FCC Web Documents citing 1.21

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2671A1.txt
  • also Ex Parte Presentation of Astrolink in IB Docket No. 98-172, dated December 30, 1999. Letter from Richard L. Gobbi to Thomas S. Tycz, dated January 19, 2000. Ex parte presentation of Astrolink in IB Docket No. 98-172, dated December 30, 1999. See ITU Radio Regulation S1.23. See also 47 C.F.R. § 2.1 (defining ``space operations''). See ITU Radio Regulation S1.21. See also Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to the 3650-3700 MHz Government Transfer Band, FCC 00-363, ¶ ¶ 33, 132 (released October 24, 2000) (Part 2 of the Commission's Rules permits TT&C operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band for satellite systems that include operations in the fixed satellite service). The term ``C-Band'' or ''standard C-Band'' is commonly used
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2820A1.txt
  • Red 5532. 5592. TJ 136 (1994) ("Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and Order"). j9 Competitive Bidding Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Red at 2395, H 264; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding. Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding. Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Red 403, 469,1 127(1994);47C.F.R. § 1.21 ll(d). 24697 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2820 require an unjust enrichment payment, section 8149 of the Defense Appropriations Act again renders any such analysis moot. Section 8149 specifically provides that no economic penalties are owed in connection with the assignment or transfer of PCS licenses held by an Alaska Native Regional Corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
• 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
  • their comments should address their comments to: wrc03@fcc.gov. The deadline for comments on the proposed preliminary views is May 9, 2001. It is necessary that all comments be received by May 9, 2001 in order to allow us to finalize the U.S. position before commencement of regional WRC-03 preparatory meetings. _____________________________ IWG-1 DRAFT PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-03 WRC-2003 Agenda Item 1.21: to consider the progress of the ITU-R studies concerning the technical and regulatory requirements of terrestrial wireless interactive multimedia applications, in accordance with Resolution 737 (WRC-2000) with a view to facilitating global harmonization; ISSUE: What if any actions are needed by the ITU-R to facilitate the development of terrestrial wireless interactive multimedia? BACKGROUND: At WRC-2000, a proposal from several European
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2117A1.txt
  • using non-cable household diaries for the zip codes included in New Haven that have been gathered for their routine audience sweep measurements. The submitted audience information is as follows: Survey Households Share Standard Net Standard Year Studied Viewing Error Weekly Error Hours Circulation 1997/1998 WABC-TV 20 0 0 0 0 WWOR-TV 20 0.77 0.72 3.88 3.95 1998/1999 WABC-TV 22 1.52 1.21 9.37 5.12 WWOR-TV 22 0.10 0.10 7.17 7.46 WTNH argues that the Bureau found this type of submission acceptable in its recent decision in Benedek License Corporation. WTNH asserts that this study establishes that, for two consecutive years, WABC-TV and WWOR-TV have not met the applicable viewing levels required for a distant station to be considered significantly viewed in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-947A1.txt
  • Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, filed Dec. 13, 2000. See In the Matter of Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz bands, and Revision to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, Third Report and Order, WT Docket 99-168 2001 WL 55614 (rel. Jan. 23, 2001); see also 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14). Revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines at § 1.21. See also Pittencrieff Order at ¶ 37 (citing Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Co., 365 U.S. 329 (1961)). Public Interest Statement at 10; see also Pittencrieff Order at ¶¶ 37-41. Southern has not addressed this issue. Rural markets have, however, begun to see an increase in service, which will continue as interconnected mobile voice providers build out their licensed areas.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1557A1.txt
  • percent equity and voting interests, respectively; San Georgio S.p.A. of Italy, with 0.92 percent equity and voting; TeleSat Limited of China, with 1.42 percent equity and voting; Vodafone Satellite Service, Ltd. of the United Kingdom, with 2.78 percent equity and voting; TE.SA.M of France, with 2.78 percent equity and voting; and Daimler-Chrysler Aerospace of Germany (through Loral/DASA Globalstar, L.P.), with 1.21 percent equity interest (26.66% x 4.55%) and 4.55 percent voting interest. Other Attributable Foreign Interests Based on information submitted by GLP in response to staff request, we also have calculated additional attributable foreign equity and voting interests in GLP. The first of these identifiable interests derives from uninsulated limited partnership interests in LQSS held by U.S. subsidiaries of two foreign
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2361A1.txt
  • provide a courtesy copy to Alex Roytblat, FCC WRC-03 Director, Room 6-A738. Comments should refer to specific proposals by document number. The deadline for comments on the draft proposals and NTIA letters is October 18, 2002. I. Informal Working Group 1: IMT-2000 and Terrestrial Wireless Interactive Media DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE Doc. WAC/139(05.09.02) WRC-03 Agenda Item 1.21: to consider progress of the ITU-R studies concerning the technical and regulatory requirements of terrestrial wireless interactive multimedia applications, in accordance with Resolution 737 (WRC-2000), with a view to facilitating global harmonization; Background Information: At WRC-2000, a proposal from several European administrations indicated a desire to address spectrum for terrestrial wireless interactive multimedia applications. After much discussion, WRC-2000 adopted Resolution
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.txt
  • 25 lO(4). 1.20 "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, or U.S. Hosting Data, including Transactional Data or Subscriber Information. 1.21 "Party" and "Parties" have the meanings given them in the Preamble. 1.22 `Pro firma assignments" or "pro firma transfers of control" are transfers that do not involve a substantial change in ownership or control as provided by Section 63.24 of the FCC's Rules (47 C.F.R. 0 63.24). 1.23 "Sensitive Information" means information that is not Classified Information regarding (a) the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.txt
  • 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 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 or Call Associated Data, including Transactional Data or Subscriber Information. 1.21. `Network Management Information" means network management operations --p~ans;-groeesses-d~roeedures;.-the---~--- linkages (for service off load or administrative activities) to other domestic and international carriers, ISPs and other critical infrastructures; descriptions of IP networks and operations processes and procedures for management control ad relation to the backbone infiastructure(s) including other service providers; description of any unique/proprietary control mechanisms as well as operating and
• 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
  • States supports the use of the Appendix 30B bands for this particular application. The use of agenda item 1.10 and changes to the regulatory procedures and technical criteria in Appendix 30B to make these bands more useful is supported, but replanning of the allotment Plan is neither necessary nor supported. DRAFT UNITED STATES PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-07 WRC-07 Agenda Item 1.21: to consider the results of studies regarding the compatibility between the radio astronomy service and the active space services in accordance with Resolution 740 (WRC-03), in order to review and update, if appropriate, the tables of threshold levels used for consultation that appear in the Annex to Resolution 739 (WRC-03). ISSUE: On the basis of studies determine which of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1698A1_Erratum.doc
  • States supports the use of the Appendix 30B bands for this particular application. The use of agenda item 1.10 and changes to the regulatory procedures and technical criteria in Appendix 30B to make these bands more useful is supported, but replanning of the allotment Plan is neither necessary nor supported. DRAFT UNITED STATES PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-07 WRC-07 Agenda Item 1.21: to consider the results of studies regarding the compatibility between the radio astronomy service and the active space services in accordance with Resolution 740 (WRC-03), in order to review and update, if appropriate, the tables of threshold levels used for consultation that appear in the Annex to Resolution 739 (WRC-03). ISSUE: On the basis of studies determine which of the
• 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
  • of networks and operations processes and procedures for management control and relation to the backbone infrastructure(s) including other service providers; description of any unique or proprietary control mechanisms as well as operating and administrative software; and network performance information. 1.20 ``Outsourcing Contract'' means a contract between VSNL America and an individual or entity to perform functions covered by this Agreement. 1.21 ``Party'' and ``Parties'' have the meanings given them in the Preamble. 1.22 ``Pro forma assignments'' or ``pro forma transfers of control'' are transfers that do not involve a substantial change in ownership or control as provided by Section 63.24 of the FCC's Rules (47 C.F.R. § 63.24). 1.23 ``Security Officer'' means the person designated pursuant to Section 3.10 of this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2481A1.txt
  • this subject; ISSUE WRC-07 will set the agenda for the subsequent WRC, WRC-10. The preliminary, or tentative, WRC-10 agenda resides in Resolution 803(WRC-03). The issue is whether or not the regulatory developments in terrestrial wireless interactive multimedia applications (TWIMs) require review by WRC-10 for action to be taken. BACKGROUND WRC-10 provisional agenda item 2.8 derives from the WRC-03 agenda item 1.21, ``to consider progress of the ITU-R studies concerning the technical and regulatory requirements of terrestrial wireless interactive multimedia applications, in accordance with Resolution 737 (WRC-2000), with a view to facilitating global harmonization.'' At WRC-2000, some European administrations insisted that the TWIMs matter be on the WRC-03 agenda, but no significant input was submitted to the ITU-R group formed to develop
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2013A1.txt
  • the relevant studies have concluded before reaching a decision on the retention and final wording of agenda item 2.8 for the WRC-10 agenda to the WAC (WAC Document 069). This latest RCS proposal seems to be another attempt to address the same topic. IWG-3 therefore reiterates its previous comments. WRC-10 provisional agenda item 2.8 derives from the WRC-03 agenda item 1.21, ``to consider progress of the ITU-R studies concerning the technical and regulatory requirements of terrestrial wireless interactive multimedia applications, in accordance with Resolution 737 (WRC-2000), with a view to facilitating global harmonization.'' As no significant input was submitted to the ITU-R group, Joint Task Group (JTG) 1-6-8-9, formed to develop the text for this agenda item for the CPM Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-202A1.txt
  • for absence of the carrier-to-noise ratio + Reasons: In order to allow for meaningful interference analysis to take place for the case of ``Advance publication of a non-geostationary-satellite network not subject to coordination under Section II of Article 9'', make additional technical information mandatory at the API stage. Document WAC/081(25.01.06): DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE Agenda Item 1.21: to consider the results of studies, regarding the compatibility between the radio astronomy service and the active space services in accordance with Resolution 740 (WRC-03), in order to review and update, if appropriate, the tables of threshold levels used for consultation that appear in the Annex to Resolution 739 (WRC-03); Background information: In preparation for WRC-03, Task Group 1/7 conducted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.txt
  • (ATSC997) D/U Ratio Relative to Baseline (dB) Channel Offset A3 D3 I1 J1 M1 N1 O1 G4 Mean (dB) (Excluding G4) Standard Deviation (dB) (Excluding G4) N-6 -1.37 -0.01 -1.54 -1.42 -1.39 -1.96 -1.29 -6.29 -1.28 0.60 N-4 -1.15 -0.11 -1.00 -1.44 -1.16 -1.51 -1.03 -5.16 -1.06 0.46 N-3 -1.03 -0.88 -0.98 -0.57 -1.10 -1.50 -1.06 -5.70 -1.02 0.28 N-2 -1.21 -0.56 -0.96 -1.63 -1.14 -1.42 -0.90 -4.82 -1.12 0.35 N+2 -1.28 -1.50 -1.27 -1.44 -0.75 -1.30 -1.12 -4.49 -1.24 0.25 Mean -1.21 -0.61 -1.15 -1.30 -1.11 -1.54 -1.08 -5.29 -1.14 Std Dev 0.13 0.61 0.25 0.42 0.23 0.25 0.14 0.72 0.40 Note: The overall means and standard deviations (lower right corner of the chart) omitted data for receiver G4 for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.txt
  • - - - - - - - -(0.01) CommercialStation - - - - - - - - - AffiliateInformation ABC 1.19 1.27 1.26 1.28 1.27 1.28 1.20 1.28 1.22 -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) CBS 1.18 1.27 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.16 1.27 1.18 -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) NBC 1.14 1.22 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.19 1.22 1.22 -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) FOX 0.82 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.88 0.85 -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) -(0.07) CW 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.29 0.24 -(0.08) -(0.08) -(0.08) -(0.08) -(0.08) -(0.08) -(0.08) -(0.08) -(0.08) PBS - - - - - -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A5.txt
  • ln(miles)) -0.0267 0.3710 0.9737 0.0964 0.1010 1.1012 -13.30 Waived Prohibition on In-Market Newspaper Cross- ownership (1=yes) 0.1223 0.6160 1.1301 -19.5256***0.0000 0.0000 118.84 Cross-owned with TV Station in DMA (1=yes) 0.4595***0.0020 1.5834 0.5914* 0.0990 1.8065 109.86 Percentage of Other Market Stations with News Format -0.0139***0.0000 0.9862 -0.0166 0.2510 0.9835 -3.20** Total Stations in the Market 0.0048* 0.0850 1.0048 0.0037 0.5480 1.0038 1.21 Market Median Commute Time -0.0071 0.6190 0.9929 -0.0104 0.7830 0.9897 -1.53 Percentage of Market Population Male 0.0937 0.1300 1.0983 -0.0134 0.9020 0.9867 28.52 Percentage of Market Population Black or African American 0.0020 0.6860 1.0020 0.0049 0.6660 1.0049 0.31 Percentage of Market Population Hispanic or Latino -0.0019 0.6690 0.9981 0.0144 0.1110 1.0145 -1.38 Percentage of Market Population Aged 18 to 24
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.txt
  • 82 2.14 1.12 0.00 17.63 83 Average Block, Music, AM Drive 1.97 2.05 0.00 8.44 82 1.85 2.00 0.00 4.97 83 Average Block, News, AM Drive 0.72 0.57 0.00 3.10 82 0.75 0.63 0.00 2.90 83 Average Block, Sports, AM Drive 0.63 0.00 0.00 7.29 82 0.65 0.00 0.00 7.00 83 Average Block, Advertisements, Evening 1.14 1.06 0.06 3.60 83 1.21 1.03 0.00 7.50 86 Average Block, Entertainment/Leisure/DJ Banter, Evening 0.84 0.31 0.00 7.39 83 0.79 0.22 0.00 6.49 86 Average Block, Music, Evening 2.46 2.71 0.00 11.53 83 2.66 3.13 0.00 7.04 86 Average Block, News, Evening 0.28 0.00 0.00 2.71 83 0.45 0.10 0.00 2.83 86 Average Block, Sports, Evening 0.93 0.00 0.00 7.47 83 1.04 0.00 0.00 13.08
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1054A1.txt
  • a hypothetical monopolist that is the only producer of the relevant product in the region would profitably impose at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in the price of the relevant product, assuming that the prices of all products provided elsewhere do not change.'' AT&T/BellSouth Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 5675, para. 24 n.86 (citing DOJ/FTC Guidelines § 1.21). Id. at 5676, para. 25. The Commission has explained that competition may be harmed either through unilateral actions by a merged entity or through coordinated interaction among firms competing in the relevant market. See Verizon/ALLTEL Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 17484, para. 82. Unilateral effects ``are those that result when a merged firm finds it profitable to alter its behavior
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1054A1_Rcd.pdf
  • a hypothetical monopolist that is the only producer of the relevant product in the region would profitably impose at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in the price of the relevant product, assuming that the prices of all products provided elsewhere do not change." AT&T/BellSouth Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 5675, para. 24 n.86 (citing DOJ/FTC Guidelines § 1.21). 5476 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1054 behavior.83 2. Wireline Services -Long Distance Market 20. Relevant Product Market: The relevant wireline product markets involved in this transaction concern long distance service. As the Commission previously explained, in defining the relevant market for long distance service, it is necessary to consider both the demand for access and the demand for usage because
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-763A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-763A3.txt
  • Executive Branch preliminary views for 2011 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-11). These draft preliminary views consider the Federal agency inputs toward the development of U.S. proposals for WRC-11. The enclosure contains preliminary views for the following agenda items: j) Agenda Item 1.3 - Unmanned Aircraft Systems; k) Agenda Item 1.4 - Aeronautical Mobile (R) Service at VHF/UHF/SHF; and l) Agenda Item 1.21 - Radiolocation Service at 15.4-15.7 GHz. This package is forwarded for your consideration and review by your WRC-11 Advisory Committee. Darlene Drazenovich of my staff is the primary contact for NTIA. Sincerely, Original Signed August 28, 2008 Karl B. Nebbia Associate Administrator Office of Spectrum Management Enclosure 16 Radio Conference Subcommittee (RCS) Preparation for ITU Radiocommunication Conferences UNITED STATES OF
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1408A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1408A3.txt
