markets do not have any LPFM stations. In 2005, over 88 percent of the Arbitron Metros had less than 3 LPFM stations physically located in the market. In 2007 and 2009, it was still the case
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208380A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208380A7.txt
  • 2,635 68 0.11 1.04 1.75 3.63 7 29 21 24 n.a.Malaysia 680 1,927 0 2,607 173 0.35 0.37 0.37 1.54 1 30 18 15 26Spain 1,493 1,057 2 2,552 1,878 1.41 1.73 1.65 6.01 Top 30 International Points Corciots 281,175 535,916 34,440 851,531 329,906 0.49 0.75 1.09 1.28 Total for all International Points 310,401 561,786 34,711 906,898 344,695 0.52 0.81 1.18 1.41 Top 30 as % of all Intern'l Points 90.6% 95.4% 99.2% 93.9% 95.7% Regional Total Western Europe 87,857 276,164 20,796 384,817 105,885 0.30 0.47 0.85 0.93 Africa 2,756 4,519 0 7,275 947 0.61 1.79 3.55 5.82 Middle East 2,970 8,824 270 12,064 1,109 0.33 0.86 2.21 3.13 Caribbean 8,828 3,296 0 12,124 4,295 2.68 4.55 5.52 5.00 North and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.txt
  • 1.36 1955 0.23 0.22 26.8 1.43 1.37 1956 0.23 0.22 27.2 1.43 1.35 1957 0.24 0.22 28.1 1.41 1.30 1958 0.24 0.22 28.9 1.38 1.27 1959 0.24 0.22 29.1 1.38 1.26 1960 0.24 0.22 29.6 1.36 1.24 1961 0.25 0.22 29.9 1.39 1.23 1962 0.25 0.22 30.2 1.40 1.21 1963 0.25 0.22 30.6 1.35 1.20 1964 0.25 0.22 31.0 1.34 1.18 1965 0.24 0.22 31.5 1.27 1.16 1966 0.24 0.22 32.4 1.25 1.13 1967 0.24 0.22 33.4 1.21 1.10 1968 0.24 0.22 34.8 1.13 1.05 1969 0.24 0.22 36.7 1.09 1.00 1/Estimates for 1930 through 1981 are based on information in AT&T Long Lines Statistics, 1930-1963, 1946-1970, and 1960-1981, and appear to represent data for the conterminous U.S. only. Data prior
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248493A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248493A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-248493A1.txt
  • as a reference when commenting on the related text given in the public notice. IWG WRC-07 Agenda Item Type of Document Document No. 1 1.2 Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/025(08.06.04) 1 1.5 Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/026(08.06.04) 2 1.6 (Resolution 415) Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/018(08.06.04) 2 1.8 (Resolution 122) Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/019(08.06.04) 2 1.18 Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/021(08.06.04) 2 1.19 Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/023(08.06.04) 2 1.21 Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/024(08.06.04) 2 1.8 (Resolution 145) Comments on NTIA Draft Preliminary View WAC/020(08.06.04) 2 1.18 Comments on NTIA Draft Preliminary View WAC/022(08.06.04) 3 1.4 Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/016(08.06.04) 4 1.15 Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/015(08.06.04) 5 1.10
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.txt
  • 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 -73.3 El Salvador 1.19 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69 0.60 0.32 0.28 -74.2 France 1.04 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 0.41 0.33 0.22 -65.4 Germany 1.08 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.29 -43.2 Greece 1.17 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 0.62 0.25 0.27 -71.7 Guatemala 1.18 1.19 1.15 1.17 1.07 1.00 0.83 0.66 0.63 0.38 0.33 -67.0 Haiti 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.18 0.99 0.81 0.72 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.33 -58.7 Hong Kong 1.46 1.37 1.08 0.90 0.59 0.47 0.35 0.54 0.45 0.19 0.34 -27.4 India 2.13 1.88 1.56 1.38 1.01 0.96 0.81 0.66 0.64 0.51 0.40 -58.7 Israel 1.34 1.25 1.10 1.16 0.98 1.01 0.79 0.47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.txt
  • 0.60 0.32 0.28 0.13 -84.3 France 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 0.41 0.33 0.22 0.25 -50.0 Germany 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.29 0.31 -22.1 Greece 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 0.62 0.25 0.27 0.23 -71.6 Guatemala 1.19 1.15 1.17 1.07 1.00 0.83 0.66 0.63 0.38 0.33 0.21 -75.3 Haiti 1.22 1.23 1.18 0.99 0.81 0.72 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.33 0.22 -69.4 Hong Kong 1.37 1.08 0.90 0.59 0.47 0.35 0.54 0.45 0.19 0.34 0.34 -3.8 India 1.88 1.56 1.38 1.01 0.96 0.81 0.66 0.64 0.51 0.40 0.24 -70.0 Israel 1.25 1.10 1.16 0.98 1.01 0.79 0.47 0.35 0.33 0.26 0.16 -79.7 Italy 1.05 1.02 1.00 0.79 0.74 0.70 0.59 0.55 0.34 0.25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • 3.14 High-Cost Support Payments - Total by State - ILECs and CETCs ...................Table 3.15 High-Cost Support Payments - Total by Study Area ..................................... Table 3.30 High-Cost Support Mechanisms � Monthly Support per Loop by State .............. Table 3.16 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.txt
  • 3.14 High-Cost Support Payments - Total by State - ILECs and CETCs ...................Table 3.15 High-Cost Support Payments - Total by Study Area ..................................... Table 3.30 High-Cost Support Mechanisms � Monthly Support per Loop by State .............. Table 3.16 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.txt
  • ILEC industry based on USF loops. Column 1 of Table 1.17 shows USF loops at year-end 2003. Column 2 shows the percent of the ILEC industry that is included in the tables in the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers. It is the average for year-end 2002 and 2003 data.24 The adjustment formula in Column 3 is (100/Column 2). In Table 1.18, ILECs' state local exchange revenues are allocated based on local exchange service and state miscellaneous revenues from Table 2.11 of the 2003/2004 Statistics of Communications Common Carriers. Local exchange revenues for allocation are the product of reported ILECs' local exchange service and miscellaneous revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Allocation percentages in each state are the ratio of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A4.txt
  • 1.75 1.39 8.22 10.00 9.62 8.22 13.50 12.39 Arkansas 7.02 8.25 7.46 0.00 3.50 0.95 0.00 1.75 0.47 7.02 10.00 7.93 7.02 13.50 8.88 California 3.95 8.25 6.69 2.18 3.50 2.48 1.09 1.75 1.24 5.04 10.00 7.92 7.22 13.50 10.40 Colorado 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.25 10.00 10.00 8.25 13.50 13.49 Connecticut 6.10 7.53 7.53 1.18 1.18 1.18 0.59 0.59 0.59 6.69 8.12 8.12 7.87 9.30 9.30 Delaware 8.23 8.23 8.23 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.15 1.15 1.15 9.38 9.38 9.38 11.68 11.68 11.68 District of Columbia 5.62 5.62 5.62 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 7.37 7.37 7.37 10.87 10.87 10.87 Florida 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.04 3.50 3.50 1.52 1.75 1.75 9.77 10.00 10.00 12.81 13.50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.txt
  • 0.00 250299 C HAYNEVILLE TEL. CO., INC. -15.26 -2.34 -13.22 -35.30 250300 C HOPPER TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. -0.96 -1.86 0.92 -2.47 250301 A FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF LAMAR COUNTY, LLC 14.22 0.92 13.18 105.58 250302 C ALLTEL ALABAMA 2.07 -0.05 2.12 -5.51 250304 C MILLRY TEL. CO., INC. 0.87 -0.64 1.52 -6.05 250305 C MON-CRE TEL. COOP. INC. 1.26 0.88 0.37 -1.18 250306 C FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF ALABAMA, LLC 36.59 -1.91 39.24 2,668.71 250307 C MOUNDVILLE TEL. CO. 0.21 -1.24 1.47 -2.55 250308 C NEW HOPE TEL. COOP., INC.-AL 8.19 -6.67 15.93 23.70 250311 A OAKMAN TEL. CO., INC. 20.14 5.88 13.47 66.56 250312 A OTELCO TELEPHONE LLC 4.10 -0.60 4.73 0.00 250314 C PEOPLES TEL. CO. 1.64 -3.59 5.43 3.86 250315
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A8.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A8.txt
  • 94.3% 95.8% 8.4% * 1.4% Arizona 1987 2.77 73.6% 82.4% 85.6% 8.9% 3.1% 90.0% 90.3% 93.2% 0.3% 2.9%* Arkansas 1986 0.95 78.3% 78.8% 79.9% 0.5% 1.1% 87.2% 88.7% 90.0% 1.5% 1.2% California 1985 2.48 82.9% 87.7% 92.5% 4.7% * 4.9%* 92.6% 94.0% 96.0% 1.4% 1.9%* Colorado 1986 3.49 86.9% 88.0% 92.0% 1.2% 4.0% 94.6% 96.5% 96.5% 1.9% 0.1% Connecticut 1993 1.18 80.5% 85.9% 94.6% 5.4% 8.7%* 94.7% 95.6% 97.9% 1.0% 2.3% Delaware 1998 2.30 87.3% 94.4% 94.0% 7.1% -0.4% 95.5% 95.2% 96.9% -0.3% 1.7% District of Columbia 1987 3.50 92.5% 81.1% 88.0% -11.4% # 6.9% 95.9% 91.4% 95.0% -4.5% 3.6% Florida 1994 3.50 80.2% 84.4% 88.3% 4.1% * 3.9%* 89.9% 92.1% 93.2% 2.2% * 1.1% Georgia 1991 3.40 69.1% 81.6% 81.3%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 634,330.8 9,427.0 1.49 1.68 622HO Hospitals and nursing and residential care facilitie 688,480.5 10,451.2 1.52 1.87 624 Social assistance 119,573.3 1,940.3 1.62 0.35 711AS Performing arts, spectator sports, museums, and related activities 75,603.5 491.5 0.65 0.09 713 Amusements, gambling, and recreation industrie 138,668.9 1,302.3 0.94 0.23 721 Accommodation 112,424.0 2,567.2 2.28 0.46 722 Food services and drinking places 524,218.3 6,161.2 1.18 1.10 81 Other services, except government 636,118.5 7,231.5 1.14 1.29 GFE Federal government enterprises 72,552.2 664.1 0.92 0.12 GFG Federal general government 727,351.0 11,456.4 1.58 2.04 GSLE State and local government enterprises 55,736.5 1,390.4 2.49 0.25 GSLG State and local general government 1,119,571.9 22,612.8 2.02 4.04 T001 Total intermediate use 9,611,760.9 358,462.6 3.73 F010 Personal consumption expenditures 8,214,295.9 190,487.7 2.32
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • by State or Jurisdiction Table 3.18 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A13.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A13.txt
  • ID (26,214) (26,171) (42) 0.16 Qwest - Idaho North ID 1,037 1,039 (3) (0.29) Verizon North - Contel/Illinois IL 1,962 1,973 (11) (0.56) Verizon South - Illinois IL 49 49 0 0.00 Verizon North - Illinois IL 11,300 11,370 (70) (0.62) AT&T - Ameritech - Illinois Bell IL 71,504 71,619 (115) (0.16) Verizon North - Contel/Indiana IN (1,015) (1,004) (12) 1.18 Verizon North - Indiana IN (630) (486) (143) 22.70 AT&T - Ameritech - Indiana Bell IN (9,885) (9,683) (201) 2.03 Sprint - United Telephone Company of Indiana IN (43) (26) (17) 39.53 Iowa Telecommunications Services - Iowa IA 98 78 21 21.43 Iowa Telecommunications Services - Iowa North IA 127 101 26 20.47 Iowa Telecommunications Services - Iowa System IA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.txt
  • by State or Jurisdiction Table 3.18 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.txt
  • ILEC industry based on USF loops. Column 1 of Table 1.17 shows USF loops at year-end 2004. Column 2 shows the percent of the ILEC industry that is included in the tables in the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers. It is the average for year-end 2003 and 2004 data.26 The adjustment formula in Column 3 is (100/Column 2). In Table 1.18, ILECs' state local exchange revenues are allocated based on local exchange service and state miscellaneous revenues from Table 2.11 of the 2004/2005 Statistics of Communications Common Carriers. Local exchange revenues for allocation are the product of reported ILECs' local exchange service and miscellaneous revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Allocation percentages in each state are the ratio of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A4.txt
  • 1.75 1.38 8.05 10.00 9.58 8.05 13.50 12.34 Arkansas 5.25 8.25 7.47 0.00 3.50 0.71 0.00 1.75 0.35 5.25 10.00 7.82 5.25 13.50 8.53 California 3.97 8.25 6.63 0.00 3.50 2.46 0.00 1.75 1.23 3.97 10.00 7.85 3.97 13.50 10.31 Colorado 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.25 10.00 10.00 8.25 13.50 13.49 Connecticut 6.10 7.46 7.46 1.18 1.18 1.18 0.59 0.59 0.59 6.69 8.05 8.05 7.87 9.23 9.23 Delaware 8.17 8.17 8.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 District of Columbia 5.59 5.59 5.59 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 7.34 7.34 7.34 10.84 10.84 10.84 Florida 8.20 8.25 8.24 3.04 3.50 3.50 1.52 1.75 1.75 9.72 10.00 9.99 12.76 13.50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
  • 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.65 0.41 1.83 New Hampshire 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.19 0.43 0.93 New Jersey 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 New Mexico 1.75 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.74 0.81 4.33 New York 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.29 North Carolina 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.54 0.09 1.18 North Dakota 3.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 0.12 2.30 8.95 N. Mariana Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.83 1.73 Ohio 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.19 0.05 0.47 Oklahoma 2.49 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.22 0.70 5.23 Oregon 0.89 0.01 0.00 0.00 (0.02) 0.71 0.80 0.32 2.71 Pennsylvania 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.txt
  • (Thousands) Company ResidentialNon-Primary Multiline ResidentialNon-PrimaryMultiline Centrex ResidentialNon-Primary Multiline and Residential Business and Residential Business and Residential Business Single-Line and Single-Line Single-Line and Business Centrex Business Business Centrex ALLTEL (KY & NE) $6.05 $6.42 $7.85 $0.00 $0.00 $1.72 $0.82 513 19 225 BellSouth 6.50 6.76 6.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,105 1,321 4,846 CenturyTel 3 6.37 6.56 7.51 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.18 448 27 115 Cincinnati Bell 5.24 5.24 5.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 609 49 258 Citizens 6.13 6.44 9.20 0.00 0.00 4.31 0.75 1,570 105 422 Hawaiian Telecom 6.50 7.00 8.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 374 53 205 Iowa Telecom 6.14 6.14 8.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 186 9 42 Qwest 6.01 6.23 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,327 1,041
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276624A1.txt
  • Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) submitted projections of demand and administrative expenses for the fourth quarter of 2007. Accordingly, the projected demand and expenses are as follows: ($ millions) Program Demand Projected Program Support Admin. Expenses Application Of Interest Income Application of Periodic True-Ups Total Program Collection Schools and Libraries 546.32 16.18 (51.88) (5.43) 505.19 Rural Health Care 25.17 1.11 (1.18) 3.00 28.10 High-Cost 1,140.41 3.24 (3.87) (38.18) 1,101.60 Low Income 213.02 1.32 (2.42) 9.78 221.70 TOTAL 1,924.92 21.85 (59.35) (30.83) 1,856.59 USAC Projections of Industry Revenues USAC submitted projected collected end-user telecommunications revenues for October through December 2007 based on information contained in the fourth Quarter 2007 Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet (FCC Form 499-Q). The amount is as follows: Total Projected
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.txt
  • by State or Jurisdiction Table 3.18 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.txt
  • by State or Jurisdiction Table 3.18 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.txt
  • ARMIS are expanded to include the entire ILEC industry based on USF loops. Column 1 of Table 1.17 shows USF loops at year-end 2005. Column 2 shows the percent of the ILEC industry that reported in the ARMIS filings. It is the average for year-end 2004 and 2005 data.29 The adjustment formula in Column 3 is (100/Column 2). In Table 1.18, ILECs' state local exchange revenues are allocated based on local exchange service and state miscellaneous revenues from ARMIS Report 43-01 filings. Local exchange revenues for allocation are the product of reported ILECs' local exchange service and miscellaneous revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Allocation percentages in each state are the ratio of the state's allocation revenues to nationwide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A4.txt
  • $10.00 $9.99 $8.25 $13.50 $13.47 Alaska 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 10.00 10.00 10.00 13.50 13.50 13.50 American Samoa N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Arizona 8.06 8.25 8.21 0.00 3.50 2.68 0.00 1.75 1.34 8.06 10.00 9.55 8.06 13.50 12.22 Arkansas 5.25 8.25 7.43 0.00 3.50 1.18 0.00 1.75 0.59 5.25 10.00 8.02 5.25 13.50 9.20 California 1.76 8.25 6.44 0.00 3.50 2.54 0.00 1.75 1.27 1.76 10.00 7.71 1.76 13.50 10.24 Colorado 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.25 10.00 10.00 8.25 13.50 13.49 Connecticut 7.48 8.25 7.48 1.18 1.18 1.18 0.59 0.59 0.59 8.07 8.84 8.07 9.25 10.02 9.25 Delaware 8.19 8.19
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.txt
  • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 South Carolina 1.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.46 0.21 3.14 South Dakota 4.86 0.26 0.00 0.44 0.00 4.07 0.01 2.44 12.08 Tennessee 0.32 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.23 0.15 1.24 Texas 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.33 0.13 1.58 Utah 0.54 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.18 0.27 1.71 Vermont 1.18 0.07 0.00 1.64 0.00 1.05 0.40 0.68 5.03 Virgin Islands 12.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.41 0.00 0.00 30.31 Virginia 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.95 0.08 1.21 Washington 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.75 0.14 1.82 West Virginia 1.04 0.01 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.14 1.28 0.24 4.46 Wisconsin 0.67 0.04 0.01 0.00 (0.00) 1.30 0.01 0.58 2.61
