FCC Web Documents citing 1.25

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

• http://fcc.gov/pshs/techtopics/techtopics11.html
  • that leverage the standards-based technical specifications defined by the standards bodies. The following table summarizes some of the key attributes of the WiMAX technology standard. WiMAX Standards IEEE 802.16 IEEE 802.16-2004 IEEE 802.16e Standardization Date 2003 2005 2006 Spectrum Band Licensed 10-66 GHz Licensed and Unlicensed sub-11 GHz Licensed, Sub-6 GHz Channel Bandwidths 1.75, 3.5, 5, 7, 10, 20 MHz 1.25, 2.5, 5, 7, 10, 14, 20 MHz Service Fixed Fixed/Nomadic Fixed, Mobile Air Interface OFDM / OFDMA OFDM / OFDMA S-OFDMA Range LOS up to 5 km LOS & near-LOS up to 30 km; Non-LOS up to 5 km Non-LOS up to 10 km Channel Capacity Up to 134 Mbps Up to 70 Mbps Up to 35 Mbps Duplexing Mode
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.pdf
  • would likely match those measured in this report. For greater bandwidths, a portion of the transmit power would fall into another cable channel. For example, atransmission with a rectangularsignal spectrum having4-MHzbandwidthcentered on broadcast channel 19wouldextend from501 to 505 MHz; since only 75% of the spectrum overlaps cable channel 70, the interference effect on that channel would be reduced by about 1.25 dB. TEST METHODOLOGY Determining the Interference Threshold Sound from the TV receiver under test was monitored as a basis for identifying interference. This enabled the tests to be performed by a single engineer without moving from the interfering signal generation location to the TV location multiple times per measurement. At sites 0 and 1, the sound was monitored directly by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300946A3.pdf
  • 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 BOULDER 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 CHAFFEE 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 CHEYENNE 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 CLEAR CREEK 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.25 1.25 1.25 CROWLEY 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 CUSTER 0.70 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.25 1.25 DELTA 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.30 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 DENVER 0.47 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.49 0.43 0.40 0.66 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 DOLORES (HAS NO AUTHORITY BOARD)0.70 0.55
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300946A4.pdf
  • 23,702.93 44,123.48 153,542.79 6/6/05 72,322.71 6/6/05 225,865.50 6/6/05 19,588.80 4,510.61 5,509.19 29,608.60 6/6/05 331,828.43 6/6/05 361,437.03 6/14/05 85,324.04 23,646.34 44,190.49 153,160.87 6/14/05 72,016.53 6/14/05 225,177.40 7/28/05 19,962.51 4,590.66 5,401.91 29,955.08 7/28/05 340,552.60 7/28/05 370,507.68 7/28/05 85,245.44 23,725.28 44,610.57 153,581.29 7/28/05 72,440.70 7/28/05 226,021.99 8/18/05 13,729.28 3,338.10 3,853.83 20,921.21 8/18/05 320,241.30 8/18/05 341,162.51 8/19/05 83,603.28 23,220.92 44,155.14 150,979.34 8/19/05 72,021.91 8/19/05 223,001.25 9/13/05 18,406.46 4,305.35 5,108.34 27,820.15 9/13/05 329,050.92 9/13/05 356,871.07 9/27/05 83,107.39 23,314.24 44,288.08 150,709.71 9/27/05 71,747.40 9/27/05 222,457.11 10/13/05 19,292.01 4,343.09 5,244.49 28,879.59 10/13/05 331,684.88 10/13/05 360,564.47 10/31/05 83,553.26 23,597.67 44,398.55 151,549.48 10/31/05 71,898.49 10/31/05 223,447.97 11/21/05 18,708.56 4,225.56 5,414.88 28,349.00 11/21/05 331,663.73 11/21/05 360,012.73 11/21/05 83,042.57 23,288.36 44,148.72 150,479.65 11/21/05 72,303.88 11/21/05 222,783.53 12/22/05 16,856.00 3,847.30 4,972.60 25,675.90 12/22/05
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-303A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-303A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-303A1.txt
  • Emissions. We propose amending 47 C.F.R. § 87.131 to correct the table to raise permitted maximum output power of Aircraft Earth Stations from 60 watts to 80 watts. The value of output power is measured at the output of the high power amplifier and does not account for RF cable and diplexer losses. The assumed value of such losses is 1.25 dB, which would result in an output of 60 watts. As a result, we believe that the value currently specified in our rules is erroneous and we propose to correct that here. We seek comment on our proposal. Emission Limitations. We propose to amend 47 C.F.R. § 87.139(i) to ensure that our rules reflect the latest technical standards without retaining
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.txt
  • licenses, and 493 smaller areas for the remaining four licenses. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach? In the AWS Allocation Order, we noted that most carriers in the U.S. have indicated plans to provide service that meet the IMT-2000 data rates by deploying systems based on cdma2000 and W-CDMA technologies. These technologies use paired channels of 1.25 to 7.5 MHz. We therefore seek comment on whether the ability of applicants to aggregate spectrum at auction and then aggregate and disaggregate spectrum post-auction-both geographically and by frequency-suggest we should simply divide this spectrum into smaller frequency blocks (for example, five megahertz or even less) and let applicants assemble whatever spectrum they want? What are the advantages and disadvantages
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-77A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-77A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-77A1.txt
  • 18035 19595 18045 19605 18055 19615 18065 19625 18075 19635 18085 19645 18095 19655 18105 19665 18115 19675 18125 19685 18135 19695 17.7-17.74 GHz remains unpaired due to the reassignment of 19.26-19.3 GHz to satellite services. Appendix B Proposed Additional Channels for 18 GHz Band Plan (Center Frequency) 50 Megahertz Channels 30 Megahertz Channels 5 Megahertz Channels 2.5 Megahertz Channels 1.25 Megahertz Channels T/R R/T T/R R/T T/R R/T T/R R/T T/R R/T 17765 19325 17715 N/A 17702.5 N/A 17701.25 N/A 18060.625 19620.625 17815 19375 17755 19315 17707.5 N/A 17703.75 N/A 18061.875 19621.875 17865 19425 17785 19345 17712.5 N/A 17706.25 N/A 18063.125 19623.125 17915 19475 17815 19375 17717.5 N/A 17708.75 N/A 18064.375 19624.375 17965 19525 17845 19405 17722.5 N/A 17711.25 N/A
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-79A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-79A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-79A1.txt
  • and amend certain rules to reflect changes in Commission organization and practices. The major rule changes we propose today are as follows: . Revise the operating privileges of amateur radio operators in four High Frequency bands; . Permit auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m amateur service band; . Permit amateur stations to transmit spread spectrum communications on the 1.25 m band; . Permit amateur stations to re-transmit communications from the International Space Station; . Allow amateur service licensees to designate the amateur radio club to receive their call sign, in memoriam; . Prohibit an applicant from filing more than one application for a specific vanity call sign; . Eliminate unnecessary restrictions imposed on certain equipment manufacturers; . Allow amateur
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-114A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-114A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-114A1.txt
  • this multi-media system can be designed to operate on 5 megahertz blocks as well. We also seek comment on whether to divide the current 20 megahertz paired Block D into more than two smaller paired blocks to better accommodate other new technologies. For example, systems based on 802.16 standards (WiMax) could potentially operate on a variety of bandwidths ranging from 1.25 to 20 megahertz, including a number of bandwidths that are 5 megahertz or smaller. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether a division of the 10 megahertz segments of paired Block D to create two or more smaller blocks - e.g., 1.25, 1.75, and 7 megahertz blocks - might better accommodate this technology. We also seek comment on other possible block
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-133A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-133A1.txt
  • center frequency of a channel. OOBE limits, on the other hand, require that out-of-band signal power be attenuated to ensure that the maximum out-of-band signal power maintains an established, constant relation to the transmitter power. Access/Pegasus, with a focus on deploying broadband in the Guard Bands, note that the ACP limits do not contemplate larger channel sizes, such as a 1.25 megahertz channel that could facilitate broadband. They contend that the ACP requirements should be ``replaced by protections that are designed to address emissions from channels of other bandwidths, including those channels contemplated for broadband operations.'' Further, Access/Pegasus state that if the Commission replaced the ACP limits currently applicable to the Guard Bands with the OOBE limits currently applicable to the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-34A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-34A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-34A1.txt
  • 3.1 megahertz would be allocated for optional broadband use. Motorola proposes relocating the wideband interoperability channels adjacent to the narrowband spectrum by placing nine interoperability channels on each end of the wideband segments. Motorola also proposes the Commission require SAM operation on the interoperability channels and that SAM capability be required on all wideband and broadband radios. Assuming that three 1.25 megahertz channels will be used for broadband, Motorola indicates that a 1 megahertz guard band would be necessary between the proposed broadband spectrum and the 700 MHz narrowband channels in order to limit the noise floor increase in the narrowband channels to 3 dB. As a result, it proposes that the twenty 50 kilohertz channels (1 megahertz) on either side
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.pdf
  • licensees to develop new technologies and services, and additional flexibility. Licensing a spectrum block of this size in the 700 MHz Band could also enable the development of technologies that will produce bit rates far beyond those available with today's technologies. Although existing 3G technologies, such as CDMA-2000 and Wideband CDMA, can readily be accommodated on blocks of 2.5-megahertz (paired 1.25-megahertz blocks) and 10-megahertz (paired 5-megahertz blocks), respectively, we anticipate that Fourth Generation (4G) technologies will be able to take advantage of wider spectrum blocks, such as the 22-megahertz block we adopt in this Second Report and Order, to produce bit rates that are a significant increase beyond those currently achievable with today's technologies. By creating a larger spectrum block in
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-164A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-164A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-164A1.txt
  • potentially advantageous technical characteristics). Band Plan Spectrum Block Size We seek comment on how to best subdivide the spectrum, if at all, and which block size(s) offer the best opportunity to use the 20 megahertz of spectrum efficiently, depending on which technological approach is adopted. For example, instead of five- or 10-megahertz blocks, WiMax systems can use variable bandwidths from 1.25 to 20 megahertz, with the first WiMax roll-outs expected to use 3.5- and 7-megahertz channel bandwidths. Because there are many different wireless channel bandwidth standards, e.g., GSM (0.2 megahertz), CDMA (1.25 megahertz), W-CDMA/UMTS (5 megahertz), besides that of WiMax, we seek comment on what would be the most spectrally efficient spectrum block size for the 20-megahertz block of AWS-3 spectrum,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1436A1.txt
  • May 3, 1999, by the Central States VHF Society (CSVHFS). In that petition, CSVHFS requested amendment of the Amateur Radio Service rules to provide additional spectrum to protect weak signal operations (primarily Morse code telegraphy and single sideband voice emission types) that its members and others engage in from other emissions that are increasingly popular on the 6, 2, and 1.25 m and 70 centimeter amateur service bands. Specifically, CSVHFS requested that we expand the spectrum designated to accommodate weak signal operations to include the lower 300 kHz of the 6 and 2 m bands. CSVHFS also stated that voluntary band plans have not proven successful in limiting wideband emission types from the band segments used for weak signal communications. On
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1662A1.txt
  • his or her duties. A radio control link requires the use of an auxiliary station. The Commission's Part 97 rules define an auxiliary station as an amateur station, other than in a message forwarding system, that is transmitting communications point-to-point within a system of cooperating amateur stations. An amateur station that is an auxiliary station may transmit only on the 1.25 m and shorter wavelength bands, except the 219-220 MHz, 222.000-222.150 MHz, 431-433 MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments. Kenwood acknowledges that in its Sky Command system the portable VHF/UHF transceiver at the control operator's location (control point), which transmits control information and audio via a channel in the 440 MHz band to the VHF/UHF transceiver interconnected with the HF transceiver, is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1987A1.txt
  • supplemental comments. LoJack filed reply comments. In addition, the Commission gave public notice of the Petition for Rulemaking on January 7, 2000. Petition for Rulemaking Filed, Public Notice, Report No. 2376 (rel. Jan. 7, 2000). No comments were received. Waiver Request at 1. Id. See, e.g., Petition for Rulemaking at 1-2. LoJack states that its units are installed in approximately 1.25 million vehicles. Id. 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6). See id. Waiver Request at 1. Id. Id. at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3) (formerly 47 C.F.R. § 90.151). See also WAIT Radio v FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972) (waiver of Commission Rules is appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2038A1.txt
  • and Order, we now propose the following formulae for upfront payments: Tier 1 (1) 15 MHz licenses - 2.5 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.6 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA Tier 2 (1) 15 MHz licenses - 1.25 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.0 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA A complete list of all licenses, including the related population and upfront payments, is attached hereto as Attachment A. We seek comment on this proposal. For
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2259A1.txt
  • No. 35. Specifically, the Bureau proposed upfront payments using the following formula: Tier 1 (1) 15 MHz licenses - 2.5 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.6 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA Tier 2 15 MHz licenses - 1.25 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.0 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA In its comments, BellSouth/SBC propose that the Bureau set upfront payments using a formula of $0.06*MHz*BTA population. BellSouth/SBC argue that using such a formula would be
• 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
  • following the ITU-R studies being conducted in accordance with Resolution 734 on the use of HAPS in both the fixed and mobile services in bands above 3 GHz allocated exclusively for terrestrial radiocommunication and will develop a preliminary view in due course. Document IWG-4/004 (April 12, 2001) WRC-2003 Advisory Committee Informal Working Group-4 IWG-4 Preliminary Views on WRC-03 Agenda Item 1.25 WRC-2003 Agenda Item 1.25: ``to consider, with a view to global harmonisation to the greatest extent possible, having due regard to not constraining the development of other services, and in particular of the fixed service and the broadcasting-satellite service, regulatory provisions and possible identification of spectrum for high-density systems in the fixed-satellite service above 17.3 GHz, focusing particularly on frequency
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1694A1.txt
  • primary GSO FSS operations. The Commission later refined the downlink plan for the frequency band between 17.7 and 18.8 GHz, by designating 280 megahertz of spectrum between 18.3 and 18.58 GHz for co-primary GSO FSS and terrestrial-fixed operations and 220 megahertz of spectrum between 18.58 and 18.8 GHz for primary GSO FSS operations. In its amendment, TRW proposes to use 1.25 gigahertz of spectrum at the 28.6-29.1 GHz and 29.25-30.0 GHz frequency bands for its service uplinks. We grant this request, but consistent with the 28 GHz band plan. Specifically, we authorize TRW to operate service uplinks in 750 megahertz of spectrum between 29.25 and 30.0 GHz, with the 250 megahertz between 29.25 and 29.5 GHz shared on a co-primary basis
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2168A1.txt
  • need to be determined at WRC-03 to the satisfaction of all these services. The spectrum allocated on an exclusive basis to the maritime mobile, aeronautical mobile (OR) and aeronautical mobile (R) services should not be considered for any reallocation. (April 10, 2001) 21 Radio Conference Subcommittee (RCS) Preparation for ITU Radiocommunication Conferences DRAFT PRELIMINARY VIEW FOR WRC-03 WRC-2003 Agenda Item 1.25: to consider, with a view to global harmonization to the greatest extent possible, having due regard to not constraining the development of other services, and in particular of the fixed service and the broadcasting-satellite service, regulatory provisions and possible identification of spectrum for high-density systems in the fixed-satellite service above 17.3 GHz, focusing particularly on frequency bands above 19.7 GHz
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.txt
  • with a chip rate of 3.84 Mcps. Modulation is dual-channel QPSK. CDMA Multi-Carrier - This radio interface also is called cdma2000 and operates in FDD. The radio interface is a wideband spread spectrum system that uses code division multiple access (CDMA) technology and provides a 3G evolution for systems using the current TIA/EIA-95-B family of standards. RF channel bandwidths of 1.25 megahertz and 3.75 megahertz are supported at this time but the specification can be extended to bandwidths up to 15 megahertz. CDMA TDD - This radio interface employs a direct-sequence CDMA radio access scheme. There are two versions: UTRA Time Division Duplex (TDD) that uses a 5 megahertz bandwidth and a chip rate of 3.84 Mcps, and TD-SCDMA that uses
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.txt
  • with a chip rate of 3.84 Mcps. Modulation is dual-channel QPSK. CDMA Multi-Carrier - This radio interface also is called cdma2000 and operates in FDD. The radio interface is a wideband spread spectrum system that uses code division multiple access (CDMA) technology and provides a 3G evolution for systems using the current TIA/EIA-95-B family of standards. RF channel bandwidths of 1.25 megahertz and 3.75 megahertz are supported at this time but the specification can be extended to bandwidths up to 15 megahertz. CDMA TDD - This radio interface employs a direct-sequence CDMA radio access scheme. There are two versions: UTRA Time Division Duplex (TDD) that uses a 5 megahertz bandwidth and a chip rate of 3.84 Mcps, and TD-SCDMA that uses
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-101A1.txt
  • the TT&C of systems with service links operating above 17 GHz. It is considered that no regulatory or procedural action is required under this agenda item. This proposal does not preclude modifications to Article S5 under other agenda items. 34 III.Informal Working Group 4: Fixed Service/Fixed-Satellite Service Sharing DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE Doc. WAC/087(19.12.01) Agenda Item 1.25: "to consider, with a view to global harmonization to the greatest extent possible, having due regard to not constraining the development of other services, and in particular of the fixed service and the broadcasting-satellite service, regulatory provisions and possible identification of spectrum for high-density systems in the fixed-satellite service above 17.3 GHz, focusing particularly on frequency bands above 19.7 GHz"
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1779A1.txt
  • This allocation is limited to feeder links for non-geostationary orbit mobile-satellite systems with service links below 1 GHz. Reason: To provide additional allocations for non-GSO MSS feeder links (space-to-Earth) to support existing non-GSO MSS allocations below 1 GHz. II. Informal Working Group 4: Fixed Service/Fixed-Satellite Service Sharing DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE Doc. WAC/087rev1(22.07.02) WRC-03 Agenda Item 1.25: to consider, with a view to global harmonization to the greatest extent possible, having due regard to not constraining the development of other services, and in particular of the fixed service and the broadcasting-satellite service, regulatory provisions and possible identification of spectrum for high-density systems in the fixed-satellite service above 17.3 GHz, focusing particularly on frequency bands above 19.7 GHz
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.txt
  • Domestic Communications Infrastructure or Data Centers that enables a person to monitor the content of a subscriber's Wire or Electronic Communications (including those in electronic storage) other than (i) on occasion in the course of outside plant operations and maintenance functions or (ii) sales, marketing or customer care communications made by, or customer- oriented communications to, Domestic Communications Company personnel. 1.25 "Subscriber Information" means information relating to subscribers or customers of Domestic Communications Companies, including U.S. Hosting Services Customers (or the end- users of U.S. Hosting Services Customers), of the type referred to and accessible subject to procedures specified in 18 U.S.C. 5 2703(c) or (d) or 18 U.S.C. 0 2709. Such information shall also be considered Subscriber Information when it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1904A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1904A3.txt
  • in the respective countries, terminating over 50 percent of the U.S.-Country traffic6 3. applicable, effective January 1 of the effective benchmark year.7 The benchmark settlement rate for the Countries in the above table are $0.15, $0.19, or $0.46, as 4. As prescribed by the ISP Order, for the upper income routes, twenty-five percent below the benchmark settlement rate is 1 1.25 cents; for upper middle-income routes, twenty-five percent of the benchmark settlement rate is 14.25 cents, and for lower income routes, twenty-five percent of the benchmark settlement rate is 17.25 cents.' AT&T has filed settlement rates that are lower than or equal to the 25 percent of the benchmark settlement required. 5. AT&T has submitted affidavits in all of the benchmark
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2738A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2738A2.txt
  • Throughout this Appendix G Cluster Inputs Values Description Comments 150 Raster_Size 12000 Distance_Limit 1800 Line_Limit 90 Line_Fill 113 Block_Divide_Factor 1 Cluster_Algorithm 4 Optimization_Method 1000 Maximum_populated_cells 1 Use_hcpm.mdb 1 True-up_line_counts Federal Communications Commission DA 03-2738 APPENDIX G MSM Loop Input Modifications ­ HCPM Inputs 15 Feeder / Distribution Inputs Value Variable Name Comments 0.5 max_drop_length 0.5 user_lambda 12 copper_gauge_xover 12 max_copper_distance 1.25 MaxCopperPenalty 12 copper_t1_xover 0 t1_fiber_xover 1.25 t1_redundancy_factor 24 copper_placement_depth 36 fiber_placement_depth 3 CriticalWaterDepth 1.3 WaterFactor 12 MinSlopeTrigger 1.10 MinSlopeFactor 30 MaxSlopeTrigger 1.05 MaxSlopeFactor 1.20 CombSlopeFactor 0.0000% pct_ds1 0.00% pct_lsa 24 ChannelsPerT1System 2 PairsPerT1System 4 FibersPerTerminal 2016 CapacityF2016 1344 CapacityF1344 672 CapacityF672 96 CapacityF96 24 CapacityF24 96 CapacityT96 24 CapacityT24 10 lines_per_bus 1.00 DistRoadFactor 1.00 FiberFillFactor 1 DistanceType 1.00 FeederRoadFactor 2