  • (Earth-to-space), limited to feederlinks for non-GSO MSS systems through No. 5.511A. The band is also allocated to ARNS and provision No. 4.10 of the RR applies. ITU-R studies show co-coverage sharing between the MSS and aircraft landing systems (ALS) and aircraft multipurpose radars (MPR) will be difficult. There is no evidence of FSS use of this band. WRC-12 agenda item 1.21 considers an allocation in the 15.4-15.7 GHz band to the radiolocation service. Preliminary ITU-R studies between MSS and radiolocation indicate a single MES will cause interference into the radar, with additional MESs causing more interference. WRC-12 agenda item 1.3 considers a portion of the 15.4-15.7 GHz band for UAS S&A applications in the existing ARNS allocation or UAS command applications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1408A3_Rcd.pdf
  • (Earth-to-space), limited to feederlinks for non-GSO MSS systems through No. 5.511A. The band is also allocated to ARNS and provision No. 4.10 of the RR applies. ITU-R studies show co-coverage sharing between the MSS and aircraft landing systems (ALS) and aircraft multipurpose radars (MPR) will be difficult. There is no evidence of FSS use of this band. WRC-12 agenda item 1.21 considers an allocation in the 15.4-15.7 GHz band to the radiolocation service. Preliminary ITU-R studies between MSS and radiolocation indicate a single MES will cause interference into the radar, with additional MESs causing more interference. WRC-12 agenda item 1.3 considers a portion of the 15.4-15.7 GHz band for UAS S&A applications in the existing ARNS allocation or UAS command applications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2060A3_Rcd.pdf
  • 517 _________________________ 18647 Document WAC/092(26.10.10) Ms. Mindel De La Torre Chief of the International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Ms. De La Torre: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), on behalf of the Executive Branch agencies, approves the release of the attached draft Executive Branch proposals for WRC-12 agenda items 1.4 and 1.21. For agenda item 1.4, NTIA proposes i) no change to the bands 108-117.975 MHz and 5010-5030 MHz; and ii) a primary allocation to the aeronautical mobile (route) service in the band 5000-5010 MHz with an associated resolution. The reason for the no change proposal for the band 5010-5030 MHz is that neither the aeronautical mobile (R) service (AM(R)S) operational environment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-535A1.txt
  • Guidelines similarly define the relevant geographic market as "a region such that a hypothetical monopolist that was the only present or future producer of the relevant product at locations in that region would profitably impose at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in price, holding constant the terms of sale for all products produced elsewhere." Id. at § 1.21. 131 One generally starts with a small relevant product market and asks if a hypothetical monopolist could profitably increase price in that market. If the price increase is not profitable because consumers will substitute to another competing product (i.e., if the cross-price elasticity between the products is large), then the SSNIP test is repeated, but the potential product market is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-535A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 1997) (Guidelines). The Guidelines similarlydefine the relevant geographicmarket as "a region such that a hypothetical monopolist that was the only present or future producer of the relevant product at locations in that region would profitably impose at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in price, holding constant the terms of sale for all products produced elsewhere." Id. at§ 1.21. 131 One generally starts with a small relevant product market and asks if a hypothetical monopolist could profitably increase price in that market. If the price increase is not profitable because consumers will substitute to another competing product (i.e., if the cross-price elasticity between the products is large), then the SSNIP test is repeated, but the potential product market is
• 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
  • price 53 $90.55 0.86 67 $110.44 1.32 Video channels 53 183.1 4.5 67 164.3 3.3 Second operator subgroup (rivals) Package price 67 $78.29 1.07 66 $100.49 1.27 Video channels 67 206.0 14.1 66 214.9 14.0 DBS subgroup Package price 187 $90.14 0.84 195 $118.99 0.82 Video channels 187 167.2 5.3 195 169.1 5.0 Wireless MVPD subgroup Package price 31 $82.19 1.21 31 $116.38 1.15 Video channels 31 115.0 5.0 31 146.7 5.2 Low penetration test subgroup Package price 25 $84.79 2.84 26 $117.64 2.60 Video channels 25 139.0 13.5 27 145.8 12.4 Source: 2009 survey. Attachment 12 Prices for Subscriber Equipment* Sample Group Date Analog Digital High Definition CableCARD n Mean S.E. n Mean S.E. n Mean S.E. n Mean S.E.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A2.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 1 ATTACHMENT 1 to FCC Public Notice DA 11-447 Recommendations presented at 8 March 2011 Meeting of the Advisory Committee for the 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference 2 Maritime Aeronautical and Radar Services 3 DOCUMENT WAC/121(08.03.11) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Draft Proposals for the Work of the Conference Agenda Item 1.21: to consider a primary allocation for radiolocation services in the band 15.4- 15.7 GHz, taking into account the results of ITU-R studies, in accordance with Resolution 614 (WRC-07) Background Information: Resolution 614 (WRC-07) calls for WRC-12 to consider a new primary Radiolocation Service (RLS) allocation in the band 15.4-15.7 GHz to provide additional spectrum for new radar systems, to enhance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A2_Rcd.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ATTACHMENT 1 to FCC Public Notice DA 11-447 Recommendations presented at 8 March 2011 Meeting of the Advisory Committee for the 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference 3501 Maritime Aeronautical and Radar Services 3502 DOCUMENT WAC/121(08.03.11) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Draft Proposals for the Work of the Conference Agenda Item 1.21:to consider a primary allocation for radiolocation services in the band 15.4- 15.7 GHz, taking into account the results of ITU-R studies, in accordance with Resolution 614(WRC-07) Background Information: Resolution 614 (WRC-07) calls for WRC-12 to consider a new primary Radiolocation Service (RLS) allocation in the band 15.4-15.7 GHz to provide additional spectrum for new radar systems, to enhance surveillance, mapping,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A3.txt
  • 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 for early warning, disaster mitigation and relief operations NOC ATTACHMENT 20 RESOLUTION FCC NTIA Comments WRC-12 Agenda Item RES 646 (WRC-03) Public protection and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A3_Rcd.pdf
  • 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 Relating to t he bri nging into us e of ea rth stati ons in the amateur-satellite service NOC RES 644 (Rev. WRC- 07) Ra dioc omm unication resources for early warning, disaster m itigat ion
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-99-1125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-99-1125A1.txt
  • to the FSS allocations at 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 5925- 6425 MHz (Earth-to-space). 19 MCI Authorization Order, paragraph 5. 20 That is, the band edges of the 12.2-12.7 GHz band and the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. 21 Pursuant to Section 25.201 of the Commission's rules., FSS allocations may be used for feeder links in other services. See also ITU Radio Regulation S1.21. 22 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. 23 MCI Authorization Order, paragraph 5. 24 ITU Special Section AR1 l/C/2687 dated April 22, 1997. 25 47 C.F.R. § 25.202(g). 9971 Federal Communications Commission DA-99-1125 16. The 14 GHz frequencies MCI proposes to use are assigned for use by Canadian and Mexican fixed satellites at orbital locations adjacent to MCI's DBS orbital location.26 MCI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-104945A1.txt
  • larger cities at special access rates. The cost difference is part of the TIC.346 Citizens Utilities argues that circuit termination costs could be directly assigned for jurisdictional purposes, but that Part 36 requires that circuit equipment be allocated to categories based on average cost per termination.347 USTA estimates that the investment in interexchange cable and wire is $37.4 million, or 1.21 percent of the total TIC 341 342 USTA Comments at 63-64. USTA Comments at 63-64. USTA Comments at 65. USTA Comments, Attachment 11. 345 USTA Comments at 66. 346 USTA Comments at 65; BellSouth Comments at 80; GTE Comments at 38. 347 Citizens Utilities Comments at 33. 16229 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-158 revenues. 101. US West contends that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.txt
  • the FCC-State Link web page. 6-2 Table 6.1 International Service from the United States to Foreign Points (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues Minutes Messages Total Per Per Call Telex Telegraph Private Line Misc. Minute 1/ Services 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,350 411 3,435 1.03 8.37 415 45 172 1986 3,917 482 3,891 0.99 8.07 390 42 175 1987 4,480 570 4,559 1.02 8.00 360 35 191 1988 5,190
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228584A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228584A3.txt
  • 2.14 4.53 5 North and Central America 214,624 469,207 19,937 703,768 672,205 0.44 0.35 0.81 1.15 6 South America 12,404 44,384 19,053 75,841 108,177 0.20 0.19 0.36 0.85 7 Asia 33,735 392,079 22,035 447,849 289,436 0.08 0.12 0.24 0.67 8 Oceania 8,851 51,077 52,915 112,843 53,450 0.09 0.11 0.17 0.73 9 Eastern Europe 5,094 4,705 0 9,799 1,393 1.08 1.10 1.21 2.78 10 Other Regions 0 598 0 598 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total for all International Points 383,640 1,839,256 181,810 2,404,706 3,110,969 0.19 0.18 0.42 0.79 Page 33 TABLE 7 - Trans-Ocean Fiber Optic Cable Capacity 64 Kbps Circuits CABLES Class*Cost $M 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Est. TRANS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242532A8.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242532A8.txt
  • 2.14 5 North and Central America 213,206 399,536 27,214 639,956 983,965 0.50 0.44 0.35 0.81 6 South America 19,357 43,284 20,814 83,455 108,394 0.30 0.20 0.19 0.36 7 Asia 45,743 379,571 134,060 559,374 763,014 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.24 8 Oceania 13,148 51,650 59,657 124,455 45,277 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.17 9 Eastern Europe 5,359 3,119 1 8,479 1,248 1.72 1.08 1.10 1.21 10 Other Regions 0 334 359 693 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total for all International Points 448,6701,984,728 411,4642,844,8623,900,202 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.42* Page 32
• 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
  • 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 Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/012(08.06.04) 5 1.12 Draft Preliminary View on WRC-07 WAC/013(08.06.04) 5 2
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.txt
  • 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13 1.08 1.11 1974 190.7 428.7 216.6 212.1 142.0 152.2 2.25 1.14 1.11 1.07 1.09 1975 219.4 490.2 247.4 242.9 167.0 176.9 2.23 1.13 1.11
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255118A1.txt
  • hazard ratio of 94%, so that one million subscribers decrease the probability of exit by 6%. Ten million subscribers generate a hazard probability of (10*.06) (.6).55 e e - - = = , so that ten million subscribers reduce the probability of exit by 45%. A spinoff network has a 70% greater chance of surviving in any given year, because 1.21 .30 e- = . The piecewise-constant results do not depend on the assumption of strict exogeneity. Because we estimate a separate baseline hazard for each possible duration length, we estimate a completely flexible underlying baseline hazard. The results from the piecewise-constant model indicate that an increase in one million subscribers generates a hazard ratio of 83%, so that one million
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.txt
  • 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13 1.08 1.11 1974 190.7 428.7 216.6 212.1 142.0 152.2 2.25 1.14 1.11 1.07 1.09 1975 219.4 490.2 247.4 242.9 167.0 176.9 2.23 1.13 1.11
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262086A1.txt
  • for Local Service in Urban Areas, 1994-2004 (As of October 15) 145 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1 2004 2 Monthly Representative Service Charge 3 $32.25 $32.48 $32.58 $32.76 $32.44 $32.41 $32.18 $31.88 $30.86 $30.65 $32.42 Subscriber Line Charges 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.76 5.72 Extra for Touch-Tone Service 4 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 4 4 4 Taxes, 911, and Other Charges 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.55 5.62 Total Monthly Charge $41.64 $41.80 $41.81 $41.67 $41.27 $41.21 $41.80 $42.43 $41.95 $41.96 $43.75 Monthly Charge for Flat-Rate Service $34.39 $34.45 $34.42 $34.68 $34.39 $33.73 $33.45 $32.02 $32.92 $33.17 $32.81 Subscriber Line Charges $3.70
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • .....................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, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 3.12 Interstate Access Support Payments by Study Area ........................................... Table 3.28 3 Index of Tables and Charts Interstate Common Line Support Payment Trueups by State or Jurisdiction ......... Table 3.11 Interstate Common Line Support Payment Trueups by Study Area .......................Table 3.27 Investment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.txt
  • .....................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, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 3.12 Interstate Access Support Payments by Study Area ........................................... Table 3.28 3 Index of Tables and Charts Interstate Common Line Support Payment Trueups by State or Jurisdiction ......... Table 3.11 Interstate Common Line Support Payment Trueups by Study Area .......................Table 3.27 Investment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.txt
  • we allocate interstate and intrastate mobile wireless revenues on a state-by- state basis by multiplying national revenues (see Table 1.14) by an allocation percentage. The allocation percentage is determined by dividing the number of wireless numbers in a state using data from FCC Form 502 (Numbering Resources Utilization/Forecasting) by nationwide wireless numbers. SLC revenues are allocated by state in Table 1.21. The sum of residential non-Lifeline lines (including both primary and non-primary lines) and single-line business lines are estimated by multiplying residential non-Lifeline lines and single-line business lines from Table 2.17 of the 2003/2004 Statistics of Communications Common Carriers by the adjustment factor from Table 1.17. Column 1 shows primary residential lines and single-line business lines which is the difference between
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.txt
  • 0.00 0.22 0.83 0.12 0.56 2.50 Mississippi 0.81 0.00 5.67 0.11 0.28 0.74 0.14 7.75 Missouri 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.50 0.34 0.17 2.13 Montana 4.05 0.03 2.69 0.81 2.08 0.18 1.51 11.34 Nebraska 1.27 0.08 0.38 0.19 0.97 0.46 0.96 4.31 Nevada 0.38 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.24 0.62 0.44 1.72 New Hampshire 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.25 0.20 0.60 1.21 New Jersey 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 New Mexico 1.71 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.71 0.66 0.85 4.23 New York 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.11 0.34 North Carolina 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.27 0.58 0.10 1.31 North Dakota 2.50 0.02 0.00 0.69 2.84 0.12 2.36 8.52 N. Mariana Islands (0.20) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.92
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.txt
  • Service in Urban Areas (As of October 15) 7 - 20 Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004** Monthly Representative Service Charge*** $31.06$30.97$32.29$32.45$32.70$32.25$32.48$32.58$32.76$32.44$32.41$32.18$31.88$30.86$30.65$32.42 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.76 5.72 Extra for Touch-Tone**** 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 **** **** **** Taxes, 911 and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.55 5.62 Total Monthly Charge 41.25 41.21 42.12 42.29 42.57 41.64 41.80 41.81 41.67 41.27 41.21 41.80 42.43 41.95 41.96 43.75 Monthly Charge for Flat-Rate Service $33.04$33.29$34.12$34.06$34.85$34.39$34.45$34.42$34.68$34.39$33.73$33.45$32.02$32.92$33.17$32.81 Subscriber Line Charges 3.65
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264764A1.pdf
  • for a new station for HOQUIAM, WA on channel 47, Effective Radiated Power 20.0, coordinates NL 47 deg 6 min 35 sec WL 124 deg 7 min 35 sec, as amended. WORD OF GOD FELLOWSHIP, INC. K47KF 131107 BNPTTL-20000831CKS WA , ASPEN CHAN-41 P CO Construction permit for a new station for ASPEN, CO on channel 41, Effective Radiated Power 1.21, coordinates NL 39 deg 13 min 33 sec WL 106 deg 50 min 0 sec, as amended. PITKIN COUNTY TRANSLATOR DEPARTMENT K41JH 131247 BNPTT-20000831CNO CO TV TRANSLATOR OR LPTV STATION APPLICATIONS FOR TRANSFER OF CONTROL GRANTED , EUREKA CHAN-35 E CA Voluntary Transfer of Control From: HARRY J. PAPPAS To: PAPPAS TELECASTING COMPANIES Form 316 TV AMERICAS OF EUREKA, LLC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • 2001 2002 2003 1 2004 1 2005 2 Monthly Representative Service Charge 3 $31.06 $30.97 $32.29 $32.45 $32.70 $32.25 $32.48 $32.58 $32.76 $32.44 $32.41 $32.18 $31.88 $30.86 $30.65 $32.11 $32.49 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.76 5.71 5.72 Extra for Touch-Tone Service 4 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 a4 a4 a4 a4 Taxes, 911, and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.55 5.67 5.74 Total Monthly Charge $41.25 $41.21 $42.12 $42.29 $42.57 $41.64 $41.80 $41.81 $41.67 $41.27 $41.21 $41.80 $42.43 $41.95 $41.96 $43.49 $43.94 Monthly Charge for Flat-Rate Service $33.04 $33.29