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A9.txt
  • Non-Primary Multiline Residential Non-Primary Multiline Centrex Residential Non-Primary Multiline and Residential Business and Residential Business and Residential Business Single-Line and Single-Line Single-Line and Business Centrex Business Business Centrex ALLTEL (KY & NE) 6.05 6.42 7.85 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.82 513 19 225 BellSouth 6.50 6.76 6.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,105 1,321 4,846 CenturyTel 6.37 6.56 7.51 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.18 448 27 115 Cincinnati Bell 5.24 5.24 5.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 609 49 258 Citizens 6.13 6.44 9.20 0.00 0.00 4.31 0.75 1,570 105 422 Hawaiian Telecom 6.50 7.00 8.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 374 53 205 Iowa Telecom 6.14 6.14 8.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 186 9 42 Qwest 6.01 6.23 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,327 1,041
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279991A1.pdf
  • recommendations for the Commission. The various conference agenda items were assigned to the informal working groups as follows: Informal Working Groups (IWG) Agenda Items (Major WRC-07 Issues) IWG-1 � Terrestrial and Space Science Services 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.14, 1.16, & 1.20 IWG-2 � Satellite Services including those related to High Altitude Platform Stations (HAPS) 1.6 (Resolution 415), 1.7, 1.8, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, & 1.21 IWG-3 � International Mobile Telephone (IMT-2000) & 2.5 GHz 1.4 & 1.9 IWG-4 � Broadcasting and Amateur Services 1.6 (Resolution 414), 1.11, 1.13, 1.15, & 7.1 (Recommendation 952) IWG-5 � Regulatory Issues 1.1, 1.0, 1.12, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7.1 Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service Subscribers 0.69 2.10 4.42 6.90 8.25 0.48 1.81 4.68 7.14 0.11
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.txt
  • International Calls Calls 1/ All Goods Restated All Goods Restated Net of and Services in 2006 and Services in 2006 Access and (1982-1984 Dollars (1982-1984 Dollars Universal = 100) = 100) Service Cost 1930 16.7 $0.27 $3.32 1970 38.8 $0.23 $1.20 $2.43 $0.20 1931 15.2 0.27 3.57 1971 40.5 0.25 1.22 2.35 0.22 1932 13.7 0.26 3.86 1972 41.8 0.24 1.18 2.31 0.21 1933 13.0 0.28 4.27 1973 44.4 0.25 1.15 2.29 0.22 1934 13.4 0.27 4.09 1974 49.3 0.26 1.05 2.25 0.22 1935 13.7 0.27 3.91 1975 53.8 0.27 1.03 2.23 0.24 1936 13.9 0.25 3.64 1976 56.9 0.29 1.01 2.20 0.25 1937 14.4 0.22 3.03 1977 60.6 0.28 0.95 2.18 0.25 1938 14.1 0.21 3.06 1978 65.2 0.29 0.89
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • and support services 577,404.4 5,687.6 0.99 0.80 562 Waste management and remediation services 77,927.6 227.0 0.29 0.03 61 Educational services 267,736.9 1,312.0 0.49 0.18 621 Ambulatory health care services 721,071.5 0.00 0.00 622HO Hospitals and nursing and residential care facilities 769,618.7 0.00 0.00 624 Social assistance 131,852.9 0.00 0.00 711AS Performing arts, spectator sports, museums, and related 83,199.9 8,403.0 10.10 1.18 713 Amusements, gambling, and recreation industries 161,504.5 116.9 0.07 0.02 721 Accommodation 130,708.6 606.0 0.46 0.08 722 Food services and drinking places 588,732.3 1,012.0 0.17 0.14 81 Other services, except government 711,745.0 14,184.7 1.99 1.98 GFE Federal government enterprises 76,437.5 1,668.5 2.18 0.23 GFG Federal general government 813,280.4 0.00 0.00 GSLE State and local government enterprises 63,967.6 384.6 0.60 0.05
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A1.pdf
  • by State or Jurisdiction Table 3.18 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A2.pdf
  • by State or Jurisdiction Table 3.18 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A3.pdf
  • ARMIS are expanded to include the entire ILEC industry based on USF loops. Column 1 of Table 1.17 shows USF loops at year-end 2006. Column 2 shows the percent of the ILEC industry that reported in the ARMIS filings. It is the average for year-end 2005 and 2006 data.30 The adjustment formula in Column 3 is (100/Column 2). In Table 1.18, ILECs' state local exchange revenues are allocated based on local exchange service and state miscellaneous revenues from ARMIS Report 43-01 filings. Local exchange revenues for allocation are the product of reported ILECs' local exchange service and miscellaneous revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Allocation percentages in each state are the ratio of the state's allocation revenues to nationwide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A4.pdf
  • 1.75 1.30 8.06 10.00 9.51 8.06 13.50 12.11 Arkansas 5.25 8.25 7.45 0.00 3.50 1.27 0.00 1.75 0.64 5.25 10.00 8.08 5.25 13.50 9.36 California 3.98 8.25 6.63 0.00 3.50 2.57 0.00 1.75 1.29 3.98 10.00 7.91 3.98 13.50 10.49 Colorado 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.47 0.00 1.75 1.73 8.25 10.00 9.98 8.25 13.50 13.45 Connecticut 7.48 8.25 7.48 1.18 1.18 1.18 0.59 0.59 0.59 8.07 8.84 8.07 9.25 10.02 9.25 Delaware 8.18 8.18 8.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.18 8.18 8.18 8.18 8.18 8.18 District of Columbia 5.60 5.60 5.60 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 7.35 7.35 7.35 10.85 10.85 10.85 Florida 8.06 8.25 8.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.81 10.00 10.00 13.31 13.50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A5.pdf
  • FARMERS TEL. CO.-BATAVIA 1.66 -1.78 3.51 2.67 351176 A FARMERS TEL. CO.-ESSEX -2.69 -3.92 1.28 -11.19 351177 A FARMERS TEL. CO.-RICEVILLE -0.75 -5.21 4.70 2.58 351178 C IOWA TELECOMM. SVCS. DBA IOWA TELECOM 15.89 -3.60 20.22 0.00 351179 A FENTON COOP. TEL. CO. 3.62 0.31 3.31 4.17 351187 A>CPARTNER COMMUNICATIONS COOPERATIVE -2.83 -3.84 1.05 -4.62 351188 A GOLDFIELD TEL. CO. -1.18 -5.28 4.33 3.32 351189 A RIVER VALLEY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COOP. 0.83 -2.31 3.21 1.37 351191 A GRAND MOUND COOP. TEL. ASSN. -7.82 -16.62 10.56 25.57 351195 A GRISWOLD COOP. TEL. CO. -2.03 -7.04 5.40 4.29 351199 A HAWKEYE TEL. CO. 1.48 -1.28 2.79 1.06 351202 A HOSPERS TEL. EXCHANGE, INC. -0.08 0.27 -0.35 -17.78 351203 A HUBBARD COOP. TEL. ASSN. 1.00
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by State or Jurisdiction Table 3.18 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.txt
  • Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by State or Jurisdiction Table 3.18 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.txt
  • ARMIS are expanded to include the entire ILEC industry based on USF loops. Column 1 of Table 1.17 shows USF loops at year-end 2007. Column 2 shows the percent of the ILEC industry that reported in the ARMIS filings. It is the average for year-end 2006 and 2007 data.31 The adjustment formula in Column 3 is (100/Column 2). In Table 1.18, ILECs' state local exchange revenues are allocated based on local exchange service and state miscellaneous revenues from ARMIS Report 43-01 filings. Local exchange revenues for allocation are the product of reported ILECs' local exchange service and miscellaneous revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Allocation percentages in each state are the ratio of the state's allocation revenues to nationwide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A4.txt
  • 1.75 1.28 8.05 10.00 9.48 8.05 13.50 12.04 Arkansas 5.25 8.25 7.45 0.00 3.50 1.69 0.00 1.75 0.84 5.25 10.00 8.29 5.25 13.50 9.98 California 3.98 8.25 6.62 2.00 3.50 2.56 1.00 1.75 1.28 4.98 10.00 7.90 6.98 13.50 10.45 Colorado 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.48 0.00 1.75 1.74 8.25 10.00 9.99 8.25 13.50 13.46 Connecticut 7.49 7.49 7.49 1.18 1.18 1.18 0.59 0.59 0.59 8.08 8.08 8.08 9.26 9.26 9.26 Delaware 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 District of Columbia 5.61 5.61 5.61 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 7.36 7.36 7.36 10.86 10.86 10.86 Florida 8.06 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.50 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.06 10.00 9.99 8.06 13.50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • 5.37 -5.69 11.74 18.32 MONTANA 2.09 -7.10 9.89 9.14 NEBRASKA -2.26 -5.56 3.50 -1.33 NEVADA -0.51 -8.99 9.32 -4.54 NEW HAMPSHIRE -3.19 -8.22 5.48 6.65 NEW JERSEY 2.45 -10.52 14.50 0.00 NEW MEXICO -6.15 -5.63 -0.55 9.65 NEW YORK -3.34 -9.58 6.90 -12.45 NORTH CAROLINA -3.25 -6.29 3.24 32.04 NORTH DAKOTA 0.99 -10.60 12.97 6.33 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS -11.60 -10.55 -1.18 0.00 OHIO -3.16 -9.38 6.87 -10.81 OKLAHOMA 2.06 -6.77 9.47 -1.48 OREGON 1.37 -8.42 10.69 6.66 PENNSYLVANIA -0.27 -7.48 7.79 2.18 PUERTO RICO -6.04 -13.43 8.54 -51.65 RHODE ISLAND 0.32 -8.55 9.69 0.00 SOUTH CAROLINA -2.70 -6.42 3.98 6.39 SOUTH DAKOTA 0.53 -7.85 9.09 -1.73 TENNESSEE -5.49 -7.45 2.12 12.33 TEXAS 3.81 -5.97 10.40 7.33 UTAH 8.29 -5.88 15.05 6.75
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
  • 1.75 1.28 8.05 10.00 9.48 8.05 13.50 12.04 Arkansas 5.25 8.25 7.45 0.00 3.50 1.69 0.00 1.75 0.84 5.25 10.00 8.29 5.25 13.50 9.98 California 3.98 8.25 6.62 2.00 3.50 2.56 1.00 1.75 1.28 4.98 10.00 7.90 6.98 13.50 10.45 Colorado 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.48 0.00 1.75 1.74 8.25 10.00 9.99 8.25 13.50 13.46 Connecticut 7.49 7.49 7.49 1.18 1.18 1.18 0.59 0.59 0.59 8.08 8.08 8.08 9.26 9.26 9.26 Delaware 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 District of Columbia 5.61 5.61 5.61 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 7.36 7.36 7.36 10.86 10.86 10.86 Florida 8.06 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.50 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.06 10.00 9.99 8.06 13.50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes - 2009 - by Study Area Table 3.32 ILEC High-Cost Support Payments per Loop Data - 2009 - by Study Area .......... Table 3.36 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction .......................................................Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area .................................................................Table 3.34 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues - by State .........Table 1.18 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints - 2009 .................................. Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 3.12 Interstate Access Support Payments by Study Area ........................................... Table 3.28 Interstate Common Line Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction ...... Table 3.11 Interstate Common Line Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................... Table 3.27 Lifeline and Link Up
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A2.txt
  • ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data - Percentage Changes - 2009 - by Study Area Table 3.32 ILEC High-Cost Support Payments per Loop Data - 2009 - by Study Area .......... Table 3.36 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction .......................................................Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area .................................................................Table 3.34 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues - by State .........Table 1.18 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints - 2009 .................................. Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 3.12 Interstate Access Support Payments by Study Area ........................................... Table 3.28 Interstate Common Line Support Trued-up Payments by State or Jurisdiction ...... Table 3.11 Interstate Common Line Support Trued-up Payments by Study Area ................... Table 3.27 Lifeline and Link Up
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.txt
  • then intrastate revenues. In Table 1.16, interstate toll carriers' revenues are allocated on a state-by-state basis by multiplying nationwide interstate toll carrier revenues by the percentage of interstate access minutes in the state. Further, interstate ILEC revenues are allocated to states by multiplying interstate ILEC revenues and the percentage of estimated SLC revenue reported in the last column of Table 1.18. We estimate SLC revenue by state in Table 1.18. 27 Our estimate for SLC revenues by state are 25 See Local Telephone Competition: Status as of June 30, 2009 at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html . 26 See Table 7.5 of Trends in Telephone Service at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/trends.html. 27 Due to ARMIS forbearance which reduced the amount of data collected by the FCC, we simplified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A4.txt
  • 1.75 1.23 8.05 10.00 9.43 8.05 13.50 11.90 Arkansas 5.25 8.25 7.43 0.00 3.50 2.14 0.00 1.75 1.07 5.25 10.00 8.50 5.25 13.50 10.64 California 3.98 8.25 6.64 3.36 3.50 3.39 1.68 1.75 1.70 5.66 10.00 8.34 9.02 13.50 11.73 Colorado 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.46 0.00 1.75 1.73 8.25 10.00 9.98 8.25 13.50 13.44 Connecticut 7.52 7.52 7.52 1.18 3.50 1.22 0.59 1.75 0.61 8.11 9.27 8.13 9.29 12.77 9.35 Delaware 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 District of Columbia 5.61 5.61 5.61 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 7.36 7.36 7.36 10.86 10.86 10.86 Florida 8.12 8.25 8.23 0.00 3.50 3.48 0.00 1.75 0.00 8.12 10.00 8.23 8.12 13.50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • TENNESSEE 0.38 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.23 0.13 1.52 TEXAS 0.73 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.25 0.11 1.59 UTAH 0.41 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.16 0.27 1.48 VERMONT 0.67 0.09 0.00 1.54 0.00 1.50 0.42 0.66 4.87 VIRGIN ISLANDS 5.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.26 0.00 0.00 19.24 VIRGINIA 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.91 0.06 1.18 WASHINGTON 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.51 0.13 1.79 WEST VIRGINIA 0.20 0.01 0.00 1.61 0.00 0.17 1.47 0.19 3.64 WISCONSIN 0.71 0.06 (0.00) 0.00 0.00 1.62 0.00 0.41 2.80 WYOMING 3.49 0.04 0.00 2.80 0.00 3.22 1.45 1.05 12.06 INDUSTRY $0.69 $0.03 $0.00 $0.16 $0.00 $0.76 $0.30 $0.18 $2.12 Based on 2009 support payments and reported loops or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.txt
  • to June 30, 2011 Year 2008 Carrier Local Common Switching Line per Minutes of Company Originating Use Access (Millions) Minute ACS 0.00� 0.00� 0.59� 0.37� 1.97� 481 AT&T 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.26 1.59 116,741 Am�rica M�vil 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.20 1.92 1,778 CenturyLink 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.21 2.15 18,727 Cincinnati Bell 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.62 2.64 1,959 Consolidated 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.29 3.02 432 FairPoint 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.24 1.53 3,203 Frontier 0.06 0.00 0.56 0.37 1.97 14,823 Hawaiin Telecom 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 2.04 835 Innovative 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.18 1.95 244 Pacific Telecom 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.15 1.26 47 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.19 1.95 26,566 Verizon 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.27 1.68 66,373 Windstream 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.32 1.81
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310666A1.txt
  • (111.1 W.L.) 1 - VIASAT-1 - (115.1W.L.) 1 - WILDBLUE 1 - (111.1 W.L.) E110033 SES-AMD-20110502-00535 E Date Effective: 10/21/2011 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority Amendment VIASAT, INC. Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service 31 � 26 ' 29.16 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 19770 Alameda Ave, El Paso, Tornillo, TX 106 � 5 ' 1.18 " W LONG. LOCATION: ViaSat, Inc. 1 7.3 meters ANTENNA ID: VA-7.3-KA 60.00 dBW PSK digital data 29500.0000 - 30000.0000 MHz 52M1G7D 69.00 dBW PSK digital data 29500.0000 - 30000.0000 MHz 416MG7D 60.00 dBW PSK digital data 28100.0000 - 29100.0000 MHz 52M1G7D 69.00 dBW PSK digital data 28100.0000 - 29100.0000 MHz 416MG7D PSK digital data 19700.0000 - 20200.0000 MHz 20M0G7D
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.txt
  • Telecommunications Revenues Reported on FCC Form 499-Q: 2009-2011 Table 1.10 Report Table 1.10 Universal Service Program Requirements and Contribution Factors for 2010-2011 Table 1.11 Report Table 1.11 Universal Service Support Mechanisms: 2009 & 2010 Chart 1.1 Report Chart 1.1 Distribution of Universal Service Payments: 2010 Table 1.12 Report Table 1.12 Universal Service Support Mechanisms by State: 2010 Tables 1.13 - 1.18Website Table 2.1 Report Table 2.1 Lifeline Subscribers and Link Up Beneficiaries Table 2.2 Report Table 2.2 Low-Income Support Payments Chart 2.1 Deleted Table 2.3 Report Table 2.3 Average Lifeline Monthly Support by ILEC Status and by State (December 2010) Table 2.4 Report Table 2.6 Low-Income Support Payments by State: 2010 (Years 1998 - 2010 are on the website) Tables 2.5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-427A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-427A2.txt