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.txt
  • including other service providers; description of any unique/proprietary control mechanisms as well as operating and administrative software; and network performance information. 1.22. subsidiaries and affiliates. `New GX" means GC Acquisition Limited, a Bermuda corporation, and its 1.23. `New GX Board" means the board of directors of New GX 1.24. "OPM" means the Office of Personnel Management of the U.S. Government. 1.25. "Party" and "Parties" have the meanings given them in the Preamble. 1.26. not involve a substantial change in ownership or control as provided by the FCC's Rules. "Pro forma assignments" or `bra forma transfers of control" are transfers that do 1.27. "Purchase Agreement" has the meaning given in the Recitals. 1.28. "Security Committee" means a committee of the New GX
• 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
  • 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.'' VSNL America may dispute pursuant to Article 4 whether information is Sensitive Information under this subparagraph. Such information shall be treated as Sensitive Information unless and until the dispute is resolved in VSNL America's favor. 1.25 ``Subscriber Information'' means information relating to subscribers or customers of VSNL America 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. 1.26 ``Transactional Data'' means:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3553A1.txt
  • In view of the difference in power levels between the CDMA system architectures and the GSM architecture, we prescribe limits on the number of mobile terminals that may simultaneously operate with CDMA protocols that are different from the corresponding limit for GSM terminals specified in the ATC Report and Order. The number of simultaneously active mobile terminals in a single 1.25-megahertz cdma2000 channel shall be no more than 120,750 and there shall be no more than 845,250 simultaneously active terminals network wide. Similarly, there shall be no more than 483,000 simultaneously operating W-CDMA terminals per 5-megahertz channel. With these limits, we grant MSV's request for authority for ATC operation with cdma2000 and W-CDMA protocols. In addition, should MSV operate a mixed-architecture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1272A1.txt
  • Act of 1995 is attached. By the Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology By the Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau -FCC- ATTACHMENT FCC NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 The total annual reporting burden for this information collection including the time for gathering and maintaining the collection of information, is estimated to be 0.5 hours to 1.25 hours. If you have any comments on these burden estimates, or how we can improve the collection and reduce any burdens it causes you, please send an email to the Federal Communications Commission, PRA@fcc.gov. Please include the appropriate OMB Control Number (see below) in your correspondence. Under 5 C.F.R. § 1320, you are not required to respond to a collection
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-774A1.txt
  • that the antennas also comply with the antenna radiation performance standards contained in Section 25.209 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.209. The technical showings supplied in other applications for licenses for the same SeaTel 1.0 and 1.2 meter antennas as Stratos proposes to utilize, indicate that the antennas do not satisfy Section 25.209's antenna radiation performance standards between 1.25 and 1.5 degrees. Consequently, Stratos must include, in any refiling, a demonstration of its off-axis EIRP density levels beginning at 1.25 degrees off-axis with 0.1 degree increments out to 2.25 degrees off-axis. The demonstration should include a comparison of the authorized off-axis EIRP density limits specified in Section 25.222(a)(1)-(4) of the Commission's rules. Finally, in Attachment C of the application,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-775A1.txt
  • that the antennas also comply with the antenna radiation performance standards contained in Section 25.209 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.209. The technical showings supplied in other applications for licenses for the same SeaTel 1.0 and 1.2 meter antennas as Stratos proposes to utilize, indicate that the antennas do not satisfy Section 25.209's antenna radiation performance standards between 1.25 and 1.5 degrees. Consequently, Stratos must include, in any refiling, a demonstration of its off-axis EIRP density levels beginning at 1.25 degrees off-axis with 0.1 degree increments out to 2.25 degrees off-axis. The demonstration should include a comparison of the authorized off-axis EIRP density limits specified in Section 25.222(a)(1)-(4) of the Commission's rules. Finally, in Attachment C of the application,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.txt
  • lower than those for a Gaussian noise signal (or for an OFDM signal) of the same power. Table 7-4. D/U Ratio With 8-VSB as Undesired Signal Relative to That with Bandlimited Gaussian Noise 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 -1.32 -1.25 -1.61 -0.73 -1.85 -0.87 -1.76 -3.72 -1.34 0.43 N-4 -1.31 -1.43 -0.92 -1.07 -1.66 -1.07 -0.87 -1.94 -1.19 0.29 N-3 -0.79 -1.85 -2.23 -1.73 -1.50 -2.38 -1.47 -0.26 -1.71 0.53 N-2 -0.76 -1.94 -2.31 -0.53 -1.31 -0.91 -0.71 -0.89 -1.21 0.68 N+2 0.02 -2.99 -1.94 -0.48 -0.04 -0.67 -0.40 0.50 -0.93 1.12 Mean -0.83 -1.89 -1.80 -0.91 -1.27 -1.18 -1.04
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.txt
  • -0.0002 (0.10) -0.0097 (-0.02) 0.2625* (2.23) -0.000008 (-0.47) -0.0381161 Percent Entertainment/Leisure/DJ Banter, AM Drive -0.8221 (1.37) -0.0057 (1.35) 2.4257* (2.53) -0.0354 (-0.14) 0.000096* (2.64) 0.0589161 Percent Sports, AM Drive -0.1603 (0.39) 0.0017 (0.58) -0.8116 (-1.23) 0.0064 (0.04) -0.000064*(-2.56) 0.0673161 Percent News, Evening 0.1985 (1.44) 0.0008 (0.83) 0.2831 (1.18) -0.1233*(-2.42) 0.000000 (-0.05) 0.0883164 Average Block, Entertainment/Leisure/DJ Banter, AM Drive -15.6691*(2.06) -0.0675 (1.25) 34.1562* (2.80) -3.8290 (-1.20) 0.000841 (1.82) 0.0474161 Average Block, Music, Evening -9.6674*(1.99) -0.0551 (1.59) -8.9634 (-1.06) -0.7137 (-0.40) -0.000015 (-0.05) -0.0375164 Average Block, News, Evening 2.7455 (1.70) 0.0054 (0.47) 5.4568 (1.94) -1.2399*(-2.08) -0.000011 (-0.11) 0.0409164 Average Block, Sports, Evening 13.6651*(2.50) 0.0743 (1.91) 0.6487 (0.07) -2.4003 (-1.19) -0.000611 (-1.80) 0.0366164 Note: Asterisk denotes statistical significance at least at the 5 percent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.txt
  • (5) Local station ownership Cross-owned newspaper -3.0 (1.14) -4.4 (1.16) -5.8 (1.28) -5.2 (1.24) -5.4 (1.29) Cross-owned radio station 1.2 (0.32) 1.8 (0.49) 4.1 (1.13) 2.4 (0.59) Cross-owned radio and newspaper 2.9 (0.55) 3.5 (0.61) 2.3 (0.40) 5.1 (0.80) Parent company coverage of all television households (%) 0.2 (0.84) 0.1 (0.38) 0.3 (1.23) Network owned and operated -6.2 (1.19) -6.9 (1.25) -10.5* (1.77) Network affiliation (omitted category is CW\MyNetwork) ABC -2.1 (0.61) -4.5 (0.83) CBS -0.7 (0.21) -4.2 (0.68) FOX 5.8 (1.63) 9.2** (2.33) NBC -1.0 (0.30) -4.3 (0.70) Other control variables Time and length of broadcast fixed effects No No No No Yes DMA and date fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Adjusted R-squared .02 .01 .01 .02 .02
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4674A1.txt
  • 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage By, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, Sixth Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, IB Docket No. 00-248, 20 FCC Rcd 5666 (2005) at ¶99. The Commission has determined that gain at off-axis angles of 1.25 degrees or more in the geostationary-satellite orbital plane from a Ku-band earth station with a 1.2-meter transmitting antenna will not exceed the levels specified in Section 25.209(a), 47 CFR § 25.209(a). 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage By, Satellite Network Earth Stations and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-675A1.txt
  • has also adopted a streamlined form for routine earth station applications, called Form 312 EZ, eliminated several outdated rules, and mandated electronic filing for all earth station filings. Finally, the Commission decided to increase the starting point for the antenna gain pattern envelope in the Part 25 Earth Station Streamlining Sixth Report and Order, from 1.0° in the C-band and 1.25° in the Ku-band to 1.5° in both bands. The Commission stayed the effectiveness of its antenna gain pattern revisions, however, while it considered a proposal for an off-axis EIRP approach for FSS earth stations, set forth in the Part 25 Earth Station Streamlining Third Further Notice, which was adopted together with the Part 25 Earth Station Streamlining Sixth Report and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1108A1.pdf
  • with a bandwidth of more than 1 megahertz and a PSD greater than 1 kW/MHz ERP non-rural or 2 kW/MHz ERP rural, then that licensee must comply with the 3 mW/m2PFD limit. Thus, for example, a non-rural licensee transmitting an 8 kW ERP signal in a 5-megahertz bandwidth or a rural licensee transmitting a 4 kW ERP signal in a 1.25 megahertz bandwidth would have to satisfy the 3 mW/m2 PFD limit. However, a licensee transmitting an 800 watt ERP signal in a 200 kilohertz bandwidth or a4 kW ERP signal in a 5- megahertz bandwidth, or a rural licensee transmitting an 8 kW ERP signal in a 5-megahertz bandwidth, would not have to meet the PFD limit. Because the FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-401A1.txt
  • diameter and maximum power level limits, which are set forth in Sections 25.209 and 25.212 of the Commission's rules. Raysat acknowledges that, under the worst-case operating conditions, its METs do not comply with the off-axis gain limits of Section 25.209. Specifically, Raysat states that the antenna pattern of its METs does not comply with the limits of Section 25.209 between 1.25 and 3.0 degrees, between 5 and 6 degrees, at 9 degrees, and at 15 degrees. The worst case difference is 2.4 decibels (dB) at 2.25 degrees. Although Raysat's proposed system is not eligible for routine licensing, it may still be authorized under the provisions of Section 25.220 of the Commission's rules, which govern the licensing of non-routine transmit/receive earth station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-448A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-448A2.txt
  • January 26, 2007 Figure 1 Sheet 1 of 7 Valcom AM Broadcast Antenna (85 foot with Valcosphere) Operating Frequency: 1200 kHz 0 Degree Radial Point Distance Time Field Strength Desig. (km) Date (local) (mV/m) 1 0.25 12/5/05 1618 450 2 0.45 12/5/05 1606 220 3 0.62 12/5/05 1515 185 4 0.75 12/5/05 1510 145 5 1.00 12/5/05 1505 110 6 1.25 12/5/05 1456 100 7 1.50 12/5/05 1445 80.0 8 1.80 12/5/05 1441 62.0 9 2.25 12/5/05 1437 50.0 10 2.50 12/5/05 1434 43.0 11 3.00 12/5/05 1428 33.0 12 4.00 12/5/05 1424 21.5 13 5.00 12/5/05 1418 13.5 14 7.00 12/5/05 1416 10.0 15 8.00 12/5/05 1408 7.00 16 9.50 12/5/05 1404 6.60 17 11.00 12/5/05 1359 6.00 18 13.00
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-530A1.txt
  • who has been granted a Technician, Technician Plus, General, Advanced, or Amateur Extra Class operator license, who holds a CEPT radio amateur license, or who holds any class of IARP: Wavelength band ITU-Region 1 ITU-Region 2 ITU-Region 3 Sharing requirements see § 97.303 (Paragraph) VHF MHz MHz MHz 6 m.................. .................. 50-54.......... 50-54........... (a) 2 m................ 144-146........ 144-148....... 144-148........ (a) 1.25 m............. .................. 219-220....... .................. (a), (e) Do..... .................. 222-225 .................. (a) UHF MHz MHz MHz 70 cm.............. 430-440........ 420-450....... 420-450........ (a), (b), (f) 33 cm.............. .................. 902-928....... .................. (a ), (b), (g) 23 cm.............. 1240-1300..... 1240-1300.... 1240-1300..... (b), (h), (i) 13 cm.............. 2300-2310..... 2300-2310.... 2300-2310..... (a), (b), (j) Do..... 2390-2450..... 2390-2450.... 2390-2450..... (a), (b), (j) SHF GHz GHz GHz 9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-38A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-38A1.txt
  • an existing Federal Government earth station operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band must not exceed -100.6 dBW/4 kHz in any portion of that band. Waiver Requests Pertaining to Terminal Transmission (2010-2020 MHz) Radiated Power Section 25.252(b)(1) states that an applicant for 2 GHz ATC operating authority must demonstrate that its ATC mobile terminals will not emit more than 1 dBW (1.25 watts) EIRP in a bandwidth of 1.23 megahertz. ICO requests a waiver to allow handheld or portable terminals to operate with radiated power of up to 2 watts (i.e., 3 dBW) EIRP in carrier bandwidths of up to 5 megahertz. ICO also seeks a waiver to allow vehicular terminals operate with a maximum transmitter output power of 2 watts without
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-763A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-763A2.txt
  • the provisions of No. 4.10 would not be applicable in the 2483.5 ­ 2500 MHz band; 50 3) that amendments are made to the Radio Regulations, as necessary, to ameliorate any constraints on currently allocated services by the operation of the RDSS in the 2483.5 ­ 2500 MHz band. 51 Document WAC/023(31.03.09) UNITED STATES DRAFT PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-11 A.I. 1.25 to consider possible additional allocations to the mobile-satellite service in accordance with Resolution 231 (WRC-07)- Additional allocations in the mobile satellite service with focus on the bands between 4 GHz and 16 GHz ISSUE: As allocations in the range of interest are fully in use by a variety of services other than the mobile satellite service, the issue is to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1408A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1408A3.txt
  • E-Navigation in Appendix 18. ____________________ 32 Document WAC/076(28.07.10) 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, approve the release of a draft Executive Branch proposal for WRC-12 agenda item 1.25. NTIA proposes no change for some of the candidate frequency bands for potential mobile-satellite services allocations. NTIA considered the Federal agencies' input toward the development of U.S. proposals for WRC-12. NTIA forwards this package for consideration and review by your WRC-12 Advisory Committee. Dr. Darlene Drazenovich is the primary contact from my staff. Sincerely, (Original Signed July 13, 2010) Karl
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1408A3_Rcd.pdf
  • E-Navigation in Appendix 18. ____________________ 10289 Document WAC/076(28.07.10) 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, approve the release of a draft Executive Branch proposal for WRC-12 agenda item 1.25. NTIA proposes no change for some of the candidate frequency bands for potential mobile-satellite services allocations. NTIA considered the Federal agencies' input toward the development of U.S. proposals for WRC-12. NTIA forwards this package for consideration and review by your WRC-12 Advisory Committee. Dr. Darlene Drazenovich is the primary contact from my staff. Sincerely, (Original Signed July 13, 2010) Karl
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2060A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2060A2.txt
  • compatibility studies between Integrated MSS Systems and other services operating in the bands 1525-1544MHZ, 1545-1559 MHz, 1626.5-1645.5 MHz and 1646.5- 1660.5 MHz with a view to completing studies in time for RA-15 3. that on an interim basis until WRC-165, in the bands 1525-1544MHz , 1545-1559 MHz, 1626.5- 1645.5 MHz and 1646.6-1660.5 MHz, the mobile-satellite service as defined in No 1.25 includes Integrated MSS Systems defined as: a. An Integrated MSS System is a system employing a satellite component and ground component where the ground component is complementary to the satellite component and operates as and is an integral part of the MSS system, In such systems the ground component is controlled by the satellite resource and network management system. Further,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2060A2_Rcd.pdf
  • conduct compatibility studies between Integrated MSS Systems and other services operating in the bands 1525-1544MHZ, 1545-1559 MHz, 1626.5-1645.5 MHz and 1646.5- 1660.5 MHz with a view to completing studies in time for RA-15 3.that on an interim basis until WRC-165, in the bands 1525-1544MHz , 1545-1559 MHz, 1626.5- 1645.5 MHz and 1646.6-1660.5 MHz, the mobile-satellite service as defined in No 1.25 includes Integrated MSS Systems defined as: a. An Integrated MSS System is a system employing a satellite component and ground component where the ground component is complementary to the satellite component and operates as and is an integral part of the MSS system, In such systems the ground component is controlled by the satellite resource and network management system. Further,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-213A1.pdf
  • the waiver request of the Palos Verdes Library District, dated January 18, 2010, IS GRANTED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau We interpret your statement that each library will transmit on a ``1.25cm frequency'' to refer to the 1.25 meter band, rather than the 1.2 centimeter (cm) band, because none of the listed licensees is authorized to transmit in the 1.2 cm band. See 47 C.F.R. § 97.301. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 February 1, 2010 � ¥%¿ÿ‰PNG �` �` b``DÐ 4 £&)œ@°-ˆ@Ž@ÿ7 H >˜ôO‡ìà p jóý ¨2£=ÿõk²‡Ñ Ÿ"_­ - J÷Ë, µNt£Rb
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-213A1_Rcd.pdf
  • limited waiver of Section 97.113(a)(3). This waiver grant permits transmission of communications by the above-listed amateur employees on behalf of their employers during the February 2, March 2, April 6, May 4, June 1, July 6, August 3, September 7, October 5, November 2, and December 7, 2010, exercises. 1We interpret your statement that each library will transmit on a "1.25cm frequency" to refer to the 1.25 meterband, rather than the 1.2 centimeter (cm) band, because none of the listed licensees is authorized to transmit in the 1.2 cm band. See47 C.F.R. § 97.301. 1222 Katherine R. Gould Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the waiver request of the Palos VerdesLibrary District, dated January 18, 2010, IS GRANTED. This action is taken
• 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
  • 0.61 $30.07 0.62 Second operator subgroup (all) 2009 140 $43.58 0.82 $33.43 0.74 $31.98 0.73 137 $32.46 1.15 $30.48 0.94 2008 140 $46.03 0.64 $33.46 0.75 $30.41 0.85 137 $33.72 1.14 $33.56 1.01 Second operator subgroup (incumbents) 2009 70 $43.10 0.86 $36.34 0.74 $35.38 0.82 70 $30.87 1.10 $34.77 1.08 2008 70 $45.87 0.61 $36.27 0.75 $33.54 0.98 70 $34.34 1.25 $38.07 1.13 Second operator subgroup (rivals) 2009 70 $45.84 2.37 $19.69 2.41 $15.97 1.59 67 $40.25 4.06 $9.36 1.54 2008 70 $46.76 2.33 $20.18 2.38 $15.63 1.55 67 $30.68 2.75 $11.36 2.19 DBS subgroup 2009 207 $44.47 1.01 $33.79 0.89 $32.28 0.90 207 $23.21 0.85 $29.27 0.91 2008 207 $43.74 0.62 $31.04 0.52 $29.05 0.51 207 $22.86 0.80 $28.78 0.83
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A2.txt
  • object or area observed by a radar. Operation of these radars must not adversely affect other co-primary services in the band, or the radio astronomy service in the adjacent band, 15.35-15.40 GHz. This proposal also takes into account the need for an allocation in the range 15.4-15.6 GHz to address the requirements of mobile-satellite service systems under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.25. A separate, complimentary proposal under Agenda item 1.25 makes the allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the range 15.4-15.6 GHz. Note: This proposal represents a compromise approach between agenda items 1.21 and 1.25 within IWG- 1 and IWG-3. It assumes that a companion proposal under Agenda Item 1.25 that provides for a Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) allocation in the 15.4-15.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A2_Rcd.pdf
  • object or area observed by a radar. Operation of these radars must not adversely affect other co-primary services in the band, or the radio astronomy service in the adjacent band, 15.35-15.40 GHz. This proposal also takes into account the need for an allocation in the range 15.4-15.6 GHz to address the requirements of mobile-satellite service systems under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.25. A separate, complimentary proposal under Agenda item 1.25 makes the allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the range 15.4-15.6 GHz. Note: This proposal represents a compromise approach between agenda items 1.21 and 1.25 within IWG- 1 and IWG-3. It assumes that a companion proposal under Agenda Item 1.25 that provides for a Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) allocation in the 15.4-15.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A3.txt
  • 250- 5 350 MHz and 5 470-5 725 MHz by the mobile service for the implementation of wireless access systems including radio local area networks NOC This Resolution is referred to in Nos. 5.446A, 5.447 and 5.453. RES 231 (WRC-07) Additional allocations to the mobile- satellite service with particular focus on the bands between 4 GHz and 16 GHz NOC 1.25 RES 331 (Rev.WRC-07) Transition to the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) NOC RES 339 (Rev.WRC-03) Coordination of NAVTEX services NOC ATTACHMENT 15 RESOLUTION FCC NTIA Comments WRC-12 Agenda Item RES 342 (Rev.WRC-2000) New technologies to provide improved efficiency in the use of the band 156-174 MHz by stations in the maritime mobile service NOC May require suppression as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-447A3_Rcd.pdf
  • sy stem s includi ng ra dio local area net works NOC This Resolution is referred to in Nos. 5.446A , 5.44 7 and 5.453 . RES 231 (WRC-07 ) Ad dition al allo catio ns t o th e mo bile- satellite service with particular fo cus on the ba nds betwee n 4 GHz and 16 GHz NOC 1.25 RES 331 (Rev.WRC-07) Transition to the Global Mariti me Distress a nd S afety System (GMDS S) NOC RES 339 (Rev.WRC-03) C oordination of NAVTEX services NOC 3605 ATTACH MENT RESOL UTIO N FCC NTIA Com ments WRC-12Age nda Item RES 342 (Rev .WRC-200 0) New technol ogies to prov ide improved efficiency in the use of the ba nd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-732A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-732A2.txt
  • DA 11-732 0.512 Euro 35 46.3548539.32584 500.12 euro/150MB for additional traffic over the cap free wifi modem yes (Internet and phone) 0.512 Euro 35 46.3548539.32584 500.12 euro/150MB for additional traffic over the cap free wifi modem yes (Internet and TV) 0.512 Euro 45 59.5991 50.5618 500.12 euro/150MB for additional traffic over the cap free wifi modem yes (Internet, TV, phone) 1.25 Euro 42.91 56.8310548.21348 50 no 1.5 Euro 61.32 81.2137168.89888 50none free wifi modem no 1.5 Euro 45 59.5991 50.5618 500.12 euro/150MB for additional traffic over the cap free wifi modem yes (Internet and phone) 1.5 Euro 70 92.7097178.65169 50none free wifi modem yes (Internet and phone) 1.5 Euro 45 59.5991 50.5618 500.12 euro/150MB for additional traffic over the cap free
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-121A2_Rcd.pdf
  • 13.87 IN 1,366 117 69 34 12 10,166 390 0.00 68.15 851.33 1.55 0.00 0.65 0.13 69.12 7.79 KS 551 53 37 34 13 1,219 435 0.00 20.17 543.15 21.80 0.33 0.00 0.00 40.75 0.00 KY 18,120 653 312 93 16 267,927 8,321 30.29 4,086.60 13,437.99 502.09 12.07 4.82 1.65 1,131.75 24.57 LA 4,570 169 100 46 16 30,098 3,455 1.25 789.23 4,883.15 187.74 0.10 21.85 0.00 210.19 26.45 MA 1,143 47 31 6 5 8,785 257 0.00 55.18 602.94 21.86 0.25 0.00 0.00 35.42 2.51 MD 233 25 22 9 7 1,180 65 0.01 12.48 157.97 1.17 0.00 0.01 0.00 16.97 0.33 ME 5,079 134 74 12 7 9,674 9,875 0.53 298.46 8,908.92 458.27 0.09 0.06 0.00 354.58 1.05 MI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.txt