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • .....................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, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 3 Index of Tables and Charts 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 Investment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A13.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A13.txt
  • NY (343,293) (337,669) (5,624) 1.64 Citizens - Frontier Cos. - Rochester Telephone NY (646) (565) (81) 12.54 ALLTEL Carolina - North Carolina NC (176) (123) (53) 30.11 Sprint - Central Telephone - North Carolina NC 37 30 7 18.92 Verizon South - Contel - North Carolina NC (1,624) (1,622) (2) 0.12 Verizon South - North Carolina NC (3,544) (3,587) 43 (1.21) BellSouth - North Carolina NC (37,361) (37,627) 265 (0.71) Sprint - Carolina Tel. & Tel. - North Carolina NC (959) (715) (244) 25.44 Qwest - North Dakota ND (16,027) (16,006) (21) 0.13 ALLTEL - Western Reserve Telephone - Ohio OH (262) (188) (74) 28.24 Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company - Ohio OH (7,260) (7,038) (214) 2.95 Verizon North - Ohio OH
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.txt
  • .....................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, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 3 Index of Tables and Charts 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 Investment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.txt
  • 5.7 of the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers, 2004/2005 edition, for year-end 2003 data. 27 See for CLEC lines as of June 2004. 28 See for RBOC data on resold lines and UNE loops as of June 2004. 1 -11 nationwide wireless subscribers using data from FCC Form 477. 29 SLC revenues are allocated by state in Table 1.21. The sum of residential non-Lifeline lines (including both primary and non-primary lines) and single-line business lines are estimated by multiplying residential non-Lifeline lines and single-line business lines from Table 2.17 of the 2004/2004 Statistics of Communications Common Carriers by the adjustment factor from Table 1.17. Column 1 shows primary residential lines and single-line business lines which is the difference between
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
  • 0.03 0.08 Delaware 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 Dist. of Columbia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Florida 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 0.43 0.03 0.61 Georgia 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.37 0.21 1.68 Guam 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.47 0.00 0.00 12.87 Hawaii 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.21 0.27 0.29 3.05 Idaho 2.63 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.85 0.77 6.32 Illinois 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.11 0.70 Indiana 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 (0.00) 0.30 0.54 0.22 1.29 Iowa 0.75 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 0.21 0.83 3.12 Kansas 4.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.31 0.73 7.29 Kentucky 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.71
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A9.txt
  • Urban Areas (As of October 15) 7 - 21 Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* 2005** Monthly Representative Service Charge*** $31.06$30.97$32.29$32.45$32.70$32.25$32.48$32.58$32.76$32.44$32.41$32.18$31.88$30.86$30.65$32.11$32.49 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.76 5.71 5.72 Extra for Touch-Tone**** 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 **** **** **** **** Taxes, 911 and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.55 5.67 5.74 Total Monthly Charge 41.25 41.21 42.12 42.29 42.57 41.64 41.80 41.81 41.67 41.27 41.21 41.80 42.43 41.95 41.96 43.49 43.94 Monthly Charge for Flat-Rate Service $33.04$33.29$34.12$34.06$34.85$34.39$34.45$34.42$34.68$34.39$33.73$33.45$32.02$32.92$33.17$34.20$34.15 Subscriber
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.txt
  • on the Wireline Competition Bureau Statistical Reports web page at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats. Table 6.1 International Service from the United States (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues Minutes Total Per Per Call Telex Misc. End-User 1 Minute 2 Services 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,446 411 3,487 1.01 8.49 415 45 172 1986 4,126 482 4,004 0.97 8.30 390 42 175 1987 4,819 570 4,751 0.99 8.33 360 35 191 1988 5,679
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.txt
  • 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 SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ 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 Investment - Average Net ....................................................................................... Table 11.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.txt
  • 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 SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ 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 Investment - Average Net ....................................................................................... Table 11.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.txt
  • Telephone Competition at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html for CLEC lines as of June 2005. 1 -11 state basis by multiplying national revenues (see Table 1.14) by an allocation percentage. The allocation percentage is determined by dividing the number of wireless subscribers in a state by nationwide wireless subscribers using data from FCC Form 477. 31 SLC revenues are allocated by state in Table 1.21. The sum of residential non-Lifeline lines (including both primary and non-primary lines) and single-line business lines are estimated by multiplying residential non-Lifeline lines and single-line business lines from ARMIS Report 43-01 by the adjustment factor from Table 1.17. Column 1 shows primary residential lines and single-line business lines which is the difference between total residential and single-line business lines, and
• 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 0.02 New Mexico 2.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.84 0.81 4.81 New York 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.30 North Carolina 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.10 1.24 North Dakota 3.75 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.13 2.70 11.05 N. Mariana Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 1.21 2.06 Ohio 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.06 0.54 Oklahoma 2.38 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.11 0.64 5.03 Oregon 0.92 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.73 0.32 2.65 Pennsylvania 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.25 0.07 0.73 Puerto Rico 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 3.05 0.00 0.00 3.17 Rhode Island 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A7.txt
  • 2,612 0.07 North Dakota 551 367 1.50 Northern Mariana Islands 0 69 0.00 Ohio 178 2,139 0.08 Oklahoma 157 1,378 0.11 Oregon 38 977 0.04 Pennsylvania 58 1,893 0.03 Puerto Rico 0 3,859 0.00 Rhode Island 0 55 0.00 South Carolina 39 1,205 0.03 South Dakota 511 503 1.02 Tennessee 82 1,827 0.04 Texas 437 3,280 0.13 Utah 641 531 1.21 Vermont 32 448 0.07 Virgin Islands 112 109 1.03 Virginia 351 1,503 0.23 Washington 71 1,136 0.06 West Virginia 98 1,043 0.09 Wisconsin 1,348 1,757 0.77 Wyoming 108 354 0.31 Totals $29,501 58,795 $0.50 1 Source: USAC data. Rollups performed by the Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC. Note: Disbursements through June 30, 2007. Because of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A9.txt
  • (As of October 15) 7 - 21 Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005* 2006** Monthly Representative Service Charge*** $31.06$30.97$32.29$32.45$32.70$32.25$32.48$32.58$32.76$32.44$32.41$32.18$31.88$30.86$30.65$32.11$32.21$33.54 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.76 5.71 5.71 5.89 Extra for Touch-Tone**** 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 **** **** **** a4 a4 Taxes, 911 and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.55 5.67 5.83 5.87 Total Monthly Charge 41.25 41.21 42.12 42.29 42.57 41.64 41.80 41.81 41.67 41.27 41.21 41.80 42.43 41.95 41.96 43.49 43.75 45.31 Monthly Charge for Flat-Rate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279991A1.pdf
  • 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 0 2 4
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.txt
  • on the Wireline Competition Bureau Statistical Reports web page at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats. Table 6.1 International Service from the United States (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues Minutes Total Per Per Call Telex Misc. End-User 1 Minute 2 Services 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,446 411 3,487 1.01 8.49 415 45 172 1986 4,126 482 4,004 0.97 8.30 390 42 175 1987 4,819 570 4,751 0.99 8.33 360 35 191 1988 5,679
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 2006 1 2007 2 Monthly Representative Service Charge 3 $31.06 $30.97 $32.29 $32.45 $32.70 $32.25 $32.48 $32.58 $32.76 $32.44 $32.41 $32.18 $31.88 $30.86 $30.65 $32.11 $32.21 $33.54 $35.17 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.76 5.71 5.71 5.90 6.16 Extra for Touch-Tone Service 4 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 Taxes, 911, and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.55 5.67 5.83 5.88 7.35 Total Monthly Charge $41.25 $41.21 $42.12 $42.29 $42.57 $41.64 $41.80 $41.81 $41.67 $41.27 $41.21 $41.80 $42.43 $41.95 $41.96 $43.49 $43.75 $45.32 $48.67 Monthly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287261A1.txt
  • Application for Consent to Assignment WORLDSPACE, INC., DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION E990314 SES-LIC-19990615-01278 P Date Effective: 10/29/2008 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Surrender of Authorization 09/20/1999 - 09/20/2009 Application for Authority Maryland Public Broadcasting Commission Nature of Service: Domestic Fixed Satellite Service Licensee has surrendered license per letter dated October 29, 2008. SITE ID: 1 TRANSPORTABLE, CONUS LOCATION: CPS COMMUNICATIONS TRUCK-1 1.21 meters ANTENNA ID: CPS-100 62.46 dBW ANALOG VIDEO & AUDIO 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 24M0F8F ANALOG VIDEO & AUDIO 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 24M0F8F Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) Page 1 of 14 E080196 SES-LIC-20080903-01145 E Date Effective: 12/04/2008 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Grant of Authority 12/04/2008 - 12/04/2023 Application for Authority Production &
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A1.pdf
  • 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 SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ 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 Investment - Average Net ....................................................................................... Table 11.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A2.pdf
  • 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 SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ 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 Investment - Average Net ....................................................................................... Table 11.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A3.pdf
  • December 31, 2007 at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html for CLEC lines as of June 2006. 1 -11 basis by multiplying national revenues (see Table 1.14) by an allocation percentage. The allocation percentage is determined by dividing the number of wireless subscribers in a state by nationwide wireless subscribers using data from FCC Form 477. 32 SLC revenues are allocated by state in Table 1.21. The sum of residential non-Lifeline lines (including both primary and non-primary lines) and single-line business lines are estimated by multiplying residential non-Lifeline lines and single-line business lines from ARMIS Report 43-01 by the adjustment factor from Table 1.17. Column 1 shows primary residential lines and single-line business lines which is the difference between total residential and single-line business lines, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A5.pdf
  • $0.01 $0.00 $1.29 $0.00 $0.58 $0.58 $0.18 $3.21 Alaska 7.24 0.09 (0.00) 0.00 0.00 7.67 0.00 1.78 16.77 American Samoa (0.01) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 0.00 2.71 7.80 Arizona 0.81 0.01 (0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.56 0.27 1.99 Arkansas 3.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.26 0.01 0.35 5.68 California 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.02 0.41 Colorado 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.61 0.17 2.71 Connecticut 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 Delaware 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 Dist. of Columbia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Florida 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.39 0.02 0.53 Georgia 0.52 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.34 0.17 1.64
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A9.pdf
  • 2006 1 2007 2 Monthly Representative Service Charge 3 $31.06 $30.97 $32.29 $32.45 $32.70 $32.25 $32.48 $32.58 $32.76 $32.44 $32.41 $32.18 $31.88 $30.86 $30.65 $32.11 $32.21 $33.54 $36.58 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.76 5.71 5.71 5.90 5.73 Extra for Touch-Tone Service 4 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 Taxes, 911, and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.55 5.67 5.83 5.88 5.87 Total Monthly Charge $41.25 $41.21 $42.12 $42.29 $42.57 $41.64 $41.80 $41.81 $41.67 $41.27 $41.21 $41.80 $42.43 $41.95 $41.96 $43.49 $43.75 $45.32 $48.17 Monthly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • .....................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, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 3.12 3 Index of Tables and Charts 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.txt
  • .....................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, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction ................................. Table 3.12 3 Index of Tables and Charts 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.txt
  • jurisdiction. 31 The staff estimate is based on the share of USF loops that are associated with carriers that file ARMIS reports. 32 See Local Telephone Competition: Status as of June 30, 2008 at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html for CLEC lines as of June 2007. 1 -11 subscribers using data from FCC Form 477. 33 SLC revenues are allocated by state in Table 1.21. The sum of residential non-Lifeline lines (including both primary and non-primary lines) and single-line business lines are estimated by multiplying residential non-Lifeline lines and single-line business lines from ARMIS Report 43-01 by the adjustment factor from Table 1.17. Column 1 shows primary residential lines and single-line business lines which is the difference between total residential and single-line business lines, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A4.txt
  • 10.00 10.00 13.50 13.50 13.50 Virginia 6.68 8.25 7.48 0.00 3.50 3.23 0.00 1.75 1.61 6.68 10.00 9.10 6.68 13.50 12.32 Washington 6.97 8.25 7.84 0.00 3.50 2.29 0.00 1.75 1.15 6.97 10.00 8.99 6.97 13.50 11.28 West Virginia 6.50 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 2.75 0.00 1.75 1.37 6.50 10.00 9.62 6.50 13.50 12.37 Wisconsin 6.81 8.25 7.33 0.00 3.50 1.21 0.00 1.75 0.61 6.81 10.00 7.94 6.81 13.50 9.15 Wyoming 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 3.45 0.00 1.75 1.73 8.25 10.00 9.98 8.25 13.50 13.43 Nationwide $3.98 $8.25 $7.30 $0.00 $3.50 $2.69 $0.00 $1.75 $1.34 $3.98 $10.00 $8.64 $3.98 $13.50 $11.33 Notes: This table reflects only non-tribal support. All averages are weighted averages. 1 Basic federal support includes both Tier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.69 0.41 1.89 New Hampshire 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.10 0.48 1.03 New Jersey 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 New Mexico 2.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.95 0.55 5.01 New York 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.33 North Carolina 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.41 0.07 1.21 North Dakota 4.00 0.70 0.01 0.00 0.00 5.31 0.11 2.06 12.18 N. Mariana Islands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.66 1.00 Ohio 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.60 Oklahoma 2.93 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.08 0.71 6.28 Oregon 1.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.70 0.38 3.19 Pennsylvania 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
  • on the Wireline Competition Bureau Statistical Reports web page at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats. Table 6.1 International Service from the United States (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues Minutes Total Per Per Call Telex Misc. End-User 1 Minute 2 Services3 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,446 411 3,487 1.01 8.49 415 45 172 1986 4,126 482 4,004 0.97 8.30 390 42 175 1987 4,819 570 4,751 0.99 8.33 360 35 191 1988 5,679
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • New York 755 709 1 2,160 1,616 5,241 6.46 North Carolina 411 170 0 930 949 2,461 3.03 North Dakota 29 18 0 68 64 179 0.22 N. Mariana Islands 2 0 0 2 4 9 0.01 Ohio 435 230 0 1,171 992 2,828 3.48 Oklahoma 123 82 0 351 299 855 1.05 Oregon 159 90 0 376 356 981 1.21 Pennsylvania 581 343 0 1,238 1,193 3,357 4.13 Puerto Rico 85 33 0 313 322 753 0.93 Rhode Island 31 50 0 109 77 267 0.33 South Carolina 201 74 0 447 484 1,206 1.49 South Dakota 31 22 0 76 80 209 0.26 Tennessee 273 118 0 725 607 1,722 2.12 Texas 835 369 1 2,552 1,898 5,656 6.97
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.txt
  • New York 755 709 1 2,160 1,616 5,241 6.46 North Carolina 411 170 0 930 949 2,461 3.03 North Dakota 29 18 0 68 64 179 0.22 N. Mariana Islands 2 0 0 2 4 9 0.01 Ohio 435 230 0 1,171 992 2,828 3.48 Oklahoma 123 82 0 351 299 855 1.05 Oregon 159 90 0 376 356 981 1.21 Pennsylvania 581 343 0 1,238 1,193 3,357 4.13 Puerto Rico 85 33 0 313 322 753 0.93 Rhode Island 31 50 0 109 77 267 0.33 South Carolina 201 74 0 447 484 1,206 1.49 South Dakota 31 22 0 76 80 209 0.26 Tennessee 273 118 0 725 607 1,722 2.12 Texas 835 369 1 2,552 1,898 5,656 6.97