  • AMNews/Talk Youngstown - Warren, OH 104Youngstown OHClear Channel Communications 1926 2000 9.3 0.78 B WMXY FMMix AC Youngstown - Warren, OH 104Youngstown OHClear Channel Communications 1947 1700 7.9 0.9 B WRTK AMClsc Rock Youngstown - Warren, OH 104Niles OHClear Channel Communications 1963 450 0 0.46 B WNCD FMClsc Rock Youngstown - Warren, OH 104Youngstown OHClear Channel Communications 1959 1950 6.2 1.18 B WICT FMCountry Youngstown - Warren, OH 104Grove City PAClear Channel Communications 1962 450 2.1 1.16 B WNIO AMNostalgia Youngstown - Warren, OH 104Youngstown OHClear Channel Communications 1939 150 2.7 0.39 B WTNX FMCHR Youngstown - Warren, OH 104Sharpsville PAClear Channel Communications 1976 500 1.4 0.89 A WPAO AMChristian Youngstown - Warren, OH 104Farrell PAGOCOM Communications LLC 1954 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.txt
  • 2.43 1.07 2.41 1.44 2.89 1.02 PR-8-01 Open Orders in a Hold Status > 30 Days 0.10 0.28 0.08 0.19 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.00 PR-8-02 Open Orders in a Hold Status > 90 Days 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Resale 2-Wire Digital Services PR-2-01 Average Int. Completed - Total No Dispatch 1.25 3.07 1.28 1.98 1.61 1.16 1.18 2.00 4c PR-2-02 Average Int. Completed - Total Dispatch 9.70 8.00 7.53 10.88 6.59 8.50 5.01 9.55 1a,2c,3b,4b,3n PR-4-02 Average Delay Days - Total 7.67 16.00 9.67 6.14 8.19 9.00 5.56 NA 1a,2a,3a,3n PR-4-04 % Missed Appointment - Verizon - Dispatch 19.56 16.67 5.34 9.30 5.52 5.88 5.06 0.00 1a,2n,3n PR-4-05 % Missed Appointment - Verizon - No Dispatch 0.15
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-290A1.txt
  • = 10 X 106 bps; K = 1; S = 4; Bn= 10 MHz 10M0G7D Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) Bn = 2R/log2S 64 QAM used to send 135 Mbps has the same necessary bandwidth as 64-PSK used to send 135 Mbps; R = 135 X 106 bps; S = 64; Bn= 45 MHz 45M0W Minimum Shift Keying 2-ary: Bn = R(1.18) 4-ary Bn = R(2.34) Digital modulation used to send 2 megabits per second using 2-ary minimum shift keying R = 2.36 X 106 bps; Bn= 2.36 MHz 2M36G1D Section 2.948 is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(2), by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(8) and (d)(3) and by adding a new paragraph (e): � 2.948 Description
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-369A1.txt
  • disclosure of Domestic Communications, Call Associated Data, Transactional Data or Subscriber Information authorized by U.S. federal, state or local law. 1.16 "MES" means a mobile earth station (i.e., a hand-held, portable or other mobile terminal capable of receiving and/or transmitting Wire Communications or Electronic Communications by satellite). 1.17 "Non U.S.-Licensed MES" means an Inmarsat MES other than a U.S.-Licensed MES. 1.18 "Party" or "Parties" have the meaning given in the Preamble. 1.19 "Pro forma assignments" or "pro forma transfers of control" are transfers or assignments that do not "involve a substantial change in ownership or control" of the licenses as provided in 47 C.F.R. 63.24. 1. 20 "Sensitive Information" means unclassified information regarding (i) the persons or facilities that are the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.txt
  • -0.6 -5.1% 11.5 10.6 -0.9 -7.8% Standard error 0.64 0.73 0.42 0.44 Devoted to digital service 6.7 11.3 4.6 68.7% 7.0 11.8 4.8 68.6% Standard error 1.06 1.08 0.74 0.84 Total Channels Total number of channels 75.9 83.3 7.4 9.7% 74.4 81.7 7.3 9.8% Total number of channels 75.9 83.3 7.4 9.7% 74.4 81.7 7.3 9.8% Standard error 1.84 1.80 1.18 1.14 � Excludes CPST tiers beyond the major CPST, as well as premium, pay-per-view, digital and audio (e.g., music) channels. �� PEG: Public, educational, and governmental. ��� Excludes channels in the BST and major CPST lineup and audio channels. ATTACHMENT D-1 REGRESSION RESULTS SHOWING EFFECTS OF COMPETITIVE STATUS, MSO AFFILIATION, SYSTEM SIZE, NUMBER OF CHANNELS, AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME ON AVERAGE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • Pre-Order Addr Verif EDI-CORBA: Rndtrp 3.14 4.50 2.98 4.50 2.89 4.50 4.42 4.50 1.62 4.50 1 - 106002Avg Resp Pre-Order TN EDI-CORBA: Rndtrp 2.85 4.50 2.37 4.50 2.32 4.50 4.32 4.50 4.02 4.50 1 - 106003Avg Resp Pre-Order CSR EDI-CORBA: Rndtrp 2.6710.00 2.7010.00 3.1310.00 11.7410.00 1.4710.00 1 - 106005Avg Resp Pre-Order Svc Appt Sch EDI-CORBA: Rndtrp 1.47 2.00 1.31 2.00 1.18 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.11 2.00 1 - 106006Avg Resp Pre-Order Rej/Fail Inq EDI-CORBA: Rndtrp 3.30 tbd 4.90 tbd 3.89 tbd 8.75 tbd 3.64 tbd 1 - 106007Avg Resp Pre-Order Mech Loop Qual Actual - EDI- CORBA: Rndtrp 10.7610.34 16.23 9.60 11.2011.94 17.8112.10 15.6812.17 1 - 106008Avg Resp Pre-Order Mech Loop Qual Design - EDI- CORBA: Rndtrp 1.42 2.58 2.32 2.27
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • 4.65 5.11 5.12 4.46 5.38 10.35 4.52 3.07 A.3.3.3.1 Design (Specials)/Dispatch/FL (hours) 5.82 3.60 5.61 6.01 5.52 5.34 6.67 3.85 5.04 5.64 A.3.3.3.2 Design (Specials)/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.48 1.84 2.91 3.42 2.32 2.35 12.21 3.39 2.05 2.19 A.3.3.4.1 PBX/Dispatch/FL (hours) 13.17 5.63 13.92 19.00 18.43 11.04 13.28 10.69 13.05 8.73 4,5 A.3.3.4.2 PBX/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.52 1.26 3.07 2.01 3.61 10.66 31.67 1.18 3.22 5.17 3,4,5 A.3.3.5.1 Centrex/Dispatch/FL (hours) 14.63 13.90 17.53 23.25 21.05 6.09 19.00 17.33 19.71 2.50 2,4,5 A.3.3.5.2 Centrex/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 4.93 4.75 5.02 1.75 4.65 17.50 4.50 1.00 5.01 5.00 1,2,3,4,5 A.3.3.6.1 ISDN/Dispatch/FL (hours) 6.77 2.18 6.52 2.85 7.26 3.27 6.44 3.53 5.72 5.68 1,2,3,4,5 A.3.3.6.2 ISDN/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.68 2.19 2.30 5.43 4.77 1.84 2.50 2.98 1.77 1.70 1,2,3,4,5 %
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-149A1.txt
  • = 10 X 106 bps; K = 1; S = 4; Bn= 10 MHz 10M0G7D Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) Bn = 2R/log2S 64 QAM used to send 135 Mbps has the same necessary bandwidth as 64-PSK used to send 135 Mbps; R = 135 X 106 bps; S = 64; Bn= 45 MHz 45M0W Minimum Shift Keying 2-ary: Bn = R(1.18) 4-ary Bn = R(2.34) Digital modulation used to send 2 megabits per second using 2-ary minimum shift keying R = 2.36 X 106 bps; Bn= 2.36 MHz 2M36G1D The following heading is inserted before Section 2.960: ``Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs)'' Section 2.948 is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(2), by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(8)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-3A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-3A2.txt
  • means those standards set forth on Exhibit A hereto; provided however, Referenced Technology does not include any third party proprietary technology referenced in or required by such standards, such as DES, DTCP, or MPEG-2. 1.17 "Robustness Rules" mean the rules described in Exhibit C hereto, as such rules may be amended from time to time in accordance with Section 6.2. 1.18 "Test Tools" means devices that (a) utilize the DFAST Technology and have as their purpose the testing or verification of the performance of, or (b) are specifically designed for the purpose of testing or verification of the performance of, Unidirectional Digital Cable Products and Prototypes. 1.19 "Unidirectional Digital Cable Products" means unidirectional ("one-way") digital television products (including without limitation, televisions,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-87A1.txt
  • in 2002 and 2005 resulting from a 1.35 PGC. We predict that if states without a PGC (and states with PGCs at 1.25 or lower) adopted a 1.35 PGC, there would be a significant increase in the number of low-income households that would take Lifeline. Nationwide, for 2002, the number of additional Lifeline takers would be between 1.07 million and 1.18 million. For 2005, the number of additional Lifeline subscribers would be between 1.17 million and 1.29 million. Different states have different Lifeline eligibility criteria, so regression analysis can be employed to quantify the correlation between the use of a higher multiple of the poverty guidelines (i.e., a higher PGC) and the resulting higher Lifeline subscription rate. The Lifeline Regression Model
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-11A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-11A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-11A1.txt
  • its triple-play service through its ``Free'' broadband service provider. At a cost of approximately $35 per month, in addition to Internet access and telephone service, Free provides 80 free television channels and offers approximately 170 subscription video channels on an a la carte basis or in thematic packages, such as sports and music. As of June 2005, Free had approximately 1.18 million subscribers to its triple-play package, 130,000 of whom choose to subscribe to a la carte video programming. Elsewhere in Europe, in June 2005, Finland's Alcom, the primary DSL provider for the Aland Islands, launched that country's first commercial IPTV over DSL service and now serves approximately 1,000 subscribers. Alcom offers 26 channels for approximately $11 per month. Broadband and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-150A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-150A2.txt
  • 8 8 14.1 271 74549 380611 891440 25153 740 2.8 25684IL CHAMPAIGN 15 41 895 396 400411 875445 33308 1072 4.8 42124IL CHAMPAIGN 3 481000 287 74853 400623 882659 26770 809 0.6 18301IL CHARLESTON 51 50 50 70 74854 392843 881021 9118 170 0 73226IL CHICAGO 7 7 3.2 515 74590 415244 873810 29082 9389 0.7 9617IL CHICAGO 2 11 1.18 497 415244 873808 22111 8967 2.2 72115IL CHICAGO 9 19 645 453 39765 415244 873810 31624 9509 0.5 12279IL CHICAGO 20 21 98.9 378 33366 415356 873723 20833 8983 0.1 71428IL CHICAGO 26 27 160 510 45223 415244 873810 26141 9273 0.2 47905IL CHICAGO 5 29 350 508 31269 415244 873810 32084 9517 0.2 22211IL CHICAGO 32 31 690 475
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-167A1.txt
  • (d) acquisition of location- related information concerning a service subscriber or facility; (e) preservation of any of the above information pursuant to 18 U.S.C. � 2703(f); and (f) access to, or acquisition or interception of, or preservation of communications or information as described in (a) through (e) above and comparable state laws. 1.17. ``FBI'' means the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1.18. ``Foreign'' where used in this Agreement, whether capitalized or lower case, means non-U.S. 1.19. ``GC'' means Guam Cellular and Paging, Inc. 1.20. ``Governmental Authority'' or ``Governmental Authorities'' means any government, or any governmental, administrative, or regulatory entity, authority, commission, board, agency, instrumentality, bureau, or political subdivision, and any court, tribunal, judicial, or arbitral body. 1.21. ``Intercept'' or ``Intercepted'' has the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.txt
  • The first regression differs from the Adelphia Order only in adding TEAM COUNT. Table 1 DBS Penetration and RSN Access Independent Variables Dependent Variable: LN DBS PENETRATION Coefficient z-statistic LN CABLE PRICE 2.11* 2.15 LN CABLE CHANNELS -1.11* -2.61 PHILLY -0.53* -6.59 SANDIEGO -0.47* -5.52 CHARLOTTE -0.21 -1.45 KEYDMA 0.21* 3.29 TEAM COUNT -0.03 -1.94 DBSOVERAIR -0.09 -1.43 CABLECOMP 0.27 1.18 HDTV -0.12 -1.53 INTERNET -0.06 -0.52 LN INCOME -0.29* -2.44 LN MULTIDWELL -0.37* -10.45 LN LATITUDE -0.01 -0.03 CONSTANT -0.73 -0.26 Observations 676 Centered R-Squared 0.26 F-Statistic (14, 661) 40.57 Hansen J Statistic 27.22 * - significant at 95% confidence level Most coefficients change only slightly in terms of statistical significance or magnitude as compared to the results reported in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.txt
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. 4 1.16. "Foreign Entity" means any Foreign Person; any entity established under the laws of a country other than the United States, or any government other than the U.S. Government or a U.S. state or local government. 1.17. "Foreign Person" means any Person who is not a U.S. Person as provided by 31 C.F.R. � 800.222. 1.18. "Hosting Services" means Web hosting (whether shared or dedicated, and including design, server management, maintenance and telecommunications services), Web site traffic management, electronic commerce, streamed media services, server collocation and management, application hosting, and all other similar services offered by the Domestic Companies. 1.19. "Identifying Information" means the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, I.P. address, or any other information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-29A1.txt
  • citing Development and Implementation of a Public Safety National Plan and Amendment of Part 90 to Establish Service Rules and Technical Standards for Use of the 821-824/866-869 MHz Bands by the Public Safety Services, GEN Docket No. 87-112, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 905 (1987). Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, September 1996, Vol. 1, Sec. 1.18. See AASHTO Comments at 9. See id. See, e.g., AASHTO Comments at 8-9; AASHTO Reply Comments at 3; APCO Comments at 3; EWA Reply Comments at 5; IAFC/IMSA Comments at 6-7; LMCC Comments at 13-14; and NPSTC Comments at 7-8. In this regard, LMCC observes that a rule change that would license an independent private entity to operate on public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-129A1.txt
  • 1,589 $14,016 $28,230 $37,530 18.2 1.72 4.61 95.9 Alaska 22 179.9 59.5 8,176 2,702 $19,167 $45,251 $53,837 14.1 0.28 0.80 82.3 Michigan 8 145.3 58.6 18,158 7,323 $16,433 $31,109 $36,540 16.9 9.73 24. 04 84.3 Minnesota 9 145.1 56.0 16,120 6,219 $16,468 $34,147 $42,576 12.7 5.89 15 .31 85.3 New Mexico 10 136.4 51.0 13,637 5,104 $13,844 $26,102 $32,446 19.5 1.18 3.15 72.7 Utah 13 131.9 43.9 10,146 3,379 $14,248 $33,697 $45,477 13.1 1.13 3.29 7 9.2 Wisconsin 8 131.5 51.4 16,438 6,430 $16,492 $35,111 $44,244 13.0 10.32 2 6.65 94.0 North Dakota 27 128.2 50.2 4,749 1,861 $15,417 $30,125 $42,435 13.9 1.55 3.98 94.0 U.S. Virgin Islands 3 108.6 40.6 36,204 13,549 $14,647 $26,925 NA NA 315.37 831.58 1 7.2
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.txt
  • of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 17018, �� 14-15 (rel. July 14, 1998); Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures in Commission Proceedings and Proceedings in which the Commission is a Party, Initial Policy Statement and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5669 (1991); 47 C.F.R. � 1.18. Time Warner Reply at 14. Id. Notice at � 26. Id. Id.; see 47 C.F.R. � 76.7. Disney Comments at 17; Network Affiliate Comments at 28; LTVS Comments at 12; U S West Comments at 8; WCA Comments at 16; NAB Reply at 22; BellSouth Comments at 22. BellSouth asserts that the Commission should require good faith complaint defendants to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.txt
  • 0.52 California $ 118.51 $ 9.88 Connecticut $ 14.34 $ 1.20 Illinois $ 45.62 $ 3.80 Indiana $ 14.57 $ 1.21 Kansas $ 8.83 $ 0.74 Michigan $ 35.32 $ 2.94 Missouri $ 16.31 $ 1.36 Nevada $ 2.31 $ 0.19 Ohio $ 26.72 $ 2.23 Oklahoma $ 10.57 $ 0.88 Texas $ 61.48 $ 5.12 Wisconsin $ 14.18 $ 1.18 $ 375.00 $ 31.25 ATTACHMENT A-6 (cont'd) YEAR 3 CAPS ($M) State Annual Monthly Arkansas $ 8.32 $ 0.69 California $ 158.02 $ 13.17 Connecticut $ 19.12 $ 1.59 Illinois $ 60.82 $ 5.07 Indiana $ 19.42 $ 1.62 Kansas $ 11.78 $ 0.98 Michigan $ 47.10 $ 3.93 Missouri $ 21.75 $ 1.81 Nevada $ 3.08 $ 0.26 Ohio
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • non-dispatch, business and residential, generally showed a monthly difference of a half day to a full day longer to fulfill for competitive LEC customers, and the monthly differences were usually statistically significant, with the exception of July for residential dispatch orders, for which the difference was not statistically significant. The four month average (June-September) difference for resale POTS orders is 1.18 days for dispatch business, 0.80 days for dispatch residential, 0.51 days for non-dispatch business, and 0.87 days for non-dispatch residential. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. D; Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Reply Decl. Attach. C. The difference in times was greater for UNE platform orders, for the same time period, and were always statistically significant. Competitive LEC UNE platform non-dispatch orders took
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.txt
  • 0.52 California $ 118.51 $ 9.88 Connecticut $ 14.34 $ 1.20 Illinois $ 45.62 $ 3.80 Indiana $ 14.57 $ 1.21 Kansas $ 8.83 $ 0.74 Michigan $ 35.32 $ 2.94 Missouri $ 16.31 $ 1.36 Nevada $ 2.31 $ 0.19 Ohio $ 26.72 $ 2.23 Oklahoma $ 10.57 $ 0.88 Texas $ 61.48 $ 5.12 Wisconsin $ 14.18 $ 1.18 $ 375.00 $ 31.25 ATTACHMENT A-6 (cont'd) YEAR 3 CIPP CAPS ($M) State Annual Monthly Arkansas $ 8.32 $ 0.69 California $ 158.02 $ 13.17 Connecticut $ 19.12 $ 1.59 Illinois $ 60.82 $ 5.07 Indiana $ 19.42 $ 1.62 Kansas $ 11.78 $ 0.98 Michigan $ 47.10 $ 3.93 Missouri $ 21.75 $ 1.81 Nevada $ 3.08 $ 0.26
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • Service > 24 Hours - Res. 29.18 60 20.52 0 24.9 0 31.72 NA 26.66 0 a,b,c MR-5 � Repeat Trouble Reports MR-5-01-2100 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 15.94 8 14.64 9.84 13.37 9.8 13.86 6.12 13.56 13.43 2-Wire Digital Services - Maintenance MR-2 � Trouble Report Rate MR-2-02-2341 Network Trouble Report Rate � Loop 0.48 0 0.79 0 1.18 1.2 0.23 0 0.36 0 MR-2-03-2341 Network Trouble Report Rate � Central Office 0.38 0 0.23 0.65 0.32 1.2 0.27 0 0.36 0 MR-2-04-2341 % Subsequent Reports 21.74 NA 21.43 0 13.16 20 NA NA b,c MR-2-05-2341 % CPE/TOK/FOK Trouble Report Rate 2.42 1.38 2.32 3.25 1.59 0 3.77 5.29 MR-3 � Missed Repair Appointments MR-3-01-2341 % Missed Repair Appointment