  • coefficient may be evidence of our concern over multiple hypothesis tests that were previously discussed. Table 13 Effect of LPFM Entry on the Ratings of Full-Service Commercial FM Stations in all Radio Markets Independent Variable Contour Measure Market Measure Contour/Market Measure Number of LPFM stations 0.001 (0.53) 0.002 (1.07) -0.008 (2.36)* Number of AM stations in market -0.002 (1.27) -0.002 (1.25) -0.002 (1.48) Number of AM stations in contour -0.002 (0.97) -0.002 (0.89) -0.002 (0.84) Number of FM stations in market 0.000 (0.37) 0.000 (0.32) 0.000 (0.38) Number of FM stations in contour -0.002 (1.59) -0.002 (1.56) -0.002 (1.51) Number of commercial TV stations -0.001 (0.24) -0.001 (0.34) -0.000 (0.10) Number of digital radio stations in market 0.000 (0.86) 0.000 (0.71)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-202012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-202012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-202012A1.txt
  • has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements. Wavelength ITU ITU ITU Sharing requirements band Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 See § 97.303 Paragraph HF MHz MHz MHz 80 m 3.675-3.725 3.675-3.725 3.675-3.725 (a) 40 m 7.050-7.075 7.10-7.15 7.050-7.075 (a) 15 m 21.10-21.20 21.10-21.20 21.10-21.20 10 m 28.10-28.50 28.10-28.50 28.10-28.50 VHF MHz MHz MHz 1.25 m --- 222-225 --- (a) UHF MHz MHz MHz 23 cm 1270-1295 1270-1295 1270-1295 (h) (i) 7. Section 97.307 is amended by revising paragraph (f) (10) to read as follows: § 97.307 Emission standards. * * * * * (f) * * * (10) A station having a control operator holding a Novice Class operator license or a Technician Class
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208380A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208380A7.txt
  • 1997 1996 Total Total Total Total Total + Other) Split Split Split Code Rank Rank Rank Rank Country Br. Ckts Br. Ckts Br. Ckts Br. Ckts Br. Ckts Split * Ratio Ratio Ratio 1 1 2 3 3United Kingdom 54,780 205,954 15,601 276,335 57,258 0.25 0.34 0.78 0.69 5 2 1 1 1Canada 77,827 112,021 10,542 200,390 152,901 0.63 1.03 1.25 1.41 5 3 3 2 2Mexico 84,536 42,083 0 126,619 10,593 2.01 1.38 1.57 2.09 7 4 4 4 4Japan 8,681 35,134 1,677 45,492 29,283 0.24 0.57 0.65 0.73 1 5 5 5 5Germany 9,261 21,484 541 31,286 13,521 0.42 0.76 0.64 0.83 1 6 8 13 8Netherlands 1,831 20,687 30 22,548 17,721 0.09 0.34 0.58 0.56 8 7 7
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213377A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213377A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-213377A2.txt
  • example, the Rural Task Force reports that the average density is only 13 persons per square mile for areas served by rural carriers compared with 105 persons per square mile in areas served by non-rural carriers. At the same time, the average population density varies dramatically among rural carriers. Rural carriers in Alaska and Wyoming serve populations of 0.58 and 1.25 persons per square mile, respectively, while those in some states serve populations of over 100 persons per square mile. That is, some rural carriers serve areas with approximately the same density as the non-rural average. See Rural Task Force Recommendation at 11-12. Similarly, the Rural Task Force reports that average total plant investment per line ranges from $3,000 for rural
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.txt
  • 0.00 6.10 6.10 New Mexico 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 New York 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 North Carolina 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 North Dakota 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Northern Mariana Islands 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Ohio 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Oklahoma 6.10 1.17 0.58 6.68 7.85 Oregon 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Pennsylvania 6.10 2.50 1.25 7.35 9.85 Puerto Rico 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Rhode Island 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 South Carolina 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 South Dakota 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Tennessee 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Texas 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Utah 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Vermont 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Virginia 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226838A8.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226838A8.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226838A8.txt
  • axis and the number of outlets in each medium on the vertical axis. See text for explanation. Table 1: Television Outlets, 1994-2000 year N uhf vhf uhf+vhf network indep. public net+ind+pub 1994 207 2.29 2.63 2.46 1995 207 2.96 2.29 5.25 2.72 2.52 1.71 6.96 1996 207 3.09 2.34 5.43 4.20 1.23 1.71 7.14 1997 207 3.19 2.35 5.54 4.29 1.25 1.71 7.25 1998 207 3.37 2.37 5.74 4.74 1.40 1.72 7.87 1999 207 3.54 2.37 5.91 4.94 1.46 2000 207 3.65 2.39 6.04 5.02 1.57 1.73 8.32 linked sample year N uhf vhf uhf+vhf network indep. public net+ind+pub 1994 2.64 2.88 3.33 1995 143 3.76 2.63 6.38 3.01 3.37 2.04 8.42 1996 143 3.88 2.68 6.56 4.85 1.71 2.03 8.59
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239368A1.txt
  • 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, 92-95 GHz bands are allocated to both Federal Government and non-Federal Government users on a co-primary basis, except the 94.0-94.1 GHz portion, which is allocated for exclusive Federal Government use. Non-Federal Government users include private entities, as well as state and local governments. The 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands will be divided into four unpaired 1.25 gigahertz segments, for a total of eight segments, and the segments may be aggregated without limit. Pairing will be permitted in a standardized manner, e.g., 71-72.25 GHz may be paired only with 81-82.25 GHz, and so on. The co-primary portion of the 92-95 GHz band will be divided into two segments, 92.0-94.0 GHz and 94.1-95.0 GHz, which also may be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242368A1.txt
  • 400KG1F PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 3M00G1F PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 4M40G1F PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 13M2G1F PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 29M0G1F SITE ID: REMOTE 3 (1.2 M. VSAT), CONUS, (250 UNITS) LOCATION: PRODLIN CORPORATION /1.1 x 1.25m RET 3A 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 123KU1.2 46.10 dBW PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 200KG1F 49.10 dBW PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 400KG1F 52.10 dBW PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 800KG1F 55.10 dBW PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 1M60G1F 56.50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245057A1.txt
  • W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 3M00G1F PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 4M40G1F PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 13M2G1F PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 29M0G1F Page 16 of 42 SITE ID: REMOTE 3 (1.2 M. VSAT), CONUS, (250 UNITS) LOCATION: PRODLIN CORPORATION /1.1 x 1.25m RET 3A 1.2 meters ANTENNA ID: 123KU1.2 46.10 dBW PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 200KG1F 49.10 dBW PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 400KG1F 52.10 dBW PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 800KG1F 55.10 dBW PSK, DIGITAL VIDEO W/ASSOC. DIGITAL AUDIO/DATA 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 1M60G1F 56.50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.txt
  • 0.25 0.22 -69.2 Canada 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.19 -37.6 China 2.02 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.24 -79.0 Colombia 1.15 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.43 0.26 0.21 -77.0 Dominican Republic 0.97 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.15 -73.9 Egypt 1.33 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 -73.3 El Salvador 1.19 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69 0.60 0.32 0.28 -74.2 France 1.04 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 0.41 0.33 0.22 -65.4 Germany 1.08 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.29 -43.2 Greece 1.17 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 0.62 0.25 0.27
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253946A1.txt
  • 3925 10.3501
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255118A1.txt
  • Subs -0.51** (2.21) -2.10** (2.12) Vertical Integration 0.00 (0.07) -0.01 (1.15) Spinoff -1.21** (2.40) -1.50*** (2.95) Missing Vertical or Spinoff 0.26 (1.23) -0.22 (1.22) Born before 1984 -0.74 (1.62) -1.08** (2.01) Duration 2 years -1.03*** (3.91) Duration 3 years -0.93*** (3.36) Duration 4 years -0.49* (1.91) Duration 5 years -0.82** (2.43) Duration 6 years -1.92*** (3.23) Duration 7 years -0.44 (1.25) Duration 8 years -0.60 (1.36) Duration 10 years -0.47 (3.47) Duration 12 years -0.35 (0.55) Duration 13 years -1.03 (0.98) Duration 19 years 1.52 (1.29) Constant Observations 305 305 Failures 96 96 Likelihood Ratio -364.60*** -324.91*** * - significant at 10% level, ** - significant at 5% level, *** - significant at 1% level 25 D. Discussion of Results This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-255869A1.txt
  • CABLE PRICE THE FULL MODEL REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND GOODNESS OF FIT STATISTICS (t-statistics in parentheses) First Stage Variable Estimated Coefficient t Statistic LPREM -0.08*** (4.91) CABINT -0.15*** (4.98) CABREGSPORT -0.09** (3.02) CABFOREIGN -0.04 (1.30) CABHIDEF 0.00 (0.05) LNOVERAIR 0.06* (1.78) LNLAT 0.25*** (3.19) LPOVERTY 0.01 (0.83) LMULTDWELL -0.00 (0.01) DBSOVERAIR -0.04 (1.56) OVERBUILD -0.06 (1.09) CABVERTINT26 0.09*** (4.33) LCABSUBSYS -0.01 (1.25) Constant -0.68 (2.07) Observations 525 Centered R-Squared 0.38 Shea Partial R-Squared 0.0427 F-Statistic Test of Excluded Instruments 7.67*** F-Statistic 14.35*** Second Stage Variable Estimated Coefficient t Statistic LCABPERSAT 0.82 (0.80) LPREM -0.13 (1.30) CABINT 0.11 (0.58) CABREGSPORT -0.13 (0.97) CABFOREIGN 0.27** (2.19) CABHIDEF -0.06 (0.41) LNOVERAIR -0.20 (1.31) LNLAT -1.15*** (2.66) LPOVERTY -0.12** (2.00) LMULTDWELL -0.16** (2.26) DBSOVERAIR 0.13 (0.99)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256703A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256703A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256703A2.txt
  • changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two-tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256711A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256711A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256711A2.txt
  • changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two-tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256715A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256715A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256715A2.txt
  • changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two-tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257247A1.pdf
  • and is targeting customers in commercial buildings seeking high capacity data links to other buildings not reached by fiber networks. Users of GigaBeam's equipment would install transceiver units, pointed at each other, on the rooftops or windows of two buildings; transceivers would establish a line-of-sight wireless connection to carry data traffic between the two buildings at transmission speeds ranging from 1.25 to 2.5 gigabits per second. Longer-range wireless networks - Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks (WMANs). Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks (WMANs) are point-to-point or point-to-multipoint networks with individual links that not only can span distances of up to 30 miles, which is important for backhaul applications, but also can provide last-mile connectivity in metropolitan environments. WMANs can employ vendor-specific proprietary equipment and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.txt
  • 0.25 0.22 0.14 -78.8 Canada 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.16 -48.4 China 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.24 0.18 -80.5 Colombia 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.43 0.26 0.21 0.11 -85.2 Dominican Republic 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.16 -64.7 Egypt 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 0.21 -78.8 El Salvador 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69 0.60 0.32 0.28 0.13 -84.3 France 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 0.41 0.33 0.22 0.25 -50.0 Germany 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.29 0.31 -22.1 Greece 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 0.62 0.25 0.27
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A13.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A13.txt
  • - United Tel. Co. of the Northwest - Oregon OR (64) (48) (16) 25.00 ALLTEL - Pennsylvania PA (368) (270) (97) 26.36 Verizon - North - Contel/Pennsylania PA (553) (552) (1) 0.18 Verizon - North - Contel/Quaker State PA (289) (272) (17) 5.88 Verizon - North - Pennsylvania PA (4,607) (4,568) (40) 0.87 Verizon - Pennsylvania PA (127,593) (125,993) (1,599) 1.25 Sprint - United Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania PA 102 172 (71) (69.61) Verizon - Puerto Rico Telephone Company - Central PR 0 0 0 0.00 Verizon - Puerto Rico Telephone Company PR 0 0 0 0.00 Verizon - New England - Rhode Island RI 3,472 3,570 (98) (2.82) Verizon - South - Contel - South Carolina SC (1,004) (1,002) (2)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.txt
  • 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.txt
  • type are determined by multiplying the allocation factor by the type of revenues (see Table 1.14). Table 1.24 shows ILEC toll revenues of large ILECs reported in Table 2.11 of the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers, and ILEC intrastate toll revenues.30 ILEC intrastate toll revenues are the product of ILEC reported revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Table 1.25 shows how non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues are allocated between states based 28 Carrier USF loop counts are used as weights. We assume that the residential SLC for NECA pool and rate-of-return carriers during the relevant time period was $6.25. 29 The rates of NECA pool carriers and rate-of-return carriers are assumed to be $9.20 per line per month for multiline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A4.txt
  • 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 Ohio 7.09 8.25 7.40 0.00 3.50 2.87 0.00 1.75 1.43 7.09 10.00 8.83 7.09 13.50 11.70 Oklahoma 7.02 8.25 7.21 0.00 1.22 0.45 0.00 0.61 0.23 7.02 8.86 7.44 7.02 10.08 7.89 Oregon 7.75 8.25 8.25 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.50 10.00 10.00 13.00 13.50 13.50 Pennsylvania 5.94 8.25 7.85 0.00 2.50 1.03 0.00 1.25 0.51 5.94 9.50 8.37 5.94 12.00 9.39 Puerto Rico 8.25 8.25 8.25 3.34 3.50 3.35 1.67 1.75 1.67 9.92 10.00 9.92 13.26 13.50 13.27 Rhode Island 8.19 8.20 8.20 0.00 3.40 3.31 0.00 1.70 1.65 8.19 9.90 9.85 8.19 13.30 13.16 South Carolina 7.50 8.25 8.23 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.74 7.50 10.00 9.98 7.50 13.50 13.46 South Dakota
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.txt
  • 1.78 0.21 1.02 0.40 0.84 5.20 Virgin Islands 16.82 0.00 0.00 4.65 4.54 0.00 0.00 26.01 Virginia 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.10 1.13 0.11 1.42 Washington 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.30 0.59 0.18 1.83 West Virginia 1.34 0.00 1.72 0.04 0.12 1.10 0.25 4.56 Wisconsin 0.59 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.97 0.01 0.62 2.40 Wyoming 3.37 0.02 3.28 0.62 1.67 1.61 1.25 11.83 Industry $0.51 $0.01 $0.12 $0.12 $0.33 $0.29 $0.19 $1.57 Based on 2004 support payments and reported ILEC loops and CETC loops or lines from USAC filing for the Fourth Quarter 2004. Support Total High Cost Support Support High Cost Support Term Support High Cost Support Interstate Interstate Support Notes: Details may not appear to add to totals due to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.txt
  • Connection Charge 49.25 47.55 46.60 47.26 47.15 45.57 45.01 44.92 44.46 43.58 43.70 43.67 43.74 43.95 44.10 42.95 41.16 42.54 42.59 Additional Charge If Drop Line and Connection Block Needed n.a. n.a. 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 12.13 12.45 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.62 3.64 3.98 Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. n.a.: not available * Revised estimates. **Subject to revision. ***Rate is based upon flat-rate service where available, and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. Beginning in 2001, all rates reflect flat-rate service. ****Beginning in 2002,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • $49.25 $47.55 $46.60 $47.26 $47.15 $45.57 $45.01 $44.92 $44.46 $43.58 $43.70 $43.67 $43.74 $43.95 $44.10 $42.95 $41.16 $42.54 $42.71 $42.71 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed a1 a1 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 12.13 12.45 12.45 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.62 3.64 4.08 4.31 1 Revised. 2 Subject to revision. 3 Rates are based upon flat-rate service where available and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone, business-day calls elsewhere. Beginning in 2001, all rates reflect flat-rate service. 4 Beginning in 2002, rate includes additional monthly charges for touch-tone service. Table 1.2
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.txt
  • 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.txt
  • type are determined by multiplying the allocation factor by the type of revenues (see Table 1.14). Table 1.24 shows ILEC toll revenues of large ILECs reported in Table 2.11 of the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers, and ILEC intrastate toll revenues.32 ILEC intrastate toll revenues are the product of ILEC reported revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Table 1.25 shows how non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues are allocated between states based on intrastate access minutes and intrastate access revenues.33 Non-LEC toll is the difference between intrastate toll revenues and LEC toll revenues.34 Intrastate toll revenues are reported in Table 1.14, and LEC toll revenues are reported in Table 1.24. Column 1 shows access minutes for allocation. Access minutes for allocation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
  • BELL-FL 3.44 -3.42 7.10 0.00 GEORGIA TOTAL 3.74 -3.96 8.02 10.72 220324 A VALLEY TELEPHONE CO., LLC 15.58 -5.18 21.89 0.00 220338 C QUINCY TEL. CO.-GA DIV. 10.92 0.00 10.92 37.19 220344 C ALMA TEL. CO., INC. -23.17 0.08 -23.22 -74.48 220346 C BLUE RIDGE TEL. CO. -0.80 -0.54 -0.26 -12.27 220347 C BRANTLEY TEL. CO., INC. 2.18 -1.51 3.75 1.25 220348 C BULLOCH CNTY. RURAL TEL. COOP., INC. 3.74 -1.07 4.86 5.87 220351 C CAMDEN TEL. & TEL. CO., INC.-GA 4.56 -7.54 13.09 INFINITE 220354 C CHICKAMAUGA TEL. CORP. 5.37 -1.18 6.63 0.00 220355 C CITIZENS TEL. CO., INC.-GA -4.16 -1.65 -2.55 -20.88 220356 C COASTAL UTILITIES, INC. 7.92 -2.95 11.20 45.30 220357 C ALLTEL GEORGIA, INC. 1.53 0.05 1.48
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A9.txt
  • 49.25 47.55 46.60 47.26 47.15 45.57 45.01 44.92 44.46 43.58 43.70 43.67 43.74 43.95 44.10 42.95 41.16 42.54 42.71 42.71 Additional Charge If Drop Line and Connection Block Needed n.a. n.a. 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 12.13 12.45 12.45 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.62 3.64 4.08 4.31 Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. n.a.: not available * Revised estimates. **Subject to revision. ***Rate is based upon flat-rate service where available, and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. Beginning in 2001, all rates reflect flat-rate service. ****Beginning in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.txt
  • 96 266 563 660 1,223 0.42 Illinois 3,241 6,414 9,654 1,199 955 2,154 4,440 7,369 11,809 4.05 Indiana 1,487 2,761 4,248 556 494 1,050 2,043 3,254 5,298 1.82 Iowa 733 1,268 2,001 300 257 558 1,033 1,525 2,559 0.88 Kansas 711 1,238 1,949 304 183 487 1,015 1,421 2,436 0.84 Kentucky 977 1,930 2,907 397 330 727 1,374 2,260 3,634 1.25 Louisiana 1,101 2,398 3,499 423 356 779 1,524 2,754 4,278 1.47 Maine 364 718 1,081 165 106 271 529 824 1,353 0.46 Maryland 1,785 3,178 4,963 712 488 1,200 2,497 3,666 6,163 2.11 Massachusetts 1,909 3,724 5,633 778 487 1,265 2,687 4,211 6,897 2.36 Michigan 2,276 4,926 7,203 834 861 1,695 3,110 5,787 8,897 3.05 Minnesota 1,294 2,368 3,662 542
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.txt
  • For greater bandwidths, a portion of the transmit power would fall into another cable channel. For example, a transmission with a rectangular signal spectrum having 4-MHz bandwidth centered on broadcast channel 19 would extend from 501 to 505 MHz; since only 75% of the spectrum overlaps cable channel 70, the interference effect on that channel would be reduced by about 1.25 dB. Test Methodology Determining the Interference Threshold Sound from the TV receiver under test was monitored as a basis for identifying interference. This enabled the tests to be performed by a single engineer without moving from the interfering signal generation location to the TV location multiple times per measurement. At sites 0 and 1, the sound was monitored directly by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.txt
  • Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A13.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A13.txt
  • MI 179,514 119,497 150,014 83.57 41.30 AT&T - Ameritech - Michigan Bell MI 989,115 607,302 544,865 55.09 30.66 Qwest - Minnesota MN 903,688 595,575 340,058 37.63 4.63 AT&T - BellSouth - Mississippi MS 926,327 715,633 273,757 29.55 21.39 CenturyTel of Missouri - Central Missouri MO 91,347 69,965 21,819 23.89 9.38 CenturyTel of Missouri - Belle-Hermann MO 5,406 3,849 1,586 29.34 1.25 CenturyTel of Missouri - Southern Missouri MO 14,393 10,898 3,618 25.14 10.22 CenturyTel of Missouri - Southwest Missouri MO 271,458 208,304 64,261 23.67 13.78 AT&T - Southwestern Bell - Missouri MO 925,317 549,716 359,513 38.85 13.81 Embarq - United Telephone of Missouri MO 146,002 114,072 40,548 27.77 32.12 Qwest - Montana MT 187,825 140,681 51,188 27.25 15.59 Windstream - Nebraska
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.txt
  • Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.txt
  • to nationwide revenues. Access revenues by type are determined by multiplying the allocation factor by the type of revenues (see Table 1.14). Table 1.24 shows ILEC toll revenues of large ILECs reported in ARMIS Report 43-08, and ILEC intrastate toll revenues.34 ILEC intrastate toll revenues are the product of ILEC reported revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Table 1.25 shows how non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues are allocated between states based on intrastate access minutes and intrastate access revenues.35 Non-LEC toll is the difference between intrastate toll revenues and LEC toll revenues.36 Intrastate toll revenues are reported in Table 1.14, and LEC toll revenues are reported in Table 1.24. Column 1 shows access minutes for allocation. Access minutes for allocation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.txt
  • 44.81 320818 A>CSMITHVILLE TEL. CO., INC. 2.87 -3.02 6.07 17.02 320819 C SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA RURAL TEL. COOP., INC. 0.67 -2.01 2.73 -0.18 320825 C SUNMAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION 6.47 -0.89 7.43 14.02 320826 A SWAYZEE TEL. CO., INC. 1.59 -2.89 4.61 9.06 320827 A SWEETSER RURAL TEL. CO., INC. -2.04 -5.15 3.27 -3.65 320828 C FRONTIER COMM. OF THORNTOWN, INC. -2.13 -1.25 -0.89 0.00 320829 A TIPTON TEL. CO., INC. 0.35 -3.98 4.51 0.00 320830 A TRI-COUNTY TEL. CO., INC.-IN 1.84 -3.23 5.24 11.51 320832 C UNITED TEL. CO. OF INDIANA, INC. 4.49 -2.11 6.74 0.00 320834 A WASH. CTY. RURAL TEL. COOP., INC. -5.63 -6.40 0.83 0.00 320837 A WEST POINT TEL. CO., INC. 2.84 -2.34 5.30 12.53 320839 A YEOMAN
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A9.txt
  • 46.60 47.26 47.15 45.57 45.01 44.92 44.46 43.58 43.70 43.67 43.74 43.95 44.10 42.95 41.16 42.54 42.71 42.80 42.92 Additional Charge If Drop Line and Connection Block Needed n.a. n.a. 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 12.13 12.45 12.65 13.91 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.62 3.64 4.08 4.42 4.86 Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. n.a.: not available * Revised estimates. **Subject to revision. ***Rate is based upon flat-rate service where available, and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. Beginning in 2001, all rates reflect flat-rate service. ****Beginning