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • 0.00 223037 C WINDSTREAM GA COMM -8.86 -6.07 -2.97 0.00 TOTAL GUAM -5.92 -9.57 4.04 -66.55 663800 C GTA TELECOM, LLC -5.92 -9.57 4.04 -66.55 TOTAL HAWAII -4.28 -8.26 4.34 -11.91 623021 C SANDWICH ISLES COMM. -10.41 11.05 -19.32 -11.91 623100 C HAWAIIAN TELCOM, INC -3.42 -8.34 5.37 0.00 TOTAL IDAHO -3.86 -9.80 6.59 -6.33 472213 C ALBION TEL CO-ATC 1.21 -5.68 7.31 0.51 472215 C CAMBRIDGE TEL CO 19.72 -4.33 25.14 40.62 472218 C CUSTER TEL COOP -1.96 -2.67 0.73 -4.70 472220 C FILER MUTUAL TEL -ID 15.99 -6.24 23.71 39.66 3 - 161 Table 3.32 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data Percentage Changes from 2008 to 2009 by Study Area Study Area Code Type Study Area Name Requirement Loops per
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.txt
  • Match Total Federal Support3Total Alabama $8.25 $3.50 $1.75$10.00$13.50 $8.34 $3.49 $1.74$10.09$13.58 $8.33 $3.49 $1.75$10.07$13.56 Alaska 8.25 3.50 1.75 10.00 13.50 8.25 3.46 1.73 9.98 13.43 8.25 3.46 1.73 9.98 13.45 American Samoa 8.25 0.00 0.00 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.50 1.75 10.00 13.50 8.25 0.04 0.02 8.27 8.31 Arizona 8.01 1.22 0.61 8.62 9.84 8.25 3.50 1.75 10.00 13.50 8.14 2.42 1.21 9.34 11.76 Arkansas 7.42 2.34 1.17 8.59 10.93 7.09 3.49 1.74 8.84 12.33 7.16 3.24 1.62 8.78 12.03 California 6.60 3.42 1.71 8.31 11.74 8.03 3.50 1.75 9.78 13.28 6.61 3.43 1.71 8.32 11.75 Colorado 8.21 3.49 1.75 9.96 13.46 8.25 3.50 1.75 10.00 13.50 8.21 3.49 1.75 9.96 13.46 Connecticut 7.48 1.18 0.59 8.07 9.25 7.48 3.50 1.75 9.23
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-196A1.txt
  • IVDS) 25 10 0 0 0 10 1,250 Marine (Ship) 5,500 10 427,444 460,571 8 10 550,000 GMRS 2,000 5 66,718 71,889 7 5 50,000 Aviation (Aircraft) 3,500 10 223,889 241,240 7 5 175,000 Marine (Coast) 1,300 10 50,886 54,830 4 5 65,000 Aviation (Ground) 1,700 5 59,367 63,968 8 10 85,000 Amateur Vanity Call Signs 10,000 10 112,000 120,680 1.21 1.20 120,000 AM Class A 76 1 135,000 145,463 1,914 1,925 146,300 AM Class B 1,620 1 1,674,750 1,804,543 1,114 1,115 1,806,300 AM Class C 998 1 576,290 620,952 622 620 618,760 AM Class D 2,086 1 1,880,940 2,026,713 972 975 2,033,850 FM Classes A, B1 & C3 2,080 1 3,857,200 4,156,133 1,998 2,000 4,160,000 FM Classes B, C, C1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-262A1.txt
  • Competition, 26 Journal of Law & Economics 635 (1983) (concluding that newspapers and TV advertisements are substitutes). Second Report & Order, 50 FCC 2d at 1056-1057. >. Community Publishers Inc. v. Donrey Corp., 892 F. Supp. 1146, 1155-1157 (W.D. Ark. 1995). U.S. Advertising Volume 2000-2001, supra note 68. Id. U.S. Dep't of Justice & FTC, 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, § 1.21 (revised 1997). Others claimed, however, that businesses do not need to combine to realize these efficiencies because they could simply form a joint venture. Independent Free Papers Comments at 2-4. For profit-maximizing firms, including monopolies, facing many customers, reductions in fixed costs that do not affect marginal cost ordinarily do not create an incentive to lower price. See 1992 Horizontal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-329A1.txt
  • a proposed transaction.96 This market definition also is the one that radio advertisers customarily recognize and rely on in making their purchasing decisions.97 Are Arbitron markets the relevant geographic market for purposes of our competition analysis? Can Arbitron radio markets be manipulated to make a particular market or transaction appear less troublesome. If so, how 93 1992 Merger Guidelines § 1.21. 94 For example, out-of-market stations that can be heard in a local market may provide more competitive pressure on local radio stations with respect to national or regional advertisers, but not with respect to local advertisers. 95 Specifically, we have defined the radio market "as that area encompassed by the principal community contours ... of the mutually overlapping stations proposing
• 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
  • or equipment used to conduct Electronic Surveillance, (iv) the means of carrying out Electronic Surveillance, (v) the type(s) of service, telephone number(s), records, communications, or facilities subjected to Lawful U.S. Process, and (vi) other unclassified information designated in writing by an authorized official of a federal, state or local law enforcement agency or a U.S. intelligence agency as Sensitive Information. 1.21 "Subscriber Information" means information of the type referred to and accessible subject to procedures specified in 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c) or (d) or 18 U.S.C. § 2709. Such information shall also be considered Subscriber Information when it is sought pursuant to the provisions of other Lawful U.S. Process. 1.22 "Telenor" has the meaning given to it in the Preamble. It
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-49A1.txt
  • CHANNELS OFFERED AND PER CHANNEL RATES Number Of Channels Per Channel Rates SIZE COMPETITIVE NONCOMPETITIVE COMPETITIVE NONCOMPETITIVE 2000 Very Large ----- 62.9 ----- $0.58 Standard Error ----- 0.80 ----- 0.01 Large ----- 60.4 ----- $0.58 Standard Error ----- 0.71 ----- 0.01 Overall Large 66.5 61.4 $0.51 $0.58 Standard Error 0.68 0.75 0.01 0.01 Medium 61.3 54.2 $0.56 $0.66 Standard Error 1.21 0.99 0.02 0.01 Small ----- 43.9 ----- $0.76 Standard Error ----- 1.20 ----- 0.02 Very Small ----- 26.9 ----- $1.09 Standard Error ----- 1.84 ----- 0.08 Overall Small 44.3 41.0 $0.71 $0.82 Standard Error 1.45 1.31 0.03 0.03 1999 Very Large ----- 60.9 ----- $0.56 Standard Error ----- 0.85 ----- 0.01 Large ----- 57.9 ----- $0.58 Standard Error ----- 0.69
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-97A1.txt
  • IVDS) 25 10 0 0 0 10 1,250 Marine (Ship) 5,500 10 427,444 460,571 8 10 550,000 GMRS 2,000 5 66,718 71,889 7 5 50,000 Aviation (Aircraft) 3,500 10 223,889 241,240 7 5 175,000 Marine (Coast) 1,300 10 50,886 54,830 4 5 65,000 Aviation (Ground) 1,700 5 59,367 63,968 8 10 85,000 Amateur Vanity Call Signs 10,000 10 112,000 120,680 1.21 1.20 120,000 AM Class A 76 1 135,000 145,463 1,914 1,925 146,300 AM Class B 1,620 1 1,674,750 1,804,543 1,114 1,115 1,806,300 AM Class C 998 1 576,290 620,952 622 620 618,760 AM Class D 2,086 1 1,880,940 2,026,713 998 975 2,033,850 FM Classes A, B1 & C3 2,080 1 3,857,200 4,156,133 1,998 2,000 4,160,000 FM Classes B, C, C1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-284A1.txt
  • Because market definition plays such a critical role in structural merger analysis, plaintiffs typically try to define the narrowest possible relevant markets, while defendants favor the broadest possible market. See, e.g., Gregory J. Werden, Simulating the Effects of Differentiated Products Mergers: A Practical Alternative to Structural Merger Policy, 5 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 363, 369 (1997) DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines § 1.21. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 588-89 (1966); see also FTC v. Elders Grain, Inc., 868 F.2d 901 (7th Cir. 1989). Application, Willig Decl. at 11. NAB Petition at 34-35, Pegasus Petition at 14; Duke Law Reply Comments at 12. In addition, NAB contends that the variation in EchoStar's service offerings across local areas undermines its claim of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • 0.01 0.01 19 - 1994100UNE lp 2 w Dig Line Sharing 0.44 0.52 0.51 0.47 0.59 0.38 0.46 0.35 0.69 0.42 20 - Percent of Customer Trouble not Resolved within Estimated Time 20 - 2093100Resale Res POTS disptchd 4.63 7.37 4.23 8.07 4.55 7.85 3.46 7.38 3.32 6.82 20 - 2093200Resale Res POTS not disptchd 1.64 1.12 1.61 1.55 0.00 1.21 8.70 0.84 2.44 1.29 20 - 2093300Resale Bus POTS disptchd 5.93 7.76 7.14 8.36 6.35 8.74 11.38 8.92 5.94 8.11 20 - 2093400Resale Bus POTS not disptchd 6.45 4.14 0.00 2.14 3.23 2.78 0.00 2.25 0.00 2.65 20 - 2093500Resale ISDN BRI disptchd 25.09 0.0020.79100.0027.06 33.3328.99 21.69abcde 20 - 2093600Resale ISDN BRI not disptchd 0.00 3.59 0.00 9.45 20.00 8.69
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • 1.67 2.69 1.58 D.1.3.1.2 RSAG, by TN/Region (seconds) 2.94 1.20 2.91 1.02 2.88 1.67 2.80 1.67 2.78 1.58 D.1.3.2.1 RSAG, by ADDR/Region (seconds) 2.99 1.10 3.03 0.93 2.94 1.13 2.84 1.06 2.81 1.14 D.1.3.2.2 RSAG, by ADDR/Region (seconds) 4.77 1.10 4.76 0.93 4.80 1.13 4.59 1.06 4.68 1.14 D.1.3.3.1 ATLAS/Region (seconds) 2.95 0.88 3.01 0.80 2.93 1.07 2.77 1.03 2.78 1.21 D.1.3.3.2 ATLAS/Region (seconds) 2.60 0.88 2.61 0.80 2.63 1.07 2.58 1.03 2.49 1.21 D.1.3.4.1 DSAP/Region (seconds) 2.71 0.53 2.71 0.52 2.68 2.87 2.61 2.84 2.56 5.27 D.1.3.4.2 DSAP/Region (seconds) 2.57 0.53 2.57 0.52 2.58 2.87 2.55 2.84 2.53 5.27 D.1.3.5.1 CRSECSRL/Region (seconds) 3.21 2.12 3.24 1.14 3.20 2.01 3.07 1.76 3.01 1.13 D.1.3.5.2 CRSECSRL/Region (seconds) 2.87 2.12 2.95 1.14 2.94
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-63A2.txt
  • 64 20 1,2,4,5 MR-4-08-3343 % Out of Service > 24 Hours 28 16.7 30 50 25 5.88 26 0 25 20 1,2,4,5 MR-5 - Repeat Trouble Reports MR-5-01-3343 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 47 42.9 44 100 46 17.65 52 14.29 56 20 1,2,4,5 Special Services - Maintenance MR-2 - Trouble Report Rate MR-2-01-3200 Network Trouble Report Rate 0.3 1.21 0.3 1.89 0.2 1.45 0.2 1.49 0.2 1.62 MR-2-05-3200 % CPE/TOK/FOK Trouble Report Rate 0.4 2.11 0.4 2.84 0.3 1.94 0.3 2.66 0.3 2.63 MR-4 - Trouble Duration Intervals MR-4-01-3200 Mean Time To Repair - Total 8.2 7.82 7.1 7.01 6.9 7.23 7.8 7.45 5 MR-4-04-3200 % Cleared (all troubles) within 24 Hours 95 100 97 97 98 98 97
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-111A1.pdf
  • FCC Rcd 15,351, 15,367-68, para. 34 (1997) (MCI/BT Merger Order); In re Applications of Mountain Wireless, Inc., MB Docket No. 02-138, Hearing Designation Order, 17 FCC Rcd 13,914, 13,920, para. 18 (2002). 1992 Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission Horizontal Merger Guidelines, (revised April 8, 1997) (Horizontal Merger Guidelines), §§ 1.1, 1.2. Horizontal Merger Guidelines, § 1.11. Horizontal Merger Guidelines, § 1.21. The relevant point in a point-to-point market is the location of a particular telephone or other telecommunications device; for example, with regard to residential long distance service, the relevant point is each individual customer's residence. LEC Classification Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 15,795, para. 68. MCI/BT Merger Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 15,375, para. 51; Applications of Teleport Communications Group,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-127A1.txt
  • DOJ identifies a relevant geographic market as the region where a hypothetical monopolist that is the only producer of the relevant product in the region would profitably impose at least a ``small but significant and nontransitory'' increase in the price of the relevant product, assuming that the prices of all products provided elsewhere do not change. DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines § 1.21. This approach is consistent with the Supreme Court's definition of the relevant geographic market as the region ``in which the seller operates, and to which the purchaser can practicably turn for supplies.'' United States v. Grinnell Corp., 348 U.S. 563, 588-89 (1966). See, e.g., Bear Stearns Ex Parte Presentation, A Defining Moment in Radio? by Victor B. Miller (May 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-255A1.txt
  • Note that Advanced Wireless Service (``AWS'') and Multipoint Distribution Service (``MDS'') spectrum does not currently meet our criteria because it is committed to non-mobile telephony uses currently and for the near-term future. Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 327 (1961); accord United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 359 (1963). DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines § 1.21. Arthur S. Langenderfer, Inc. v. S.E. Johnson Co., 917 F.2d 1413, 1421 (6th Cir. 1991) (quoting Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 336-37 (1962)); RSR Corp. v. FTC, 602 F.2d 1317, 1323 (9th Cir. 1979) (same). Gilbert Declaration at ¶ 53. Id. at ¶ 56. Id. at ¶ 53. Id. at ¶ 59. Id. at ¶ 60
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-12A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-12A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-12A1.txt
  • Wireline competition Average $9.96 $5.68 $15.64 33.8 $0.513 Observations 99 99 99 99 99 Standard error 0.61 0.22 0.58 1.4 0.029 Wireline incumbent Average $8.70 $5.55 $14.26 33.5 $0.483 Observations 64 64 64 64 64 Standard error 0.49 0.19 0.44 1.5 0.027 Wireline rival Average $15.54 $6.24 $21.78 35.0 $0.645 Observations 35 35 35 35 35 Standard error 1.11 0.38 1.21 1.3 0.037 DBS competition * Average $9.55 $5.58 $15.13 39.0 $0.424 Observations 49 49 49 49 49 Standard error 0.99 0.23 0.88 1.8 0.028 Wireless competition * Average $10.68 $5.52 $16.20 29.2 $0.643 Observations 29 29 29 29 29 Standard error 0.87 0.23 0.68 2.0 0.051 Low penetration test Average $7.49 $6.78 $14.27 29.1 $0.571 Observations 30 30 30 30
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.txt
  • � See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, ¶ 27, 17112 Appendix A (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b). 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.91, § 1.221. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.21(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.221(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.92(a). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.92(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.92(c). 47 U.S.C. § 311(a)(2). 47 C.F.R. § 73.3594. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3594(g). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-124 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-124 F „ € ˆ � £ 0 0 ¶' ä> €? àO ¨o
• 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
  • 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 meaning defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4). 1.22. ``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,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-85A1.txt
  • where a hypothetical monopolist that is the only producer of the relevant product in the region would profitably impose at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in the price of the relevant product, assuming that the prices of all products provided elsewhere do not change." EchoStar-DirecTV HDO, 17 FCC Rcd at 20609, ¶ 117 (citing DOJ/FTC Guidelines, § 1.21). Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-85 17 interaction among firms competing in the relevant market.84 28. As a general matter, if firms produce nearly homogeneous products or services and compete for customers on the basis of price, then there exists a direct relationship between the number of firms in the relevant market and the observed level of product price.85 For this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-13A1.txt
  • where a hypothetical monopolist that is the only producer of the relevant product in the region would profitably impose at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in the price of the relevant product, assuming that the prices of all products provided elsewhere do not change.'' EchoStar/DirecTV Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 20609, para. 117 (citing DOJ/FTC Guidelines § 1.21). SBC Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp. Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 05-65, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 18290, 18336-46, paras. 82-99 (2005) (SBC/AT&T Order); Verizon Communications Inc. and MCI, Inc. Application for Approval of Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 05-75, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 18433, 18477-87, paras. 83-100 (2005)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-159A1.txt
  • where a hypothetical monopolist that is the only producer of the relevant product in the region would profitably impose at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in the price of the relevant product, assuming that the prices of all products provided elsewhere do not change.'' EchoStar/DirecTV Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 20609, para. 117 (citing DOJ/FTC Guidelines § 1.21). We reject Americatel's request to establish a working group to commission studies to determine the relevant service market because the Commission has extensive expertise in defining telecommunications markets. See Americatel FNPRM Erratum Comments at 10. We also reject legacy BellSouth's suggestion that we need not conduct a detailed market analysis to determine whether the BOCs have market power. Legacy BellSouth
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-34A1.txt
  • a significantly different and lesser audience appeal.''); United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 952 (2001) (in determining reasonable substitutes, the court excluded "middleware" software from the description of the relevant product market because of its present non-interchangeability with Windows notwithstanding its long-term future potential). Merger Guidelines §§ 1.11, 1.12. Id. § 1.21. United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 359 (1963); Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 327 (1961); Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 431 F.3d 917, 932-33 (6th Cir. 2005). Id. §§ 1.0, 1.31. In our reviews of several previous mergers of major incumbent LECs, our competitive analysis focused on the likelihood that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.txt
  • 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 that is customarily used to identify a particular end user. 1.20. "Intercept" or "Intercepted" has the meaning defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4). 1.21. "Lawful U.S. Process" means lawful U.S. federal, state, or local court orders, subpoenas, warrants, processes, or authorizations issued under U.S. federal, state, or local law for electronic surveillance, physical search or seizure, production of tangible things, or Access to or disclosure of Domestic Communications, Call Associated Data, or U.S. Hosting Data, including Transactional Data or Subscriber Information. 1.22. "Lawfully Authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-178A1.txt
  • Guidelines similarly define the relevant geographic market as ``a region such that a hypothetical monopolist that was the only present or future producer of the relevant product at locations in that region would profitably impose at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in price, holding constant the terms of sale for all products produced elsewhere.'' Id. at § 1.21. One generally starts with a small relevant product market and asks if a hypothetical monopolist could profitably increase price in that market. If the price increase is not profitable because consumers will substitute to another competing product (i.e., if the cross-price elasticity between the products is large), then the SSNIP test is repeated, but the potential product market is expanded