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/fcc2008budget_complete.pdf
  • the Commission. The various conference agenda items have been initially assigned to the informal working groups as follows: Informal Working Groups (IWG) Agenda Items (Major WRC-07 Issues) IWG-1 � Terrestrial and Space Science Services 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.14, 1.16, & 1.20 IWG-2 � Satellite Services including those related to High Altitude Platform Stations (HAPS) 1.6 (Resolution 415), 1.7, 1.8, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, & 1.21) IWG-3 � International Mobile Telephone (IMT-2000) & 2.5 GHz 1.4 & 1.9 IWG-4 � Broadcasting and Amateur Services 1.6 (Resolution 414), 1.11, 1.13, 1.15, & 7.1 (Recommendation 952) IWG-5 � Regulatory Issues 1.1, 1.0, 1.12, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7.1) MEDIA At the end of FY 2006, a total of 1,586 of 1,687 licensed DTV stations
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1701A1.html
  • is in compliance with the labeling requirements of Section 15.19 of the Rules15 but admits that the HSB1 was not compliant with Section 2.925 of the Rules,16 which requires a label listing the FCC Identifier.17 Hawking claims it was unaware of the requirements of Section 2.925 but will take measures to comply before it resumes production and shipment of the HSB1.18 III. DISCUSSION 7. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that ``[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.'' Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's implementing regulations provides that: Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.pdf
  • to file a competing proposal is premised on the conflicting assumption that these broadcasters would make some but not all of the changes in the facilities improvement package. We conclude that the public interest benefits of a rule change to permit coordinated FM station service improvements outweighs any concern that such improvements may preclude theoretically-favored but unachievable competing service proposals. 1.18 Finally, with regard to contingent NCE FM applications, we will permit proposals that include station cancellations except those that would create gray or white areas, i.e., areas that receive service from one or no NCE FM stations, respectively. Although we decline to establish other full-time NCE FM service floor guidelines, any proposal to cancel a community's sole NCE FM station
• http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html
  • http://www.fcc.gov/updates.html 6. http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ 7. http://www.fcc.gov/initiatives.html 8. http://fcc.gov/consumers/ 9. http://www.fcc.gov/people.html 10. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html#skipcrumb 11. http://www.fcc.gov/ 12. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/Welcome.html 13. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 14. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=search_tips&ref=w 15. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=advanced_search&ref=w 16. http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fccdotgov 17. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html#skippagenav 18. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/Welcome.html 19. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/foiahandbook.pdf 20. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/quickfactsheet.pdf 21. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/cfr.html 22. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/ 23. http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gils/index.html 24. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_guide07/text_foia.pdf 25. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/reading-room-cert.pdf 26. http://www.fcc.gov/portalsdir.html 27. http://www.fcc.gov/ 28. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 29. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/ 30. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 31. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/circ_items.cgi 32. http://www.fcc.gov/eb/ 33. http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/ 34. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-77A1.pdf 35. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.18.pdf 36. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.61.pdf 37. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4050.pdf 38. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4140.pdf 39. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4266.pdf 40. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4267.pdf 41. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4280.pdf 42. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf 43. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.pdf 44. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/Orders/1997/fcc97218.pdf 45. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.80.pdf 46. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00072.doc 47. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-53A1.pdf 48. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1999/fcc99124.txt 49. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-63A1.pdf 50. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.pdf 51. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-401A1.pdf 52. http://www.fcc.gov/owd/fcc_eeo_policy_statement.html 53. http://www.fcc.gov/owd/fcc_anti_harassment_statement.html 54. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/2000/fcc00207.doc 55. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1999/fcc99354.txt 56. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/80-621.pdf 57. http://www.fcc.gov/statelocal/recommendation1.html 58. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-1980.pdf 59. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1986.pdf 60. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1990.pdf 61. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1991.pdf 62. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1992.pdf 63. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-1992.pdf 64. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-rev-1992.pdf 65. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-1974.pdf
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-a.pdf
  • 5: Who Benefits Whom among Blacks and Whites? Five-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) MSA White Pop ( 1) 0.0086 0.0085 0.0116 0.0085 0.0136 0.0095 0.0059 0.0093 (5.68)** (5.06)** (2.57)* (4.91)** (3.63)** (2.44)* (3.30)** (2.26)* MSA Black Pop ( 2) 0.0025 -0.0004 0.0156 -0.0005 0.0133 0.0264 0.0106 0.0259 (0.32) (0.05) (0.74) (0.06) (0.71) (1.32) (1.18) (1.22) Zip Black Fr. -0.1367 -0.1120 -0.0931 -0.1990 -0.1556 -0.0942 -0.1068 -0.1014 (19.45)** (15.44)** (5.91)** (6.16)** (9.82)** (6.00)** (15.11)** (0.91) Zip Black Fr.* White Pop ( 1- 1) -0.0426 -0.0419 -0.0712 -0.0397 -0.0687 -0.0726 -0.0397 -0.0665 (6.11)** (5.95)** (3.58)** (4.54)** (3.17)** (3.44)** (5.81)** (2.34)* Zip Black Fr.* Black Pop ( 2- 2) 0.1505 0.1221 0.1724 0.1172 0.2258 0.1791 0.1075 0.1755
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/17/releases/fc970082.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/17/releases/fc970082.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/17/releases/fc970082.wp
  • be as satisfactory as 120 providing 75 megahertz at each end. On balance, we find that the segmentation proposal advanced by Sierra meets the needs of LMDS, while providing most incumbent licensees with the spectrum needed to continue their important operations. 84. Sunnyvale requests that, if no compromise designation of spectrum is approved, we initiate a negotiated rulemaking under Section 1.18 of the Commission's Rules. Inasmuch as we 121 adopt a band sharing plan that reflects the segmentation requested by Sierra and provides the protection that Sunnyvale seeks for incumbent licensees, we deny the request. As a result, we Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-82 Id. at 4 (citing F.C.C. v. National Broadcasting Co. (KOA), 319 U.S. 239 (1943)); Sunnyvale Comments to
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/17/releases/lmdsbp_e.pdf
  • be as satisfactory as 120 providing 75 megahertz at each end. On balance, we find that the segmentation proposal advanced by Sierra meets the needs of LMDS, while providing most incumbent licensees with the spectrum needed to continue their important operations. 84. Sunnyvale requests that, if no compromise designation of spectrum is approved, we initiate a negotiated rulemaking under Section 1.18 of the Commission's Rules. Inasmuch as we 121 adopt a band sharing plan that reflects the segmentation requested by Sierra and provides the protection that Sunnyvale seeks for incumbent licensees, we deny the request. As a result, we need not address Sunnyvale's argument that adoption of our original proposal to authorize 300 megahertz in the 31 GHz band would constitute
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/rss/index.htm?job=ainf&id=66
  • Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=66F ri, 18 Aug 2006 19:05:01 GMT Summary Licenses: Auction No. 66 will offer 1,122 licenses: 36 Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) licenses, 352 Economic Area (EA) licenses, and 734 Cellular Market Area (CMA) licenses. Qualified Bidders: 168 Rounds Completed: 28 Bidding Days: 8 Results for Round 28 Gross Revenue: $11,559,948,900.00 - Dollar Change: 134436000.00 - % Change: 1.18 Net Revenue: $11,367,759,500.00 - Dollar Change: 127241300.00 - % Change: 1.13 New Bids: 283 Withdrawn Bids: 0 Proactive Waivers: 0 Bidders that Reduced Eligibility: 3 Licenses with PWBs*: 880 FCC Held Licenses: 242 Eligible Bidders: 137 (of 168 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=66F ri, 18 Aug 2006 21:20:02 GMT Summary Licenses: Auction No. 66 will offer
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/rss/index.htm?job=ainf&id=70
  • 114 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=70W ed, 14 Mar 2007 21:05:13 GMT Summary Permits: 120 construction permits in the FM broadcast service Qualified Bidders: 114 Rounds Completed: 15 Bidding Days: 5 Results for Round 15 Gross Revenue: $16,176,800.00 - Dollar Change: $623,700.00 - % Change: 4.01 Net Revenue: $13,740,290.00 - Dollar Change: $159,715.00 - % Change: 1.18 New Bids: 61 Withdrawn Bids: 0 Proactive Waivers: 2 Bidders that Reduced Eligibility: 4 Permits with PWBs*: 99 FCC Held Permits: 21 Eligible Bidders: 90 (of 114 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=70T ue, 13 Mar 2007 14:35:02 GMT Summary Permits: 120 construction permits in the FM broadcast service Qualified Bidders: 114 Rounds Completed: 16 Bidding Days:
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1999/fcc99406.doc
  • of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 17018, �� 14-15 (rel. July 14, 1998); Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures in Commission Proceedings and Proceedings in which the Commission is a Party, Initial Policy Statement and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5669 (1991); 47 C.F.R. � 1.18. The Commission adopted such a shifting burden approach in the program access context. See Implementation of Sections 12 and 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and Carriage, First Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 3359, 3416-22 (1993). Communications Act � 325(b)(3)(C), 47 U.S.C. �325(b)(3)(C)(ii). See
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.txt
  • of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 17018, �� 14-15 (rel. July 14, 1998); Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures in Commission Proceedings and Proceedings in which the Commission is a Party, Initial Policy Statement and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5669 (1991); 47 C.F.R. � 1.18. Time Warner Reply at 14. Id. Notice at � 26. Id. Id.; see 47 C.F.R. � 76.7. Disney Comments at 17; Network Affiliate Comments at 28; LTVS Comments at 12; U S West Comments at 8; WCA Comments at 16; NAB Reply at 22; BellSouth Comments at 22. BellSouth asserts that the Commission should require good faith complaint defendants to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.txt
  • 0.52 California $ 118.51 $ 9.88 Connecticut $ 14.34 $ 1.20 Illinois $ 45.62 $ 3.80 Indiana $ 14.57 $ 1.21 Kansas $ 8.83 $ 0.74 Michigan $ 35.32 $ 2.94 Missouri $ 16.31 $ 1.36 Nevada $ 2.31 $ 0.19 Ohio $ 26.72 $ 2.23 Oklahoma $ 10.57 $ 0.88 Texas $ 61.48 $ 5.12 Wisconsin $ 14.18 $ 1.18 $ 375.00 $ 31.25 ATTACHMENT A-6 (cont'd) YEAR 3 CAPS ($M) State Annual Monthly Arkansas $ 8.32 $ 0.69 California $ 158.02 $ 13.17 Connecticut $ 19.12 $ 1.59 Illinois $ 60.82 $ 5.07 Indiana $ 19.42 $ 1.62 Kansas $ 11.78 $ 0.98 Michigan $ 47.10 $ 3.93 Missouri $ 21.75 $ 1.81 Nevada $ 3.08 $ 0.26 Ohio
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • non-dispatch, business and residential, generally showed a monthly difference of a half day to a full day longer to fulfill for competitive LEC customers, and the monthly differences were usually statistically significant, with the exception of July for residential dispatch orders, for which the difference was not statistically significant. The four month average (June-September) difference for resale POTS orders is 1.18 days for dispatch business, 0.80 days for dispatch residential, 0.51 days for non-dispatch business, and 0.87 days for non-dispatch residential. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. D; Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Reply Decl. Attach. C. The difference in times was greater for UNE platform orders, for the same time period, and were always statistically significant. Competitive LEC UNE platform non-dispatch orders took
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • 4.65 5.11 5.12 4.46 5.38 10.35 4.52 3.07 A.3.3.3.1 Design (Specials)/Dispatch/FL (hours) 5.82 3.60 5.61 6.01 5.52 5.34 6.67 3.85 5.04 5.64 A.3.3.3.2 Design (Specials)/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.48 1.84 2.91 3.42 2.32 2.35 12.21 3.39 2.05 2.19 A.3.3.4.1 PBX/Dispatch/FL (hours) 13.17 5.63 13.92 19.00 18.43 11.04 13.28 10.69 13.05 8.73 4,5 A.3.3.4.2 PBX/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.52 1.26 3.07 2.01 3.61 10.66 31.67 1.18 3.22 5.17 3,4,5 A.3.3.5.1 Centrex/Dispatch/FL (hours) 14.63 13.90 17.53 23.25 21.05 6.09 19.00 17.33 19.71 2.50 2,4,5 A.3.3.5.2 Centrex/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 4.93 4.75 5.02 1.75 4.65 17.50 4.50 1.00 5.01 5.00 1,2,3,4,5 A.3.3.6.1 ISDN/Dispatch/FL (hours) 6.77 2.18 6.52 2.85 7.26 3.27 6.44 3.53 5.72 5.68 1,2,3,4,5 A.3.3.6.2 ISDN/Non-Dispatch/FL (hours) 2.68 2.19 2.30 5.43 4.77 1.84 2.50 2.98 1.77 1.70 1,2,3,4,5 %
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/pntris04.pdf
  • 94.3% 95.8% 8.4% * 1.4% Arizona 1987 2.77 73.6% 82.4% 85.6% 8.9% 3.1% 90.0% 90.3% 93.2% 0.3% 2.9%* Arkansas 1986 0.95 78.3% 78.8% 79.9% 0.5% 1.1% 87.2% 88.7% 90.0% 1.5% 1.2% California 1985 2.48 82.9% 87.7% 92.5% 4.7% * 4.9%* 92.6% 94.0% 96.0% 1.4% 1.9%* Colorado 1986 3.49 86.9% 88.0% 92.0% 1.2% 4.0% 94.6% 96.5% 96.5% 1.9% 0.1% Connecticut 1993 1.18 80.5% 85.9% 94.6% 5.4% 8.7%* 94.7% 95.6% 97.9% 1.0% 2.3% Delaware 1998 2.30 87.3% 94.4% 94.0% 7.1% -0.4% 95.5% 95.2% 96.9% -0.3% 1.7% District of Columbia 1987 3.50 92.5% 81.1% 88.0% -11.4% # 6.9% 95.9% 91.4% 95.0% -4.5% 3.6% Florida 1994 3.50 80.2% 84.4% 88.3% 4.1% * 3.9%* 89.9% 92.1% 93.2% 2.2% * 1.1% Georgia 1991 3.40 69.1% 81.6% 81.3%
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • Table 1.15 Monthly Telephone Rates in the Sample Cities for a Business with a Key-System Line (As of October 15), 1990-2001...........................................26 Table 1.16 Connection Charges for Three Key-System Business Lines in the Sample Cities (As of October 15), 1990-2001...........................................28 iii Table 1.17 Average Local Rates for Businesses with a PBX Trunk in Urban Areas (As of October 15, 2001)..........30 Table 1.18 Average Local Rates for a Business with a PBX Trunk in Urban Areas (As of October 15), 1989-2001.........31 Table 1.19 Monthly Telephone Rates in the Sample Cities for a Business with a PBX Trunk (As of October 15), 1990-2001...........................................32 Table 1.20 Connection Charges for Three PBX Trunks in the Sample Cities (As of October 15), 1990-2001.....................34 B. Toll Service Rates...........................................................................................................36
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 1.15 Monthly Telephone Rates in the Sample Cities for a Business with a Key- System Line (As of October 15), 1990-2002 ii Table 1.16 Connection Charges for Three Key-System Business Lines in the Sample Cities (As of October 15), 1990-2002 Table 1.17 Average Local Rates for Businesses with a PBX Trunk in Urban Areas (As of October 15, 2002) Table 1.18 Average Local Rates for a Business with a PBX Trunk in Urban Areas (As of October 15), 1989-2002 Table 1.19 Monthly Telephone Rates in the Sample Cities for a Business with a PBX Trunk (As of October 15), 1990-2002 Table 1.20 Connection Charges for Three PBX Trunks in the Sample Cities (As of October 15), 1999 -2002 Table 1.21 Basic