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 2.36 2.46 2.38 2.57 2.53 2.81 1.33 3.32 3.44 3.17 3.45 3.41 Total Connection Charge $49.25$47.55$46.60$47.26$47.15$45.57$45.01$44.92$44.46$43.58$43.70$43.67$43.74$43.95$44.10$42.95$41.16$42.54$42.71$42.80 $43.13 $43.22 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed a1 a1 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 12.13 12.45 12.65 13.91 12.65 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.62 3.64 4.08 4.42 4.96 5.38 1 Revised. 2 Subject to revision. 3 Rates are based upon flat-rate service where available and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone, business-day calls elsewhere. Beginning in 2001, all rates reflect flat-rate service. 4 Beginning in 2002, rate includes additional monthly charges for touch-tone service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A1.pdf
  • 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A13.pdf
  • Total Non-Operating Items ($000) - 2007 11 - 21 Study Area State Code Subject to Separations Interstate Intrastate Percent Interstate Verizon New England - New Hampshire NH $1,040 $1,203 ($162) (15.58) Verizon New Jersey NJ (224,664) (221,077) (3,587) 1.60 Embarq - United Telephone Company of New Jersey NJ (67) (52) (16) 23.88 Qwest - New Mexico NM 12,114 12,266 (151) (1.25) Windstream/Valor Telecom. of Texas - New Mexico 1 NM (33) (21) (12) 36.36 Windstream/Valor Telecom. of Texas - New Mexico 2 NM (34) (23) (11) 32.35 Citizens Telecom. of New York - Red Hook NY 282 282 0 0.00 Citizens Telecom. of New York - Upstate NY 4,666 4,666 0 0.00 Citizens Telecom. of New York - Western Counties NY
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A2.pdf
  • 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A3.pdf
  • to nationwide revenues. Access revenues by type are determined by multiplying the allocation factor by the type of revenues (see Table 1.14). Table 1.24 shows ILEC toll revenues of large ILECs reported in ARMIS Report 43-08, and ILEC intrastate toll revenues.35 ILEC intrastate toll revenues are the product of ILEC reported revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Table 1.25 shows how non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues are allocated between states based on intrastate access minutes and intrastate access revenues.36 Non-LEC toll is the difference between intrastate toll revenues and LEC toll revenues.37 Intrastate toll revenues are reported in Table 1.14, and LEC toll revenues are reported in Table 1.24. Column 1 shows access minutes for allocation. Access minutes for allocation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A5.pdf
  • 0.61 0.01 0.00 0.16 0.00 1.21 0.01 0.72 2.71 Maryland 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.10 Massachusetts (0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.05 Michigan 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.01 0.18 1.03 Minnesota 1.34 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.11 0.62 3.59 Mississippi 0.99 0.02 0.00 5.63 0.00 0.59 0.69 0.17 8.09 Missouri 1.25 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.25 0.21 2.64 Montana 3.53 0.03 0.00 2.77 0.00 2.93 0.12 1.03 10.41 Nebraska 2.15 0.07 0.00 0.72 0.00 2.11 0.60 1.25 6.91 Nevada 0.41 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.67 0.44 1.92 New Hampshire 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.21 0.50 1.05 New Jersey 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A9.pdf
  • $47.15 $45.57 $45.01 $44.92 $44.46 $43.58 $43.70 $43.67 $43.74 $43.95 $44.10 $42.95 $41.16 $42.54 $42.71 $42.80 $43.13 $43.22 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed a1 a1 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 12.13 12.45 12.65 13.91 12.65 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.62 3.64 4.08 4.42 4.96 5.38 1 Revised. 2 Subject to revision. 3 Rates are based upon flat-rate service where available and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone, business-day calls elsewhere. Beginning in 2001, all rates reflect flat-rate service. 4 Beginning in 2002, rate includes additional monthly charges for touch-tone service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.txt
  • 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.txt
  • to nationwide revenues. Access revenues by type are determined by multiplying the allocation factor by the type of revenues (see Table 1.14). Table 1.24 shows ILEC toll revenues of large ILECs reported in ARMIS Report 43-08, and ILEC intrastate toll revenues.36 ILEC intrastate toll revenues are the product of ILEC reported revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Table 1.25 shows how non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues are allocated between states based on intrastate access minutes and intrastate access revenues.37 Non-LEC toll is the difference between intrastate toll revenues and LEC toll revenues.38 Intrastate toll revenues are reported in Table 1.14, and LEC toll revenues are reported in Table 1.24. Column 1 shows access minutes for allocation. Access minutes for allocation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A4.txt
  • 9.93 6.50 13.50 13.30 Guam 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 Hawaii 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 Idaho 6.50 8.25 8.17 0.00 3.50 3.44 0.00 1.75 1.72 6.50 10.00 9.89 6.50 13.50 13.34 Illinois 6.24 8.25 6.57 0.00 2.50 0.11 0.00 1.25 0.05 6.24 9.50 6.62 6.24 12.00 6.73 Indiana 5.25 8.25 7.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25 8.25 7.52 5.25 8.25 7.52 Iowa 6.55 8.25 7.11 0.00 3.50 0.32 0.00 1.75 0.16 6.55 10.00 7.27 6.55 13.50 7.58 Kansas 6.50 8.25 7.31 0.00 3.50 3.44 0.00 1.75 1.72 6.50 10.00 9.03 6.50 13.50 12.47 Kentucky 7.00 8.25 8.17 0.00
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • 0.02 0.06 Michigan 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.01 0.17 1.00 Minnesota 1.37 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.11 0.54 3.83 Mississippi 0.98 0.03 0.00 5.73 0.00 0.59 0.66 0.14 8.12 Missouri 1.39 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.26 0.18 2.90 Montana 3.96 0.03 0.00 2.69 0.00 3.45 0.12 0.99 11.25 Nebraska 2.13 0.04 0.00 0.64 0.00 2.08 0.50 1.25 6.65 Nevada 0.34 0.00 0.00 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297986A1.txt
  • Low-Income Households All Households 1984 to 1997 1997 to 2009 1984 to 1997 1997 to 2009 Ohio 1987 5.24 81.0% 88.5% 94.1% 7.5% * 5.6% 93.2% 95.0% 97.3% 1.8% 2.2% Oklahoma 1996 1.58 81.9% 78.9% 92.6% -3.0% 13.7%* 91.0% 91.8% 96.4% 0.7% 4.7% Oregon 1986 5.21 76.4% 90.5% 92.9% 14.1% * 2.3% 91.4% 95.3% 98.1% 3.9% * 2.8% Pennsylvania 1996 1.25 85.6% 93.6% 94.8% 8.0% * 1.2% 94.4% 97.3% 97.6% 3.0% * 0.2% Rhode Island 1987 5.25 86.4% 87.6% 90.5% 1.2% 2.9% 94.0% 94.6% 96.2% 0.5% 1.6% South Carolina 1995 4.90 66.1% 76.2% 87.1% 10.1% * 10.9%* 85.1% 92.0% 93.9% 6.9% * 1.8% South Dakota 1988 0.08 84.6% 90.5% 91.3% 5.9% 0.8% 93.0% 94.7% 96.8% 1.7% 2.0% Tennessee 1992 5.02 71.1%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298965A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit FCC 601 ­ Instructions February 2008 - Page 1 Schedule M Instructions Revised June 22, 2010 FCC 601 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Approved by OMB Main Form 3060 ­ 0798 Information and Instructions Est. Avg. Burden Per Response: 1.25 hours FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 AND THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 We have estimated that each response to this collection of information will take on average 1.25 hours. Our estimate includes the time to read the instructions, look
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299770A1.txt
  • dBm in the WCS C and D blocks) submitted by Sirius (Sirius Comments, Exhibit C.) and the WCS Coalition (WCS Coalition Comments at 15), we illustrate a horizontal separation needed to protect an SDARS receiver from overload interference from a WCS base station.'' In footnote 315, to reflect that the assumed base station EIRP of 8 kW (2 kW per 1.25 megahertz-wide emissions, with 4 carriers in a 5-megahertz block) is based on the peak base station EIRP allowed under Section 27.50(a)(1) prior to adoption of the Report and Order and Second Report and Order, we correct the second sentence by adding the phrase ``as currently allowed under Section 27.50(a)(1),'' after the parenthetical phrase ``(2 kW per 1.25 megahertz-wide emissions, with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299770A1_Erratum.doc
  • dBm in the WCS C and D blocks) submitted by Sirius (Sirius Comments, Exhibit C.) and the WCS Coalition (WCS Coalition Comments at 15), we illustrate a horizontal separation needed to protect an SDARS receiver from overload interference from a WCS base station.'' In footnote 315, to reflect that the assumed base station EIRP of 8 kW (2 kW per 1.25 megahertz-wide emissions, with 4 carriers in a 5-megahertz block) is based on the peak base station EIRP allowed under Section 27.50(a)(1) prior to adoption of the Report and Order and Second Report and Order, we correct the second sentence by adding the phrase ``as currently allowed under Section 27.50(a)(1),'' after the parenthetical phrase ``(2 kW per 1.25 megahertz-wide emissions, with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300946A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300946A3.txt
  • 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 BOULDER 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 CHAFFEE 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 CHEYENNE 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 CLEAR CREEK 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.25 1.25 1.25 CROWLEY 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 CUSTER 0.70 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.25 1.25 DELTA 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.30 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 DENVER 0.47 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.49 0.43 0.40 0.66 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 DOLORES (HAS NO AUTHORITY BOARD)0.70 0.55
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300946A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-300946A4.txt
  • 23,702.93 44,123.48 153,542.79 6/6/05 72,322.71 6/6/05 225,865.50 6/6/05 19,588.80 4,510.61 5,509.19 29,608.60 6/6/05 331,828.43 6/6/05 361,437.03 6/14/05 85,324.04 23,646.34 44,190.49 153,160.87 6/14/05 72,016.53 6/14/05 225,177.40 7/28/05 19,962.51 4,590.66 5,401.91 29,955.08 7/28/05 340,552.60 7/28/05 370,507.68 7/28/05 85,245.44 23,725.28 44,610.57 153,581.29 7/28/05 72,440.70 7/28/05 226,021.99 8/18/05 13,729.28 3,338.10 3,853.83 20,921.21 8/18/05 320,241.30 8/18/05 341,162.51 8/19/05 83,603.28 23,220.92 44,155.14 150,979.34 8/19/05 72,021.91 8/19/05 223,001.25 9/13/05 18,406.46 4,305.35 5,108.34 27,820.15 9/13/05 329,050.92 9/13/05 356,871.07 9/27/05 83,107.39 23,314.24 44,288.08 150,709.71 9/27/05 71,747.40 9/27/05 222,457.11 10/13/05 19,292.01 4,343.09 5,244.49 28,879.59 10/13/05 331,684.88 10/13/05 360,564.47 10/31/05 83,553.26 23,597.67 44,398.55 151,549.48 10/31/05 71,898.49 10/31/05 223,447.97 11/21/05 18,708.56 4,225.56 5,414.88 28,349.00 11/21/05 331,663.73 11/21/05 360,012.73 11/21/05 83,042.57 23,288.36 44,148.72 150,479.65 11/21/05 72,303.88 11/21/05 222,783.53 12/22/05 16,856.00 3,847.30 4,972.60 25,675.90 12/22/05
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
  • 5 34 8 0.11 Total Call 7 74 9 0.13 Epana Networks, Inc. 69 686 86 1.23 Global Crossing North America, Inc. 18 167 38 0.55 Computer Tel, Inc. 282 1,689 539 7.74 NobelTel, LLC 299 3,354 250 3.59 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 16 92 36 0.52 Logical Telecom, LP 280 3,946 113 1.63 Platinum Equity, LLC 522 2,447 87 1.25 Telmex 34 122 20 0.28 Allcom Distribution Corp. d/b/a Allcom Telecommunications 5 51 16 0.23 Telecom Italia Sparkle of North America, Inc 358 2,355 223 3.20 Cox Communications, Inc. 566 1,846 58 0.83 Embarq Communications, Inc. 337 4,120 247 3.55 Belgacom International Carriers Services S.A 82 1,288 52 0.75 CIMA Telecom, Inc. 10 118 11 0.16 One Phone, Inc. 10
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302324A1.txt
  • efficiency of all wireless networks can be viewed as a weighted average of the technology mix. Over the next five years the mix is likely to shift from 2G and 3G technologies to primarily 3G and 4G technologies. Our analysis assumes that this will effectively double the average spectral efficiency of wireless networks, from about 0.625 bps/Hz in 2009 to 1.25 bps/Hz in 2014. We should continue to see increased migration from 3G to 4G technologies beyond 2014, resulting in an overall improvement in network spectral efficiency. These spectral efficiency gains serve to reduce network capacity augmentation achieved by adding spectrum bandwidth to meet mobile data demand. Even when accounting for this factor, however, it is clear that additional spectrum will
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • 9.96 8.25 13.50 13.38 Guam 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 Hawaii 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 8.25 10.00 8.25 8.25 13.50 8.25 Idaho 6.50 8.25 8.18 0.00 3.50 3.44 0.00 1.75 1.72 6.50 10.00 9.90 6.50 13.50 13.34 Illinois 6.24 8.25 6.55 0.00 2.50 0.06 0.00 1.25 0.03 6.24 9.50 6.58 6.24 12.00 6.63 Indiana 4.25 8.25 7.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.25 8.25 7.54 4.25 8.25 7.54 Iowa 6.55 8.25 7.16 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 6.55 10.00 7.16 6.55 13.50 7.16 Kansas 6.50 8.25 7.25 0.00 3.50 3.46 0.00 1.75 0.00 6.50 10.00 7.25 6.50 13.50 10.72 Kentucky 7.02 8.25 8.16 0.00
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A4.txt
  • 9.96 8.25 13.50 13.38 Guam 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 Hawaii 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 8.25 10.00 8.25 8.25 13.50 8.25 Idaho 6.50 8.25 8.18 0.00 3.50 3.44 0.00 1.75 1.72 6.50 10.00 9.90 6.50 13.50 13.34 Illinois 6.24 8.25 6.55 0.00 2.50 0.06 0.00 1.25 0.03 6.24 9.50 6.58 6.24 12.00 6.63 Indiana 4.25 8.25 7.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.25 8.25 7.54 4.25 8.25 7.54 Iowa 6.55 8.25 7.16 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 6.55 10.00 7.16 6.55 13.50 7.16 Kansas 6.50 8.25 7.25 0.00 3.50 3.46 0.00 1.75 0.00 6.50 10.00 7.25 6.50 13.50 10.72 Kentucky 7.02 8.25 8.16 0.00
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • 0.55 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.31 0.19 2.05 GUAM 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.57 0.00 0.00 9.20 HAWAII 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.97 0.23 0.23 6.59 IDAHO 2.41 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 1.68 0.73 6.49 ILLINOIS 0.26 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.16 0.14 1.00 INDIANA 0.52 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.42 0.19 1.80 IOWA 1.25 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.95 0.57 0.88 4.81 KANSAS 5.91 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.00 3.20 0.32 0.70 10.45 KENTUCKY 1.22 0.08 0.00 0.59 0.00 1.13 0.68 0.19 3.88 LOUISIANA 2.54 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.38 0.17 4.34 MAINE 0.42 0.03 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.60 2.46 MARYLAND 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.11 MASSACHUSETTS 0.00
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A8.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A8.txt
  • Low-Income Households All Households 1984 to 1997 1997 to 2009 1984 to 1997 1997 to 2009 Ohio 1987 5.24 81.0% 88.5% 94.1% 7.5% * 5.6% 93.2% 95.0% 97.3% 1.8% 2.2% Oklahoma 1996 1.58 81.9% 78.9% 92.6% -3.0% 13.7%* 91.0% 91.8% 96.4% 0.7% 4.7% Oregon 1986 5.21 76.4% 90.5% 92.9% 14.1% * 2.3% 91.4% 95.3% 98.1% 3.9% * 2.8% Pennsylvania 1996 1.25 85.6% 93.6% 94.8% 8.0% * 1.2% 94.4% 97.3% 97.6% 3.0% * 0.2% Rhode Island 1987 5.25 86.4% 87.6% 90.5% 1.2% 2.9% 94.0% 94.6% 96.2% 0.5% 1.6% South Carolina 1995 4.90 66.1% 76.2% 87.1% 10.1% * 10.9%* 85.1% 92.0% 93.9% 6.9% * 1.8% South Dakota 1988 0.08 84.6% 90.5% 91.3% 5.9% 0.8% 93.0% 94.7% 96.8% 1.7% 2.0% Tennessee 1992 5.02 71.1%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308828A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308828A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308828A2.txt
  • consumed data from this buffer at a fixed rate, looking for buffer under-runs (which would manifest themselves to users as a pause in video). The Whitebox recorded the time to initial buffer, the total number of buffer under-runs and the total delay in microseconds due to these under-runs. The test operated at four bit rates: 768 kilobits per second (kbps), 1.25 Mbps, 2.25 Mbps, and 3.75 Mbps. Voice over IP The test operated over UDP and, unlike the video streaming test, utilized bi-directional traffic, as is typical for voice calls. The Whitebox would handshake with the server, and each would initiate a UDP stream with the other. The test used a 64 kbps stream with the same characteristics and properties (i.e.,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310665A1.txt
  • 5925.0000 - 6425.0000 MHz 22M5G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) 2 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E110148 SES-LIC-20111023-01244 E Class of Station: Other Application for Authority Ship Equip, Inc. Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service, Other 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " W LONG. LOCATION: Azimuth 1 1.25 meters ANTENNA ID: SE125 46.10 dBW Digital 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 907KG7W 49.10 dBW Digital 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 1M81G7W 0.00 dBW Digital 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 3M52G7W 0.00 dBW Digital 10950.0000 - 12750.0000 MHz 3M52G7W 0.00 dBW Digital 11500.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 3M52G7W 48.57 dBW Digital 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 1M60G7W Page 2 of 5 Points of Communication: 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310873A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310873A2.txt
  • ADAMS 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 ARAPAHOE 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 ARCHULETA 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 ASPEN / PITKIN 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.25 1.25 AURORA - CITY OF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 BACA 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 BENT / KIOWA 0.35 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 BOULDER 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311692A1.txt
  • Date Effective: 12/23/2011 Class of Station: Fixed Land-based Ship Earth Station Grant of Authority 12/23/2011 - 12/23/2026 Application for Authority SHIP EQUIP, INC. Nature of Service: Earth Stations on-board Vessels, Fixed Satellite Service 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 Up to 500 Terminals, VARIOUS 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " W LONG. LOCATION: AZIMUTH 1 1.25 meters ANTENNA ID: SE125 46.10 dBW Digital 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 907KG7W 49.10 dBW Digital 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 1M81G7W 48.57 dBW Digital 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 1M60G7W Digital 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 3M52G7W Digital 10950.0000 - 12750.0000 MHz 3M52G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E110168 SES-LIC-20111109-01342 E Date Effective: 12/21/2011 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311943A1.txt
  • 1 - WORLDVIEW-2 - (NGSO) E120001 SES-LIC-20111222-01500 E Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority TRIBUNE TELEVISION NORTHWEST, INC., DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION Page 2 of 8 Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 TRANSPORTABLE, CONUS, Alaska and Ha 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " W LONG. LOCATION: ACCELERATED T1 1.25 meters ANTENNA ID: 1.25M. 62.15 dBW DIGITAL VIDEO AND AUDIO 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E120002 SES-LIC-20111223-01501 E Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority WPIX, INC., DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 TRANSPORTABLE, CONUS, Alaska and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312475A1.txt
  • LIST - () E120002 SES-LIC-20111223-01501 E Date Effective: 02/13/2012 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Grant of Authority 02/13/2012 - 02/13/2027 Application for Authority WPIX, INC., DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 TRANSPORTABLE, CONUS, Alaska, HI 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " W LONG. LOCATION: ACCELERATED T1 1.25 meters ANTENNA ID: 1.25M. 62.15 dBW DIGITAL VIDEO AND AUDIO 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E120003 SES-LIC-20111227-01502 E Date Effective: 02/08/2012 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 02/08/2012 - 02/08/2027 Application for Authority 3003 Moffitt LLC Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service 29 ° 35 ' 3.00 " N
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312592A1.txt
  • E120001 SES-LIC-20111222-01500 E Date Effective: 02/21/2012 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Grant of Authority 02/21/2012 - 02/21/2027 Application for Authority TRIBUNE TELEVISION NORTHWEST, INC., DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " N LAT. SITE ID: 1 TRANSPORTABLE, CONUS, Alaska and Ha 0 ° 0 ' 0.00 " W LONG. LOCATION: ACCELERATED T1 1.25 meters ANTENNA ID: 1.25M. 62.15 dBW DIGITAL VIDEO AND AUDIO 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) E120008 SES-LIC-20120106-00018 E Date Effective: 02/21/2012 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 02/21/2012 - 02/21/2027 Application for Authority Intelsat License LLC Nature of Service: Fixed Satellite Service 21 ° 40 ' 17.80 " N
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312868A1.txt
  • Acarrier/channel that supports EVDO "LTE" An LTEcarrier conforming to E-UTRA Release 8 or later "Other Acarrier that does not conform to one of the technologies listed above 3/13/2012 6 Deployed Carriers Instructions "Deployed Carriers" Table Column H: ICarrier BW_MHz Description: This field contains the bandwidth in MHz of the carrier described in this record. Format of Field.' Number Possible Entries: 1.25Carrier = 1 X 1.25Carrier = EVDO 1.4Carrier = LTE 3Carrier=LTE 5 Carrier=LTE 10Carrier=LTE Carrier = Other Column I:ICenter Freq_MHz Description: This field contains the unrounded center frequency in MHz of the downlink carrier described in this record. Format of Field: Number Example Entries: 1937.5, 2142.625, etc. Column J: ICarrier ActiveI Description: This field is used to indicate whether a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-163A1.pdf
  • panel. That definition states that UWB devices must have a -20 dB fractional bandwidth of at least 0.25. In order for the fractional bandwidth to equal or exceed 0.25, the -20 dB bandwidth must be at least 25% of the center frequency. Under this formula, the minimum -20 dB bandwidth is 250 megahertz if the center frequency is 1 GHz, 1.25 gigahertz if the center frequency is 5 GHz, and 2.5 gigahertz if the center frequency is 10 GHz. Alternatively, M/A-Com suggests that a distinction between devices that operate above and below 10 GHz is needed because at higher frequencies the benefits of UWB may be achieved with lower fractional bandwidths. M/A-Com believes that UWB should be defined as a fractional
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-348A1.txt
  • designate certain spectrum for State Licenses rather than requiring RPCs to set-aside spectrum. State License - 2.4 megahertz of spectrum. We conclude that designating 2.4 megahertz for state licensing is in line with the spectrum needs identified by those commenters who suggested designating specific amounts of spectrum for state use. While the commenters sought amounts ranging from APCO's suggestion of 1.25-2.0 megahertz as the minimum for the RPCs to set-aside to Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. and Virginia's request for all 8.8 megahertz of the reserve spectrum, most commenters sought between 2.5 to 3.75 megahertz of spectrum. NYSTEC suggests at least 2.5 megahertz of spectrum should be designated for statewide systems. California requests 2.8 megahertz of spectrum for state systems and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-435A1.txt