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-247A1.txt
  • West Coast. We define ``backhaul'' as transmitting from a remote site or network to a central or main site, usually over a high capacity line and for purposes of efficient network management. U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 57 Fed. Reg. 41552 (dated Apr. 2, 1992, revised, Apr. 8, 1997) (``Merger Guidelines''). Merger Guidelines, Section 1.21 at p. 8-9. Application of this definition of a geographic market means that the geographic boundaries of a market are determined by the availability of alternative sources of supply of the relevant product that a consumer would switch to in response to a hypothetical price increase. Once all alternative sources of supply are monopolized in theory and the consumer has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-113A1.txt
  • where a hypothetical monopolist that is the only producer of the relevant product in the region would profitably impose at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in the price of the relevant product, assuming that the prices of all products provided elsewhere do not change.'' EchoStar/DirecTV Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 20609, para. 117 (citing DOJ/FTC Guidelines, § 1.21). . Thus, our calculation of market shares based upon current service levels is likely an accurate representation of the current market structure in the Phoenix MSA. Finally, Qwest argues that the DOJ/FTC Guidelines require the Commission to factor in entry alternatives that can be achieved within two years from initial planning to significant market impact. Qwest Market Power PN Comments
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.txt
  • 1.54 $ 0.13 Ohio $ 17.81 $ 1.48 Oklahoma $ 7.05 $ 0.59 Texas $ 40.99 $ 3.41 Wisconsin $ 9.45 $ 0.79 $250.00 $ 20.83 ATTACHMENT A-6 (cont'd) YEAR 2 CAPS ($M) State Annual Monthly Arkansas $ 6.24 $ 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00290.pdf
  • and a number of smaller facilities- 20 In this report we use the term backbone to refer to high-speed physical transport. Our use of the term is broader than, and distinguishable from, an Internet backbone that uses interstate transport networks to transport Internet traffic. Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-290 12 based transport providers, as depicted on the following map, Figure 1.21 There are an additional 35 to 50 wireline, terrestrial wireless and satellite-based national Internet backbone providers, with varying amounts of physical facilities.22 The major Internet backbone providers transport traffic with capacity ranging from approximately 155 Mbps to over 10 Gbps (OC-3 to OC-192 equivalent speeds).23 22. Although the cost of building and maintaining backbone facilities is high, there do not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2001/fcc01329.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2001/fcc01329.txt
  • a proposed transaction.96 This market definition also is the one that radio advertisers customarily recognize and rely on in making their purchasing decisions.97 Are Arbitron markets the relevant geographic market for purposes of our competition analysis? Can Arbitron radio markets be manipulated to make a particular market or transaction appear less troublesome. If so, how 93 1992 Merger Guidelines § 1.21. 94 For example, out-of-market stations that can be heard in a local market may provide more competitive pressure on local radio stations with respect to national or regional advertisers, but not with respect to local advertisers. 95 Specifically, we have defined the radio market "as that area encompassed by the principal community contours ... of the mutually overlapping stations proposing
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.txt
  • Competition, 26 Journal of Law & Economics 635 (1983) (concluding that newspapers and TV advertisements are substitutes). Second Report & Order, 50 FCC 2d at 1056-1057. >. Community Publishers Inc. v. Donrey Corp., 892 F. Supp. 1146, 1155-1157 (W.D. Ark. 1995). U.S. Advertising Volume 2000-2001, supra note 68. Id. U.S. Dep't of Justice & FTC, 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, § 1.21 (revised 1997). Others claimed, however, that businesses do not need to combine to realize these efficiencies because they could simply form a joint venture. Independent Free Papers Comments at 2-4. For profit-maximizing firms, including monopolies, facing many customers, reductions in fixed costs that do not affect marginal cost ordinarily do not create an incentive to lower price. See 1992 Horizontal
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.txt
  • $ 0.13 Ohio $ 17.81 $ 1.48 Oklahoma $ 7.05 $ 0.59 Texas $ 40.99 $ 3.41 Wisconsin $ 9.45 $ 0.79 $250.00 $ 20.83 ATTACHMENT A-6 (cont'd) YEAR 2 CIPP CAPS ($M) State Annual Monthly Arkansas $ 6.24 $ 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Notices/fcc01097.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Notices/fcc01097.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Notices/fcc01097.txt
  • IVDS) 25 10 0 0 0 10 1,250 Marine (Ship) 5,500 10 427,444 460,571 8 10 550,000 GMRS 2,000 5 66,718 71,889 7 5 50,000 Aviation (Aircraft) 3,500 10 223,889 241,240 7 5 175,000 Marine (Coast) 1,300 10 50,886 54,830 4 5 65,000 Aviation (Ground) 1,700 5 59,367 63,968 8 10 85,000 Amateur Vanity Call Signs 10,000 10 112,000 120,680 1.21 1.20 120,000 AM Class A 76 1 135,000 145,463 1,914 1,925 146,300 AM Class B 1,620 1 1,674,750 1,804,543 1,114 1,115 1,806,300 AM Class C 998 1 576,290 620,952 622 620 618,760 AM Class D 2,086 1 1,880,940 2,026,713 998 975 2,033,850 FM Classes A, B1 & C3 2,080 1 3,857,200 4,156,133 1,998 2,000 4,160,000 FM Classes B, C, C1
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01196.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01196.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01196.txt
  • IVDS) 25 10 0 0 0 10 1,250 Marine (Ship) 5,500 10 427,444 460,571 8 10 550,000 GMRS 2,000 5 66,718 71,889 7 5 50,000 Aviation (Aircraft) 3,500 10 223,889 241,240 7 5 175,000 Marine (Coast) 1,300 10 50,886 54,830 4 5 65,000 Aviation (Ground) 1,700 5 59,367 63,968 8 10 85,000 Amateur Vanity Call Signs 10,000 10 112,000 120,680 1.21 1.20 120,000 AM Class A 76 1 135,000 145,463 1,914 1,925 146,300 AM Class B 1,620 1 1,674,750 1,804,543 1,114 1,115 1,806,300 AM Class C 998 1 576,290 620,952 622 620 618,760 AM Class D 2,086 1 1,880,940 2,026,713 972 975 2,033,850 FM Classes A, B1 & C3 2,080 1 3,857,200 4,156,133 1,998 2,000 4,160,000 FM Classes B, C, C1
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • Interval PR-2-04-2100 Average Interval Completed - Dispatch (6-9 Lines) 3.5 7.67 3.2 4.5 a,b PR-2-05-2100 Average Interval Completed - Dispatch (>= 10 Lines) NA NA 5 NA PR-4 - Missed Appointments PR-4-02-2100 Average Delay Days ­ Total 8.25 13 10.69 5.67 7.82 5 6.13 16 7.14 1 a,b,c,d,e PR-4-03-2100 % Missed Appointment ­ Customer 1.7 4.4 1.48 2.64 1.29 3.59 1.21 1.23 PR-4-04-2100 % Missed Appointment ­ Verizon ­ Dispatch 9.1 6.25 6.41 5.56 10.86 4.44 11.64 5 7.42 3.45 PR-4-05-2100 % Missed Appointment ­ Verizon ­ No Dispatch 0.28 0 0.04 0 0.07 0 0.03 0 0.02 0 PR-4-08-2100 % Missed Appt. ­ Customer ­ Late Order Conf. 0 0 PR-6 - Installation Quality PR-6-01-2100 % Installation Troubles reported within
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/fcc2008budget_complete.pdf
  • 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 (94%) were on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-278A1.html
  • businesses and residential consumers, use BellSouth's special access services.18 AT&T also purchases special access from BellSouth to provide retail voice and other services as a local carrier to businesses and consumers.19 End users, including AT&T, also purchase BellSouth's special access services for their own telecommunications requirements.20 7. BellSouth provides its interstate special access services pursuant to its Tariff FCC No. 1.21 In addition to its basic rates for special access services, BellSouth offers various optional discount plans to customers that are willing to make various commitments with respect to their purchases of BellSouth's special access services.22 One such plan is the Transport Savings Plan, i.e., the TSP. B.The Transport Savings Plan - History and Operation 8. BellSouth filed the TSP on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-124A1.html
  • 503(b)(6). See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, P 27, 17112 Appendix A (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. SS 1.91, S 1.221. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.21(b). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.221(c). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(a). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(b). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(c). 47 U.S.C. S 311(a)(2). 47 C.F.R. S 73.3594. 47 C.F.R. S 73.3594(g). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-124 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-124 References Visible links 1. mailto:fccinfo@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.pdf
  • such applications may request dismissal of their applications and resubmit minor change applications as of the effective date of the Order. Finally, applications pending as of the adoption date of the Order and seeking waivers of Section 73.3517 will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Contingent applications filed between the adoption and effective dates of the Order shall be returned. 1.21 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose new or modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation of these new or modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-a.pdf
  • 5-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips MSA Total 5-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips MSA Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) MSA Pop (Mil.) 0.005 0.003 0.009 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.015 0.027 0.014 (2.74)** (1.99)* (3.09)** (1.99)* (1.80) (0.88) (2.88)** (3.11)** (2.57)* MSA Median Inc. (000) -0.001 0.002 -0.001 (0.96) (1.68) (0.46) MSA Fr. College Degree 0.230 0.098 0.144 (3.43)** (1.21) (2.00)* MSA Fr. Under Age 30 -0.884 -0.303 -0.319 (7.47)** (2.77)** (1.11) MSA Fr. Over Age 65 4.1603 2.2409 2.988 (10.61)** (5.12)** (2.59)* Constant 0.199 0.206 0.238 0.192 0.220 0.232 0.532 0.632 0.553 (41.41)** (6.45)** (34.08)** (4.01)** (45.46)** (7.64)** (42.50)** (33.71)** (41.73)** Observations 11,763 11,763 7,397 7,397 269 269 11,751 7,392 269 MSA's 269 269 269 269 269 269 269
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2003/papers/Rothkopf6.pdf
  • wants to be sure not to spend more than $3 million dollars. Therefore, she will link her ten bids by a budget-like constraint of $3 million. To avoid having her bids for licenses 1 and 3 (which happen to cover the same number of MHz-Pops) tied, and thus treated as linked, she will add $0.01 to her bid for license 1.21 In addition, she can only raise enough up-front money to cover deposits for 170 MHz-pops. Hence, she realizes that if she were high bidder on licenses 1, 3 and 12, her bid on license 3, the one with the lowest bid per MHz-pop, would be rejected. She also notes that her bids, while low, meet the minimum bid requirement. Bidder
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fc99279c.txt
  • 1.54 $ 0.13 Ohio $ 17.81 $ 1.48 Oklahoma $ 7.05 $ 0.59 Texas $ 40.99 $ 3.41 Wisconsin $ 9.45 $ 0.79 $250.00 $ 20.83 ATTACHMENT A-6 (cont'd) YEAR 2 CAPS ($M) State Annual Monthly Arkansas $ 6.24 $ 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00290.pdf
  • and a number of smaller facilities- 20 In this report we use the term backbone to refer to high-speed physical transport. Our use of the term is broader than, and distinguishable from, an Internet backbone that uses interstate transport networks to transport Internet traffic. Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-290 12 based transport providers, as depicted on the following map, Figure 1.21 There are an additional 35 to 50 wireline, terrestrial wireless and satellite-based national Internet backbone providers, with varying amounts of physical facilities.22 The major Internet backbone providers transport traffic with capacity ranging from approximately 155 Mbps to over 10 Gbps (OC-3 to OC-192 equivalent speeds).23 22. Although the cost of building and maintaining backbone facilities is high, there do not
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • 1.67 2.69 1.58 D.1.3.1.2 RSAG, by TN/Region (seconds) 2.94 1.20 2.91 1.02 2.88 1.67 2.80 1.67 2.78 1.58 D.1.3.2.1 RSAG, by ADDR/Region (seconds) 2.99 1.10 3.03 0.93 2.94 1.13 2.84 1.06 2.81 1.14 D.1.3.2.2 RSAG, by ADDR/Region (seconds) 4.77 1.10 4.76 0.93 4.80 1.13 4.59 1.06 4.68 1.14 D.1.3.3.1 ATLAS/Region (seconds) 2.95 0.88 3.01 0.80 2.93 1.07 2.77 1.03 2.78 1.21 D.1.3.3.2 ATLAS/Region (seconds) 2.60 0.88 2.61 0.80 2.63 1.07 2.58 1.03 2.49 1.21 D.1.3.4.1 DSAP/Region (seconds) 2.71 0.53 2.71 0.52 2.68 2.87 2.61 2.84 2.56 5.27 D.1.3.4.2 DSAP/Region (seconds) 2.57 0.53 2.57 0.52 2.58 2.87 2.55 2.84 2.53 5.27 D.1.3.5.1 CRSECSRL/Region (seconds) 3.21 2.12 3.24 1.14 3.20 2.01 3.07 1.76 3.01 1.13 D.1.3.5.2 CRSECSRL/Region (seconds) 2.87 2.12 2.95 1.14 2.94
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ldrpt101.pdf
  • charges restated to 1999 dollars. Table 15 Industry Average Revenue per Minute Average Revenue per Average Revenue per International Domestic Minute for Interstate and Minute for Interstate and Calls 1/ Calls International Calls International Calls Restated Restated in 1999 in 1999 Dollars Dollars 1930 $0.27 $2.74 1965 $0.24 $1.27 1931 0.27 2.95 1966 0.24 1.25 1932 0.26 3.19 1967 0.24 1.21 1933 0.28 3.53 1968 0.24 1.13 1934 0.27 3.38 1969 0.24 1.09 1935 0.27 3.23 1970 0.23 0.99 1936 0.25 3.01 1971 0.25 1.01 1937 0.22 2.51 1972 0.24 0.97 1938 0.21 2.53 1973 0.25 0.95 1939 0.22 2.59 1974 0.26 0.87 1940 0.21 2.50 1975 0.27 0.85 1941 0.21 2.35 1976 0.29 0.83 1942 0.22 2.21 1977 0.28 0.78
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/pntris03.pdf
  • Vermont 1986 3.48 75.3% 84.6% 93.1% 9.3% * 8.6%* 91.5% 93.9% 96.5% 2.4% 2.6% Virginia 1988 3.35 80.4% 84.7% 84.9% 4.3% 0.3% 93.2% 93.6% 95.4% 0.5% 1.8% Washington 1987 3.30 82.7% 89.0% 92.5% 6.3% * 3.4% 92.9% 96.1% 96.6% 3.2% * 0.5% West Virginia 1986 1.28 75.7% 83.8% 91.0% 8.1% * 7.1%* 87.3% 93.6% 94.9% 6.3% * 1.3% Wisconsin 1991 1.21 88.4% 87.8% 89.5% -0.6% 1.7% 96.0% 96.4% 96.4% 0.4% 0.0% Wyoming 1991 3.50 74.2% 89.5% 84.4% 15.2% * -5.1% 89.2% 94.9% 93.4% 5.7% * -1.5% Households with income under $10,000 expressed in March 1984 dollars. * Increase is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. # Decrease is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Note: Changes may not appear
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • 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 Table 1.21 Basic Schedule Rates of AT&T, WorldCom, and Sprint for Residential Customers for a 10-Minute Day Call...........................37 Table 1.22 Basic Schedule Rates of AT&T, WorldCom, and Sprint for Residential Customers for a 10-Minute Evening Call..........................38 Table 1.23 Basic Schedule Rates of AT&T, WorldCom, and Sprint for Residential Customers for a 10-Minute Night/Weekend Call..............39 Table 1.24 AT&T Basic Schedule Residential Rates for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 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 Schedule Rates of AT&T, WorldCom, and Sprint for Residential Customers for a 10-Minute Day, Evening, and Night Call Table 1.22 AT&T Basic Schedule Residential Rates for 10-minute Interstate InterLATA Calls, 1927-2002 Table 1.23 Average Revenue per Minute for Interstate Toll Service Calls II. Expenditures on Telephone Service .........................................................II-1 A. Residential Expenditures..................................................................II-1 B. Business Expenditures.....................................................................II-2 C. Additional Sources of Information
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • touch-tone service. (As of October 15, 2003) 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1 2003 2 Monthly Representative Service Charge 3 $31.06$30.97$32.29$32.45$32.70$32.25$32.48$32.58$32.76 $32.44$32.41$32.18$31.88$30.86 $30.92 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.75 Extra for Touch-Tone Service 4 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 a4 a4 Taxes, 911, and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.72 Total Monthly Charge $41.25$41.21$42.12$42.29$42.57$41.64$41.80$41.81$41.67 $41.27$41.21$41.80$42.43$41.95 $42.40 Monthly Charge for Flat-Rate Service $33.04$33.29$34.12$34.06$34.85$34.39$34.45$34.42$34.68 $34.39$33.73$33.45$32.02$32.92 $32.36 Subscriber Line Charges 3.65 3.69 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.69 3.61 3.61 3.56 3.50 4.35 4.77 5.77
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 15, 2004) 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1 2004 2 Monthly Representative Service Charge 3 $31.06$30.97$32.29$32.45$32.70$32.25$32.48$32.58$32.76 $32.44$32.41 $32.18 $31.88 $30.86$30.65 $32.42 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.76 5.72 Extra for Touch-Tone Service 4 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 a4 a4 a4 Taxes, 911, and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.55 5.62 Total Monthly Charge $41.25$41.21$42.12$42.29$42.57$41.64$41.80$41.81$41.67 $41.27$41.21 $41.80 $42.43 $41.95$41.96 $43.75 Monthly Charge for Flat-Rate Service $33.04$33.29$34.12$34.06$34.85$34.39$34.45$34.42$34.68 $34.39$33.73 $33.45 $32.02 $32.92$33.17 $32.81 Subscriber Line Charges 3.65 3.69 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf
  • 8.84 9.41 9.2510.2310.38 11.0211.0811.4311.5211.79 # of cities in the sample offering measured service n.a. 76 77 79 82 85 86 86 87 88 Monthly cost including 50 five-minute daytime calls n.a. 8.57 8.47 8.48 8.52 8.94 9.32 9.63 9.61 9.82 Federal and state SLCs n.a. 2.69 2.67 3.53 3.55 3.56 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.51 Taxes and 911 charges n.a. 1.25 1.21 1.37 1.50 1.60 1.67 1.82 1.86 1.93 Total for rotary service n.a.12.5112.3513.3813.57 14.1014.5415.0015.0215.25 51st five-minute call n.a.0.0920.0900.0900.090 0.0880.0880.0890.0880.088 Lowest cost inside wiring maintenance plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.41 1.52 Monthly charge for optional extended area service n.a. n.a. 0.96 0.98 1.01 1.02 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.97 Basic connection charge 45.6344.0442.9442.7143.06 42.0041.5241.3841.2640.91 Taxes 2.28 2.20 2.11