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • 1.10 0.99 78Federal government enterprises 79,082 452 0.57 0.12 79State and local government enterprises 46,513 659 1.42 0.17 82General government industry 1,004,347 0.00 0.00 84Household industry 13,111.00 0.00 0.00 Personal consumption expenditures 6,246,517 158,405 2.54 Gross private fixed investment 1,577,194 9,262 0.59 Changes in private inventories 59,500 0.00 Exports 909,737 5,597 0.62 Imports -1,159,626 0.00 Federal government purchases 565,000 6,670 1.18 State and local government purchases 1,076,000 12,942 1.20 Gross Domestic Product 25,274,351 192,877 0.76 Intermediate Use 6,998,244 191,609 2.74 Total Commodity Output 16,272,567 384,486 2.36 Table 2.7 1999 Use of Communications Commodities by Industry - Continued I-O Industry Group Total Industry Output (Millions) Purchases of Communications Except Radio & Television (Millions) Percentage of Total Sales to Communications Except Radio &
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 1.10 0.99 78Federal government enterprises 79,082 452 0.57 0.12 79State and local government enterprises 46,513 659 1.42 0.17 82General government industry 1,004,347 0.00 0.00 84Household industry 13,111.00 0.00 0.00 Personal consumption expenditures 6,246,517 158,405 2.54 Gross private fixed investment 1,577,194 9,262 0.59 Changes in private inventories 59,500 0.00 Exports 909,737 5,597 0.62 Imports -1,159,626 0.00 Federal government purchases 565,000 6,670 1.18 State and local government purchases 1,076,000 12,942 1.20 Gross Domestic Product 25,274,351 192,877 0.76 Intermediate Use 6,998,244 191,609 2.74 Total Commodity Output 16,272,567 384,486 2.36 Table 2.7 1999 Use of Communications Commodities by Industry - Continued I-O Industry Group Total Industry Output (Millions) Purchases of Communications Except Radio & Television (Millions) Percentage of Total Sales to Communications Except Radio &
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • Rates for a Business with a Key System Line, 1989-1997...............25 Table 1.15 Monthly Rates in the Sample Cities for a Business with a Key System Line, 1990-1997...26 Table 1.16 Connection Charges in the Sample Cities for Three Key System Business Lines, 1990-1997..28 Table 1.17 Average Local Rates for a Business with a PBX Trunk as of October 15, 1997............30 Table 1.18 Average Local Rates for a Business with a PBX Trunk, 1989-1997...................31 iii Table 1.19 Monthly Rates in the Sample Cities for a Business with a PBX Trunk, 1990-1997........32 Table 1.20 Connection Charges in the Sample Cities for Three PBX Trunks, 1990-1997...............34 B. Rates in Rural Areas.........................................36 Table 1.21 Average Monthly Rates of RUS Borrowers by State, 1996...................37 Table 1.22 Average
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • Rates for a Business with a Key System Line, 1989-1998.............25 Table 1.15 Monthly Rates in the Sample Cities for a Business with a Key System Line, 1990-1998...26 Table 1.16 Connection Charges in the Sample Cities for Three Key System Business Lines, 1990-1998..28 Table 1.17 Average Local Rates for a Business with a PBX Trunk as of October 15, 1998..........30 Table 1.18 Average Local Rates for a Business with a PBX Trunk, 1989-1998..................31 ii Table 1.19 Monthly Rates in the Sample Cities for a Business with a PBX Trunk, 1990-1998.......32 Table 1.20 Connection Charges in the Sample Cities for Three PBX Trunks, 1990-1998..............34 B. Rates in Rural Areas.....................................36 Table 1.21 Average Monthly Rates of RUS Borrowers by State, 1997.................37 Table 1.22 Average
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ror96.pdf
  • INC. 13.73 11.94 6.55 17.76 49.84 20.14 19.04 135UNITED TELEPHONE SYSTEM - MIDWEST GROUP 14.90 11.94 20.55 15.76 14.23 30.21 20.41 136WALNUT HILL TELEPHONE COMPANY 9.28 7.76 6.12 8.16 - 6.12 MAXIMUM RATE OF RETURN 25.08 MINIMUM RATE OF RETURN 4.22 ARITHMETIC MEAN RATE OF RETURN 12.91 STANDARD DEVIATION OF RATE OF RETURN 2.60 WEIGHTED ARITHMETIC MEAN 12.20 STANDARD DEVIATION 1.18 RATE OF RETURN SUMMARY JANUARY 1, 1987 - DECEMBER 31, 1988 SUMMARY OF REPORTS FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 1989 FINAL REPORT SWITCHED TRAFFIC SENSITIVE COMMONSPECIAL END LOCAL NAME OF COMPANY INTERSTATE LINE ACCESS OFFICEINFORMATIONTRANSPORTTOTAL AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. 1/ INTERSTATE: 11.00 NATIONAL EXCHANGE CARRIER ASSOCIATION 11.69% 12.08% 11.04% - - - 11.06% 1ILLINOIS BELL 9.62 12.05 7.03 8.76 (6.51) 9.16
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-95.pdf
  • na na na Total $65,305 $101,770 $167,076 100.00 -9 Table 3 Adjustment Formula Reporting Carriers Access LInes Adustment Formula as a % of Total Access Lines in Industry 100/%Reporting SOCC, 2.3 ALABAMA 91.52 1.09 ARIZONA 93.77 1.07 ARKANSAS 76.63 1.30 CALIFORNIA 98.48 1.02 COLORADO 95.70 1.04 CONNECTICUT 99.02 1.01 DELAWARE 100.00 1.00 DC 100.00 1.00 FLORIDA 98.47 1.02 GEORGIA 84.96 1.18 HAWAII 100.00 1.00 IDAHO 92.55 1.08 ILLINOIS 97.43 1.03 INDIANA 95.62 1.05 IOWA 83.83 1.19 KANSAS 84.00 1.19 KENTUCKY 76.44 1.31 LOUISIANA 92.83 1.08 MAINE 83.80 1.19 MARYLAND 99.81 1.00 MASSACHUSETTS 99.91 1.00 MICHIGAN 96.70 1.03 MINNESOTA 75.47 1.33 MISSISSIPPI 93.75 1.07 MISSOURI 93.36 1.07 MONTANA 69.54 1.44 NEBRASKA 87.24 1.15 NEVADA 31.46 3.18 NEW HAMPSHIRE 93.98 1.06 NEW JERSEY
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-96.pdf
  • 0.90 (0.41) 0.71 (0.22) 0.18 MINNESOTA 1.25 0.94 0.31 0.94 0.30 (0.01) MISSISSIPPI 1.83 0.98 0.85 1.02 0.82 (0.04) MISSOURI 1.32 0.95 0.37 0.92 0.41 0.03 MONTANA 7.53 0.96 6.56 1.19 6.34 (0.22) NEBRASKA 1.77 0.97 0.80 1.02 0.74 (0.06) NEVADA 0.67 1.02 (0.35) 1.32 (0.65) (0.30) NEW HAMPSHIRE 0.97 1.06 (0.08) 1.37 (0.40) (0.31) NEW JERSEY 0.04 1.04 (1.00) 1.18 (1.14) (0.14) NEW MEXICO 3.51 1.01 2.49 1.28 2.23 (0.26) NEW YORK 0.53 0.96 (0.44) 0.97 (0.44) (0.00) NORTH CAROLINA 0.79 0.91 (0.12) 0.98 (0.19) (0.06) NORTH DAKOTA 4.94 0.86 4.09 1.24 3.70 (0.39) OHIO 0.23 0.92 (0.69) 0.90 (0.67) 0.02 OKLAHOMA 2.65 0.94 1.70 0.92 1.72 0.02 OREGON 1.67 1.00 0.67 1.05 0.62 (0.05) PENNSYLVANIA 0.30 0.91 (0.61) 0.91
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-97.pdf
  • UTAH 1,268 0.10 3,567 0.27 (2,299) (0.17) VERMONT 3,291 0.70 1,382 0.29 1,910 0.40 VIRGINIA 3,349 0.06 13,907 0.26 (10,558) (0.20) WASHINGTON 12,471 0.30 10,267 0.24 2,204 0.05 WEST VIRGINIA 1,069 0.09 2,729 0.24 (1,660) (0.14) WISCONSIN 13,716 0.35 7,564 0.19 6,153 0.16 WYOMING 4,082 1.20 1,129 0.33 2,954 0.87 UNITED STATES 372,074 0.18 469,352 0.23 (97,277) (0.05) GUAM 1,036 1.18 199 0.23 838 0.95 N. MARIANA ISL. 0 0.00 26 0.10 (26) (0.10) PUERTO RICO 93,890 6.23 2,096 0.14 91,794 6.09 VIRGIN ISLANDS 4,936 6.75 264 0.36 4,671 6.39 GRAND TOTAL $471,936 $0.23 471,936 $0.23 $0 $0.00 16 Table 4 Local Switching Support (LSS): 1998 Annual Monthly Annual Monthly Annual Payments Monthly Payments Payment Payment Contribution Contribution Less Less (Thousand)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-99.pdf
  • 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.00 Florida 11,309,559 59.1 39.3 1.6 98.3 1.02 Georgia 5,208,825 83.3 0.6 16.2 89.5 1.12 Hawaii 722,416 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 1.00 Idaho 733,300 72.2 21.4 6.5 90.6 1.10 Illinois 8,330,425 85.1 11.6 3.3 96.5 1.04 Indiana 3,681,284 61.9 33.8 4.3 95.6 1.05 Iowa 1,677,629 64.9 20.8 14.3 82.1 1.22 Kansas 1,720,106 84.0 8.4 7.5 84.4 1.18 Kentucky 2,191,588 56.6 34.7 8.7 86.8 1.15 Louisiana 2,585,779 92.7 0.0 7.3 92.7 1.08 Maine 861,935 83.3 0.0 16.7 83.3 1.20 Maryland 3,840,931 99.8 0.0 0.2 99.8 1.00 Massachusetts 4,586,982 99.9 0.0 0.1 99.9 1.00 Michigan 6,531,214 84.4 12.4 3.2 96.4 1.04 Minnesota 3,069,719 73.2 13.8 13.0 73.2 1.37 Mississippi 1,420,042 93.4 0.4 6.2 93.4 1.07 Missouri 3,626,683 74.9 20.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend100.pdf
  • 1.38 1.28 1958 0.24 0.22 28.9 1.35 1.24 1959 0.24 0.22 29.1 1.35 1.23 1960 0.24 0.22 29.6 1.33 1.21 1961 0.25 0.22 29.9 1.36 1.20 1962 0.25 0.22 30.2 1.36 1.19 1963 0.25 0.22 30.6 1.32 1.17 1964 0.25 0.22 31.0 1.31 1.16 1965 0.24 0.22 31.5 1.24 1.14 1966 0.24 0.22 32.4 1.22 1.11 1967 0.24 0.22 33.4 1.18 1.07 1968 0.24 0.22 34.8 1.11 1.03 1969 0.24 0.22 36.7 1.07 0.98 * 1984 through 1991 were supplied by AT&T. Starting with 1992, data are from Industry Analysis Division, Telecommunications Industry Revenue. 14 - 7 TABLE 14.6 INDICATORS OF LONG DISTANCE PRICES - CONTINUED Restated in 1998 Dollars Average Revenue per Minute for Interstate and International Calls * AT&T
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend199.pdf
  • Frontier 1.15 0.23 1.27 0.40 4.89 735 1,659 2,396 SNET 0.24 0.00 1.29 0.28 3.48 3,178 5,095 8,276 Sprint Local 1.27 0.37 1.06 0.26 4.44 8,152 12,632 20,914 Citizens 2.79 1.32 1.85 0.42 8.98 1,077 1,431 2,520 Cincinnati Bell 0.47 0.00 0.83 0.17 2.56 1,111 1,799 2,912 All Price Caps 0.80 0.12 0.91 0.33 3.52 170,964 300,966 474,665 NECA 1.00 1.18 3.57 0.08 9.80 11,751 13,622 13,365 All Carriers* 0.82� 0.16� 0.98� 0.32� 3.71� 182,715 314,588 488,030 SOURCE: ACCESS TARIFF FILINGS. CCL MINUTES FOR PACIFIC TELESIS ARE FROM ARMIS 43-01. * The "All Carriers" rates are average rates (weighted by minutes of use) for all local exchange carriers (LECs) that file access tariffs subject to price-cap regulation and all LECs in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend200.pdf
  • 1.36 1955 0.23 0.22 26.8 1.43 1.37 1956 0.23 0.22 27.2 1.43 1.35 1957 0.24 0.22 28.1 1.41 1.30 1958 0.24 0.22 28.9 1.38 1.27 1959 0.24 0.22 29.1 1.38 1.26 1960 0.24 0.22 29.6 1.36 1.24 1961 0.25 0.22 29.9 1.39 1.23 1962 0.25 0.22 30.2 1.40 1.21 1963 0.25 0.22 30.6 1.35 1.20 1964 0.25 0.22 31.0 1.34 1.18 1965 0.24 0.22 31.5 1.27 1.16 1966 0.24 0.22 32.4 1.25 1.13 1967 0.24 0.22 33.4 1.21 1.10 1968 0.24 0.22 34.8 1.13 1.05 1969 0.24 0.22 36.7 1.09 1.00 1/ Estimates for 1930 through 1981 are based on information in AT&T Long Lines Statistics, 1930-1963, 1946-1970, and 1960-1981, and appear to represent data for the conterminous U.S. only. Data
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend298.pdf
  • Frontier 1.19 0.26 1.29 0.36 4.93 735 1,659 2,396 SNET 0.34 0.00 1.29 0.28 3.60 3,178 5,095 8,276 Sprint Local 1.29 0.61 1.06 0.22 4.62 8,213 12,767 21,110 Citizens 2.64 1.57 1.85 0.42 9.06 1,077 1,431 2,520 Cincinnati Bell 0.55 0.00 0.85 0.17 2.69 1,111 1,799 2,912 All Price Caps 0.91 0.15 0.92 0.30 3.64 171,209 300,879 474,868 NECA 1.00 1.18 3.57 0.08 9.80 11,751 13,622 13,365 All Carriers 0.91� 0.20� 0.99� 0.30� 3.82� 182,960 314,501 488,233 SOURCE: ANNUAL FILINGS MADE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1998. CCL MINUTES FOR PACIFIC TELESIS ARE FROM 1997 ARMIS 43-01 REPORTS FILED AT THE COMMISSION. * This table shows average rates (weighted by minutes of use) for all local exchange carriers (LECs) that file access tariffs
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend299.pdf
  • 1.38 1.28 1958 24 22 28.9 1.35 1.24 1959 24 22 29.1 1.35 1.23 1960 24 22 29.6 1.33 1.21 1961 25 22 29.9 1.36 1.20 1962 25 22 30.2 1.36 1.19 1963 25 22 30.6 1.32 1.17 1964 25 22 31.0 1.31 1.16 1965 24 22 31.5 1.24 1.14 1966 24 22 32.4 1.22 1.11 1967 24 22 33.4 1.18 1.07 1968 24 22 34.8 1.11 1.03 1969 24 22 36.7 1.07 0.98 * Estimates for 1930 through 1981 are based on information in AT&T Long Lines Statistics, 1930-1963; 1946-1970, and 1960-1981 and appear to represent data for the conterminous U.S. only. Data prior to 1946 may not be comparable. Data for 1982 and 1983 were estimated using BLS price
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf
  • 6 - 6 Table 6.5 Top Providers of Pure Resale International MTS in 2000 Percent Number of Number of U.S. Carrier of Total Messages Minutes Revenues IMTS Resale Revenues ALLTEL Corporation 1,559,281 12,252,978 $5,838,683 0.08% AT&T Corp. 353,474,662 2,298,455,743 2,484,132,557 32.69 Bell Canada Enterprises, Inc. 71,427,372 217,973,289 155,935,865 2.05 BellSouth Corporation 25,196,714 70,606,702 13,917,569 0.18 Broadwing, Incorporated 145,719,704 631,357,576 89,788,377 1.18 Business Telecom, Inc. (BTI) 10,594,567 59,362,769 11,108,130 0.15 Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. 114,712,701 531,782,404 158,488,556 2.09 Cingular Wireless 14,520,524 51,714,209 26,625,853 0.35 Claircom Networks, Inc. 9,509,804 40,416,503 13,592,660 0.18 Covista, Inc. 39,098,373 65,163,956 7,819,675 0.10 Cox Communications, Inc. 454,386 3,714,101 7,449,070 0.10 Deutsche Telekom AG 7,758,797 19,383,682 9,574,419 0.13 Elephant Talk, Inc. 5,747,789 86,216,839 16,581,775 0.22 Empire One Telecommunications,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend504.pdf
  • 1960 29.6 0.24 1.47 2000 172.2 0.12 0.12 0.52 0.09 0.06 1961 29.9 0.25 1.50 2001 177.1 0.10 0.11 0.35 0.08 0.06 1962 30.2 0.25 1.51 2002 179.9 0.09 0.09 0.28 0.07 0.05 1963 30.6 0.25 1.46 1964 31.0 0.25 1.45 1965 31.5 0.24 1.37 1966 32.4 0.24 1.35 1967 33.4 0.24 1.31 1968 34.8 0.24 1.22 1969 36.7 0.24 1.18 Note: Data for some prior years have been revised. 1/ Billed revenue per minute for international service differs in Table 6.1 and Table 13.4. Data in Table 6.1 are calculated using all U.S. billed minutes and revenues. Data for Table 13.4 represent charges for most U.S. billed calls that originate or terminate in the United States. International-to-international revenues and reorigination,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
  • 1.75 1.39 8.22 10.00 9.62 8.22 13.50 12.39 Arkansas 7.02 8.25 7.46 0.00 3.50 0.95 0.00 1.75 0.47 7.02 10.00 7.93 7.02 13.50 8.88 California 3.95 8.25 6.69 2.18 3.50 2.48 1.09 1.75 1.24 5.04 10.00 7.92 7.22 13.50 10.40 Colorado 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.25 10.00 10.00 8.25 13.50 13.49 Connecticut 6.10 7.53 7.53 1.18 1.18 1.18 0.59 0.59 0.59 6.69 8.12 8.12 7.87 9.30 9.30 Delaware 8.23 8.23 8.23 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.15 1.15 1.15 9.38 9.38 9.38 11.68 11.68 11.68 District of Columbia 5.62 5.62 5.62 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 7.37 7.37 7.37 10.87 10.87 10.87 Florida 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.04 3.50 3.50 1.52 1.75 1.75 9.77 10.00 10.00 12.81 13.50
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
  • 1.36 1955 0.23 0.22 26.8 1.43 1.37 1956 0.23 0.22 27.2 1.43 1.35 1957 0.24 0.22 28.1 1.41 1.30 1958 0.24 0.22 28.9 1.38 1.27 1959 0.24 0.22 29.1 1.38 1.26 1960 0.24 0.22 29.6 1.36 1.24 1961 0.25 0.22 29.9 1.39 1.23 1962 0.25 0.22 30.2 1.40 1.21 1963 0.25 0.22 30.6 1.35 1.20 1964 0.25 0.22 31.0 1.34 1.18 1965 0.24 0.22 31.5 1.27 1.16 1966 0.24 0.22 32.4 1.25 1.13 1967 0.24 0.22 33.4 1.21 1.10 1968 0.24 0.22 34.8 1.13 1.05 1969 0.24 0.22 36.7 1.09 1.00 1/Estimates for 1930 through 1981 are based on information in AT&T Long Lines Statistics, 1930-1963, 1946-1970, and 1960-1981, and appear to represent data for the conterminous U.S. only. Data prior
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itltrd98.pdf
  • 1.34 1.00 0.35 0.93 0.56 1984 1,916 2,449 1,809 640 1,047 847 1.28 0.94 0.33 0.81 0.50 1985 2,181 2,679 1,907 772 1,234 1,007 1.23 0.87 0.35 0.82 0.52 1986 2,643 3,054 2,305 749 1,356 1,139 1.16 0.87 0.28 0.84 0.47 1987 3,155 3,656 2,721 934 1,569 1,339 1.16 0.86 0.30 0.85 0.48 1988 3,768 4,446 3,171 1,274 1,901 1,554 1.18 0.84 0.34 0.82 0.50 1989 4,463 5,270 3,649 1,621 2,249 1,789 1.18 0.82 0.36 0.80 0.51 1990 5,276 6,306 4,198 2,109 2,543 2,009 1.20 0.80 0.40 0.79 0.53 1991 5,997 7,272 4,745 2,527 2,818 2,049 1.21 0.79 0.42 0.73 0.52 1992 6,653 8,091 4,780 3,311 3,128 2,069 1.22 0.72 0.50 0.66 0.55 1993 7,501 8,927 5,031 3,894 3,397 1,997 1.19
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itltrd99.pdf
  • 1.34 1.00 0.35 0.93 0.56 1984 1,916 2,449 1,809 640 1,047 847 1.28 0.94 0.33 0.81 0.50 1985 2,181 2,679 1,907 772 1,234 1,007 1.23 0.87 0.35 0.82 0.52 1986 2,643 3,054 2,305 749 1,356 1,139 1.16 0.87 0.28 0.84 0.47 1987 3,155 3,656 2,721 934 1,569 1,339 1.16 0.86 0.30 0.85 0.48 1988 3,768 4,446 3,171 1,274 1,901 1,554 1.18 0.84 0.34 0.82 0.50 1989 4,463 5,270 3,649 1,621 2,249 1,789 1.18 0.82 0.36 0.80 0.51 1990 5,276 6,306 4,198 2,109 2,543 2,009 1.20 0.80 0.40 0.79 0.53 1991 5,997 7,272 4,745 2,527 2,818 2,049 1.21 0.79 0.42 0.73 0.52 1992 6,653 8,091 4,780 3,311 3,128 2,069 1.22 0.72 0.50 0.66 0.55 1993 7,501 8,927 5,031 3,894 3,397 1,997 1.19
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd00.pdf
  • 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 El Salvador 1.07 1.13 1.15 1.19 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69 France 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.04 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 Germany 15/ 1.06 1.08 1.12 1.08 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 Greece 1.09 1.12 1.17 1.17 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 Guatemala 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.18 1.19 1.15 1.17 1.07 1.00 0.83 0.67 Haiti 1.06 1.13 1.15 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.18 0.99 0.81 0.72 0.57 Hong Kong 1.40 1.43 1.48 1.46 1.37 1.08 0.90 0.59 0.47 0.35 0.54 India 2.37 2.15 2.16 2.13 1.88 1.56 1.38 1.01 0.96 0.81 0.66 Israel 1.36 1.32 1.35 1.34 1.25 1.10 1.16 0.98 1.01 0.79 0.47 Italy 1.07 1.05 1.08
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd01.pdf