  • change this requirement, and, therefore, we do not believe there is any increased risk of interference to terrestrial wireless systems in frequency bands shared with FSS earth stations. Two Degree Spacing Order, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d at 605 (para. 93). Although an antenna 1.2 meters in diameter does not fit within the envelope established in Section 25.209(a)(1) between 1º and 1.25° off-axis, the Commission found that this slight failure to meet the Commission's antenna gain standards does not generally cause unacceptable interference, and therefore created an exception for 1.2-meter antennas operating in the Ku-band. Specifically, the side lobe envelope for a 1.2 meter antenna operating in the Ku-band was revised to begin at 1.25º off-axis. See 47 C.F.R. § 25.209(g); Amendment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-157A1.txt
  • example, the Rural Task Force reports that the average density is only 13 persons per square mile for areas served by rural carriers compared with 105 persons per square mile in areas served by non-rural carriers. At the same time, the average population density varies dramatically among rural carriers. Rural carriers in Alaska and Wyoming serve populations of 0.58 and 1.25 persons per square mile, respectively, while those in some states serve populations of over 100 persons per square mile. That is, some rural carriers serve areas with approximately the same density as the non-rural average. See Rural Task Force Recommendation at 11-12. Similarly, the Rural Task Force reports that average total plant investment per line ranges from $3,000 for rural
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-192A1.txt
  • margin than at the end of 1999. As noted previously, the United States finished the year 2000 with a mobile penetration level of approximately 39 percent, as compared with the Western European average of 62.5 percent. The ratio of the average Western European mobile penetration level to the U.S. penetration level was 1.6 at the end of 2000, up from 1.25 at the end of 1999. While two of the Western European countries, Germany and Belgium, had lower penetration levels than the United States at the end of 1999, both Germany and Belgium, along with all other Western European countries, finished the year 2000 with higher penetration levels than the United States. The mobile telephone markets of advanced industrialized countries in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.txt
  • reported within 7 Days 2.52 1.16 2.43 1.07 2.41 1.44 2.89 1.02 PR-8-01 Open Orders in a Hold Status > 30 Days 0.10 0.28 0.08 0.19 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.00 PR-8-02 Open Orders in a Hold Status > 90 Days 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Resale 2-Wire Digital Services PR-2-01 Average Int. Completed - Total No Dispatch 1.25 3.07 1.28 1.98 1.61 1.16 1.18 2.00 4c PR-2-02 Average Int. Completed - Total Dispatch 9.70 8.00 7.53 10.88 6.59 8.50 5.01 9.55 1a,2c,3b,4b,3n PR-4-02 Average Delay Days - Total 7.67 16.00 9.67 6.14 8.19 9.00 5.56 NA 1a,2a,3a,3n PR-4-04 % Missed Appointment - Verizon - Dispatch 19.56 16.67 5.34 9.30 5.52 5.88 5.06 0.00 1a,2n,3n PR-4-05 % Missed Appointment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A3.txt
  • of Service > 12 Hours 87.50 0.00 0.00 100.00 80.00 NA 85.71 NA 1a,2a,2x MR-4-08 % Out of Service > 24 Hours 50.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 40.00 NA 57.14 NA 1a,2a,2x MR-5-01 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 0.00 100.00 25.00 100.00 20.00 100.00 14.29 NA 1a,2a,3a,4a,1x,4x UNE xDSL Loops MR-2-02 Network Trouble Report Rate - Loop 0.00 0.64 0.00 1.25 0.48 0.31 0.21 2.40 1x,2x MR-2-03 Network Trouble Report Rate - Central Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.21 0.00 MR-3-01 % Missed Repair Appointment - Loop NA 25.00 NA 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 11.11 1a,2a,3a,4a,1x,2x,3x,4x MR-3-02 % Missed Repair Appointment - Central Office NA 0.00 0.00 NA 50.00 NA 100.00 NA 1a,1x MR-4-02 Mean Time To Repair -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-303A1.txt
  • Emissions. We propose amending 47 C.F.R. § 87.131 to correct the table to raise permitted maximum output power of Aircraft Earth Stations from 60 watts to 80 watts. The value of output power is measured at the output of the high power amplifier and does not account for RF cable and diplexer losses. The assumed value of such losses is 1.25 dB, which would result in an output of 60 watts. As a result, we believe that the value currently specified in our rules is erroneous and we propose to correct that here. We seek comment on our proposal. Emission Limitations. We propose to amend 47 C.F.R. § 87.139(i) to ensure that our rules reflect the latest technical standards without retaining
• 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
  • "TBS" has the meaning given to it in the Preamble, and also encompasses its directly or indirectly wholly-owned Norway-incorporated subsidiaries, Telenor Satellite Mobile Ventures AS and Telenor Satellite Mobile AS, including all of their successors, assigns and subsidiaries. 1.24 "Telenor USA" has the meaning given to it in the Preamble. It includes all successors, assigns and subsidiaries of Telenor USA. 1.25 "Transactional Data" means: Call-identifying information, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 1001(2), including without limitation the telephone number or similar identifying designator associated with a communication; Internet address or similar identifying designator associated with a communication; The time, date, size, and duration of a communication; Any information relating to identity and physical address of a Telenor USA subscriber, user, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-107A1.txt
  • † $0.587 $0.727 $0.489 $0.663 $0.447 Standard error 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.02 No. of satellite channels 42.43 39.92 49.73 41.42 40.81 Standard error 2.12 2.21 0.78 1.53 2.80 Rate per satellite channel $0.796 $1.066 $0.647 $0.870 $0.571 Standard error 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.04 July 1, 2000 BST $14.43 $10.98 $10.95 $14.76 $12.19 Standard error 1.01 0.40 0.40 0.76 1.25 Major CPST $14.40 $20.46 $18.39 $16.01 $9.23 Standard error 1.44 0.93 0.56 0.95 2.07 Programming total $28.83 $31.44 $29.34 $30.77 $21.42 Standard error 0.97 0.71 0.44 0.49 1.12 Equipment $2.62 $2.81 $3.21 $1.80 $1.98 Standard error 0.25 0.24 0.12 0.17 0.49 Programming and equipment $31.45 $34.25 $32.55 $32.57 $23.40 Standard error 1.07 0.85 0.46 0.50 1.29 Number of channels 52.68
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-232A1.txt
  • any interference. After the SVRS designation in 1989, the Commission authorized LoJack's operation on a regular basis. LoJack has developed and operated a stolen vehicle recovery network with state and local police departments across the nation. According to LoJack, its system has been deployed in seventeen states, as well as the District of Columbia, and has been installed in approximately 1.25 million vehicles, and assisted in the recovery of more than 30,000 vehicles. Additionally, LoJack states that it is the most extensive radio-based SVRS in the world. Although the Commission licenses SVRS at 173.075 MHz on a shared, nonexclusive basis, LoJack is currently is the only SVRS operator in the United States. Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules provides that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-257A1.txt
  • that facilitating the licensing of smaller antennas would encourage antenna manufacturers to produce inferior antennas, or make it difficult to adopt measures in the future to improve overall spectrum planning or efficiency of spectrum use. In 1993, the Commission increased the off-axis angle at which it begins the antenna gain envelope for conventional Ku-band earth station antennas, from 1° to 1.25°. That rule revision allowed for routine processing of smaller earth station antennas without resulting in an increase in substandard antennas. Furthermore, as the Commission observed in the Notice, facilitating smaller-than-routine earth station antennas would encourage greater deployment of satellite services because smaller antennas are less expensive to manufacture, and it is easier to find suitable locations to install smaller antennas.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-257A1_Erratum.doc
  • that facilitating the licensing of smaller antennas would encourage antenna manufacturers to produce inferior antennas, or make it difficult to adopt measures in the future to improve overall spectrum planning or efficiency of spectrum use. In 1993, the Commission increased the off-axis angle at which it begins the antenna gain envelope for conventional Ku-band earth station antennas, from 1° to 1.25°. That rule revision allowed for routine processing of smaller earth station antennas without resulting in an increase in substandard antennas. Furthermore, as the Commission observed in the Notice, facilitating smaller-than-routine earth station antennas would encourage greater deployment of satellite services because smaller antennas are less expensive to manufacture, and it is easier to find suitable locations to install smaller antennas.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-286A3.txt
  • kHz bandwidth according to the specifications in Supplement A. Analog AM Modulator When broadcasting the hybrid waveform, this process computes the envelope of the analog AM signal by applying a modulation index and adding a DC offset and as follows: where a(t) is the envelope, m(t-Tdd) is the delayed analog source and g is the modulation gain. Typically, g = 1.25, representing a +125% modulation level. The input analog audio source, m(t), must be preprocessed external to the AM IBOC exciter, so that a(t) does not assume negative values. See Supplement A for a complete description of the requirements on the input analog audio source. Analog/Digital Combiner When broadcasting the Hybrid waveform, the real analog AM baseband waveform, a(t), is coherently
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-304A1.txt
  • to meet wireless system spectrum requirements in the U.S. Siemens claims that the data rates of the IMT-2000 interfaces will serve the market need ``for the foreseeable time.'' Most carriers in the U.S. have indicated plans to provide service that meet the IMT-2000 data rates by deploying systems based on cdma2000 and W-CDMA technologies. These technologies use paired channels of 1.25 to 7.5 MHz. In order to support multiple channels and capabilities, we conclude that small amounts of noncontiguous spectrum (i.e., blocks less than about 5 MHz in size) are apt to be less beneficial for the provision of AWS than are larger allocations. In the Further Notice, we noted that spectrum efficiencies are inherent in the allocation of contiguous frequency
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.txt
  • licenses, and 493 smaller areas for the remaining four licenses. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach? In the AWS Allocation Order, we noted that most carriers in the U.S. have indicated plans to provide service that meet the IMT-2000 data rates by deploying systems based on cdma2000 and W-CDMA technologies. These technologies use paired channels of 1.25 to 7.5 MHz. We therefore seek comment on whether the ability of applicants to aggregate spectrum at auction and then aggregate and disaggregate spectrum post-auction-both geographically and by frequency-suggest we should simply divide this spectrum into smaller frequency blocks (for example, five megahertz or even less) and let applicants assemble whatever spectrum they want? What are the advantages and disadvantages
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-30A1.txt
  • SkyBridge proposed to use TT&C links in the Ku-band. Lockheed Martin Corporation File No.: SAT-LOA-19971222-00203 Lockheed Martin filed an application to launch and operate a global broadband NGSO system known as the LM-MEO System. The requested LM-MEO constellation will consist of 32 MEO satellites in four planes, inclined at 70 degrees, at an altitude of 10,352 km. Lockheed Martin requests 1.25 GHz of uplink spectrum in the 28.35-29.10 GHz and 29.50-30.0 GHz bands, and 1.25 GHz of downlink spectrum in the 18.05-18.3 GHz, 18.8-19.30 GHz and 19.70-20.20 GHz bands. For communications among its MEO satellites, Lockheed Martin requests optical ISLs providing 2.48 Gbps interconnection in the 1.55 micron region. Finally, Lockheed requests authority to perform TT&C communications in the Ka-band service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • 22.0721.71 18.9732.41 19.2042.75 7 - Average Completed Interval B - 10 CLEC Result P*B CLEC Result P*B CLEC Result P*B CLEC Result P*B CLEC Result P*B Notes Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-330 California Performance Metric Data Sept. 2002 August 2002 Metric Name and Disaggregation Metric Number July 2002 May 2002 June 2002 7 Resale Business POTS field work 1.47 2.29 1.25 2.38 1.08 2.39 1.48 2.19 2.19 2.15 7 Resale Business POTS no field work 0.46 0.73 0.75 1.00 0.57 0.84 0.35 0.83 0.55 0.73 7 Resale Centrex field work 4.43 5.01 5.13 4.52 4.56 4.30 4.38 4.31 3.00 4.19a e 7 Resale Centrex no field work 1.00 2.87 3.20 3.09 2.69 1.45 1.42 1.58 1.08 1.68 7 Resale ISDN BRI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-331 Florida Performance Metric Data A.2.1.1.1.2Residence/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (days) 0.86 0.70 0.84 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.77 1.00 0.73 A.2.1.1.2.1Residence/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 4.64 4.00 4.68 4.33 4.86 5.00 4.64 4.00 4.25 4.00 1,2,3,4,5 A.2.1.2.1.1Business/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 3.54 3.25 6.02 4.10 6.40 4.08 4.92 4.49 5.88 5.56 A.2.1.2.1.2Business/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (days) 1.29 0.94 1.22 1.08 1.23 0.96 1.25 0.84 1.28 0.92 A.2.1.2.2.1Business/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 10.28 8.57 11.50 5.25 12.35 9.50 14.71 3.33 13.70 6.60 1,2,3,4,5 A.2.1.2.2.2Business/>=10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (days) 4.07 7.00 13.72 5.50 0.52 1.00 7.00 0.83 1,2,4 A.2.1.3.1.1Design (Specials)/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 21.96 10.11 23.01 6.62 23.84 12.49 26.81 10.74 23.69 2.50 1 A.2.1.3.1.2Design (Specials)/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (days) 10.98 4.13 8.45 4.50 8.97 3.58 7.29 4.56 8.04 2.61
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-338A1.txt
  • approximately 1.5 million high-speed Internet access subscribers, and as of June 2002 AT&T had approximately 1.8 million subscribers. As of year-end 2001, Cablevision had 506,675 high-speed Internet access subscribers. By June 2002, Cablevision had 610,505 subscribers. As of year-end 2001, Charter had 607,700 high-speed Internet access subscribers and it expects that by year-end 2002 it will have as many as 1.25 million high-speed Internet access subscribers. As of June 2002, Charter had 905,500 high-speed Internet access subscribers. As of June 2002, AOL Time Warner had 2.5 million subscribers to its cable modem service. As we have reported in the past, a few cable operators offer Internet access services delivered through a television receiver rather than a personal computer. Many of these
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-48A1.txt
  • be located 1370 meters away. Given the 0.2º minimum elevation angle of the antenna mainbeam, the beam would only be 5 meters above the horizon. The building itself would at least partially obstruct the 3 dB beamwidth of the mainbeam and be the limiting factor along the given azimuth and not the UWB's EIRP. An elevation angle of greater than 1.25 degrees is required to clear a 30-meter obstacle at a distance of 1370 meters. Therefore, the geometry of the TDWR is the limiting factor for this scenario, not the EIRP of the UWB. . Maximum UWB EIRP for UWB Use Indoors System Frequency (MHz) Maximum UWB EIRP (dBm/MHz) UWB Indoors 2 m height Maximum UWB EIRP (dBm/MHz) UWB Indoors 30
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-15A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-15A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-15A4.txt
  • Technical Analysis 2.1 Out-of-Band Emissions of ATC Operations Globalstar's ATC system proposal is based on either the IS-95 or the CDMA-2000 standard. Table 2.0.A presents the pertinent characteristics of the IS-95 and CDMA-2000 terrestrial PCS systems. Table 2.1.A Characteristics of Candidate Big LEO ATC systems Item Units IS-95 Characteristics CDMA-2000 Characteristics Mobile Terminal EIRP (dBW) 0.2-1.0 0.1 Bandwidth (MHz) 1.23 1.25 Out-of-Band Emission Level >900kHz -42 dBc/30 kHz >1.98 MHz -54 dBc/30 kHz Receiver Sensitivity (dBW) -134 -134.0 Interference Threshold (dBW) -138.9 -140.0 Base Station EIRP (dBW) 32.0 27.0 Antenna Gain (dBi) 19.0 17.0 Out-of-Band Emission Level >750 kHz -45 dBc/30 kHz >1.98 MHz -60 dBc/30 kHz Receiver Sensitivity (dBW) -147.0 -149.0 Interference Threshold (dBW) -136.3 -144.0 3.0 Intra-Service Sharing Interference
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-15A4_Erratum.doc
  • Technical Analysis 2.1 Out-of-Band Emissions of ATC Operations Globalstar's ATC system proposal is based on either the IS-95 or the CDMA-2000 standard. Table 2.0.A presents the pertinent characteristics of the IS-95 and CDMA-2000 terrestrial PCS systems. Table 2.1.A Characteristics of Candidate Big LEO ATC systems Item Units IS-95 Characteristics CDMA-2000 Characteristics Mobile Terminal EIRP (dBW) 0.2-1.0 0.1 Bandwidth (MHz) 1.23 1.25 Out-of-Band Emission Level >900kHz -42 dBc/30 kHz >1.98 MHz -54 dBc/30 kHz Receiver Sensitivity (dBW) -134 -134.0 Interference Threshold (dBW) -138.9 -140.0 Base Station EIRP (dBW) 32.0 27.0 Antenna Gain (dBi) 19.0 17.0 Out-of-Band Emission Level >750 kHz -45 dBc/30 kHz >1.98 MHz -60 dBc/30 kHz Receiver Sensitivity (dBW) -147.0 -149.0 Interference Threshold (dBW) -136.3 -144.0 3.0 Intra-Service Sharing Interference
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-16A1.txt
  • 1990-2000 MHz) is consistent with many possible uses of the bands. For example, the existing channel block assignments for Broadband PCS consist of 2x5 megahertz in the D, E, and F blocks. In addition, we note that the IMT-2000 standards being considered for AWS include WCDMA, which is based on paired 5 MHz channel blocks and CDMA-2000, which uses multiple 1.25 megahertz carrier channels to provide higher data rates. Finally, such a pairing would also create the possibility of granting the request of Nextel or WCA. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether spectrum in these bands should be paired and re-designated for AWS with the likelihood that we would be able to use our existing Broadband PCS rules to promote rapid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-248A1.txt
  • make the following major decisions: We reallocate the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz bands to update the current allocations, which were established at the World Administration Radio Conference in 1992 (WARC-92, Malaga-Torremolinos) and the World Radiocommunication Conference in 1997 and 2000 (WRC-97, Geneva, and WRC-2000, Istanbul). We divide the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands into four unpaired 1.25 GHz segments each (eight total), without mandating specific channels within the segment. The segments may be aggregated without limit. Non-Federal Government licensees will receive non-exclusive nationwide licenses authorizing operation on all 12.9 GHz of co-primary spectrum. Rights with regard to specific links will be established based upon the date and time of link registration. Initially, coordination of non-Federal Government links
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03J-2A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03J-2A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03J-2A1.txt
  • available from the Year 2000 to model the effects that a 1.35 PLC would have had on Lifeline subscribership and telephone penetration in 2000. For Lifeline subscribership, a regression model is constructed that predicts the increase in Lifeline subscribers as a function of increasing multiples of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. For example, the model predicts that if Texas-which has a 1.25 PLC-adopted a 1.35 PLC, Lifeline subscribers in 2004 would increase by 16,669 to 19,576 (See Table 2.F). For telephone subscribership, a logistic regression is constructed that predicts the increase in telephone subscribership as a function of increasing multiples of the Federal Poverty Guidelines and other important factors, such as income and home ownership. If all states adopt a 1.35 (or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-134A1.txt
  • action was necessary to accommodate vital communications needs of U.S. and Coalition Forces. In June 2003, Iridium again requested an extension of its temporary authority to use the additional spectrum. Iridium acknowledged, however, that while it continued to experience high levels of demand for its service, the demand had subsided. Thus, Iridium requested additional temporary authority to use less spectrum, 1.25 megahertz, at 1620.1-1621.35 MHz. Globalstar opposed this request stating, among other things, that its own system was experiencing harmful interference that ``appears'' to arise from Iridium's use of the Globalstar channels. The Division granted Iridium an additional 30 days to use the spectrum, finding it allowed Iridium to provide critical support to U.S. Forces in the Middle East region. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-156A1.txt
  • basis to non-Government stations in the Police Radio Service (with a maximum authorized bandwidth of 20 kHz) for stolen vehicle recovery systems. 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote US312. 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.20(c)(3), 90.20(e)(6). Applications for base stations are coordinated with NTIA. LoJack Corporation 2002 Annual Report at 2. LoJack states that its transponder units have been installed in more than 1.25 million vehicles. See Amendment of Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules to revise the Authorized Duty Cycle on 173.075 MHz, WT Docket No 01-97, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 16938, 16939 n.14 (2002) (citing LoJack's comments in the proceeding). The SVRS fixed stations are licensed to 18 states and state agencies, as well as the District of Columbia Metropolitan
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-219A1.txt
  • CDMA; interference from GSM to GSM; interference from CDMA to GSM; and interference from GSM to CDMA. However, for the case of potential interference of CDMA to GSM and of GSM to CDMA, there are still other factors that act to mitigate its occurrence. First, CDMA is a spread spectrum technique whereby the power spectral density is low across the 1.25 megahertz bandwidth and the signal looks similar to noise. Since GSM uses only a 200 kilohertz bandwidth, selective filtering would keep the amount of energy from the CDMA signal that could interfere very low. Also, because of the nature of CDMA, it would only appear as noise. Thus, it is possible that a GSM system could experience a slight reduction
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-77A1.txt
  • 18035 19595 18045 19605 18055 19615 18065 19625 18075 19635 18085 19645 18095 19655 18105 19665 18115 19675 18125 19685 18135 19695 17.7-17.74 GHz remains unpaired due to the reassignment of 19.26-19.3 GHz to satellite services. Appendix B Proposed Additional Channels for 18 GHz Band Plan (Center Frequency) 50 Megahertz Channels 30 Megahertz Channels 5 Megahertz Channels 2.5 Megahertz Channels 1.25 Megahertz Channels T/R R/T T/R R/T T/R R/T T/R R/T T/R R/T 17765 19325 17715 N/A 17702.5 N/A 17701.25 N/A 18060.625 19620.625 17815 19375 17755 19315 17707.5 N/A 17703.75 N/A 18061.875 19621.875 17865 19425 17785 19345 17712.5 N/A 17706.25 N/A 18063.125 19623.125 17915 19475 17815 19375 17717.5 N/A 17708.75 N/A 18064.375 19624.375 17965 19525 17845 19405 17722.5 N/A 17711.25 N/A
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-79A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-79A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-79A1.txt