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • 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 Monthly Rates of RUS Borrowers, 1994-1996.....................38 Table 1.23 Average Monthly Rates of RUS Borrowers by the Number of Lines Served, 1996..........38 Table 1.24 Average Monthly Rates of RUS Borrowers by the Number of Exchanges Served, 1996.....38 C. Additional Sources of Information on Local Rates...................39 II. Toll Rates.....................................................40 A.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • 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 Monthly Rates of RUS Borrowers, 1994-1997....................38 Table 1.23 Average Monthly Rates of RUS Borrowers by the Number of Lines Served, 1997........39 Table 1.24 Average Monthly Rates of RUS Borrowers by the Number of Exchanges Served, 1997....40 C. Additional Sources of Information on Local Rates.................41 II. Toll Rates.................................................42 A.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-96.pdf
  • RHODE ISLAND 0.24 1.02 (0.78) 1.11 (0.87) (0.10) SOUTH CAROLINA 1.98 0.94 1.04 1.06 0.91 (0.13) SOUTH DAKOTA 3.94 0.95 3.00 1.24 2.70 (0.29) TENNESSEE 0.75 0.96 (0.21) 0.98 (0.23) (0.02) TEXAS 0.96 0.91 0.05 0.82 0.14 0.09 UTAH 0.78 1.00 (0.22) 1.13 (0.35) (0.13) VERMONT 2.88 1.01 1.87 1.30 1.58 (0.29) VIRGINIA 0.30 0.98 (0.68) 1.10 (0.80) (0.12) WASHINGTON 1.21 0.98 0.23 1.03 0.18 (0.05) WEST VIRGINIA 1.90 0.95 0.95 1.01 0.89 (0.06) WISCONSIN 1.37 0.89 0.48 0.79 0.58 0.09 WYOMING 6.49 1.08 5.42 1.39 5.10 (0.31) UNITED STATES $0.87 0.95 (0.08) 0.95 (0.08) 0.00 GUAM 1.33 0.00 1.33 0.95 0.39 (0.95) N. MARIANA ISL. 21.68 0.93 20.76 0.42 21.26 0.51 PUERTO RICO 10.21 0.63 9.58 0.57 9.65 0.06 VIRGIN
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-97.pdf
  • (10,743) 0.98 1.31 (0.33) ARKANSAS 71,422 17,794 53,627 4.35 1.08 3.27 CALIFORNIA 321,535 206,432 115,103 1.25 0.80 0.45 COLORADO 47,709 43,307 4,402 1.50 1.37 0.14 CONNECTICUT 5,029 35,604 (30,575) 0.19 1.38 (1.18) DELAWARE 20 8,398 (8,379) 0.00 1.32 (1.31) DIST. OF COLUMBIA 0 11,656 (11,656) 0.00 1.06 (1.06) FLORIDA 31,833 142,655 (110,822) 0.25 1.13 (0.88) GEORGIA 78,176 69,394 8,782 1.37 1.21 0.15 HAWAII 1,318 8,773 (7,455) 0.16 1.03 (0.88) IDAHO 29,126 10,927 18,199 3.56 1.34 2.23 ILLINOIS 24,721 93,298 (68,577) 0.26 0.97 (0.72) INDIANA 16,870 39,727 (22,857) 0.41 0.95 (0.55) IOWA 29,192 20,885 8,307 1.53 1.10 0.44 KANSAS 58,496 21,004 37,492 3.08 1.10 1.97 KENTUCKY 25,555 26,778 (1,224) 1.03 1.08 (0.05) LOUISIANA 67,156 29,098 38,058 2.30 1.00 1.30 MAINE 22,370 9,648
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-99.pdf
  • 1.31 22,748 1.99 New York 53,021 0.34 159,102 1.03 -106,081 -0.69 North Carolina 34,304 0.56 65,174 1.07 -30,870 -0.51 North Dakota 24,969 4.98 6,148 1.23 18,821 3.75 Ohio 19,587 0.23 76,213 0.91 -56,626 -0.67 Oklahoma 65,942 2.63 24,411 0.98 41,532 1.66 Oregon 46,888 1.84 28,929 1.13 17,958 0.70 Pennsylvania 28,812 0.28 92,096 0.91 -63,285 -0.62 Rhode Island 25 0.00 9,836 1.21 -9,811 -1.21 South Carolina 50,342 1.80 32,031 1.15 18,312 0.66 South Dakota 20,953 4.07 6,824 1.32 14,130 2.74 Tennessee 34,352 0.83 42,882 1.04 -8,530 -0.21 Texas 136,446 0.86 139,894 0.88 -3,448 -0.02 Utah 12,347 0.87 17,138 1.21 -4,791 -0.34 Vermont 25,913 5.19 6,273 1.26 19,640 3.93 Virginia 37,126 0.65 66,613 1.17 -29,487 -0.52 Washington 51,259 1.14 49,831 1.11 1,428 0.03
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend100.pdf
  • number of international reports on the FCC-State Link web page. TABLE 7.1 INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FROM THE UNITED STATES TO FOREIGN POINTS (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenue Billed Revenue Minutes Messages Total Per minute *Per call Telex TelegraphPrivate LineMisc. 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,350 411 3,435 1.03 8.37 415 45 172 1986 3,917 482 3,891 0.99 8.07 390 42 175 1987 4,480 570 4,559 1.02 8.00 360 35 191 1988 5,190
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend199.pdf
  • largest resellers are shown in Table 7.5. 7 - 1 TABLE 7.1 INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FROM THE UNITED STATES TO FOREIGN POINTS (Minute, message, and revenue amounts shown in millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenue Billed Revenue Minutes Messages Total Per minute *Per call Telex TelegraphPrivate LineMisc. 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,350 411 3,435 1.03 8.37 415 45 172 1986 3,917 482 3,891 0.99 8.07 390 42 175 1987 4,480 570 4,559 1.02 8.00 360 35 191 1988 5,190
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend200.pdf
  • reports on the FCC-State Link web page. 6-2 Table 6.1 International Service from the United States to Foreign Points (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues Minutes Messages Total Per Per Call Telex Telegraph Private LineMisc. Minute 1/ 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,350 411 3,435 1.03 8.37 415 45 172 1986 3,917 482 3,891 0.99 8.07 390 42 175 1987 4,480 570 4,559 1.02 8.00 360 35 191 1988 5,190
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend298.pdf
  • of the fifty largest resellers are shown in Table 7.5. TABLE 7.1 INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FROM THE UNITED STATES TO FOREIGN POINTS (Minute, message, and revenue amounts shown in millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenue Billed Revenue Minutes Messages Total Per minute *Per call Telex TelegraphPrivate LineMisc. 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,350 411 3,435 1.03 8.37 415 45 172 1986 3,917 482 3,891 0.99 8.07 390 42 175 1987 4,480 570 4,559 1.02 8.00 360 35 191 1988 5,190
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend299.pdf
  • reports on the FCC-State Link web page. 7 - 1 TABLE 7.1 INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FROM THE UNITED STATES TO FOREIGN POINTS (Minute, message, and revenue amounts shown in millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenue Billed Revenue Minutes Messages Total Per minute *Per call Telex TelegraphPrivate LineMisc. 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,350 411 3,435 1.03 8.37 415 45 172 1986 3,917 482 3,891 0.99 8.07 390 42 175 1987 4,480 570 4,559 1.02 8.00 360 35 191 1988 5,190
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf
  • reports on the FCC-State Link web page. 6-2 Table 6.1 International Service from the United States (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues MinutesMessages Total Per Per Call Telex Telegraph Private Line Misc. End-user Minute 2/ Services 1/ 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,446 425 3,487 1.01 8.20 415 45 172 1986 4,126 515 4,004 0.97 7.77 390 42 175 1987 4,819 625 4,751 0.99 7.60 360 35 191 1988 5,679
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend504.pdf
  • the Internet on the FCC-State Link web page at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats. 6-2 Table 6.1 International Service from the United States (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues Minutes Total Per Per Call Telex Misc. End-User 1 Minute 2 Services 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,446 411 3,487 1.01 8.49 415 45 172 1986 4,126 482 4,004 0.97 8.30 390 42 175 1987 4,819 570 4,751 0.99 8.33 360 35 191 1988 5,679
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
  • the Internet on the FCC-State Link web page at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats. 6-2 Table 6.1 International Service from the United States (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues Minutes Total Per Per Call Telex Misc. End-User 1 Minute 2 Services 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,446 411 3,487 1.01 8.49 415 45 172 1986 4,126 482 4,004 0.97 8.30 390 42 175 1987 4,819 570 4,751 0.99 8.33 360 35 191 1988 5,679
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
  • the FCC-State Link web page. 6-2 Table 6.1 International Service from the United States to Foreign Points (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues Minutes Messages Total Per Per Call Telex Telegraph Private Line Misc. Minute 1/ Services 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,350 411 3,435 1.03 8.37 415 45 172 1986 3,917 482 3,891 0.99 8.07 390 42 175 1987 4,480 570 4,559 1.02 8.00 360 35 191 1988 5,190
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend803.pdf
  • Internet on the FCC-State Link web page at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats. Table 6.1 International Service from the United States (Minute, Message, and Revenue Amounts Shown in Millions) Telephone Service Other Services Billed Revenues Billed Revenues MinutesMessages Total Per Per Call Telex Telegraph Private Line Misc. End-UserMinute 2/ Services 1/ 1980 1,569 199 $2,097 $1.34 $10.53 $325 $63 $115 1981 1,857 233 2,239 1.21 9.61 350 62 126 1982 2,187 274 2,382 1.09 8.70 363 56 138 1983 2,650 322 2,876 1.09 8.92 379 54 154 1984 3,037 367 3,197 1.05 8.71 394 46 158 1985 3,446 411 3,487 1.01 8.49 415 45 172 1986 4,126 482 4,004 0.97 8.30 390 42 175 1987 4,819 570 4,751 0.99 8.33 360 35 191 1988 5,679
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itltrd98.pdf
  • 1.61 1966 2/ 32 100 48 53 19 30 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 2/ 40 114 55 60 23 32 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46 127 62 65 28 40 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 65 172 83 89 38 52 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81 197 99 98 51 60 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 101 237 121 117 68 75 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 127 292 148 144 92 99 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159 365 184 180 112 120 2.29 1.16 1.13 1.08 1.11 1974 191 429 217 212 142 152 2.25 1.14 1.11 1.07 1.09 1975 219 490 247 243 167 177 2.23 1.13 1.11
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itltrd99.pdf
  • 1.61 1966 2/ 32 100 48 53 19 30 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 2/ 40 114 55 60 23 32 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46 127 62 65 28 40 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 65 172 83 89 38 52 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81 197 99 98 51 60 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 101 237 121 117 68 75 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 127 292 148 144 92 99 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159 365 184 180 112 120 2.29 1.16 1.13 1.08 1.11 1974 191 429 217 212 142 152 2.25 1.14 1.11 1.07 1.09 1975 219 490 247 243 167 177 2.23 1.13 1.11
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd00.pdf
  • 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13 1.08 1.11 1974 190.7 428.7 216.6 212.1 142.0 152.2 2.25 1.14 1.11 1.07 1.09 1975 219.4 490.2 247.4 242.9 167.0 176.9 2.23 1.13 1.11
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd01.pdf
  • 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13 1.08 1.11 1974 190.7 428.7 216.6 212.1 142.0 152.2 2.25 1.14 1.11 1.07 1.09 1975 219.4 490.2 247.4 242.9 167.0 176.9 2.23 1.13 1.11
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-1.pdf
  • we allocate interstate and intrastate mobile wireless revenues on a state-by- state basis by multiplying national revenues (See Table 1.14) by an allocation percentage. The allocation percentage is determined by dividing the number of wireless numbers in a state using data from FCC Form 502 (Numbering Resources Utilization/Forecasting) by nationwide wireless numbers. SLC revenues are allocated by state in Table 1.21. The sum of residential non-lifeline lines (including both primary and non-primary lines) and single-line business lines are estimated by multiplying residential non-lifeline lines and single-line business lines from Table 2.16 of the 2001/2002 Statistics of Communications Common Carriers by the adjustment factor from Table 1.17. Column 1 shows primary residential lines and single-line business lines which is the difference between
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-2.pdf
  • 9.50 9.49 11.80 13.00 12.97 Virginia 7.26 7.75 7.51 1.76 3.50 3.35 0.88 1.75 1.68 8.14 9.50 9.19 9.90 13.00 12.54 Washington 6.75 7.75 7.75 0.00 3.50 3.30 0.00 1.75 1.65 6.75 9.50 9.40 6.75 13.00 12.69 West Virginia 7.75 7.75 7.75 0.00 1.42 1.28 0.00 0.71 0.64 7.75 8.46 8.39 7.75 9.88 9.67 Wisconsin 6.81 7.75 7.08 0.00 3.50 1.21 0.00 1.75 0.60 6.81 9.50 7.68 6.81 13.00 8.89 Wyoming 7.75 7.75 7.75 0.00 3.50 3.50 0.00 1.75 1.75 7.75 9.50 9.50 7.75 13.00 13.00 Nationwide $5.25 $7.75 $7.02 $0.00 $6.00 $2.58 $0.00 $1.75 $1.26 $5.25 $9.50 $8.28 $5.25 $15.50 $10.86 Note: This table reflects only non-tribal support. 1 Basic federal support includes both Tier 1 and Tier 2 support.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • -13.64 North Carolina 2.91 -2.04 5.06 -22.46 North Dakota -0.14 -1.25 1.12 22.66 Northern Mariana Islands -20.15 2.53 -22.12 -66.58 Ohio 1.31 0.74 0.57 13.01 Oklahoma 7.77 -3.57 11.76 16.93 Oregon 5.18 -1.61 6.89 4.53 Pennsylvania -0.73 -1.00 0.28 35.77 Puerto Rico -0.72 0.14 -0.86 88.87 Rhode Island 0.62 -2.83 3.55 0.00 South Carolina 5.78 -0.89 6.73 11.29 South Dakota 1.21 -4.28 5.74 14.71 Tennessee 3.74 -2.56 6.46 10.41 Texas 2.80 -1.76 4.65 -13.06 Utah 4.49 -3.34 8.11 58.34 Vermont 5.29 0.03 5.27 -3.50 Virgin Islands -9.48 1.16 -10.52 -22.03 Virginia 3.33 -1.70 5.12 43.76 Washington -1.28 -2.26 1.00 -10.81 West Virginia 1.30 -0.42 1.73 -9.85 Wisconsin 3.45 0.50 2.94 17.94 Wyoming -1.54 0.77 -2.30 1.42 Industry 2.47 -1.55 4.07 4.38
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-7.pdf
  • 19 Table 7.7 Average Local Rates for Businesses with a Single Line in Urban Areas Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Monthly Representative Service Charge* $31.06$30.97$32.29$32.45$32.70$32.25$32.48$32.58$32.76$32.44$32.41$32.18$31.88$32.12 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.38 Extra for Touch-Tone 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 0.14 Taxes, 911 and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.95 Total Monthly Charge 41.25 41.21 42.12 42.29 42.57 41.64 41.80 41.81 41.67 41.27 41.21 41.80 42.43 43.59 Monthly Charge for Flat-Rate Service $33.04$33.29$34.12$34.06$34.85$34.39$34.45$34.42$34.68$34.39$33.73$33.45$32.02$33.34 Subscriber Line Charges 3.65 3.69 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.69
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-intro.pdf
  • 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 Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payment Projections by Jurisdiction ............................. Table 3.12 3 Index of Tables and Charts Interstate Access Support Payment Projections by Study Area ..............................Table 3.27 Interstate Common Line Support Payment Projections by Jurisdiction ................. Table 3.13 Interstate Common Line Support Payment Projections by Study Area .................. Table 3.28 Investment - Average
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-1.pdf
  • we allocate interstate and intrastate mobile wireless revenues on a state-by- state basis by multiplying national revenues (see Table 1.14) by an allocation percentage. The allocation percentage is determined by dividing the number of wireless numbers in a state using data from FCC Form 502 (Numbering Resources Utilization/Forecasting) by nationwide wireless numbers. SLC revenues are allocated by state in Table 1.21. The sum of residential non-lifeline lines (including both primary and non-primary lines) and single-line business lines are estimated by multiplying residential non-lifeline lines and single-line business lines from Table 2.17 of the 2002/2003 Statistics of Communications Common Carriers by the adjustment factor from Table 1.17. Column 1 shows primary residential lines and single-line business lines which is the difference between
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-2.pdf
  • Carolina 7.83 8.25 8.09 3.50 3.50 3.49 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.58 10.00 9.83 13.08 13.50 13.33 North Dakota 5.25 8.25 8.00 0.00 3.50 1.93 0.00 1.75 0.96 5.25 10.00 8.96 5.25 13.50 10.89 N. Marianna Islands 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 Ohio 7.09 8.25 7.40 0.00 3.50 2.42 0.00 1.75 1.21 7.09 10.00 8.61 7.09 13.50 11.03 Oklahoma 7.02 8.25 7.26 0.00 1.16 0.43 0.00 0.58 0.21 7.02 8.83 7.47 7.02 9.99 7.90 Oregon 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 Pennsylvania 5.94 8.25 7.85 0.00 2.50 1.07 0.00 1.25 0.53 5.94 9.50 8.38 5.94 12.00 9.45 Puerto Rico 6.75 8.25 8.25 3.34
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
  • 16.88 5.83 10.44 26.71 455101 C QWEST CORPORATION - AZ 0.07 -5.57 5.97 0.00 457991 C SADDLEBACK COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY 189.63 -11.13 225.89 299.10 457991A C SADDLEBACK COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY 107.01 -0.07 107.16 0.00 ARKANSAS Total -10.13 -3.67 -6.70 -0.13 401142 C CENTURYTEL OF NW ARKANSAS, LLC - RUSSELLVILLE 7.18 -0.75 7.99 21.44 401143 C CENTURYTEL OF NW ARKANSAS, LLC-SILOAM SPRINGS 10.50 -1.21 11.85 45.56 401144 C CENTURYTEL OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, LLC 5.91 -2.45 8.57 11.95 401144A C CENTURYTEL OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, LLC -9.39 -0.16 -9.25 -92.42 401691 C ALLTEL ARKANSAS, INC. -8.07 -0.98 -7.16 -42.43 401692 C ARKANSAS TELEPHONE COMPANY -1.96 0.18 -2.13 -47.72 401697 C CENTRAL ARKANSAS TEL. COOP INC. 33.72 1.41 31.86 65.00 401698 C CLEVELAND COUNTY TEL. CO. -7.08
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-6.pdf
  • Vermont 1986 3.48 75.3% 84.6% 93.1% 9.3% * 8.6%* 91.5% 93.9% 96.5% 2.4% 2.6% Virginia 1988 3.35 80.4% 84.7% 84.9% 4.3% 0.3% 93.2% 93.6% 95.4% 0.5% 1.8% Washington 1987 3.30 82.7% 89.0% 92.5% 6.3% * 3.4% 92.9% 96.1% 96.6% 3.2% * 0.5% West Virginia 1986 1.28 75.7% 83.8% 91.0% 8.1% * 7.1%* 87.3% 93.6% 94.9% 6.3% * 1.3% Wisconsin 1991 1.21 88.4% 87.8% 89.5% -0.6% 1.7% 96.0% 96.4% 96.4% 0.4% 0.0% Wyoming 1991 3.50 74.2% 89.5% 84.4% 15.2% * -5.1% 89.2% 94.9% 93.4% 5.7% * -1.5% Households with income under $10,000 expressed in March 1984 dollars. * Increase is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. # Decrease is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Note: Changes may not appear
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-7.pdf
  • for Local Service in Urban Areas (As of October 15) 7 - 20 Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002* 2003** Monthly Representative Service Charge*** $31.06$30.97$32.29$32.45$32.70$32.25$32.48$32.58$32.76$32.44$32.41$32.18$31.88$30.86$30.92 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 4.39 4.91 5.63 5.75 Extra for Touch-Tone**** 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 0.19 0.18 **** **** Taxes, 911 and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.03 5.04 5.45 5.47 5.72 Total Monthly Charge 41.25 41.21 42.12 42.29 42.57 41.64 41.80 41.81 41.67 41.27 41.21 41.80 42.43 41.95 42.40 Monthly Charge for Flat-Rate Service $33.04$33.29$34.12$34.06$34.85$34.39$34.45$34.42$34.68$34.39$33.73$33.45$32.02$32.92$32.36 Subscriber Line Charges 3.65 3.69 3.70 3.70