  • 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 -73.3 El Salvador 1.19 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69 0.60 0.32 0.28 -74.2 France 1.04 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 0.41 0.33 0.22 -65.4 Germany 1.08 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.29 -43.2 Greece 1.17 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 0.62 0.25 0.27 -71.7 Guatemala 1.18 1.19 1.15 1.17 1.07 1.00 0.83 0.66 0.63 0.38 0.33 -67.0 Haiti 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.18 0.99 0.81 0.72 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.33 -58.7 Hong Kong 1.46 1.37 1.08 0.90 0.59 0.47 0.35 0.54 0.45 0.19 0.34 -27.4 India 2.13 1.88 1.56 1.38 1.01 0.96 0.81 0.66 0.64 0.51 0.40 -58.7 Israel 1.34 1.25 1.10 1.16 0.98 1.01 0.79 0.47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-1.pdf
  • ILEC industry based on USF loops. Column 1 of Table 1.17 shows USF loops at year-end 2001. Column 2 shows the percent of the ILEC industry that is included in the tables in the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers. It is the average for year-end 2000 and 2001 data.24 The adjustment formula in Column 3 is (100/Column 2). In Table 1.18, ILECs' local exchange revenues are allocated based on local exchange service and miscellaneous revenues from Table 2.10 of the 2001/2002 Statistics of Communications 21 Revenues for Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands are not estimated using data from the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers because these jurisdictions have no telephone companies subject to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • by Study Area Unseparated High Cost Study Unseparated Number NTS Revenue Loop Support Area NTS Revenue of Requirement Payments in Code Type Study Area Name Requirement Loops per Loop Later Year* ARIZONA (CONT.) 452175 C CENTURYTEL OF SOUTHWEST, INC.-AZ 21.64 1.23 20.16 62.64 452176 C VALLEY TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE INC-AZ 21.68 0.34 21.27 39.35 452179 C GILA RIVER TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. 14.70 1.18 13.36 22.34 452191 C ACCIPITER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 10.34 11.30 -0.86 10.00 452200 C FORT MOJAVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. 5.12 6.97 -1.72 0.46 452226 C MIDVALE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, INC.-ARIZONA 36.02 3.25 31.73 51.68 452302 C VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. - AZ -11.83 2.18 -13.72 -44.99 453334 C TABLE TOP TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. 16.77 2.23 14.23 29.78 454426 C CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO OF WHITE
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-intro.pdf
  • Area ........................................... Table 3.25 High-Cost Support Payment Projections - Total by Jurisdiction ...................... Table 3.15 High-Cost Support Payment Projections - Total by Study Area ........................Table 3.30 High-Cost Support Mechanisms � Payments per Loop by State ....................... Table 3.16 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll Revenues ...................................... Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ............................... Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ......................... Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-1.pdf
  • loops in the jurisdiction. 24 Estimated interstate telephone revenues for Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands are determined by multiplying the nationwide average interstate telephone revenues per access minute by number of access minutes in the jurisdiction. 25 See Table 5.1 of the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers, 2002/2003 edition, 1 -10 In Table 1.18, ILECs' state local exchange revenues are allocated based on local exchange service and state miscellaneous revenues from Table 2.11 of the 2002/2003 Statistics of Communications Common Carriers. Local exchange revenues for allocation are the product of reported ILECs' local exchange service and miscellaneous revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Allocation percentages in each state are the ratio of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-2.pdf
  • 1.75 1.36 8.22 10.00 9.59 8.22 13.50 12.30 Arkansas 7.04 8.25 7.47 0.00 3.50 0.92 0.00 1.75 0.46 7.04 10.00 7.93 7.04 13.50 8.85 California 5.25 8.25 6.66 2.18 3.50 2.46 1.09 1.75 1.23 6.34 10.00 7.89 8.52 13.50 10.35 Colorado 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.75 8.25 10.00 10.00 8.25 13.50 13.49 Connecticut 6.10 7.53 7.53 1.18 1.18 1.17 0.59 0.59 0.59 6.69 8.12 8.11 7.87 9.30 9.28 Delaware 8.23 8.23 8.23 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.15 1.15 1.15 9.38 9.38 9.38 11.68 11.68 11.68 District of Columbia 5.62 5.62 5.62 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 7.37 7.37 7.37 10.87 10.87 10.87 Florida 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.04 3.50 3.50 1.52 1.75 1.75 9.77 10.00 10.00 12.81 13.50
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
  • 2.23 9.60 46.76 401713 C NORTHERN ARKANSAS TEL. CO.,INC. 4.41 0.95 3.43 3.82 401718 A>CPRAIRIE GROVE TELEPHONE COMPANY 2.42 1.84 0.56 -2.93 401720 C CENTURYTEL OF REDFIELD, INC. 4.19 -6.81 11.80 13.54 401721 C RICE BELT TEL. CO.,INC. -11.72 -1.50 -10.38 -32.66 401722 A E. RITTER TELEPHONE COMPANY 4.90 -4.53 9.88 30.23 401724 C SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS TEL. COOP. INC. -0.43 1.18 -1.59 -6.00 401726 C TRI-COUNTY TEL. CO. INC.-AR -10.48 -2.97 -7.74 -18.69 401727 C CENTURYTEL OF SOUTH ARKANSAS, INC. 1.43 2.20 -0.75 -1.50 401729 C WALNUT HILL TELEPHONE COMPANY -1.17 0.82 -1.97 -3.94 401733 C YELCOT TEL. CO.,INC. -3.46 0.07 -3.53 -16.69 401734 C YELL COUNTY TELEPHONE COMPANY 3.50 -0.50 4.02 3.21 403031 C SCOTT COUNTY TELEPHONE COMPANY -5.37 9.09
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-intro.pdf
  • Support Payment Projections - Total by State - ILECs and CLECs ..... Table 3.14 High-Cost Support Payment Projections - Total by Study Area ........................Table 3.29 High-Cost Support Mechanisms � Monthly Support per Loop by State .............. Table 3.15 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-7.pdf
  • Frontier 1.19 0.26 1.29 0.36 4.93 735 1,659 2,396 SNET 0.34 0.00 1.29 0.28 3.60 3,178 5,095 8,276 Sprint Local 1.29 0.61 1.06 0.22 4.62 8,213 12,767 21,110 Citizens 2.64 1.57 1.85 0.42 9.06 1,077 1,431 2,520 Cincinnati Bell 0.55 0.00 0.85 0.17 2.69 1,111 1,799 2,912 All Price Caps 0.91 0.15 0.92 0.30 3.64 171,209 300,879 474,868 NECA 1.00 1.18 3.57 0.08 9.80 11,751 13,622 13,365 All Carriers 0.91� 0.20� 0.99� 0.30� 3.82� 182,960 314,501 488,233 SOURCE: ANNUAL FILINGS MADE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1998. CCL MINUTES FOR PACIFIC TELESIS ARE FROM 1997 ARMIS 43-01 REPORTS FILED AT THE COMMISSION. * This table shows average rates (weighted by minutes of use) for all local exchange carriers (LECs) that file access tariffs
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-7.pdf
  • 1.38 1.28 1958 24 22 28.9 1.35 1.24 1959 24 22 29.1 1.35 1.23 1960 24 22 29.6 1.33 1.21 1961 25 22 29.9 1.36 1.20 1962 25 22 30.2 1.36 1.19 1963 25 22 30.6 1.32 1.17 1964 25 22 31.0 1.31 1.16 1965 24 22 31.5 1.24 1.14 1966 24 22 32.4 1.22 1.11 1967 24 22 33.4 1.18 1.07 1968 24 22 34.8 1.11 1.03 1969 24 22 36.7 1.07 0.98 * Estimates for 1930 through 1981 are based on information in AT&T Long Lines Statistics, 1930-1963; 1946-1970, and 1960-1981 and appear to represent data for the conterminous U.S. only. Data prior to 1946 may not be comparable. Data for 1982 and 1983 were estimated using BLS price
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-7.pdf
  • Frontier 1.15 0.23 1.27 0.40 4.89 757 1,662 2,450 SNET 0.24 0.00 1.29 0.28 3.48 3,323 5,131 8,624 Sprint Local 1.27 0.37 1.06 0.26 4.44 8,444 12,767 22,207 Citizens 2.79 1.32 1.85 0.42 8.98 1,252 1,431 2,566 Cincinnati Bell 0.47 0.00 0.83 0.17 2.56 1,077 1,604 3,095 All Price Caps 0.80 0.12 0.91 0.33 3.52 177,797 302,730 484,890 NECA**** 1.00 1.18 3.57 0.08 9.80 12,885 14,715 14,590 All Carriers* 0.82� 0.16� 0.98� 0.32� 3.71� 190,682 317,445 499,480 SOURCE: ACCESS TARIFF FILINGS. * The "All Carriers" rates are average rates (weighted by minutes of use) for all local exchange carriers (LECs) that file access tariffs subject to price-cap regulation and all LECs in the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) pool. Rates are
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs01-0.pdf
  • 2.69 2.31 0.38 -18.02 250281 C CONTEL SO. DBA GTE SYSTEM SO. - AL 3.01 3.74 -0.70 -31.97 250282 C BLOUNTSVILLE TEL. CO., INC. 3.66 6.24 -2.42 -2.91 250283 A BRINDLEE MOUNTAIN TEL. CO. 12.50 3.26 8.95 0.00 250284 C BUTLER TEL. CO., INC. + GOSHEN + GROVE HILL -0.36 1.87 -2.19 -6.90 250285 A CASTLEBERRY TEL. CO., INC. 1.29 1.18 0.11 -27.13 250286 A NATIONAL TEL. CO. OF AL 7.87 2.33 5.41 46.74 250290 C FARMERS TEL. COOP., INC.-AL 0.96 6.17 -4.91 -24.46 250293 C GTE SOUTH INC.-AL -4.95 5.36 -9.78 -62.89 250295 A GRACEBA TOTAL COMM. -0.79 2.61 -3.31 0.00 250296 C GOSHEN TEL. CO. Merged into 250284BUTLER TEL. CO., INC. 250297 C GROVE HILL TEL. CORP. Merged into
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • .............. Table 3.30 High-Cost Support Payment Projections - Total by Jurisdiction ...................... Table 3.13 High-Cost Support Payment Projections - Total by Study Area ....................... Table 3.31 High-Cost Support Mechanisms � Net Dollar Flow by State ......................... Table 3.19 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll Revenues ...................................... Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ............................... Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ......................... Table 1.25 3 Index of Tables
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/QualSvc/qual98.pdf
  • Dissatisfied Overall: Residential 2.90 2.25 6.28 3.83 3.99 7.12 8.79 3.68 Small Business 2.36 5.96 12.10 3.74 5.39 6.72 12.55 6.08 Large Business 10.86 9.18 3.92 20.24 6.21 8.21 NA 1.34 Installations: Residential 4.13 8.66 5.19 14.13 3.10 5.83 5.37 7.53 Small Business 8.20 6.48 3.47 20.53 4.54 6.89 11.58 14.23 Large Business 9.38 11.36 NA 23.42 7.42 11.21 NA 1.18 Repairs: Residential 9.55 20.69 8.72 27.33 7.41 8.44 10.66 12.83 Small Business 10.88 9.20 4.32 23.37 7.61 6.57 12.92 13.86 Large Business 11.83 13.17 NA 30.07 7.93 7.94 NA 1.32 Business Office: Residential 5.94 11.17 5.21 18.90 2.07 7.15 2.23 2.08 Small Business 6.02 5.22 2.31 15.86 4.02 6.64 3.59 4.62 Large Business 13.37 9.79 NA 12.51 2.70 13.78 NA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • RI South Carolina 383.5 9.05 374.5 83.6 290.8 150.8 54.5 82.6 287.8 3.019SC South Dakota 82.7 1.52 81.2 20.5 60.7 22.7 11.7 25.9 60.3 0.434SD Tennessee 513.1 12.37 500.7 38.5 462.3 232.7 86.1 138.0 456.8 5.532TN Texas 2,825.8 24.47 2,801.4 724.8 2,076.5 959.4 289.4 827.6 2,076.3 0.204TX Utah 265.7 6.64 259.1 36.4 222.6 96.7 38.9 85.2 220.8 1.894UT Vermont 82.7 1.18 81.5 12.9 68.6 27.9 19.9 20.9 68.6 VT Virginia 1,170.4 21.47 1,148.9 313.3 835.6 395.0 123.7 315.7 834.4 1.131VA Washington 940.7 16.75 923.9 235.5 688.4 317.3 108.5 258.4 684.1 4.234WA West Virginia 217.6 1.93 215.7 46.7 169.0 95.4 31.1 42.2 168.7 0.279WV Wisconsin 475.8 0.51 475.3 91.0 384.3 169.1 71.0 144.2 384.2 0.185WI Wyoming 76.0 6.27 69.7 6.5 63.2 25.1
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/01socc.pdf
  • 2.55 181.9 20.1 161.8 65.1 29.3 67.4 161.8 NH New Jersey 1,498.1 22.06 1,476.0 261.2 1,214.8 556.5 140.1 518.4 1,215.0 (0.193)NJ New Mexico 226.2 4.56 221.6 46.6 175.0 69.8 29.8 69.3 168.9 6.128NM New York 2,486.6 37.91 2,448.6 387.8 2,060.8 958.7 256.1 846.0 2,060.8 NY North Carolina 1,130.3 11.83 1,118.5 305.5 813.0 386.4 108.6 304.0 799.0 13.994NC North Dakota 69.4 1.18 68.2 14.7 53.5 16.4 11.5 24.1 52.0 1.493ND Ohio 1,428.6 4.55 1,424.0 339.7 1,084.3 486.7 148.3 449.3 1,084.3 0.013OH Oklahoma 324.7 324.7 37.9 286.7 123.2 42.7 120.8 286.7 OK Oregon 528.4 9.65 518.8 99.8 419.0 180.7 63.5 165.3 409.5 9.497OR Pennsylvania 1,760.9 23.74 1,737.2 457.7 1,279.5 551.6 149.7 514.9 1,216.2 63.285PA Rhode Island 108.1 1.99 106.1 6.1 100.0 49.9 13.9
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/02socc.pdf
  • 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.38 France 9/ 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Germany 9/ 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Greece 9/ 2.19 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.27 Guatemala 9/ 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.38 Haiti 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.92 0.70 0.60 0.46 Hong Kong 9/ 1.90 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 India 2.25 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.42 1.28 1.08 0.85 0.68 0.46 0.46 Israel 8/ 9/ 2.40 2.28 2.16 2.16 1.90
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/03socc.pdf
  • Dominican Republic 1.36 1.29 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.38 0.38 Egypt 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 El Salvador 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 France 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 Germany 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 Greece 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 Guatemala 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.51 Haiti 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.92 0.70 0.60 0.46 Hong Kong 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 India 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.42 1.28 1.08 0.85 0.68 0.46 0.46 Israel 2.28 2.16 2.16 1.90 1.18 0.70 0.59 Italy 1.65 1.51 1.22 0.71 0.52 0.33 Jamaica 1.55 1.50 1.40 1.40
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • DISCOUNT ECONOMY 8AM-6PM 6PM-MIDN MIDN-8AM 8AM-6PM 6PM-MIDN MIDN-8AM ARGENTINA INTERNATIONAL DIAL $2.22 $1.47 $1.22 $1.97 $1.30 $1.09 ALL OTHER* 3.60 2.75 2.24 1.97 1.30 1.14 2PM-8PM 8PM-3AM 3AM-2PM 2PM-8PM 8PM-3AM 3AM-2PM AUSTRALIA (INCLUDING TASMANIA) INTERNATIONAL DIAL 1.93 1.26 1.10 1.71 1.12 0.99 ALL OTHER* 3.19 2.57 1.79 1.48 1.29 1.19 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM 6PM-7AM 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM 6PM-7AM AUSTRIA INTERNATIONAL DIAL 1.59 1.18 1.07 1.44 1.07 0.98 ALL OTHER* 2.08 1.54 1.32 1.46 1.09 0.99 8AM-5PM 5PM-11PM 11PM-8AM 8AM-5PM 5PM-11PM 11PM-8AM BAHAMAS INTERNATIONAL DIAL 1.28 0.92 0.84 1.14 0.84 0.76 ALL OTHER* 1.30 1.09 0.99 1.19 1.05 0.99 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM 6PM-7AM 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM 6PM-7AM BELGIUM INTERNATIONAL DIAL 1.84 1.17 1.03 1.65 1.04 0.94 ALL OTHER* 2.10 1.58 1.26 1.67 1.06 0.95 8AM-5PM 5PM-11PM
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 0.55 1.05 1974 2.37 4.67 1.35 2.60 1.15 2.15 1.85 3.60 1.05 2.05 0.80 1.55 0.94 1.79 0.60 1.10 0.55 1.05 1975 12/ 2.16 4.16 1.40 2.70 0.86 1.66 1.90 3.65 1.24 2.37 0.76 1.46 1.40 2.65 0.91 1.72 0.56 1.06 1976 13/ 2.06 3.96 1.34 2.57 0.82 1.58 1.86 3.56 1.21 2.31 0.74 1.42 1.55 2.95 1.01 1.92 0.62 1.18 1977 14/ 2.06 3.96 1.34 2.57 0.82 1.58 1.86 3.56 1.21 2.31 0.74 1.42 1.59 3.04 1.03 1.98 0.64 1.22 1978 2.06 3.96 1.34 2.57 0.82 1.58 1.86 3.56 1.21 2.31 0.74 1.42 1.59 3.04 1.03 1.98 0.64 1.22 1979 2.06 3.96 1.34 2.57 0.82 1.58 1.86 3.56 1.21 2.31 0.74 1.42 1.59 3.04 1.03 1.98 0.64 1.22 1980 15/
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • OR COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (CNMI). ** INCLUDING REAL TIME RATED CALLS AND ALL COLLECT CALLS. 235 STATISTICS OF COMMUNICATIONS COMMON CARRIERS TABLE 5.6-AT&T RATES FOR LONG DISTANCE MESSAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE UNITED STATES-OVERSEAS DIAL STATION DIAL STATION COUNTRY STANDARD ECONOMY COUNTRY STANDARD ECONOMY ARGENTINA $2.17 $1.49ITALY $1.69 $1.20 AUSTRALIA 1.70 1.17JAMAICA 1.79 1.47 AUSTRIA 1.62 1.16JAPAN (INCLUDING OKINAWA) 1.63 1.18 BAHAMAS 1.29 1.04KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 2.04 1.43 BELGIUM 1.74 1.11NETHERLANDS 1.48 0.96 BERMUDA 1.40 1.16PAKISTAN 4.64 3.05 BRAZIL 2.07 1.51PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF 1.97 1.51 CHILE 1.96 1.54PERU 2.24 1.57 CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 2.92 2.26PHILIPPINES 2.44 1.64 COLOMBIA 2.09 1.53POLAND, REPUBLIC OF 1.77 1.42 COSTA RICA 1.85 1.38PORTUGAL (INCLUDING AZORES 1.85 1.20 DENMARK 1.64 1.08 AND MADEIRA ISLANDS) DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • 31,566 23,123 1,542 COSTS & EXPENSES 4,305 12,961 1/ 45,736 24,938 17,219 1,364 INTEREST EXPENSE 264 611 427 1,335 837 112 OTHER INCOME & ADJUSTMENTS 2/ 347 2,055 2,410 (352) 684 13 INCOME TAXES 447 2,031 3,072 2,008 2,224 22 NET INCOME 525 3,606 6,398 2,933 3,527 57 EARNINGS PER SHARE 1.91 3.27 3.59 1.89 1.79 0.22 DIVIDENDS PER SHARE 1.18 1.22 1.32 1.54 0.73 0 AVG. SHARES OUTSTANDING (MIL.) 274 1,102 1,800 1,578 1,970 259 TOTAL ASSETS 9,374 30,299 59,550 55,144 39,410 5,293 PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIP. (NET) 4,828 14,305 26,903 36,816 23,940 4,049 LONG-TERM DEBT 3,492 5,557 5,556 17,646 8,715 1,900 SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY 3,271 10,897 25,522 13,025 16,110 1,793 OPERATING DATA: CUSTOMER LINES (THOUS.) 1,890 20,968 - 41,600 24,025
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
  • 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.90 El Salvador 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.60 France 1.71 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.20 Germany 1.71 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 Greece 2.32 2.19 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 0.29 Guatemala 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.58 Hong Kong 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 0.14 0.13 India 2.25 2.25 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.42 1.28 1.08 1.08 Israel 2.40 2.40 2.28 2.16 2.16 1.90 1.18 0.70 0.59 0.30 0.30 Italy 2.14 2.04 1.65 1.51 1.22 0.71 0.52 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.21 Jamaica 1.65 1.60 1.55 1.50 1.40