  • and amend certain rules to reflect changes in Commission organization and practices. The major rule changes we propose today are as follows: . Revise the operating privileges of amateur radio operators in four High Frequency bands; . Permit auxiliary stations to transmit on the 2 m amateur service band; . Permit amateur stations to transmit spread spectrum communications on the 1.25 m band; . Permit amateur stations to re-transmit communications from the International Space Station; . Allow amateur service licensees to designate the amateur radio club to receive their call sign, in memoriam; . Prohibit an applicant from filing more than one application for a specific vanity call sign; . Eliminate unnecessary restrictions imposed on certain equipment manufacturers; . Allow amateur
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-87A1.txt
  • 1.35 PGC would have had on Lifeline subscribership and telephone penetration in 2002. That increase (in percentage form) is then applied to 2005 data. For Lifeline subscribership, a regression model is constructed that predicts the increase in Lifeline subscribership as a function of increasing multiples of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. For instance, this model indicates that if Texas-which has a 1.25 PGC-had had a 1.35 PGC in 2002, it would have had 23,231 to 25,715 more households on Lifeline in 2002 (See Table 2.E). That increase (in percentage form) is used to predict the additional Lifeline subscribers Texas would have in 2005 (See Table 2.F). For telephone subscribership, a logistic regression is constructed that predicts the increase in telephone subscribership as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-13A1.txt
  • per 24 hours. In the United Kingdom, several companies are developing broadband-based video services, spurred on in part by a reduction in the cost of securing unbundled local loop connections. The first provider to enter the UK market was HomeChoice, which offers conventional TV channels, VOD, BBC programming, and highly popular BSkyB sports and movie channels. HomeChoice's network reaches approximately 1.25 million homes though 73 telephone exchanges, but the company is reported to have only 3,300 subscribers. BT has initiated trials of a digital set-top box that allows users to download television programs on pay-per-view basis over broadband, with a projected commercial deployment in summer 2005. Wanadoo UK, a France Telecom subsidiary, plans to launch television and VOD services on its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-28A1.txt
  • changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two-tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-28A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-28A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-28A2.txt
  • changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two-tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-29A1.txt
  • changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two-tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-29A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-29A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-29A2.txt
  • changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two-tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-32A1.txt
  • changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two-tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-32A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-32A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-32A2.txt
  • changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two-tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-45A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-45A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-45A1.txt
  • Administration (NTIA). This flexible and streamlined regulatory framework was designed to encourage innovative uses of the ``millimeter wave'' spectrum, facilitate future development in technology and equipment, promote competition in the communications services, equipment, and related markets, and advance potential sharing between non-Federal Government and Federal Government systems. The Commission divided the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands into four unpaired 1.25 GHz segments each (eight total), without mandating specific channels within the ``soft'' segments. The Commission also determined that these segments may be aggregated without limit, as needed, although first-in-time interference protection rights would be diminished if the licensee did not load the spectrum at the rate of one bit per second per Hertz (1 bps/Hz). On February 23, 2004, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-62A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-62A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-62A1.txt
  • Antenna Gain Pattern Envelope 1. Background As noted above, the Commission's current routine earth station standards include minimum antenna sizes. Those sizes are related to the Commission's antenna gain pattern requirements. Currently, the antenna gain pattern envelope begins at the same off-axis angle both within and outside the geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) orbital plane, 1° off-axis for C-band earth stations and 1.25° off-axis for Ku-band earth stations. However, the antenna gain pattern equations allow side lobes outside that GSO orbital plane to be greater than allowed within the GSO orbital plane at off-axis angles less than 9.2°. The smallest antenna we license routinely under our current rules at C-band is 4.5 meters in diameter, while at Ku-band the smallest antenna we routinely
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-62A1_Erratum.doc
  • Antenna Gain Pattern Envelope 1. Background As noted above, the Commission's current routine earth station standards include minimum antenna sizes. Those sizes are related to the Commission's antenna gain pattern requirements. Currently, the antenna gain pattern envelope begins at the same off-axis angle both within and outside the geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) orbital plane, 1° off-axis for C-band earth stations and 1.25° off-axis for Ku-band earth stations. However, the antenna gain pattern equations allow side lobes outside that GSO orbital plane to be greater than allowed within the GSO orbital plane at off-axis angles less than 9.2°. The smallest antenna we license routinely under our current rules at C-band is 4.5 meters in diameter, while at Ku-band the smallest antenna we routinely
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-114A1.txt
  • this multi-media system can be designed to operate on 5 megahertz blocks as well. We also seek comment on whether to divide the current 20 megahertz paired Block D into more than two smaller paired blocks to better accommodate other new technologies. For example, systems based on 802.16 standards (WiMax) could potentially operate on a variety of bandwidths ranging from 1.25 to 20 megahertz, including a number of bandwidths that are 5 megahertz or smaller. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether a division of the 10 megahertz segments of paired Block D to create two or more smaller blocks - e.g., 1.25, 1.75, and 7 megahertz blocks - might better accommodate this technology. We also seek comment on other possible block
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-133A1.txt
  • center frequency of a channel. OOBE limits, on the other hand, require that out-of-band signal power be attenuated to ensure that the maximum out-of-band signal power maintains an established, constant relation to the transmitter power. Access/Pegasus, with a focus on deploying broadband in the Guard Bands, note that the ACP limits do not contemplate larger channel sizes, such as a 1.25 megahertz channel that could facilitate broadband. They contend that the ACP requirements should be ``replaced by protections that are designed to address emissions from channels of other bandwidths, including those channels contemplated for broadband operations.'' Further, Access/Pegasus state that if the Commission replaced the ACP limits currently applicable to the Guard Bands with the OOBE limits currently applicable to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-141A1.txt
  • terrestrial 18 GHz band In the 18 GHz Rechannelization Notice (based largely on a filing by the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (``FWCC'')), the Commission proposed a revised FS channel plan for the terrestrial 18 GHz band that included paired and unpaired channels from 17.7-18.3 GHz and 19.3-19.7 GHz, as well as a variety of channel bandwidths including narrower bandwidths, e.g., 1.25, 2.5 and 5 megahertz (as well as those of thirty and fifty megahertz) and a block of unpaired spectrum from 17.7-17.74 GHz. All commenters generally support our efforts to provide relief to relocated point-to-point microwave FS licensees by modifying the existing FS channel plan in the terrestrial 18 GHz band. Based on the information available in the record, we conclude
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.txt
  • R&O, we amend the Part 97 Amateur Radio Service rules as follows: . revise the operating privileges of amateur radio operators to allow more spectrum in four currently-authorized amateur service HF bands to be used for voice communications; . permit auxiliary stations to transmit on additional amateur service bands; . permit amateur stations to transmit spread spectrum communications on the 1.25 meter (m) band; . permit amateur stations to retransmit communications from the International Space Station; . permit amateur service licensees to designate the amateur radio club to receive their call sign in memoriam; . prohibit an applicant from filing more than one application for a specific vanity call sign; . eliminate certain restrictions on equipment manufacturers that are no longer
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1_Erratum.doc
  • R&O, we amend the Part 97 Amateur Radio Service rules as follows: . revise the operating privileges of amateur radio operators to allow more spectrum in four currently-authorized amateur service HF bands to be used for voice communications; . permit auxiliary stations to transmit on additional amateur service bands; . permit amateur stations to transmit spread spectrum communications on the 1.25 meter (m) band; . permit amateur stations to retransmit communications from the International Space Station; . permit amateur service licensees to designate the amateur radio club to receive their call sign in memoriam; . prohibit an applicant from filing more than one application for a specific vanity call sign; . eliminate certain restrictions on equipment manufacturers that are no longer
• 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
  • domestic and international carriers, ISPs and other critical infrastructures; descriptions of IP networks and operations processes and procedures for management control and relation to the backbone infrastructure(s) including other service providers; description of any unique/proprietary control mechanisms as well as operating and administrative software; and network performance information. 1.24. ``OPM'' means the Office of Personnel Management of the U.S. Government. 1.25. ``Party'' and ``Parties'' have the meanings given them in the Preamble. 1.26. ``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 the FCC's Rules. 1.27. ``Share Purchase Agreement'' has the meaning given in the Recitals. 1.28. ``Security Officer'' has the meaning given in Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-34A1.txt
  • 3.1 megahertz would be allocated for optional broadband use. Motorola proposes relocating the wideband interoperability channels adjacent to the narrowband spectrum by placing nine interoperability channels on each end of the wideband segments. Motorola also proposes the Commission require SAM operation on the interoperability channels and that SAM capability be required on all wideband and broadband radios. Assuming that three 1.25 megahertz channels will be used for broadband, Motorola indicates that a 1 megahertz guard band would be necessary between the proposed broadband spectrum and the 700 MHz narrowband channels in order to limit the noise floor increase in the narrowband channels to 3 dB. As a result, it proposes that the twenty 50 kilohertz channels (1 megahertz) on either side
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1.pdf
  • licensees to develop new technologies and services, and additional flexibility. Licensing a spectrum block of this size in the 700 MHz Band could also enable the development of technologies that will produce bit rates far beyond those available with today's technologies. Although existing 3G technologies, such as CDMA-2000 and Wideband CDMA, can readily be accommodated on blocks of 2.5-megahertz (paired 1.25-megahertz blocks) and 10-megahertz (paired 5-megahertz blocks), respectively, we anticipate that Fourth Generation (4G) technologies will be able to take advantage of wider spectrum blocks, such as the 22-megahertz block we adopt in this Second Report and Order, to produce bit rates that are a significant increase beyond those currently achievable with today's technologies. By creating a larger spectrum block in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-132A1_Erratum.doc
  • licensees to develop new technologies and services, and additional flexibility. Licensing a spectrum block of this size in the 700 MHz Band could also enable the development of technologies that will produce bit rates far beyond those available with today's technologies. Although existing 3G technologies, such as CDMA-2000 and Wideband CDMA, can readily be accommodated on blocks of 2.5-megahertz (paired 1.25-megahertz blocks) and 10-megahertz (paired 5-megahertz blocks), respectively, we anticipate that Fourth Generation (4G) technologies will be able to take advantage of wider spectrum blocks, such as the 22-megahertz block we adopt in this Second Report and Order, to produce bit rates that are a significant increase beyond those currently achievable with today's technologies. By creating a larger spectrum block in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-164A1.txt
  • potentially advantageous technical characteristics). Band Plan Spectrum Block Size We seek comment on how to best subdivide the spectrum, if at all, and which block size(s) offer the best opportunity to use the 20 megahertz of spectrum efficiently, depending on which technological approach is adopted. For example, instead of five- or 10-megahertz blocks, WiMax systems can use variable bandwidths from 1.25 to 20 megahertz, with the first WiMax roll-outs expected to use 3.5- and 7-megahertz channel bandwidths. Because there are many different wireless channel bandwidth standards, e.g., GSM (0.2 megahertz), CDMA (1.25 megahertz), W-CDMA/UMTS (5 megahertz), besides that of WiMax, we seek comment on what would be the most spectrally efficient spectrum block size for the 20-megahertz block of AWS-3 spectrum,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.txt
  • of Network Operating Center(s) and linkages to other domestic and international 5 carriers, ISPs or other critical infrastructures; descriptions of any IP networks and operations processes and procedures related to backbone infrastructure(s); description of any proprietary control mechanisms and operating and administrative software; and all network performance information. 1.24. "Party" and "Parties" have the meanings given them in the Preamble. 1.25. "Personnel" means an entity's (i) employees, officers, directors, and agents, and (ii) contract or temporary employees (part-time or full-time) who are under the direction and control of the entity and have Access to its products or services. 1.26 "Routine Business Visits" has the meaning given it in Section 3.6 of this Agreement. 1.27. "Security Incident" means any of the following
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-86A1.txt
  • section 25.222(a)(2) and (a)(4) of the rules, which describes an E.I.R.P.-density envelope ``in all other directions'' than the GSO orbit. ViaSat states that ``[t]here are no commercial NGSO Ku-band systems in operation, and none are planned to be deployed in the foreseeable future.'' The ESV E.I.R.P. envelope in all directions other than along the GSO starts at an angle of 1.25 degrees from the antenna main lobe. In the Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission revised the start of the antenna gain pattern envelope to three degrees off-axis outside the GSO orbital plane for earth stations operating in the conventional Ku-band. The Commission made this revision to facilitate the development of more advanced elliptical antennas without creating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-246A1.txt
  • would enable the Commission to decrease the minimum routine earth station size. Therefore, in the Further Notice, the Commission invited comment on several issues related to revising the earth station antenna gain pattern envelope. The Commission decided to increase the starting point for the antenna gain pattern envelope in the Sixth Report and Order, from 1.0° in the C-band and 1.25° in the Ku-band to 1.5° in both bands. The Commission stayed the effectiveness of its antenna gain pattern revisions, however, while it considered a proposal for an off-axis EIRP approach for FSS earth stations, set forth in the Third Further Notice which was adopted together with the Sixth Report and Order. We discuss this further below. D. Off-Axis EIRP Approach
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-58A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-58A1.txt
  • when used for satellite communications. See FCC Report to Congress as Required by the Orbit Act, Ninth Report, FCC 08-152 (rel. Jun. 18, 2008) at 4 n.19. 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(a) n.25. 47 C.F.R. § 101.109. The bandwidths for specific frequencies in the bands are specified in 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.147(i) and (l). Links with bandwidths of 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, and 10.0 MHz can be authorized in both bands. 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.147(i) and (l). See Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, ET Docket No. 92-9, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 6100, 6102 ¶¶ 10-11 (1992). FWCC 6 GHz Petition at 4. FCC Universal Licensing System
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-58A1_Rcd.pdf
  • C-band when used for satellite communications. See FCC Report to Congress as Required by the Orbit Act, Ninth Report, FCC 08-152 (rel. Jun. 18, 2008) at 4 n.19. 647 C.F.R. § 101.147(a) n.25. 747 C.F.R. § 101.109. The bandwidths for specific frequenciesin the bands are specified in 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.147(i) and (l). Links with bandwidths of 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, and 10.0 MHz can be authorized in both bands. 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.147(i) and (l). 9622 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-58 historically assigned for private use with narrower channels.8 FWCC explains that fixed service bands such as the Lower 6 GHz Band and Upper 6 GHz Band carry critical services such as public safety communications (including police
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-63A1.txt
  • demonstration and the public comments, the Commission will decide if the proposed specific implementation of the off-axis pointing and dynamic power control will protect adjacent satellite systems. Starting Angle of the Off-Axis E.I.R.P. Spectral-Density Envelope The off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits adopted in the ESV Order include a starting angle along the GSO plane of 1.0 degree for the C-band and 1.25 degrees for the Ku-band. The off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits set forth the maximum power-density that an ESV antenna can radiate at various angles from the antenna main beam. The smallest off-axis angle at which the limits apply, i.e., the angle nearest the antenna bore sight, is considered the "starting angle" of the off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limit. The off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-63A1_Rcd.pdf
  • the statistical accuracy of the antenna tracking system(s). 67Intelsat Reply at 6; see alsoIntelsat Feb. 14 Ex ParteLetter at 2. 10380 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-63 3. Starting Angle of theOff-Axis E.I.R.P. Spectral-Density Envelope 28. The off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits adopted in the ESV Order include a starting angle along the GSO plane of 1.0 degree for the C-band and 1.25 degrees for the Ku-band.68The off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits set forth the maximum power-density that an ESV antenna can radiate at various angles from the antenna main beam. The smallest off-axis angle at which the limits apply, i.e., the angle nearest the antenna bore sight, is considered the "starting angle" of the off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral- density limit. The off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-64A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-64A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-64A1.txt
  • Commission asked whether it should adopt variations of the E.I.R.P.-density mask rule in directions other than the GSO plane: first, it asked whether the VMES rule should start the off-axis E.I.R.P.-density envelope at 3.0 degrees from the antenna main lobe, as adopted but stayed for VSATs in the Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice, rather than at the 1.25 degree start angle then in the ESV rules; and, second, it sought comment on relaxing the off-axis E.I.R.P.-density envelope. Boeing and SIA support starting the mask at 3.0 degrees off-axis. ViaSat asserts that existing low-profile antennas may require a larger starting angle than 3.0 degrees and proposes 7.0 degrees. ViaSat asserts that increasing the allowable off-axis E.I.R.P.-density outside the GSO
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-109A1.txt
  • § 101.147(i), (l). The 6425-6525 MHz band allows mobile operations and is shared with mobile stations licensed pursuant to Parts 74 and 78 of the Commission's Rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 101.147(j). 47 C.F.R. § 101.109. The bandwidths for specific frequencies in the bands are specified in 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.147(i) and (l). Links with bandwidths of 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, and 10.0 MHz can be authorized in both bands. 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.147(i) and (l). 47 C.F.R. Part 25.202; 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. Satellite uplink channels at 5925-6425 MHz are paired with space-to-earth channels at 3700-4200 MHz. In combination, the two sets of channels are referred to as the C-band when used for satellite communications. See FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-186A1.txt
  • station. 3.4 Sharing Issues Interference studies: ITU ANALYSIS: The ITU has addressed the problems of co-frequency sharing in the V-band between FS and FSS. The ITU analysis included in the JWP4-9S Chairman's report indicates that under clear-air conditions, with a fully occupied FSS orbit where every satellite is transmitting at the clear-air PFD limits directly illuminating an FS system, approximately 1.25 percent of the FS receivers would be operating with an interference level that was one-tenth or more of the FS system internal noise level. The ITU study makes a number of conservative assumptions in addressing possible interference to FS in the V-band. First, it assumes that the GSO is packed full of FSS satellites spaced every four degrees along the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-186A1_Rcd.pdf
  • the Earth station. 3.4 Sharing Issues Interference studies: ITU ANALYSIS: The ITU has addressed the problems of co-frequency sharing in the V-band between FS and FSS. The ITU analysis includedin the JWP4-9S Chairman's report126indicates that under clear-air conditions, with a fully occupied FSS orbit where every satellite is transmitting at the clear-air PFD limits directly illuminating an FS system, approximately 1.25 percent of the FS receivers would be operating with an interference level that was one-tenth or more of the FS system internal noise level. The ITU study makes a number of conservative assumptions in addressing possible interference to FS in the V-band. First, it assumes that the GSO is packed full of FSS satellites spaced every four degrees along the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.txt