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-intro.pdf
  • .....................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, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 3 Index of Tables and Charts Interstate Access Support Payment Projections by State or Jurisdiction ................Table 3.11 Interstate Access Support Payment Projections by Study Area ..............................Table 3.27 Interstate Common Line Support Payment Projections by State or Jurisdiction ..... Table 3.10 Interstate Common Line Support Payment Projections by Study Area .................. Table 3.26
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-7.pdf
  • measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. 7 - 18 TABLE 7.8 AVERAGE LOCAL RATES FOR BUSINESSES WITH A SINGLE LINE IN URBAN AREAS 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Monthly Representative Service Charge* $31.06$30.97$32.29$32.45$32.70$32.25$32.48$32.58$32.69 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 Extra for Touch-tone 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.44 Tax including 911 Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 Total Monthly Charge 41.25 41.21 42.12 42.29 42.57 41.64 41.80 41.81 41.65 Monthly Charge for Flat-rate Service $33.04$33.29$34.12$34.06$34.85$34.39$34.45$34.42$34.55 Subscriber Line Charges 3.65 3.69 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.69 3.61 3.61 Extra for Touch-tone 2.12 2.11 1.87 1.84 1.76 1.12 1.00 0.89 0.58 Tax including
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-7.pdf
  • 1.49 1951 20 22 26.0 1.26 1.38 1952 20 22 26.5 1.24 1.35 1953 21 22 26.7 1.27 1.34 1954 22 22 26.9 1.35 1.33 1955 23 22 26.8 1.40 1.34 1956 23 22 27.2 1.40 1.32 1957 24 22 28.1 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-7.pdf
  • 19 Table 7.8 Average Local Rates for Businesses with a Single Line in Urban Areas 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Monthly Representative Service Charge* $31.06 $30.97 $32.29 $32.45 $32.70 $32.25 $32.48 $32.58 $32.76 $32.44 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 Extra for Touch-tone 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 Other Mandatory Payments 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 Total Monthly Charge 41.25 41.21 42.12 42.29 42.57 41.64 41.80 41.81 41.67 41.27 Monthly Charge for Flat-rate Service $33.04 $33.29 $34.12 $34.06 $34.85 $34.39 $34.45 $34.42 $34.68 $34.39 Subscriber Line Charges 3.65 3.69 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.69 3.61 3.61 3.56 Extra for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs00-0.pdf
  • five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. 7 - 20 Table 7.8 Average Local Rates for Businesses with a Single Line in Urban Areas 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Monthly Representative Service Charge* $31.06$30.97$32.29$32.45$32.70$32.25$32.48$32.58$32.76$32.44$32.22 Subscriber Line Charges 3.55 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.52 Extra for Touch-tone 2.43 2.35 1.84 1.71 1.67 1.21 0.97 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.25 Taxes, 911 and Other Charges 4.21 4.32 4.42 4.57 4.63 4.61 4.79 4.87 4.99 4.97 5.01 Total Monthly Charge 41.25 41.21 42.12 42.29 42.57 41.64 41.80 41.81 41.67 41.27 41.00 Monthly Charge for Flat-rate Service $33.04$33.29$34.12$34.06$34.85$34.39$34.45$34.42$34.68$34.39$33.84 Subscriber Line Charges 3.65 3.69 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.69 3.61 3.61 3.56 3.52 Extra for Touch-tone 2.12 2.11
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs01-0.pdf
  • -30,887 -0.51 North Dakota 24,969 4.98 6,150 1.23 18,819 3.75 Northern Mariana Islands 3,310 11.06 250 0.84 3,060 10.22 Ohio 19,587 0.23 76,233 0.91 -56,646 -0.67 Oklahoma 65,942 2.63 24,417 0.98 41,525 1.66 Oregon 46,888 1.84 28,937 1.13 17,951 0.70 Pennsylvania 28,812 0.28 92,121 0.91 -63,309 -0.62 Puerto Rico 143,591 9.24 12,891 0.83 130,701 8.41 Rhode Island 25 0.00 9,839 1.21 -9,814 -1.21 South Carolina 50,342 1.80 32,039 1.15 18,303 0.65 South Dakota 20,953 4.07 6,826 1.32 14,128 2.74 Tennessee 34,352 0.83 42,893 1.04 -8,541 -0.21 Texas 136,446 0.86 139,931 0.89 -3,485 -0.02 Utah 12,347 0.87 17,143 1.21 -4,795 -0.34 Vermont 25,913 5.19 6,274 1.26 19,638 3.93 Virgin Islands 24,153 29.94 1,295 1.60 22,858 28.33 Virginia 37,126 0.65 66,631 1.17 -29,505
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • 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 and Charts Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Mechanism ­ Net Dollar Flow by State .................. Table 3.18 Interstate Access Support - Payment Projections - by Jurisdiction ........................ Table 3.11 Interstate Access Support - Payment Projections - by Study Area ......................... Table 3.29 Investment - Average Net ....................................................................................... Table 11.6 Investment - Gross .................................................................................................. Table 11.3 Investment
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • $0.77 $0.60 $0.48 $0.38 France 10/ 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.42 SDR 0.36 SDR 0.24 SDR 0.19 SDR 0.15 SDR 0.15 SDR 0.15 SDR 0.15 SDR Germany 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR 0.8 SDR 0.6 SDR 0.34 SDR0.26 SDR0.16 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR 0.15 SDR Greece 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 1.53 SDR 1.21 SDR 1.12 SDR .95 SDR .85 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.63 SDR 0.4 SDR 0.22 SDR 0.2 SDR 0.2 SDR Guatemala $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 $1.20 $1.18 $1.00 $0.90 $0.77 $0.64 $0.51 $0.38 Haiti $1.45 $1.45 $1.40 $1.35 $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $0.92 $0.92 Hong Kong $2.35 $2.20 $1.90 $1.60 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 .65 SDR .58 SDR
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/01socc.pdf
  • 5.6 6.7 0.78 0.17 0.32 1.27 5.4HI Idaho 28.6 22.5 6.1 2.1 4.0 0.55 0.00 (0.65) (0.09) 4.1ID Illinois 392.5 306.7 85.8 45.4 40.4 8.06 5.63 1.88 15.57 24.8 IL Indiana 241.5 185.7 55.8 37.1 18.7 2.60 0.98 0.59 4.16 14.5IN Iowa 82.1 29.3 52.9 38.5 14.4 8.10 2.79 (0.53) 10.35 4.0IA Kansas 212.0 132.2 79.8 68.1 11.7 4.04 1.08 1.21 6.34 5.4KS Kentucky 108.7 67.6 41.1 28.3 12.8 1.89 0.75 1.24 3.88 9.0KY Louisiana 111.1 51.1 60.0 48.3 11.7 1.59 (0.17) 1.00 2.42 9.3LA Maine 37.6 16.9 20.7 10.6 10.1 2.69 0.84 2.06 5.58 4.5ME Maryland 274.8 143.3 131.6 78.9 52.7 12.58 5.29 12.07 29.94 22.7MD Massachusetts 249.2 110.1 139.1 66.2 72.9 11.37 7.91 26.17 45.45 27.4MA Michigan 221.5 187.1
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/02socc.pdf
  • $0.46 $0.46 $0.46 El Salvador 9/ $1.40 $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.20 $1.10 $0.88 $0.77 $0.60 $0.48 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 France 9/ 1.0 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.7 SDR0.42 SDR0.36 SDR0.24 SDR0.19 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR 0.15 SDR Germany 9/ 1.0 SDR 0.8 SDR 0.6 SDR0.34 SDR0.26 SDR0.16 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR 0.15 SDR Greece 9/ 1.53 SDR1.21 SDR1.12 SDR .95 SDR .85 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.63 SDR 0.4 SDR 0.22 SDR0.2 SDR0.2 SDR0.2 SDR 0.2 SDR 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 $1.00.65 SDR .58 SDR .52
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/03socc.pdf
  • $1.55 $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 $1.25 $1.00 $0.80 $0.65 $0.55 $0.38 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 0.7 SDR0.7 SDR0.42 SDR0.36 SDR0.24 SDR0.19 SDR Germany 0.8 SDR0.6 SDR0.34 SDR0.26 SDR0.16 SDR0.15 SDR Greece 1.21 SDR1.12 SDR0.95 SDR0.85 SDR0.7 SDR0.63 SDR0.4 SDR0.22 SDR 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 $1.000.65 SDR0.58 SDR0.52 SDR 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • 2/ 1.4 SDR 1.4 SDR 1.4 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.42 SDR 0.36 SDR 0.24 SDR Germany 2/ 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR 0.8 SDR 0.6 SDR 0.34 SDR 0.26 SDR 0.16 SDR Greece 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 1.53 SDR 1.21 SDR 1.12 SDR .95 SDR .85 SDR .75 SDR Guatemala $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 $1.20 $1.20 $1.08 Hong Kong $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.35 $2.20 $1.90 $1.60 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 India $2.50 $2.50 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.00 $1.90 $1.80 $1.80 $1.60 Israel 1/ $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.28 $2.16 $2.16 $1.90 $1.18 Italy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • $1.15 $1.00 $1.00 France 1.4 SDR 1.4 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.42 SDR 0.36 SDR 0.24 SDR 0.19 SDR Germany 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR 0.8 SDR 0.6 SDR 0.34 SDR 0.26 SDR 0.16 SDR 0.15 SDR Greece 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 1.53 SDR 1.21 SDR 1.12 SDR .95 SDR .85 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.7 SDR Guatemala $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 $1.20 $1.18 $1.00 $0.90 Hong Kong $2.50 $2.50 $2.35 $2.20 $1.90 $1.60 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00.65 SDR .58 SDR India $2.50 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.00 $1.90 $1.80 $1.80 $1.60 $1.58 Israel $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.28 $2.16 $2.16 $1.90 $1.18
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • $1.20 $1.15 $1.00 $0.88 $0.88 France 1.4 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.42 SDR 0.36 SDR 0.24 SDR 0.19 SDR 0.15 SDR Germany 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR 0.8 SDR 0.6 SDR 0.34 SDR 0.26 SDR 0.16 SDR 0.15 SDR 0.15 SDR Greece 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 5.0 GF 1.53 SDR 1.21 SDR 1.12 SDR .95 SDR .85 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.63 SDR 0.44 SDR Guatemala $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 $1.20 $1.18 $1.00 $0.90 $0.77 Hong Kong $2.50 $2.35 $2.20 $1.90 $1.60 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00.65 SDR .58 SDR .52 SDR India $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.00 $1.90 $1.80 $1.80 $1.60 $1.58 $1.58 Israel $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.40 $2.28 $2.16 $2.16
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • 2,506.9 4.88 2,502.0 374.0 2,128.0 1,034.5 644.3 449.2 2,128.0 NY NORTH CAROLINA 1,046.4 5.77 1,040.6 340.7 699.9 400.3 165.8 132.9 699.0 0.896 NC NORTH DAKOTA 63.5 (0.47) 64.0 17.7 46.3 18.8 13.0 14.4 46.3 ND OHIO 1,266.6 (0.43) 1,267.0 335.5 931.5 475.8 225.1 230.1 931.0 0.486 OH OKLAHOMA 291.9 0.02 291.9 40.3 251.5 125.4 69.8 56.3 251.5 OK OREGON 447.7 (1.21) 448.9 104.1 344.8 176.4 91.4 77.1 344.8 OR PENNSYLVANIA 1,506.7 (0.04) 1,420.5 441.8 978.7 538.6 206.4 232.0 977.0 1.613 PA RHODE ISLAND 125.7 0.03 125.7 8.1 117.6 56.4 43.7 17.5 117.6 RI SOUTH CAROLINA 367.4 9.91 357.5 80.6 276.8 156.7 66.4 53.3 276.4 0.470 SC SOUTH DAKOTA 70.2 0.11 70.1 15.5 54.6 21.2 15.6 17.8 54.6 SD TENNESSEE 527.5 0.03
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
  • and Adjustments Line Sensitive Interexchange All Reporting Cos. $35,461.7 $453.2 $35,008.5$8,223.3$26,785.2$13,731.5$5,758.1$7,281.5$26,771.1 $14.1 Bell Operating Cos. 27,071.3 350.8 26,720.5 5,194.0 21,526.510,502.2 4,757.6 6,252.721,512.4 14.1 All Other Cos. 8,390.4 102.4 8,288.0 3,029.3 5,258.7 3,229.3 1,000.5 1,028.9 5,258.7 Alabama 413.7 4.61 409.1 55.3 353.8 205.3 77.1 71.0 353.4 0.401 AL Arizona 609.3 13.63 595.6 123.5 472.1 239.7 107.4 125.0 472.1 AZ Arkansas 245.4 1.21 244.2 58.8 185.4 91.4 42.6 51.4 185.4 AR California 4,181.3 102.92 4,078.4 1,250.9 2,827.5 1,454.6 569.2 803.8 2,827.5 CA Colorado 616.2 12.70 603.5 99.8 503.7 236.0 114.0 153.7 503.7 CO Connecticut 435.7 7.69 428.0 40.0 388.0 161.5 137.1 89.3 388.0 CT Delaware 81.3 1.08 80.2 5.1 75.1 28.6 16.0 30.2 74.9 0.239DE District of Columbia 172.1 2.49 169.6 0.6 169.1
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/prelim02socc.pdf
  • $0.46 $0.46 $0.46 El Salvador 10/ $1.40 $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.20 $1.10 $0.88 $0.77 $0.60 $0.48 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 France 10/ 1.0 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.7 SDR0.42 SDR0.36 SDR0.24 SDR0.19 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR 0.15 SDR Germany 10/ 1.0 SDR 0.8 SDR 0.6 SDR0.34 SDR0.26 SDR0.16 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR0.15 SDR 0.15 SDR Greece 10/ 1.53 SDR1.21 SDR1.12 SDR .95 SDR .85 SDR 0.7 SDR 0.63 SDR 0.4 SDR 0.22 SDR0.2 SDR0.2 SDR0.2 SDR 0.2 SDR 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 $1.00.65 SDR .58 SDR .52
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2001/fcc01329.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2001/fcc01329.txt
  • a proposed transaction.96 This market definition also is the one that radio advertisers customarily recognize and rely on in making their purchasing decisions.97 Are Arbitron markets the relevant geographic market for purposes of our competition analysis? Can Arbitron radio markets be manipulated to make a particular market or transaction appear less troublesome. If so, how 93 1992 Merger Guidelines § 1.21. 94 For example, out-of-market stations that can be heard in a local market may provide more competitive pressure on local radio stations with respect to national or regional advertisers, but not with respect to local advertisers. 95 Specifically, we have defined the radio market "as that area encompassed by the principal community contours ... of the mutually overlapping stations proposing
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000025.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000025.txt
  • should be reimbursed, as reasonable costs, the attorney's fees it incurred. Murray filed an opposition to Newport's request, citing several alleged deficiencies of a procedural nature in addition to substantive ones. First, Murray argues that neither Media Services nor its COO may be heard by the Commission because neither qualifies as a party in this proceeding. Murray cites Rule Section 1.21(a) and 1.23(a), which state that a party may appear before the Commission in person or through an attorney qualified to practice before it. Murray notes that neither Media Services nor its COO qualifies, and, therefore, neither is properly before the Commission as a representative for Newport. Second, Murray points out that the request is not verified and signed by either
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.txt
  • Competition, 26 Journal of Law & Economics 635 (1983) (concluding that newspapers and TV advertisements are substitutes). Second Report & Order, 50 FCC 2d at 1056-1057. >. Community Publishers Inc. v. Donrey Corp., 892 F. Supp. 1146, 1155-1157 (W.D. Ark. 1995). U.S. Advertising Volume 2000-2001, supra note 68. Id. U.S. Dep't of Justice & FTC, 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, § 1.21 (revised 1997). Others claimed, however, that businesses do not need to combine to realize these efficiencies because they could simply form a joint venture. Independent Free Papers Comments at 2-4. For profit-maximizing firms, including monopolies, facing many customers, reductions in fixed costs that do not affect marginal cost ordinarily do not create an incentive to lower price. See 1992 Horizontal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exparsbc.txt
  • $ 0.13 Ohio $ 17.81 $ 1.48 Oklahoma $ 7.05 $ 0.59 Texas $ 40.99 $ 3.41 Wisconsin $ 9.45 $ 0.79 $250.00 $ 20.83 ATTACHMENT A-6 (cont'd) YEAR 2 CIPP CAPS ($M) State Annual Monthly Arkansas $ 6.24 $ 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Notices/fcc01097.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Notices/fcc01097.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Notices/fcc01097.txt
  • IVDS) 25 10 0 0 0 10 1,250 Marine (Ship) 5,500 10 427,444 460,571 8 10 550,000 GMRS 2,000 5 66,718 71,889 7 5 50,000 Aviation (Aircraft) 3,500 10 223,889 241,240 7 5 175,000 Marine (Coast) 1,300 10 50,886 54,830 4 5 65,000 Aviation (Ground) 1,700 5 59,367 63,968 8 10 85,000 Amateur Vanity Call Signs 10,000 10 112,000 120,680 1.21 1.20 120,000 AM Class A 76 1 135,000 145,463 1,914 1,925 146,300 AM Class B 1,620 1 1,674,750 1,804,543 1,114 1,115 1,806,300 AM Class C 998 1 576,290 620,952 622 620 618,760 AM Class D 2,086 1 1,880,940 2,026,713 998 975 2,033,850 FM Classes A, B1 & C3 2,080 1 3,857,200 4,156,133 1,998 2,000 4,160,000 FM Classes B, C, C1
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01196.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01196.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01196.txt
  • IVDS) 25 10 0 0 0 10 1,250 Marine (Ship) 5,500 10 427,444 460,571 8 10 550,000 GMRS 2,000 5 66,718 71,889 7 5 50,000 Aviation (Aircraft) 3,500 10 223,889 241,240 7 5 175,000 Marine (Coast) 1,300 10 50,886 54,830 4 5 65,000 Aviation (Ground) 1,700 5 59,367 63,968 8 10 85,000 Amateur Vanity Call Signs 10,000 10 112,000 120,680 1.21 1.20 120,000 AM Class A 76 1 135,000 145,463 1,914 1,925 146,300 AM Class B 1,620 1 1,674,750 1,804,543 1,114 1,115 1,806,300 AM Class C 998 1 576,290 620,952 622 620 618,760 AM Class D 2,086 1 1,880,940 2,026,713 972 975 2,033,850 FM Classes A, B1 & C3 2,080 1 3,857,200 4,156,133 1,998 2,000 4,160,000 FM Classes B, C, C1
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OSEC/library/legislative_histories/43.pdf
  • Western Union you will find similar information on page xiv, under "Western Union", second paragraph, as follows: The 30 largest holders of voting securities of the Western Union Telegraph Co. at December 31, 1932, held 12.52 percent of the voting power. Among these 30 largest holders were Donald G. Geddes, William K. Vanderbilt, and Vincent Astor, directors, who held, respectively, 1.21, 0.39, and 0.34 percent of the total voting power. No general officer of the company was included among the 30 largest holders and no individual other than Donald G. Geddes held as much as 1 percent of the voting power. Then the last paragraph on that page: At the stockholders' meeting of April 12, 1933, there were 492,835 shares, or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • Interval PR-2-04-2100 Average Interval Completed - Dispatch (6-9 Lines) 3.5 7.67 3.2 4.5 a,b PR-2-05-2100 Average Interval Completed - Dispatch (>= 10 Lines) NA NA 5 NA PR-4 - Missed Appointments PR-4-02-2100 Average Delay Days ­ Total 8.25 13 10.69 5.67 7.82 5 6.13 16 7.14 1 a,b,c,d,e PR-4-03-2100 % Missed Appointment ­ Customer 1.7 4.4 1.48 2.64 1.29 3.59 1.21 1.23 PR-4-04-2100 % Missed Appointment ­ Verizon ­ Dispatch 9.1 6.25 6.41 5.56 10.86 4.44 11.64 5 7.42 3.45 PR-4-05-2100 % Missed Appointment ­ Verizon ­ No Dispatch 0.28 0 0.04 0 0.07 0 0.03 0 0.02 0 PR-4-08-2100 % Missed Appt. ­ Customer ­ Late Order Conf. 0 0 PR-6 - Installation Quality PR-6-01-2100 % Installation Troubles reported within