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/prelim02socc.pdf
  • 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.38 France 10/ 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Germany 10/ 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Greece 10/ 2.19 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.27 Guatemala 10/ 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.38 Haiti 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.92 0.70 0.60 0.46 Hong Kong 10/ 1.90 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 India 2.25 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.42 1.28 1.08 0.85 0.68 0.46 0.46 Israel 8/ 10/ 2.40 2.28 2.16 2.16 1.90
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/scard95.pdf
  • of any tele- phone numbers identified by consumers as unlisted or unpublished. Consumers' privacy is protected by prohibiting the use of the in- formation contained in the notification for marketing and other non-investigative purposes. Service of a complaint does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing by the served company. 11 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION � WASHINGTON, D.C. 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.12 0.89 1.18 1.35 2.26 2.94 3.30 5.63 9.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Son ic* Fur st Equ alN et Hea rtlin e Com Tel Nat ionw ide Nat Acc ts Net Ser v Fro ntie r-ld LDD S MC I AT& T Spr int SLAMMING Figure 1 Figure 1 Shows the slamming complaint ratios for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.txt
  • 0.52 California $ 118.51 $ 9.88 Connecticut $ 14.34 $ 1.20 Illinois $ 45.62 $ 3.80 Indiana $ 14.57 $ 1.21 Kansas $ 8.83 $ 0.74 Michigan $ 35.32 $ 2.94 Missouri $ 16.31 $ 1.36 Nevada $ 2.31 $ 0.19 Ohio $ 26.72 $ 2.23 Oklahoma $ 10.57 $ 0.88 Texas $ 61.48 $ 5.12 Wisconsin $ 14.18 $ 1.18 $ 375.00 $ 31.25 ATTACHMENT A-6 (cont'd) YEAR 3 CIPP CAPS ($M) State Annual Monthly Arkansas $ 8.32 $ 0.69 California $ 158.02 $ 13.17 Connecticut $ 19.12 $ 1.59 Illinois $ 60.82 $ 5.07 Indiana $ 19.42 $ 1.62 Kansas $ 11.78 $ 0.98 Michigan $ 47.10 $ 3.93 Missouri $ 21.75 $ 1.81 Nevada $ 3.08 $ 0.26
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • Service > 24 Hours - Res. 29.18 60 20.52 0 24.9 0 31.72 NA 26.66 0 a,b,c MR-5 � Repeat Trouble Reports MR-5-01-2100 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 15.94 8 14.64 9.84 13.37 9.8 13.86 6.12 13.56 13.43 2-Wire Digital Services - Maintenance MR-2 � Trouble Report Rate MR-2-02-2341 Network Trouble Report Rate � Loop 0.48 0 0.79 0 1.18 1.2 0.23 0 0.36 0 MR-2-03-2341 Network Trouble Report Rate � Central Office 0.38 0 0.23 0.65 0.32 1.2 0.27 0 0.36 0 MR-2-04-2341 % Subsequent Reports 21.74 NA 21.43 0 13.16 20 NA NA b,c MR-2-05-2341 % CPE/TOK/FOK Trouble Report Rate 2.42 1.38 2.32 3.25 1.59 0 3.77 5.29 MR-3 � Missed Repair Appointments MR-3-01-2341 % Missed Repair Appointment
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1701A1.html
  • is in compliance with the labeling requirements of Section 15.19 of the Rules15 but admits that the HSB1 was not compliant with Section 2.925 of the Rules,16 which requires a label listing the FCC Identifier.17 Hawking claims it was unaware of the requirements of Section 2.925 but will take measures to comply before it resumes production and shipment of the HSB1.18 III. DISCUSSION 7. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that ``[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.'' Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's implementing regulations provides that: Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.pdf
  • 1.08 1.31 1.39 201 - 210 1.10 1.10 1.20 211 - 220 0.50 1.10 0.80 221 - 230 1.00 0.90 1.10 231 - 240 0.90 1.00 1.80 241 - 250 1.40 1.40 1.00 251 - 260 0.90 1.70 1.40 261 - 270 0.70 2.10 2.30 271 - 280 0.40 0.50 0.30 281 - 290 1.00 1.20 1.40 > 290 0.50 1.18 0.67 > 200 0.85 1.22 1.20 Table 3 presents additional information on the distribution of LPFM stations within markets. As demonstrated, about one-third of markets do not have any LPFM stations. In 2005, over 88 percent of the Arbitron Metros had less than 3 LPFM stations physically located in the market. In 2007 and 2009, it was still the case
• http://www.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html
  • http://www.fcc.gov/updates.html 6. http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ 7. http://www.fcc.gov/initiatives.html 8. http://fcc.gov/consumers/ 9. http://www.fcc.gov/people.html 10. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html#skipcrumb 11. http://www.fcc.gov/ 12. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/Welcome.html 13. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 14. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=search_tips&ref=w 15. http://search2.fcc.gov/search/index.htm?job=advanced_search&ref=w 16. http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fccdotgov 17. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room.html#skippagenav 18. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/Welcome.html 19. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/foiahandbook.pdf 20. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/quickfactsheet.pdf 21. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/cfr.html 22. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/ 23. http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/bye?http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gils/index.html 24. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_guide07/text_foia.pdf 25. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/reading-room-cert.pdf 26. http://www.fcc.gov/portalsdir.html 27. http://www.fcc.gov/ 28. http://www.fcc.gov/fccsitemap.html 29. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/ 30. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 31. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/circ_items.cgi 32. http://www.fcc.gov/eb/ 33. http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/ 34. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-77A1.pdf 35. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.18.pdf 36. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.61.pdf 37. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4050.pdf 38. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4140.pdf 39. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4266.pdf 40. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4267.pdf 41. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.4280.pdf 42. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf 43. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-90A1.pdf 44. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/Orders/1997/fcc97218.pdf 45. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/47cfr1.80.pdf 46. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/fcc00072.doc 47. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-53A1.pdf 48. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1999/fcc99124.txt 49. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-63A1.pdf 50. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-337A1.pdf 51. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-401A1.pdf 52. http://www.fcc.gov/owd/fcc_eeo_policy_statement.html 53. http://www.fcc.gov/owd/fcc_anti_harassment_statement.html 54. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/2000/fcc00207.doc 55. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1999/fcc99354.txt 56. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/80-621.pdf 57. http://www.fcc.gov/statelocal/recommendation1.html 58. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-1980.pdf 59. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1986.pdf 60. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1990.pdf 61. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1991.pdf 62. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-character-qualifications-1992.pdf 63. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-1992.pdf 64. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-time-brokerage-rev-1992.pdf 65. http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/e-room-childrens-tv-1974.pdf
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/csreport.pdf
  • 2,635 68 0.11 1.04 1.75 3.63 7 29 21 24 n.a.Malaysia 680 1,927 0 2,607 173 0.35 0.37 0.37 1.54 1 30 18 15 26Spain 1,493 1,057 2 2,552 1,878 1.41 1.73 1.65 6.01 Top 30 International Points Circuits 281,175 535,916 34,440 851,531 329,906 0.49 0.75 1.09 1.28 Total for all International Points 310,401 561,786 34,711 906,898 344,695 0.52 0.81 1.18 1.41 Top 30 as % of all Intern'l Points 90.6% 95.4% 99.2% 93.9% 95.7% Regional Total Western Europe 87,857 276,164 20,796 384,817 105,885 0.30 0.47 0.85 0.93 Africa 2,756 4,519 0 7,275 947 0.61 1.79 3.55 5.82 Middle East 2,970 8,824 270 12,064 1,109 0.33 0.86 2.21 3.13 Caribbean 8,828 3,296 0 12,124 4,295 2.68 4.55 5.52 5.00 North and
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/mex-bc/am.pdf
  • network shall aot exceed 0.1 Hz. The sodulation delay between any two transmitters in the network shall not exceed LO@ ukroseconds,when measured at either transmftter site. StatiOU wwer L.16 I.17 Unmodulated carr-fer power supplied to the antenna. Groundwave Electromagnetic wave vhfch is propagated aloag the surface of the Earth or near it and which hasnot been rEElected by the ionosphere, 1.18 1.19 10% of the 1.20 SO% of the 1.21 horizontal conducting antenna. 1.22 Skywave Electromagnetic wave which has been reflected by the ionosphere= Skywave field strength, 10% of the time The value of a skywave stgnal vhlch is not exceeded for nmre than period of observation. Skyvave field strength, SO% of the time The value of a skyvave signal which
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files/ITRND01.pdf
  • 0.60 0.32 0.28 0.13 -84.3 France 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 0.41 0.33 0.22 0.25 -50.0 Germany 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.29 0.31 -22.1 Greece 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 0.62 0.25 0.27 0.23 -71.6 Guatemala 1.19 1.15 1.17 1.07 1.00 0.83 0.66 0.63 0.38 0.33 0.21 -75.3 Haiti 1.22 1.23 1.18 0.99 0.81 0.72 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.33 0.22 -69.4 Hong Kong 1.37 1.08 0.90 0.59 0.47 0.35 0.54 0.45 0.19 0.34 0.34 -3.8 India 1.88 1.56 1.38 1.01 0.96 0.81 0.66 0.64 0.51 0.40 0.24 -70.0 Israel 1.25 1.10 1.16 0.98 1.01 0.79 0.47 0.35 0.33 0.26 0.16 -79.7 Italy 1.05 1.02 1.00 0.79 0.74 0.70 0.59 0.55 0.34 0.25
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/11thMtgMinutes.pdf
  • March 8, 2002@ 9:40 AM Location: Federal Communications Commission Committee Members Present: J. Wengryniuk, Chairperson W. Rummler, Vice Chairperson FCC Employees Present: Ed Jacobs, Ron Netro Meeting Summary The minutes of the February 12th meeting (10th Meeting of IWG-4, Document IWG-4/24 were approved without change. No new documents were introduced. Mr. Wengryniuk summarized the status of the agenda items 1.13, 1.18, 1.25, 1.26, and 1.32 as follows: � Agenda Item 1.13: there are currently three documents (document 19 from Mr. Wengryniuk, and documents 22 and 23 from Skytower) addressing this agenda item. None of these documents were discussed at the meeting. At this point in time all concerns and issues regarding these documents are still open and IWG-4 will address this
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg4_draft_agenda_05_15_01.pdf
  • 2001 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from Last Meeting (See FCC website for minutes) 3. Discussion of IWG-4 Preliminary View Classified as "Premature/Inconsistent" in FCC PN (i.e. Doc WAC/033) 4. Discussion of any IWG-4 Preliminary Views for Which Comment was Received in FCC PN 5. Discussion of Latest RCS PVs (i.e. RCS PV on AI 1.18, See FCC website for text) 6. Future Meetings 7. AOB 8. Close
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_documents_list.pdf
  • Views on Agenda Item 1.32a (V-Band and RA) G. deDios 4/11/01 IWG-4/007 Approved IWG-4 Preliminary Views on Agenda Item 1.32b (V-Band and HDFS/FSS Sharing) G. deDios 4/11/01 IWG-4/008 Approved Meeting Minutes from 2nd Meeting of IWG-4 G. Rappaport 5/15/01 IWG-4/009 Approved IWG-4 Preliminary Views on Agenda Item 1.26 (ESVs) D. Jansky 5/16/01 IWG-4/010 Approved IWG-4 Preliminary Views on Agenda Item 1.18 (17.3-17.7 GHz R1) G. Creeser 5/15/01 IWG-4/011 Approved Meeting Minutes from 3rd Meeting of IWG-4 D. Jansky 6/20/01 IWG-4/012 Approved Meeting Minutes from 4th Meeting of IWG-4 S. Kaltenmark 8/8/01 IWG-4/013 Approved Meeting Minutes from 5th Meeting of IWG-4 T. Hayden 8/8/01 IWG-4/014 Approved Meeting Minutes from 6th Meeting of IWG-4 G. Creeser 11/27/01 IWG-4/015 Tabled Draft proposal on SUP
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_1_16_02.pdf
  • the USA on this issue. Document 23 from Skytower proposed modifications to Resolution 734. The document adds a considering (d) that summarizes the actions taken by WRC-00. The chair suggested that the IWG-4 2 membership should consider the appropriate US reaction to a request for HAPS operation on a primary basis. There were no documents on Agenda items 1.32 or 1.18. Mr. Baruch indicated his intention to produce something on Agenda Item 1.32 for a future meeting. Future Meetings: The next meeting of IWG-4 will be held at the Federal Communications Commission on February 12, 2002, Room 6B516, at 9:30 am. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 AM. Other Business: None. Meeting Attendees: See attached attendance list. Meeting Summary Prepared
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_5_15_01.pdf
  • further addressed at future meetings as necessary. The APCO comments were addressed through the revised version of the IWG-4 PV on Agenda Item 1.26. Representatives of Winstar stated that their was no need to discuss their comments within IWG-4. 6. Views of the IRAC/Radio Conference Subcommittee (RCS) Representatives of DirecTV proposed a modification to the RCS views on agenda item 1.18, Doc. IWG-4/010. This modification added to the RCS view by placing special emphasis on the potential impact that a Region 1 primary FS allocation could have on constraining BSS downlinks in portions of Region 2. After a short discussion this PV was approved. 7. Future Meetings Future meeting dates were established as: June 20, and August 7, 2001, to be
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_april_11_01.pdf
  • ,SW, Washington, D.C. Committee Members Present: (See Attached Attendance List) FCC Employees Present: Ron Netro, Ed Jacobs Meeting Summary: Mr. Jack Wengryniuk chaired the meeting in accordance with the attached agenda. Following the introductions and approval of the agenda, Gene Rappoport agreed to take the minutes for this meeting. The chairman advised that there is no document for agenda item 1.18 as no preliminary view for this agenda item has as yet been discussed. He went on to explain the need to have preliminary views approved at this meeting in preparation for the full WAC meeting on 4/20. Preliminary views approved at the 4/20 meeting are intended to be able to go forward to the CITEL PCC III meeting in June.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_tor_doc_1.pdf
  • Service" and "Feasibility of use by HAPS in the Fixed and Mobile Services in the Frequency Bands Above 3 GHz Allocated Exclusively for Terrestrial Radiocommunication;" (A.I. 1.13) (2) consideration of a primary allocation to the fixed service in the band 17.3- 17.7 GHz for Region 1, taking into account the primary allocations to various services in all three Regions; (A.I. 1.18) (3) consideration of regulatory provisions and possible identification of spectrum for high density systems in the fixed-satellite service above 17.3 GHz; (A.I. 1.25) (4) consideration of the provisions under which earth stations located on board vessels could operate in fixed-satellite service networks, in accordance with Resolution 82 (WRC-2000); (A.I. 1.26) (5) consideration of technical and regulatory provisions concerning the band
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/peer_review/prlpfm_rpt_economic_study.pdf
  • formats are not offered by other local radio stations. 15SeeAppendix A.2. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-2 64 listenership to LPFM stations appears to represent less than 0.1 percent of total radio listenership in the Arbitron Metros.16In no Arbitron Metro does LPFM stations' total market share of listenership exceed 3.5 percent.17The small market share of LPFM stations is strikingly depicted in Figure1.18 14. In the next section of the EconomicStudy, we employ statistical techniques that confirm the assessments set forth in this section. 16SeeAppendix A.1. 17See id. 18We note, however, that there are some exceptions to these overall trends. Some LPFM stations have the goal of increasing audience, providing a format that is popular in their community,and/or obtaining significant funding from underwriting
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-broadband-dead-zone-report.pdf
  • SORN of which it is now or was previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ccd.pdf