  • Technician Plus, General, Advanced, or Amateur Extra Class operator license, who holds a CEPT radio amateur license, or who holds any class of IARP: Wavelength band ITU Region 1 ITU Region 2 ITU Region 3 Sharing requirements see § 97.303 (Paragraph) VHF MHz MHz MHz 6 m.................. ..................... 50-54............... 50-54.... ............. (a) 2 m................. 144-146........... 144-148............. 144-148...... ...... (a), (k) 1.25 m............. ..................... 219-220............ ............... ....... (l) Do........ ..................... 222-225............ ................... ... (a) UHF MHz MHz MHz 70 cm.............. 430-440........... 420-450............ 430-440......... ... (a), (b), (m) 33 cm.............. ..................... 902-928............ ............. ......... (a), (b), (e), (n) 23 cm.............. 1240-1300........ 1240-1300......... 1240-1300......... (b), (d), (o) 13 cm.............. 2300-2310........ 2300-2310......... 2300-2310......... (d), (p) Do........ 2390-2450........ 2390-2450......... 2390-2450......... (d), (e), (p) SHF GHz GHz
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-56A1.txt
  • forward-looking telecommunications network. Therefore, staff used the state ``cost per line'' (CPL) generated from the 2003 run of the HCPM, which is the last time that the HCPM was run. Staff estimates that rerunning the HCPM using more current customer locations would not change this estimate dramatically. For the second step, the Proposal suggests computing a CPL benchmark equal to 1.25 times the CPL in the District of Columbia. Support amounts would be based on a new ``urban'' benchmark ($18.65) instead of the current benchmark ($28.13). If a state's CPL falls above the new ``urban'' benchmark, it would receive support under the Proposal. This new ``urban'' benchmark is incorporated into the analysis. For the third step, the Proposal suggests using new
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A1.txt
  • can lead to concerns about Exhibit 4-T: Average and Peak Capacity of a 3-Sector Cell Site Relative to Backhaul Speeds, Mbps 15.0 37.5 75.0 2.6 0.3 DS-3 258.0 One T1 441.0 LTE (10MHz) 0 20 40 520 60 Three T1s LTE (20MHz) Fast-E 516.0 9.3 0.7 Single carrier HSPA (5MHz) 220.5 43.2 6.7 Single carrier EDGE (200KHz) Single carrier EV-DO (1.25MHz) 28.2 0.4 Average cell data rates Peak cell data rates Copper Fiber and microwave Average and peak capacity of a 3-sector cell site relative to backhaul speeds, Mbps 76 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION | WWW.BROADBAND.GOV OBI TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 1 reliability. To see this, observe in Exhibit 4-U that the loss of the microwave link between Cell sites 2 and 3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-77A1.txt
  • with the lowest signal level below a threshold of 50 dB above thermal noise (TN + 50 dB), as long as the device is using and can monitor a minimum of 40 duplex system access channels. The requirement for a UPCS device to use and monitor 40 channels was established when the UPCS-band Rules defined a maximum channel size of 1.25 megahertz for isochronous transmissions - resulting in a maximum of 8 channels that were then subdivided into numerous access channels - and UPCS devices were primarily using Personal Wireless Telecommunications (PWT) technology. If the selected channels are unavailable, the UPCS device may either monitor and select different channels or seek to use the same channels after waiting a randomly chosen
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-82A1.txt
  • us, we find that our goal to ensure that the WCS spectrum is used intensively in the public interest will be furthered by requiring that each point-to-point link have a minimum payload capacity (megabits/second (Mbits/s) for a given bandwidth). We agree with the WCS Coalition that the capacity requirements in section 101.141(b) of our rules-which require for nominal bandwidths of 1.25, 2.5, 3.75 and 5 megahertz, a minimum payload capacity of 3.08 Mbits/s, 6.17 Mbits/s, 12.30 Mbits/s, and 18.5 Mbits/s, respectively-may require more construction than would be necessary to ensure meaningful deployment in certain markets. Rather, we believe that the less stringent payload requirement specified in section 101.141(a) of the rules is sufficient to ensure that the valuable WCS spectrum is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-82A1_Rcd.pdf
  • for WCS operations, particularly those using non-constant envelope 310Id. at 5-6. 311Letter from Robert L. Pettit, Counsel to Sirius XM Radio, Inc, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Oct. 2, 2008), at 9 (Sirius XM Oct. 2, 2008, Ex Parte). 312Even if the current "peak" EIRP limit of 2 kW was used on a per emission basis by four 1.25-megahertz-wide emissions (i.e., the smallest bandwidth emissions that can be used for WiMAX, which is the projected use of the WCS bands) over 5 megahertz, the horizontal separation needed to avoid harmful interference to SDARS operations will be less than the separation needed if an "average" EIRP limit of 2 kW over 5 megahertz with a PAPR of 13 dB were
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • LECs, high cost represents 30-40 percent of regulated revenues); RUS Ex Parte (filed Aug. 1, 2011), Attach. at slide 24 (stating that over 70 percent of RUS borrowers receive greater than 25 percent of operating revenues from USF). See infra section XII (Comprehensive Intercarrier Compensation Reform). RUS indicates that over a five-year horizon, it expects borrowers to maintain a minimum 1.25 TIER ratio. RUS Ex Parte (filed Aug. 1, 2011), Attach. at slides 18-21. Id. at slide 18. The RUS modeling assumed a percentage loss of USF support and then analyzed the impact on borrowers, but the analysis did not include the possibility that borrowers' profits could rise through increased revenues and profits from non-regulated services, or other possible sources of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-25A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-25A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-25A1.txt
  • operations, which it describes as ``a 2G technology that uses non-contiguous channels to provide cellular, messaging and push-to-talk services.'' In December 2010, Sprint Nextel announced that it was transitioning its existing operations off of some of its EA-based 800 MHz licenses in order to incorporate the spectrum into its CDMA network, which it claims requires contiguous spectrum and ``occupies a 1.25 [megahertz] bandwidth.'' However, under the channelization scheme and bandwidth limitation in Section 90.209 of the Commission's rules, Sprint Nextel is unable to aggregate the channels in its EA-based 800 MHz SMR licenses to provide CDMA. In June 2011, Sprint Nextel filed a petition for declaratory ruling asking the Commission to ``clarify and declare that its rules permit larger than 25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-32A1.txt
  • only that AWS-4 base stations with transmit power above 1640 watts EIRP and 1640 watts / MHz EIRP be required to coordinate with users in adjacent AWS blocks located within 120 kilometers. We seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal. Mobile Stations. The Part 25 ATC rules set a power limit of 1 dBW (1.25 watts) EIRP in a bandwidth of 1.23 MHz for mobiles operating in 2000-2020 MHz. The existing AWS-1 rules set a power limit of 1 watt EIRP for mobiles operating in AWS-1, which is somewhat more restrictive. In the interest of harmonizing the AWS rules, and given the similarity of these two limits, we propose that the more restrictive limit of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-33A1.txt
  • channels are defined for the system, the time and spectrum windows with the lowest power level may be accessed. * * * * * * * * (d) Emissions outside the band shall be attenuated below a reference power of 112 milliwatts as follows: 30 dB between the band and 1.25 MHz above or below the band; 50 dB between 1.25 and 2.5 MHz above or below the band; and 60 dB at 2.5 MHz or greater above or below the band. Emissions inside the band must comply with the following emission mask: In the bands between 1B and 2B measured from the center of the emission bandwidth the total power emitted by the device shall be at least 30 dB
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.wp
  • in numerous metropolitan markets throughout the United States, AT&T Wireless serves ¾ Ä. at 6. In terms of customers served, AT&T Wireless' top 10 markets are: New York City, New York; ÔMiami, Florida; Dallas, Texas; Seattle, Washington; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Portland, Ö In 1997, AT&T Wireless generated revenues of approximately Ö AT&T also provides Internet access service to approximately 1.25 million customers Ä. at 5 n.9. AT&T originally introduced AT&T WorldNet Service, while Teleport originally introduced Ö AT&T WorldNet and CERFNet offer Internet access Ä. Principally, TCI is a cable company. More specifically, TCI is a diversified Ôcorporation that holds a variety of interests through its subsidiaries, TCI Communications ("TCI(c)C"), ÔLiberty Media Group ("Liberty Media"), and TCI Ventures Group. TCI(c)C
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.txt
  • 9 million digital video subscribers in the U.S. Cox is marketing its digital product in 16 markets and has approximately 560,000 subscribers. In September 2000, Cox began to offer VOD service for selected customers in San Diego, California. As of August 2000, Comcast provided approximately one million subscribers with digital cable service, and expects to offer that service to approximately 1.25 million customers the end of 2000. Comcast offers digital video service to more than 90 percent of its subscribers. With its premier digital service offering, ``Comcast Digital Plus'' Comcast offers customers a total of 250 channels with 45 premium channels. Comcast anticipates that video-on-demand will be introduced in 2001. As of June 2000, Adelphia had approximately 342,000 digital video subscribers
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • make an adjustment for the differences in order mix. The calculations we make, and the resulting differences that we find for non-dispatch UNE-P orders (measured in days), are summarized in the Table below. Estimated Difference in Average Completed Intervals for Non-dispatch UNE-P Orders June July August BA CLEC Diff BA CLEC Diff BA CLEC Diff Carrier to carrier metrics data 1.25 3.20 -1.95* 0.99 2.55 -1.56* 1.07 1.91 -0.84* Using properly "W" coded CLEC orders 1.25 1.13 0.12 0.99 1.31 -0.32 1.07 2.36 -1.29 Adjustment to CLEC data for difference in standard intervals +0.53 +0.04 -0.62 CLEC data revised for alleged biases 1.25 1.68 -0.43* 0.99 1.35 -0.36* 1.07 1.74 -0.67* The top line in the table is the Average Completed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fc00j4a.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fc00j4a.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fc00j4a.txt
  • by Rural Carriers. On the other hand, Rural Carriers serving the three largest study area groupings (20,000 lines or more) contain only 10.5 percent of all study areas, but 67 percent of all Rural Carrier access lines. The average population density of areas served by Rural Carriers varies dramatically. Rural Carriers in Alaska and Wyoming serve populations of 0.58 and 1.25 persons per square mile respectively, while Rural Carriers in some states serve populations of over 100 persons per square mile. Isolation of areas served by Rural Carriers results in numerous operational challenges Rural Carriers have relatively high loop costs because of the lack of economies of scale and density. Rural Carriers experience difficulty and high cost in moving personnel, equipment
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/1998/fcc98235.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/1998/fcc98235.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/1998/fcc98235.wp
  • earth station antennas operating at Ka-band frequencies. It may be desirable to re-evaluate the minimum off-axis angle at which we impose the performance envelope, similar to the example Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-235 84 47 C.F.R. § 25.209(g). The antenna performance standard for small antennas operating in the 12/14 GHz band with diameters as small as 1.2 meters starts at 1.25o instead of 1o. 85 This requirement is for networks whose coordination information was received by the ITU after May 17, 1996; use of these techniques is encouraged for other networks. 86 47 C.F.R. § 25.204. See 28 GHz First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19005. 87 Id. 27 followed for small diameter Ku-band antennas in Section 25.209(g).84 We
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.wp
  • the measured results will be more comparable to real world experience than if the emission mask method were to be used. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 98-191 347 Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,775-76. 348 Approximately 0.4 ppm by automatic frequency control (AFC) locking to base station with intermittent degradation to 2.5 ppm when AFC lock is lost. 349 Approximately 1.25 ppm by AFC locking to base station with intermittent degradation to 5 ppm allowed if AFC lock is lost. 350 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.7. 351 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.202. 352 Authorized bandwidth is the frequency range within which 99 percent of the radiated power appears, extended to include any frequency upon which the power is at least 0.25
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • 5.86 5.79 3.55 5.52 3.74 6.26 3.08 MR-1-02-2000 Status Trouble 4.55 NA 4.27 NA 4.97 NA 4.66 NA 6.37 NA MR-1-03-2000 Modify Trouble 5.62 NA 5.99 NA 5.73 NA 5.42 NA 6.06 NA MR-1-04-2000 Request Cancellation of Trouble 6.8 NA 6.91 1 7.04 NA 6.63 3.41 7.32 NA b,d MR-1-05-2000 Trouble Report History (by TN/Circuit) 0.38 1.8 0.35 1.75 0.41 1.25 0.31 1 0.43 0.72 MR-1-06-2000 Test Trouble (POTS Only)-RETAIL only 62.41 71.09 62.6 58.91 56.04 51.15 56.18 44.46 56.86 45.86 BILLING BI-1 - Timeliness of Daily Usage Feed BI-1-02-2030 % DUF in 4 Business Days 99.95 99.96 99.74 99.96 99.96 BI-2 - Timeliness of Carrier Bill BI-2-01-2030 Timeliness of Carrier Bill 99.58 100 100 100 98.94 BI-3 - Billing Accuracy
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.pdf
  • FURTHER ORDERED that the rule amendments set forth in Appendix C WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register, and the information collection contained in these rules will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, following Office of Management and Budget approval, unless a notice is published in the Federal Register stating otherwise. 1.25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this First Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary APPENDIX A LIST OF COMMENTERS AND REPLY COMMENTERS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PROPOSALS
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/consumer090002.pdf
  • on the horizontal axis and the number of outlets in each medium on the vertical axis. See text for explanation. 46 Table 1: Television Outlets, 1994-2000 year N uhf vhf uhf+vhf network indep. public net+ind+pub 1994207 2.29 2.63 2.46 1995207 2.96 2.29 5.25 2.72 2.52 1.71 6.96 1996207 3.09 2.34 5.43 4.20 1.23 1.71 7.14 1997207 3.19 2.35 5.54 4.29 1.25 1.71 7.25 1998207 3.37 2.37 5.74 4.74 1.40 1.72 7.87 1999207 3.54 2.37 5.91 4.94 1.46 2000207 3.65 2.39 6.04 5.02 1.57 1.73 8.32 linked sample year N uhf vhf uhf+vhf network indep. public net+ind+pub 1994 2.64 2.88 3.33 1995143 3.76 2.63 6.38 3.01 3.37 2.04 8.42 1996143 3.88 2.68 6.56 4.85 1.71 2.03 8.59 1997143 3.98 2.69 6.67 4.95
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-a.pdf
  • Table 4: Do Newspaper Preferences Vary By Race? Newspaper Market Share by Race, Markets with Competing Daily Papers (Hybrid Zips) Chicago Tribune (Chicago Sun-Times) Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia Daily News) Boston Globe (Boston Herald) Washington Post (Washington Times) (19% Black) (19% Black) (6% Black) (27% Black) % Black -0.455 -0.298 -0.522 -0.278 -0.359 -0.125 -0.100 -0.068 (14.54)** (9.18)** (10.93)** (5.29)** (3.58)** (1.25) (3.18)** (1.84) Median Income (000) 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.001 (2.63)** (2.21)* (2.02)* (1.55) % College Degree 0.638 0.076 0.503 -0.053 (9.14)** (0.44) (5.92)** (1.02) % Over Age 65 -0.126 -0.923 -1.023 -0.339 (0.44) (1.42) (3.66)** (1.84) % Under Age 30 0.279 -0.940 -0.653 -0.307 (1.36) (1.37) (2.70)** (2.02)* Constant 0.621 0.100 0.825 1.067 0.632 0.668 0.923 1.072 (42.18)** (0.69) (53.16)**
• http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/techtopics/techtopics11.html
  • that leverage the standards-based technical specifications defined by the standards bodies. The following table summarizes some of the key attributes of the WiMAX technology standard. WiMAX Standards IEEE 802.16 IEEE 802.16-2004 IEEE 802.16e Standardization Date 2003 2005 2006 Spectrum Band Licensed 10-66 GHz Licensed and Unlicensed sub-11 GHz Licensed, Sub-6 GHz Channel Bandwidths 1.75, 3.5, 5, 7, 10, 20 MHz 1.25, 2.5, 5, 7, 10, 14, 20 MHz Service Fixed Fixed/Nomadic Fixed, Mobile Air Interface OFDM / OFDMA OFDM / OFDMA S-OFDMA Range LOS up to 5 km LOS & near-LOS up to 30 km; Non-LOS up to 5 km Non-LOS up to 10 km Channel Capacity Up to 134 Mbps Up to 70 Mbps Up to 35 Mbps Duplexing Mode
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/17/releases/fc960311.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/17/releases/fc960311.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/17/releases/fc960311.wp
  • months from the release date of this Report and Order. Moreover, See discussion on sharing issues infra ¶¶ 72-74. 111 PanAmSat Corporation suggests that the entire Ka-band should be allocated to satellite services. Comments of 112 PanAmSat at 2. CellularVision argues that PanAmSat provides no basis for exclusion of LMDS from the band and that Loral's plan to give FSS 1.25 GHz of contiguous spectrum does not provide justification. Reply Comments of CellularVision at 8-9. See Comments of GE Americom at 5-6; Reply Comments of GE Americom at 2-3; Comments of Hughes at 3 ; 113 Comments of Orion Network Systems at 2-3; Reply Comments of Orion Network Systems at 3. In the comments, some satellite proponents contend that the non-contiguous
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/30/releases/fc970391.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/30/releases/fc970391.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/30/releases/fc970391.wp
  • This decision stemmed from one of 122 our specific objectives in establishing the band, i.e., to encourage the development of spectrally efficient technologies. Here, however, there is sufficient evidence that 39 GHz licensees and manufacturers are proceeding with the improvement of spectrally efficient equipment. For example, one manufacturer, [P-Com], has off-the- shelf equipment which operates at an efficiency rate of 1.25 bits per hertz, a rate which exceeds the one bit per hertz rate proposed in the NPRM and Order. Given the advancements that are already made in this area, and that more are likely to follow, we believe that a spectral efficiency standard for 39 GHz equipment is unnecessary. 60. With respect to setting a spectrum efficiency standard -- which
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/34/charts/34pres5a.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 76 Market Data for Round FCC "Closed" 800 MHz General Category Auction #34 LicenseMarket Name Bids High Bidder RndGross High BidNet High Bid CreditBid IncPrev High BidderRound Prev Gross Prev Net CreditMin Acceptable Bid MHz Pops YCBEA001DBangor, ME -Nextel Spectrum Acquisitio 31 $4,400 $4,400 - Winsome Paging Inc. 30 $3,700 $2,405 0.35 $4,800 1.25 0 533,135 YCBEA001DDBangor, ME -Nextel Spectrum Acquisitio 34 $4,400 $4,400 - Winsome Paging Inc. 33 $3,700 $2,405 0.35 $4,800 1.25 0 533,135 YCBEA001EBangor, ME -Nextel Spectrum Acquisitio 1 $2,700 $2,700 - FCC - - - - $3,000 1.25 0 533,135 YCBEA001EEBangor, ME -Nextel Spectrum Acquisitio 1 $2,700 $2,700 - FCC - - - - $3,000 1.25 0 533,135 YCBEA001FBangor, ME
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/34/charts/34pres5b.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit LicenseMarket Name Bids High Bidder RndGross High BidNet High Bid CreditBid IncPrev High BidderRound Prev Gross Prev Net CreditMin Acceptable Bid MHz Pops YCBEA093FJoplin, MO-KS-OK -Nextel Spectrum Acquisitio 35 $19,000 $19,000 - Communications Equip 34 $16,000 $10,400 0.35 $21,000 1.25 0 233,725 YCBEA093FFJoplin, MO-KS-OK -Nextel Spectrum Acquisitio 37 $18,000 $18,000 - Communications Equip 36 $15,000 $9,750 0.35 $20,000 1.25 0 233,725 YCBEA094DSpringfield, MO -Nevada Wireless LLC 51 $53,000 $34,450 0.35 Nextel Spectrum Acquis 47 $48,000 $48,000 - $58,000 1.25 0 712,422 YCBEA094DDSpringfield, MO -Nextel Spectrum Acquisitio 47 $77,000 $77,000 - Nevada Wireless LLC 46 $64,000 $41,600 0.35 $85,000 1.25 0
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/35/releases/da002038.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/35/releases/da002038.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/35/releases/da002038.txt
  • and Order, we now propose the following formulae for upfront payments: Tier 1 (1) 15 MHz licenses - 2.5 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.6 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA Tier 2 (1) 15 MHz licenses - 1.25 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.0 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA A complete list of all licenses, including the related population and upfront payments, is attached hereto as Attachment A. We seek comment on this proposal. For
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/35/releases/da002259.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/35/releases/da002259.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/35/releases/da002259.txt
  • No. 35. Specifically, the Bureau proposed upfront payments using the following formula: Tier 1 (1) 15 MHz licenses - 2.5 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.6 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA Tier 2 15 MHz licenses - 1.25 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.0 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA In its comments, BellSouth/SBC propose that the Bureau set upfront payments using a formula of $0.06*MHz*BTA population. BellSouth/SBC argue that using such a formula would be
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2000/releases/98540193.pdf
  • Equal .444 .182 Unequal .111 .25 The ANOVA table below provides no statistically significant relationships, but we may simply observe from the tables above that: Result 10: Bankruptcy never occurred in the additive environment and had the highest aggregate frequency in the high synergy environment. 32 Table 4.7b: ANOVA-Bankruptcies per Bidder: Superadditive Environment Variable F-statistic p-value Flexible 1.1547 0.28 Unequal 1.25 0.26 Environment (H,M,L) 1.43 0.24 CE exists 0.05 0.813 Overlap 1.17 0.32 4.8 Withdrawals and Combined Withdrawal and Bidding One bidding option available to bidders in the SMR auctions is the ability to withdraw a standing bid. This withdrawal does not come without a cost. The tables below show the average number of withdrawals per auction. Across all treatments and
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2000/releases/hazlett.pdf
  • History Fox News Home & Garden Animal Planet Noggin Bloomberg News SciFi Channel ZDTV .00 .25 .50 .75 1.00 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041 Channel $ Value/Month 14 Figure 2: Cable System Ranking of Broadcasting TV Stations NBC CBS ABC Fox PBS1 WB UPN Indie 1 Indie 2 PBS 2 Indie 3 Indie 4 PBS 3 LP 1LP 2 .00 .25 .50 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041 Channels $ Value/Month 15 Figure 3: Basic Cable TV Channel Allotment (Unregulated) A&EBET CMTCNBCCNNComedy CentralCourt TVC-SPANDSCE! TVEPSNFAMFNNHeadlineInternationalLIFEMTVNICKTBSTLCTNNTNTTravelTWCUSAVH-1VISN/ACTSWGN-UVIWORCartoonMSNBCC-SPAN2Indie 2Indie 1UPNWB PBS1 Fox ABC CBS NBC .00 .25 .50 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041 Channel $ Value/Month 16 Figure 4: Basic Cable TV Channel Allotment Under Must Carry (Analog) A&E BET CMTCNBCCNNComedy CentralCourt TVC-SPANDSCE!