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1999/dd991222.html
  • Reinstated Robert Fetterman's license for WNYJ 43; rescinded order and dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration issued November 22, 1999 by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Commercial Wireless Division, DA 99-2581. Action by Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division. Adopted: December 21, 1999. by MO&O. (DA No. 99-2962). WTB REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE BID WITHDRAWAL PAYMENT RULE AS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 1.21-4(G) AND 90.1007. Denied Petition for Reconsideration filed by Jeremy Green. Action by Deputy Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted: December 21, 1999. by Order. (DA No. 99-2986). WTB ERRATUM TO SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION, FCC 99-368 RELEASED DECEMBER 2, 1999. Dkt No.: PR- 93-144, GN- 93-252, PP- 93-253. Action by Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division. Adopted: December
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form349/349.pdf
  • area. 9. No Yes 10. No Yes 11. N/A No Yes Auction Authorization. If the application is being submitted to obtain a construction permit for which the applicant was the winning bidder in an auction, then the applicant certifies, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 73.5005(a), that it has attached an exhibit containing the information required by 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.2107(d), 1.21 1 0(i), 1.2112(a) and 1.2112(b), if applicable. Exhibit No. An exhibit is required unless this question is inapplicable. 12. No Yes Anti-Drug Abuse Act Certification. Applicant certifies that neither applicant nor any party to the application is subject to denial of federal benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 21 U.S.C. Section 862. 13. N/A
• http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/mcdowell/mcdowell_att_bellsouth_statement.pdf
  • Official, FCC, to The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (dated Feb. 14, 2006) ("Transmittal Letter"). A copy of the Transmittal Letter, which is substantively similar to the Ethics Agreement, is also attached at Exhibit B. 6 A copy of the transcript of this exchange is attached at Exhibit C. 7 See 47 CFR § 1.21(c). 8 See Ethics Agreement at 1 ("upon confirmation Mr. McDowell will resign his position with COMPTEL and will for one year following his resignation disqualify himself from participating in any particular matter involving specific parties in which COMPTEL is a party, or represents a party"); 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a) ("where an employee ... represents a party to [a particular matter
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-278A1.html
  • businesses and residential consumers, use BellSouth's special access services.18 AT&T also purchases special access from BellSouth to provide retail voice and other services as a local carrier to businesses and consumers.19 End users, including AT&T, also purchase BellSouth's special access services for their own telecommunications requirements.20 7. BellSouth provides its interstate special access services pursuant to its Tariff FCC No. 1.21 In addition to its basic rates for special access services, BellSouth offers various optional discount plans to customers that are willing to make various commitments with respect to their purchases of BellSouth's special access services.22 One such plan is the Transport Savings Plan, i.e., the TSP. B.The Transport Savings Plan - History and Operation 8. BellSouth filed the TSP on
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-124A1.html
  • 503(b)(6). See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01, P 27, 17112 Appendix A (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(3). 47 C.F.R. SS 1.91, S 1.221. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.21(b). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.221(c). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(a). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(b). See 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(c). 47 U.S.C. S 311(a)(2). 47 C.F.R. S 73.3594. 47 C.F.R. S 73.3594(g). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-124 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-124 References Visible links 1. mailto:fccinfo@fcc.gov References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-124A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-03-127A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-03-127A1.pdf
  • DOJ identifies a relevant geographic market as the region where a hypothetical monopolist that is the only producer of the relevant product in the region would profitably impose at least a ``small but significant and nontransitory'' increase in the price of the relevant product, assuming that the prices of all products provided elsewhere do not change. DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines § 1.21. This approach is consistent with the Supreme Court's definition of the relevant geographic market as the region ``in which the seller operates, and to which the purchaser can practicably turn for supplies.'' United States v. Grinnell Corp., 348 U.S. 563, 588-89 (1966). See, e.g., Bear Stearns Ex Parte Presentation, A Defining Moment in Radio? by Victor B. Miller (May 12,
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/TABALL02.pdf
  • 2.14 5 North and Central America 213,206 399,536 27,214 639,956 983,965 0.50 0.44 0.35 0.81 6 South America 19,357 43,284 20,814 83,455 108,394 0.30 0.20 0.19 0.36 7 Asia 45,743 379,571 134,060 559,374 763,014 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.24 8 Oceania 13,148 51,650 59,657 124,455 45,277 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.17 9 Eastern Europe 5,359 3,119 1 8,479 1,248 1.72 1.08 1.10 1.21 10 Other Regions 0 334 359 693 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total for all International Points 448,6701,984,728 411,4642,844,8623,900,202 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.42* Page 32 TABLE 7 - Trans-Ocean Fiber Optic Cable Capacity 64 Kbps Circuits CABLES Class* Cost $M 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Est. 2004 Est. TRANS - ATLANTIC (T-A) - Operational : CANTAT-3
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/csreport_2000.pdf
  • 2.14 4.53 5.50 5 North and Central America 159,007 377,566 57,023 593,596 672,364 0.37 0.95 1.15 1.29 6 South America 10,553 57,437 1,967 69,957 34,311 0.18 0.35 0.85 1.06 7 Asia 117,712 243,718 7,698 369,128 57,183 0.47 0.24 0.67 0.85 8 Oceania 13,441 52,250 1,406 67,097 6,248 0.25 0.16 0.73 1.03 9 Eastern Europe 5,525 6,065 0 11,590 1,677 0.91 1.21 2.78 2.27 10 Other Regions 0 801 142 943 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total for all International Points 464,152 1,610,276 104,498 2,178,926 1,692,073 0.27 0.46 0.79 1.11 Page 33 TABLE 7 - Trans-Ocean Fiber Optic Cable Capacity 64 Kbps Circuits CABLES Class*Cost $M 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Est. 2002
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/mex-bc/am.pdf
  • 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 Fs not exceeded for more than period of observation.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files/ITRND01.pdf
  • 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13 1.08 1.11 1974 190.7 428.7 216.6 212.1 142.0 152.2 2.25 1.14 1.11 1.07 1.09 1975 219.4 490.2 247.4 242.9 167.0 176.9 2.23 1.13 1.11
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-broadband-dead-zone-report.pdf
  • noted in Question 1.2, the Commission made substantive changes to the information system, including a name change to the SORN, which required the re-publication of the SORN on April 7, 2010. 11 Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What are categories of individuals covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? 1.23 What are the categories of records, e.g., types of information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ccd.pdf
  • summit conference and public forum participants to write their comments. PSHSB may use either and/or both the electronic and paper (hardcopy) comment cards in other PSHSB public forums, such as summits, conferences, expos, lectures, etc. 11 If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: There is no government classified information included in the information that is collected by the two PSHSB Customer Comment Cards. 1.22 What is the legal
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-core-financial.pdf
  • files? Yes No Please explain your response: The new SORN will cover personally identifiable information (PII) that is used to process payments, reimbursement, debts owed, and other, miscellaneous debts, etc., owed or payable to the FCC. If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 11 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: This information system is still in the development stage and has not been assigned a security classification by the FCC Security Officer. Once the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-criminal-investigative-files.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 12 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-crisis.pdf
  • 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 in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: 11 If yes, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-dqc.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ecfs.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-email.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 12 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-experimental-radio.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 12 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-faca.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-financial.pdf
  • 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 in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: This SORN will be used for payments, reimbursement, debts owed, and other miscellaneous debts owed. If yes, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 10 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 5 U.S.C. Chapter 57; 31 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-foia.pdf
  • 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 in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If yes, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 11 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-general-investigative-files.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 12 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ils.pdf
  • only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? 10 Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-investigations-hearings.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-labor-employee-relations.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-lmts.pdf
  • that may include PII from individuals who have contacted their member of Congress concerning various telecommunications issues affecting them, i.e., telephone and cable bills, etc., or FCC employees who have employment complaints with the Commission. 11 If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: The FCC's Security Operations Center (SOC) has not assigned a security classification to the Legislative Management Tracking System (LMTS) and to the PII that it
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-pams.pdf
  • (PAMS)" SORN, collects the personal contact information from FCC employees and contractors, which is the minimal information that the Commission needs to support the Personnel Availability Management System (PAMS) during a COOP exercise or activation scenario. If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: The FCC Security Operations Center (SOC) has not assigned a security classification to the Personnel Availability Management System (PAMS) information system, and to the personally
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-pay-leave-garnish.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 12 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-personal-security-files.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 12 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-physical-access.pdf
  • only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for which this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-reasonable-accommodation-requests.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-remedy.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-rmis.pdf
  • FCC/OMD-25, "Revenue Management Information System (RMIS)," will cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that registrants provide when they pay regulatory fees, apply for or renew licenses, and conduct other financial and telecommunications activities with the FCC. If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 11 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: The Security Operations Center has determined that the new RMIS information system does not require a security classification. 1.22 What is the legal authority
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-small-business-contacts.pdf
  • only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the List (s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-telephone-call-details.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the location of the information covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.23 What are
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-transit.pdf
  • 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 in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If yes, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-uls.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 13 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-violators.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the location of the information covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 12 1.23 What
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pshsb-coop-plan.pdf
  • SORN only collecting and using information for the specific purposes for which the SORN was designed so that there is no "extraneous" information included in the database(s) or paper files? Yes No Please explain your response: If the use of this information is both relevant and necessary to the processes for this information system is designed, please skip to Question 1.21. 1.20 If not, why or for what reasons is the information being collected? 1.21 Is the information covered under a Security Classification as determined by the FCC Security Officer? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.22 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.23 In what instances would the information
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-a.pdf
  • 5-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips MSA Total 5-Digit Zips Hybrid Zips MSA Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) MSA Pop (Mil.) 0.005 0.003 0.009 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.015 0.027 0.014 (2.74)** (1.99)* (3.09)** (1.99)* (1.80) (0.88) (2.88)** (3.11)** (2.57)* MSA Median Inc. (000) -0.001 0.002 -0.001 (0.96) (1.68) (0.46) MSA Fr. College Degree 0.230 0.098 0.144 (3.43)** (1.21) (2.00)* MSA Fr. Under Age 30 -0.884 -0.303 -0.319 (7.47)** (2.77)** (1.11) MSA Fr. Over Age 65 4.1603 2.2409 2.988 (10.61)** (5.12)** (2.59)* Constant 0.199 0.206 0.238 0.192 0.220 0.232 0.532 0.632 0.553 (41.41)** (6.45)** (34.08)** (4.01)** (45.46)** (7.64)** (42.50)** (33.71)** (41.73)** Observations 11,763 11,763 7,397 7,397 269 269 11,751 7,392 269 MSA's 269 269 269 269 269 269 269
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/comcast_separationagreement.pdf
  • AT&T Broadband Financial Statements by the AT&T Broadband Group or utilizing cash or other Assets referred to in clauses (a) or (b); and (d) any business or operations that were terminated, divested or discontinued by any AT&T Broadband Entity, including US West, Inc. and its Subsidiaries (and their respective predecessors and successors), or that are listed or described on Schedule 1.21(d); and (e) the businesses, Assets and Liabilities listed or described on Schedule 1.21(e); provided that the AT&T Broadband Group shall not include (x) any Assets disposed of to any third party or otherwise transferred to any third party from the AT&T Broadband Group after the date of the AT&T Broadband Financial Statements (but it shall include any net proceeds thereof)
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/comsat-telenor/fcc01-369.pdf
  • or equipment used to conduct Electronic Surveillance, (iv) the means of carrying out Electronic Surveillance, (v) the type(s) of service, telephone number(s), records, communications, or facilities subjected to Lawful U.S. Process, and (vi) other unclassified information designated in writing by an authorized official of a federal, state or local law enforcement agency or a U.S. intelligence agency as Sensitive Information. 1.21 "Subscriber Information" means information of the type referred to and accessible subject to procedures specified in 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c) or (d) or 18 U.S.C. § 2709. Such information shall also be considered Subscriber Information when it is sought pursuant to the provisions of other Lawful U.S. Process. 1.22 "Telenor" has the meaning given to it in the Preamble. It
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/nextel-motorola/da010947.doc
  • Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, filed Dec. 13, 2000. See In the Matter of Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz bands, and Revision to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, Third Report and Order, WT Docket 99-168 2001 WL 55614 (rel. Jan. 23, 2001); see also 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14). Revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines at § 1.21. See also Pittencrieff Order at ¶ 37 (citing Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Co., 365 U.S. 329 (1961)). Public Interest Statement at 10; see also Pittencrieff Order at ¶¶ 37-41. Southern has not addressed this issue. Rural markets have, however, begun to see an increase in service, which will continue as interconnected mobile voice providers build out their licensed areas.