  • system, e.g., why is the information being collected? A new SORN needs to be created to cover the personally identifiable information that individuals may submit voluntarily via the PSHSB Comment Card Database information system. PSHSB may use either and/or both the electronic and paper (hardcopy) comment cards in other PSHSB public events, such as summits, conferences, forums, expos, lectures, etc. 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? This information system will be located in the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB). 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-core-financial.pdf
  • in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? A new SORN needs to be created based on developing a new financial system and new business processes for payment activities. 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? The location of the CFSR information system that will be covered by this SORN will be determined when the award of the contract takes place, and who will host the CFSR information system. OMD-FO is also responsible for the uses of this PII in the information system's development,
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-criminal-investigative-files.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-crisis.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-dqc.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 11 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ecfs.pdf
  • (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 11 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-email.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-experimental-radio.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-faca.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 11 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-financial.pdf
  • Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? The new SORN is needed to be created to separate the business processes. 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? Office of the Managing Director-Financial Operations (OMD-FO). 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-foia.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-general-investigative-files.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ils.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-investigations-hearings.pdf
  • (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 11 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-labor-employee-relations.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 11 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-lmts.pdf
  • records notice (SORN) for this information system? The Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) uses the Legislative Management Tracking System (LMTS) to track the correspondence that OLA receives from Congress. This correspondence may include attachments from parties outside the FCC that contain personally identifiable information (PII), which are included as the basis or justification for sending the correspondence to the FCC. 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554. 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-pams.pdf
  • home or other designated location if needed, to notify the employee whether an emergency requires that he or she come to work or not. Participation in the PAMS information system is completely voluntary, e.g., FCC employees and contractors do not have to supply this information. The FCC requests this information along with periodic updates to keep any contact information current. 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? Associate Managing Director-Administrative Operations (AMD-AO), Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-C201, Washington, DC 20554. 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-pay-leave-garnish.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-personal-security-files.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-physical-access.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 11 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-reasonable-accommodation-requests.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 11 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-remedy.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-rmis.pdf
  • Management Information System (RMIS)." The RMIS will incorporate various new and existing financial operations into this new information system that will be used to store data, including personally identifiable information (PII) from individuals, when applicants, including individuals, businesses, institutions, etc., register to pay regulatory fees, apply for or renew licenses, and conduct other financial and telecommunications activities with the FCC. 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? The RMIS is located in the Financial Operations Division of the Office of the Managing Director (OMD-FO) at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554. 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed,
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-small-business-contacts.pdf
  • (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 11 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-telephone-call-details.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 12 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-transit.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-uls.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-violators.pdf
  • Notice (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pshsb-coop-plan.pdf
  • (SORN) of which it is currently or previously a component or subset: Please also provide the citation that was published in the Federal Register for the SORN: 10 1.17 What are the purposes or functions that make it necessary to create a new a system of records notice (SORN) for this information system, e.g., why is the information being collected? 1.18 Where is this information for the system of records notice (SORN) located? 1.19 Is the use of the information both relevant and necessary to the purposes for which the information system is designed, e.g., is the SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pta-broadband-dead-zone-report.pdf
  • significant harm, embarrassment, inconvenient, or unfairness. Please explain your response: 1.17 Is this impact level consistent with the guidelines as determined by the FIPS 199 assessment? Yes No Please explain your response: The Broadband Dead Zone Report and Consumer Broadband Test information system is a "non major" information system, and as such, it is exempt from the FIPS assessment guidelines. 1.18 When was "Certification and Accreditation" (C&A) last completed? The Broadband Dead Zone Report and Consumer Broadband Test information system is covered under the General Support Systems (GSS) C&A. 1.19 Has the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and/or the Chief Security Officer designated this information system as requiring an Independent risk assessment Independent security test and evaluation Other risk assessment and/or security
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pta-ccd.pdf
  • provide and that is done voluntarily will only consists of the business contact information, i.e., name, company telephone number, company e-mail address, etc. 1.17 Is this impact level consistent with the guidelines as determined by the FIPS 199 assessment? Yes No Please explain your response: The PSHSB Comment Card Database information system has not been given a FIPS 199 assessment. 1.18 When was "Certification and Accreditation" (C&A) last completed? The C&A for PSHSB Comment Card Database information system has not been done yet. 1.19 Has the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and/or the Chief Security Officer designated this information system as requiring an Independent risk assessment Independent security test and evaluation Other risk assessment and/or security testing procedure, etc. Not applicable. Please
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pta-clarity.pdf
  • aggregate IT funding/performance metrics. It does not involve any PII data. Therefore, an inadvertent breach of information is likely to pose only minimal impacts or security risks. 1.17 Is this impact level consistent with the guidelines as determined by the FIPS 199 assessment? Yes No Please explain your response: The security review is underway and will be completed in FY2010. 1.18 When was "Certification and Accreditation" (C&A) last completed? Clarity is a new application in the FCC inventory. IT Infrastructure Security group is performing a security review on the application. Clarity will have an approved security review before it is placed in service. 1.19 Has the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and/or the Chief Security Officer (CSO) designated this information system as
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pta-core-financial.pdf
  • such as SSNs in the data it collects, maintains, and uses, CFSR will also collect, maintain, and use confidential or sensitive financial data. 1.17 Is this impact level consistent with the guidelines as determined by the FIPS 199 assessment? Yes No Please explain your response: At this stage in its development, the CFSR has not received its FIPS 199 assessment. 1.18 When was "Certification and Accreditation" (C&A) last completed? At this stage in its development, the CFSR has not received its C&A. 1.19 Has the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and/or the Chief Security Officer designated this information system as requiring an Independent risk assessment Independent security test and evaluation Other risk assessment and/or security testing procedure, etc. Not applicable. Please explain
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pta-lmts.pdf
  • embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness. Results in significant harm, embarrassment, inconvenient, or unfairness. Please explain your response: 1.17 Is this impact level consistent with the guidelines as determined by the FIPS 199 assessment? Yes No Please explain your response: The LMTS information system is a "non major" information system, and as such, it is exempt for the FIPS 199 assessment guidelines. 1.18 When was "Certification and Accreditation" (C&A) last completed? The latest C&A package was signed off in December, 2008. 1.19 Has the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and/or the Chief Security Officer designated this information system as requiring an Independent risk assessment Independent security test and evaluation Other risk assessment and/or security testing procedure, etc. Not applicable. Please explain your response: LMTS
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pta-pams.pdf
  • embarrassment, inconvenient, or unfairness. Please explain your response: [you don't need to answer both 1.15 and 1.16] 1.17 Is this impact level consistent with the guidelines as determined by the FIPS 199 assessment? Yes No Please explain your response: The PAMS information system is a "non major" information system, and as such, it is exempt from the FIPS assessment guidelines. 1.18 When was "Certification and Accreditation" (C&A) last completed? PAMS is a minor information system, and no C&A has been completed for it. 1.19 Has the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and/or the Chief Security Officer designated this information system as requiring an 11 Independent risk assessment Independent security test and evaluation Other risk assessment and/or security testing procedure, etc. Not applicable.
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pta-rmis.pdf
  • that individuals, businesses, institutions, etc., provide to the FCC when these entities register to pay regulatory fees, apply for or renew a license, etc., including business information that business registrants provide, i.e., credit card data, bank accounts, etc. 1.17 Is this impact level consistent with the guidelines as determined by the FIPS 199 assessment? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.18 When was "Certification and Accreditation" (C&A) last completed? The C&A was completed in 2007. 1.19 Has the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and/or the Chief Security Officer designated this information system as requiring an Independent risk assessment Independent security test and evaluation Other risk assessment and/or security testing procedure, etc. Not applicable. Please explain your response: The staff in the Financial
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-a.pdf
  • 5: Who Benefits Whom among Blacks and Whites? Five-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) MSA White Pop ( 1) 0.0086 0.0085 0.0116 0.0085 0.0136 0.0095 0.0059 0.0093 (5.68)** (5.06)** (2.57)* (4.91)** (3.63)** (2.44)* (3.30)** (2.26)* MSA Black Pop ( 2) 0.0025 -0.0004 0.0156 -0.0005 0.0133 0.0264 0.0106 0.0259 (0.32) (0.05) (0.74) (0.06) (0.71) (1.32) (1.18) (1.22) Zip Black Fr. -0.1367 -0.1120 -0.0931 -0.1990 -0.1556 -0.0942 -0.1068 -0.1014 (19.45)** (15.44)** (5.91)** (6.16)** (9.82)** (6.00)** (15.11)** (0.91) Zip Black Fr.* White Pop ( 1- 1) -0.0426 -0.0419 -0.0712 -0.0397 -0.0687 -0.0726 -0.0397 -0.0665 (6.11)** (5.95)** (3.58)** (4.54)** (3.17)** (3.44)** (5.81)** (2.34)* Zip Black Fr.* Black Pop ( 2- 2) 0.1505 0.1221 0.1724 0.1172 0.2258 0.1791 0.1075 0.1755
• http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/outage/nors_manual.pdf
  • That is, if the values shown in the Notification are incorrect, it may be necessary first to update the Notification to an Initial report with the correct values before withdrawing it. 12 2.4 Upload XML File This screen allows you to submit outage reports in XML format. There is a utility provided to help you prepare XML files (see Section 1.18). Once you provide the name of the XML file, it will be uploaded to NORS according to the information in the file. 2.5 Request to Reopen a Report This screen allows outage coordinators to request to reopen either a Final or Withdrawn report. Recall that Final reports and Withdrawn reports cannot be updated. The request is then forwarded to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/comcast_separationagreement.pdf
  • or transferred to or retained by AT&T Broadband or any member of the AT&T Broadband Group; (f) any guarantee, indemnity, representation, warranty or other Liability of any member of the AT&T Communications Group in respect of any other AT&T Broadband Contract, any AT&T Broadband Liability or the AT&T Broadband Business; (g) any contract or agreement listed or described on Schedule 1.18(g), including in the case of commitment or similar contracts or agreements, contracts or agreements to the extent indicated on such Schedule; (NY) 05726/135/SPIN-OFF/bid.sda.wpd 12/19/01 1:51pm 8 (h) any letter of credit, surety bond, swap, foreign exchange or other instrument or contract primarily relating to the AT&T Broadband Group, together with any letters of credit, surety bonds, swaps, foreign exchange or
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/jtconsumer_reply060502.pdf
  • .77% .76% .76% 33% .81 .80 .79 .78 .77 50% .86 .84 .83 .81 .79 100% .99 .95 .93 .89 .88 10 PERCENT PRICE INCREASE MSO PROGRAM SERVICE CABLE OWNERSHIP OF MVPD SUBSCRIBERS OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE 30% 35% 40% 50% 60% 25% .83% .81% .80% .77% .76% 33% .88 .85 .83 .80 .78 50% .98 .94 .91 .86 .83 100% 1.26 1.18 1.12 1.04 .98 Besen, Stanley M. 2002. "Declaration" attached to "Application and Public Interest Statement," In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses Comcast Corporation and AT&T Corp., Transferors, To AT&T Comcast Corporation, Transferee, February 28. p. 19. 64 EXHIBIT V-3: % OF A NETWORK'S AUDIENCE THAT MUST DROP CABLE TO MAKE A 10
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/comsat-telenor/fcc01-369.pdf
  • Data, Transactional Data or Subscriber Information authorized by U.S. federal, state or local law. 1.16 "MES" means a mobile earth station (i.e., a hand-held, portable or other mobile terminal capable of receiving and/or transmitting Wire Communications or Electronic Communications by satellite). 1.17 "Non U.S.-Licensed MES" means an Inmarsat MES other than a U.S.-Licensed MES. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 01-369 31 1.18 "Party" or "Parties" have the meaning given in the Preamble. 1.19 "Pro forma assignments" or "pro forma transfers of control" are transfers or assignments that do not "involve a substantial change in ownership or control" of the licenses as provided in 47 C.F.R. 63.24. 1. 20"Sensitive Information" means unclassified information regarding (i) the persons or facilities that are the subjects
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/intelsat-comsat/lrt_proposal060702.pdf
  • } } And }} Intelsat, Ltd., Intelsat (Bermuda), Ltd., } Intelsat LLC, and Intelsat USA License Corp. } Assignee } And Telenor Satellite Inc., Assignee }} Applications for Assignment of Sections 214 } Authorizations and Earth Station Licenses and} Declaratory Ruling Requests } LRT PROPOSAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF ISSUES Litigation Recovery Trust (�LRT�), pursuant to 47 CFR � 1.18 (a) and (b) Administrative Dispute Resolution and the applicable rules and policies of the Federal Communications Commission1, proposes the following settlement terms among the parties in the above referenced proceeding to be incorporated in the Order to be issued by the Commission with respect to the pending applications providing for the assignment of Comsat Corporation (�Comsat�) licenses to Intelsat, Ltd.