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2001/papers/sandholm6.pdf
  • ÔÖ × Ò Ø Ø ÔÐÓØ× ÓÖ Ü ÙØ ÓÒ Ø Ñ º Ì ÙÒ ÓÖÑ ×ØÖ ÙØ ÓÒ Û × Ö Ö ´ ÙÖ µº Ì × Û Ö × ÓÖØ Ö ×Ó Ø × Ö Û × Ô Öº ÙÖ ½¼ × Ó Û× Ø ÓÑÔÐ Ü Ø Ý Ö × × Ø ¿ 500 1000 1500 2000bids 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 Log_10seconds Weightedrandomdistribution 400items 300items 200items 100items ÙÖ Ü ÙØ ÓÒ Ø Ñ ´ÔÖ ÔÖ Ó ×× Ò Ø Ñ ÔÐÙ× × Ö Ø Ñ µ ÓÒ Ø Û Ø Ö Ò ÓÑ ×ØÖ ÙØ ÓÒº 500 1000 1500 2000bids 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 Log_10seconds Searchtimeonly ÙÖ Ë Ö Ø
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2001/papers/vsmith.pdf
  • SMA 8.9 (9) CMA 29.3 (30) Table 30: Efficiency Results for Boundary Cases Case Auction # of Auctions Gain Own Efficiencies % 1 CMA 3 1.23 Yes 78, 79, 78 SMA 1 1.23 Yes 59 CMA 2 1.23 No 97, 79 SMA 1 1.23 No 63 CMA 2 1.43 Yes 100, 100 SMA 1 1.43 Yes 70 2a CMA 7 1.25 Yes 99, 99, 99, 95, 94, 95, 95 SMA 4 1.25 Yes 100, 99, 95, 95 2b CMA 3 1.07 Yes 91, 94, 94 SMA 1 1.07 Yes 100 CMA 2 1.07 No 95, 95 SMA 1 1.07 No 100 CMA 2 1.25 Yes 100, 91 SMA 1 1.25 Yes 100 Figure 1: Location Synergies 8 7 6 5 4
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/element3.doc
  • of 200 volts and a regulation of 25%, what is the no load voltage? A. 150 volts. B. 160 volts. C. 240 volts. D. 250 volts. 3-18B6 What is the conductance (G) of a circuit if 6 amperes of current flows when 12 volts DC is applied? A. 0.25 Siemens (mhos). B. 0.50 Siemens (mhos). C. 1.00 Siemens (mhos). D. 1.25 Siemens (mhos). Answer Key: 3-18B1: C 3-18B2: B 3-18B3: C 3-18B4: A 3-18B5: D 3-18B6: B Subelement C - Components: 10 Key Topics, 10 Exam Questions, 2 Drawings Key Topic 19: Photoconductive Devices 3-19C1 What happens to the conductivity of photoconductive material when light shines on it? A. It increases. B. It decreases. C. It stays the same. D. It
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/element6.doc
  • is: A.0.5 mho B.1.0 mho C.0.25 mho D.None of the above 6A60 A Two 10 W, 500 ohm resistors in parallel will dissipate how many watts? A.20 watts B.10 watts C.30 watts D.40 watts 6A61 D A 20 ohm resistor with a current of 0.25 A passing through it will dissipate how many watts? A.10 watts B.20 watts C.0.025 watts D.1.25 watts 6A62 B If the voltage to a circuit is doubled and the resistance is increased to three times the original value, what will be the final current? A.1/3 the original current B.2/3 the original current C.3 times the original current D.None of the above 6A63 A If a vacuum tube with a filament rating of 0.25 A and 5
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/e911/1030fcc.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/e911/1030fcc.pdf
  • the country. Those are mainly 80 to 100 foot pine trees, which are not real friendly to propagation. We have six cell sites marked with red Xs that serve 720 subscribers having 1,020 phones, plus roamers from all over the state. As I said, we collect 53 cents, 25 cents goes into the fund. That's about $3,000 a year times 1.25. Say $4,000 a year I contribute to the fund that's reimbursable. I don't think I have to crunch a lot more numbers to illustrate the kind of problem that we're facing. Fortunately there is a clause in that state law that allows us to collect more. We're going to be pursuing that, as I indicated. However, that only covers the
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/fcc00-348.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/fcc00-348.pdf
  • designate certain spectrum for State Licenses rather than requiring RPCs to set-aside spectrum. State License - 2.4 megahertz of spectrum. We conclude that designating 2.4 megahertz for state licensing is in line with the spectrum needs identified by those commenters who suggested designating specific amounts of spectrum for state use. While the commenters sought amounts ranging from APCO's suggestion of 1.25-2.0 megahertz as the minimum for the RPCs to set-aside to Joint Commenters AASHTO, et al. and Virginia's request for all 8.8 megahertz of the reserve spectrum, most commenters sought between 2.5 to 3.75 megahertz of spectrum. NYSTEC suggests at least 2.5 megahertz of spectrum should be designated for statewide systems. California requests 2.8 megahertz of spectrum for state systems and
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/reports/documents/avatar-migratory-bird-report10104.pdf
  • per year could be off by an order of magnitude. This statement was not clarified. The USFWS presented a thorough history of bird collisions, while acknowledging that much is simply still not known about the impacts of communication towers on birds. Regarding estimates of avian mortality at communication towers, former USFWS' staff member, Dr. R. C. Banks estimated mortality at 1.25 million birds killed per year at tower sites (Banks 1979). The USFWS published an estimate of nationwide human-caused annual mortality, which Banks depicted as 196 million bird deaths caused by human activity. This estimate represented 1.9 percent of the projected bird population in North America in 1979. Evans (1998) reassessed tower mortality based on increased numbers of tall towers, estimating
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/rss/index.htm?job=ainf&id=64
  • Permits: 1 Eligible Bidders: 10 (of 25 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=64M on, 20 Mar 2006 10:15:01 EST Summary Permits: Auction No. 64 will offer 11 construction permits for full power television stations. Qualified Bidders: 25 Rounds Completed: 18 Bidding Days: 4 Results for Round 18 Gross Revenue: $25,276,000.00 - Dollar Change: 313000.00 - % Change: 1.25 Net Revenue: $21,950,300.00 - Dollar Change: 277300.00 - % Change: 1.28 New Bids: 2 Withdrawn Bids: 0 Proactive Waivers: 0 Bidders that Reduced Eligibility: 2 Permits with PWBs*: 10 FCC Held Permits: 1 Eligible Bidders: 8 (of 25 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=64M on, 20 Mar 2006 11:00:00 EST Summary Permits: Auction No. 64 will offer
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/rss/index.htm?job=ainf&id=70
  • 114 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=70W ed, 14 Mar 2007 14:35:01 GMT Summary Permits: 120 construction permits in the FM broadcast service Qualified Bidders: 114 Rounds Completed: 21 Bidding Days: 6 Results for Round 21 Gross Revenue: $19,713,100.00 - Dollar Change: $464,300.00 - % Change: 2.41 Net Revenue: $16,917,990.00 - Dollar Change: $209,665.00 - % Change: 1.25 New Bids: 44 Withdrawn Bids: 0 Proactive Waivers: 1 Bidders that Reduced Eligibility: 6 Permits with PWBs*: 104 FCC Held Permits: 16 Eligible Bidders: 74 (of 114 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=70W ed, 14 Mar 2007 15:50:01 GMT Summary Permits: 120 construction permits in the FM broadcast service Qualified Bidders: 114 Rounds Completed: 22 Bidding Days:
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/rss/index.htm?job=ainf&id=91
  • 73 (of 117 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=91W ed, 04 May 2011 18:35:01 GMT Summary Permits: 144 construction permits for FM Broadcast Qualified Bidders: 117 Rounds Completed: 27 Bidding Days: 6 Results for Round 27 Gross Revenue: $10,281,100.00 - Dollar Change: $113,500.00 - % Change: 1.12 Net Revenue: $8,297,230.00 - Dollar Change: $102,125.00 - % Change: 1.25 New Bids: 20 Withdrawn Bids: 0 Proactive Waivers: 0 Bidders that Reduced Eligibility: 3 Permits with PWBs*: 106 FCC Held Permits: 38 Eligible Bidders: 71 (of 117 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=91W ed, 04 May 2011 19:50:02 GMT Summary Permits: 144 construction permits for FM Broadcast Qualified Bidders: 117 Rounds Completed: 28 Bidding Days: 6 Results
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • in that it allows more efficient channel reuse within a given service area, and can be used to control the number of response stations operating within a channel and optimize transmitter data rates commensurate with the particular communications service being provided. Petitioners suggest that code division multiple access ("CDMA") emissions could facilitate the use of 4 or 5 channels of 1.25 to 1.5 MHz bandwidth each within a single 6 MHz channel for relatively low data rates, while Quadrature Phase Shift Keying ("QPSK") and Quadrature Amplitude Modulation ("QAM") could accommodate higher data rates using multiple channels within a 6 MHz channel. With respect to 125 kHz channels now available for response use, Petitioners believe that subdivision of these channels should also
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_bandplan&id=smrs
  • - , and sixteen blocks (G through V) are on the lower 80 channels. The channel blocks discussed above are different sizes. On the upper 200 channels, block A comprises 20 channel pairs (1MHz), block B comprises 60 channel pairs (3MHz), and block C comprises 120 channel pairs (6MHz). Each of the general category channel blocks contain 25 channel pairs (1.25MHz), and each of the lower 80 channel blocks contain 5 channel pairs (250KHz). 900 MHz There are a total of 200 channel pairs allocated to the 900 MHz SMR service in non-border areas (see rule 90.613 and rule 90.617). To auction licenses in the 900 MHz band, the above channels were combined into 20 blocks (A through T) with 10
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=millimeter_wave
  • of link [35]More about licensing... Service At A Glance Millimeter Wave 70-80-90 GHz Service Available for use in a broad range of new products and services, including high-speed, point-to-point wireless local area networks and broadband Internet access. Established 2004 [36]Service Rules CFR, Part 101 Related Services [37]Microwave Band Plan Band(s) 71,000-76,000 MHz 81,000-86,000 MHz 92,000-94,000 MHz 94,100-95,000 MHz Block Size 1.25 GHz blocks that can be aggregated Licensing Non-exclusive Nationwide with Link Registration Fee and Mailing Instructions ([38]pdf) [39]Filing Procedures Public Notice System [40]ULS ULS Radio Service Codes MM - Millimeter Wave 70-80-90 GHz Federal Government Coordination [41]NTIA Web Based 70-80-90 Link Coordination Third Party Database Managers [42]Comsearch [43]Frequency Finder, Inc [44]Micronet Communications, Inc [45]Return to Top Arrow Return To Top
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreport.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreport.pdf
  • with a chip rate of 3.84 Mcps. Modulation is dual-channel QPSK. CDMA Multi-Carrier - This radio interface also is called cdma2000 and operates in FDD. The radio interface is a wideband spread spectrum system that uses code division multiple access (CDMA) technology and provides a 3G evolution for systems using the current TIA/EIA-95-B family of standards. RF channel bandwidths of 1.25 megahertz and 3.75 megahertz are supported at this time but the specification can be extended to bandwidths up to 15 megahertz. CDMA TDD - This radio interface employs a direct-sequence CDMA radio access scheme. There are two versions: UTRA Time Division Duplex (TDD) that uses a 5 megahertz bandwidth and a chip rate of 3.84 Mcps, and TD-SCDMA that uses
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.wp
  • in numerous metropolitan markets throughout the United States, AT&T Wireless serves ¾ Ä. at 6. In terms of customers served, AT&T Wireless' top 10 markets are: New York City, New York; ÔMiami, Florida; Dallas, Texas; Seattle, Washington; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Portland, Ö In 1997, AT&T Wireless generated revenues of approximately Ö AT&T also provides Internet access service to approximately 1.25 million customers Ä. at 5 n.9. AT&T originally introduced AT&T WorldNet Service, while Teleport originally introduced Ö AT&T WorldNet and CERFNet offer Internet access Ä. Principally, TCI is a cable company. More specifically, TCI is a diversified Ôcorporation that holds a variety of interests through its subsidiaries, TCI Communications ("TCI(c)C"), ÔLiberty Media Group ("Liberty Media"), and TCI Ventures Group. TCI(c)C
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.txt
  • 9 million digital video subscribers in the U.S. Cox is marketing its digital product in 16 markets and has approximately 560,000 subscribers. In September 2000, Cox began to offer VOD service for selected customers in San Diego, California. As of August 2000, Comcast provided approximately one million subscribers with digital cable service, and expects to offer that service to approximately 1.25 million customers the end of 2000. Comcast offers digital video service to more than 90 percent of its subscribers. With its premier digital service offering, ``Comcast Digital Plus'' Comcast offers customers a total of 250 channels with 45 premium channels. Comcast anticipates that video-on-demand will be introduced in 2001. As of June 2000, Adelphia had approximately 342,000 digital video subscribers
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01008.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/2001/fcc01008.txt
  • by Rural Carriers. On the other hand, Rural Carriers serving the three largest study area groupings (20,000 lines or more) contain only 10.5 percent of all study areas, but 67 percent of all Rural Carrier access lines. The average population density of areas served by Rural Carriers varies dramatically. Rural Carriers in Alaska and Wyoming serve populations of 0.58 and 1.25 persons per square mile respectively, while Rural Carriers in some states serve populations of over 100 persons per square mile. Isolation of areas served by Rural Carriers results in numerous operational challenges Rural Carriers have relatively high loop costs because of the lack of economies of scale and density. Rural Carriers experience difficulty and high cost in moving personnel, equipment
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99404.txt
  • make an adjustment for the differences in order mix. The calculations we make, and the resulting differences that we find for non-dispatch UNE-P orders (measured in days), are summarized in the Table below. Estimated Difference in Average Completed Intervals for Non-dispatch UNE-P Orders June July August BA CLEC Diff BA CLEC Diff BA CLEC Diff Carrier to carrier metrics data 1.25 3.20 -1.95* 0.99 2.55 -1.56* 1.07 1.91 -0.84* Using properly "W" coded CLEC orders 1.25 1.13 0.12 0.99 1.31 -0.32 1.07 2.36 -1.29 Adjustment to CLEC data for difference in standard intervals +0.53 +0.04 -0.62 CLEC data revised for alleged biases 1.25 1.68 -0.43* 0.99 1.35 -0.36* 1.07 1.74 -0.67* The top line in the table is the Average Completed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fc00j4a.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fc00j4a.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fc00j4a.txt
  • by Rural Carriers. On the other hand, Rural Carriers serving the three largest study area groupings (20,000 lines or more) contain only 10.5 percent of all study areas, but 67 percent of all Rural Carrier access lines. The average population density of areas served by Rural Carriers varies dramatically. Rural Carriers in Alaska and Wyoming serve populations of 0.58 and 1.25 persons per square mile respectively, while Rural Carriers in some states serve populations of over 100 persons per square mile. Isolation of areas served by Rural Carriers results in numerous operational challenges Rural Carriers have relatively high loop costs because of the lack of economies of scale and density. Rural Carriers experience difficulty and high cost in moving personnel, equipment
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01157.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01157.txt
  • example, the Rural Task Force reports that the average density is only 13 persons per square mile for areas served by rural carriers compared with 105 persons per square mile in areas served by non-rural carriers. At the same time, the average population density varies dramatically among rural carriers. Rural carriers in Alaska and Wyoming serve populations of 0.58 and 1.25 persons per square mile, respectively, while those in some states serve populations of over 100 persons per square mile. That is, some rural carriers serve areas with approximately the same density as the non-rural average. See Rural Task Force Recommendation at 11-12. Similarly, the Rural Task Force reports that average total plant investment per line ranges from $3,000 for rural
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-331 Florida Performance Metric Data A.2.1.1.1.2Residence/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (days) 0.86 0.70 0.84 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.77 1.00 0.73 A.2.1.1.2.1Residence/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 4.64 4.00 4.68 4.33 4.86 5.00 4.64 4.00 4.25 4.00 1,2,3,4,5 A.2.1.2.1.1Business/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 3.54 3.25 6.02 4.10 6.40 4.08 4.92 4.49 5.88 5.56 A.2.1.2.1.2Business/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (days) 1.29 0.94 1.22 1.08 1.23 0.96 1.25 0.84 1.28 0.92 A.2.1.2.2.1Business/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 10.28 8.57 11.50 5.25 12.35 9.50 14.71 3.33 13.70 6.60 1,2,3,4,5 A.2.1.2.2.2Business/>=10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (days) 4.07 7.00 13.72 5.50 0.52 1.00 7.00 0.83 1,2,4 A.2.1.3.1.1Design (Specials)/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (days) 21.96 10.11 23.01 6.62 23.84 12.49 26.81 10.74 23.69 2.50 1 A.2.1.3.1.2Design (Specials)/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (days) 10.98 4.13 8.45 4.50 8.97 3.58 7.29 4.56 8.04 2.61
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/cr971748.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/cr971748.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/cr971748.wp
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit [ [1]Text Version | [2]WordPerfect Version ] fcclogo PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 1919 - M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News media information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov __________________________________________________________________ Released September 22, 1997 DA 97 1748 Approved by OMB 3060-0793 Expires 03/31/98 Avg. burden hours per response: 1.25 hours SELF-CERTIFICATION AS A RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY Correction The Universal Service Order, FCC 97-157 (rel. May 8, 1997), established that, beginning January 1, 1999, rural and non-rural local exchange carriers (LECs) would receive federal universal service support determined by separate mechanisms. Although non-rural LECs will begin receiving federal support based on a forward-looking economic cost mechanism in 1999, rural LECs
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/da971892.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/da971892.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1997/da971892.wp
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit [ [1]Text Version | [2]WordPerfect Version ] fcclogo PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 1919 - M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News media information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov __________________________________________________________________ Approved by OMB 3060-0793 Expires 03/31/98 Avg. burden hours per response: 1.25 hours DA 97- 1892 Released September 29, 1997 COMMON CARRIER BUREAU ANNOUNCES PROCEDURES FOR STATES REGARDING LIFELINE CONSENTS, ADOPTION OF INTRASTATE DISCOUNT MATRIX FOR SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES, AND DESIGNATION OF ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS On May 8, 1997, the Commission released Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 97-157 (Order). In that Order, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ldrpt101.pdf
  • the table also shows the per-minute 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • 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 10-minute Interstate InterLATA Calls, 1927-2001............................................40 Table 1.25 Average Long Distance Bills for Price-Sensitive Residential Callers....................................................41 Table 1.26 Average Revenue per Minute for Interstate Toll Service Calls..............................................................42 C. Additional Sources of Information on Local and Toll Rates..............................................43 II. Expenditures on Telephone Service.........................................................................44 A. Residential Expenditures..................................................................................................44 Table 2.1 Average Annual Household Expenditures by Household Location.........................................................................46 Table 2.2 Average Annual Household Expenditures by Race and National Origin.................................................................47 Table 2.3 Average
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 2.53 2.81 2.70 Total Connection Charge $49.25 $47.55 $46.60 $47.26 $47.15 $45.57 $45.01 $44.92 $44.46 $43.58 $43.70 $43.67 $43.74 $43.95 $44.10 $42.95 $42.39 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed NA NA 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.61 *Rates are based upon flat-rate service where available and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone, business-day calls elsewhere. Table 1.2 NA - Not available. Average Residential Rates for Local Service in Urban Areas, 1986-2002 (As of October 15) Table 1.3 Residential Telephone Rates in the Sample Cities (As of October
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • 2.32 2.30 2.29 2.30 2.33 2.44 2.36 2.46 2.38 2.57 2.53 2.81 1.33 1.41 Total Connection Charge $49.25$47.55$46.60$47.26$47.15$45.57$45.01$44.92$44.46$43.58$43.70$43.67$43.74$43.95 $44.10 $42.95 $41.16 $40.76 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed a1 a1 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 5.85 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.62 3.64 1 Not available. 2 Subject to revision. 3 Rates are based upon flat-rate service where available and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone, business-day calls elsewhere. Beginning in 2001, all rates reflect flat-rate service. 4 Beginning in 2002, rate includes additional monthly charges for touch-tone service. Table 1.2 Average
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref05.pdf
  • 2.30 2.33 2.44 2.36 2.46 2.38 2.57 2.53 2.81 1.33 3.32 3.32 Total Connection Charge $49.25$47.55$46.60$47.26$47.15$45.57$45.01$44.92$44.46$43.58$43.70$43.67$43.74$43.95 $44.10 $42.95 $41.16 $42.54 $42.59 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed a1 a1 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 12.13 12.45 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.62 3.64 3.98 1 Revised. 2 Subject to revision. 3 Rates are based upon flat-rate service where available and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone, business-day calls elsewhere. Beginning in 2001, all rates reflect flat-rate service. 4 Beginning in 2002, rate includes additional monthly charges for touch-tone service. Table 1.2 Average
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf
  • service 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • Taxes 2.28 2.20 2.11 2.44 2.32 2.30 2.29 2.30 2.33 2.44 2.36 2.46 Total Connection Charge 49.25 47.55 46.60 47.26 47.15 45.57 45.01 44.92 44.46 43.58 43.70 43.68 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed n.a. n.a. 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 Lowest-cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.62 *Rate is based upon flat-rate service where available, and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. 4 Table 1.3 Residential Telephone Rates in the Sample Cities (as of October 15, 1997) Monthly Telephone Rate including touch-tone, Cost of a five-minuteConnection Charges Least-cost Telephone surcharges, and taxes same-zone including touch-tone, inside wiring State City
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • 2.11 2.44 2.32 2.30 2.29 2.30 2.33 2.44 2.36 2.46 2.40 Total Connection Charge 49.25 47.55 46.60 47.26 47.15 45.57 45.01 44.92 44.46 43.58 43.70 43.67 43.83 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed n.a. n.a. 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 Lowest-cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 1.66 *Rate is based upon flat-rate service where available, and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. 4 Table 1.3 Residential Telephone Rates in the Sample Cities (As of October 15, 1998) Monthly Telephone Rate including touch-tone, Cost of a five-minuteConnection Charges Least-cost Telephone surcharges, and taxes same-zone including touch-tone, inside wiring State
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-95.pdf
  • 573 2.27 558.96 153.64 405 WEST VIRGINIA 151 181 0.72 176.33 41.76 135 WISCONSIN 329 405 1.61 394.99 140.99 254 WYOMING 44 53 0.21 51.99 13.06 39 Total $23,149.24 $25,181.50 100.00$24,581.00 $7,491 $17,090 -14 Table 8 Intrastate Access Revenue State--Access State-Access Allocation Percentage Intrastate-Access, TRS SOCC, 2.13 SOCC, Adjusted (millions) (millions) (millions) ALABAMA $76 $83 1.04 $94 ARIZONA 92 99 1.25 112 ARKANSAS 30 39 0.50 45 CALIFORNIA 971 986 12.45 1,117 COLORADO 102 107 1.35 121 CONNECTICUT 20 20 0.26 23 DELAWARE 1 1 0.02 2 DC 0 0 0.00 0 FLORIDA 616 626 7.90 709 GEORGIA 138 162 2.04 184 HAWAII 7 7 0.09 8 IDAHO 26 28 0.36 32 ILLINOIS 191 196 2.47 222 INDIANA 219 229 2.90
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-96.pdf
  • 0.86 (0.44) 0.07 IOWA 1.74 0.96 0.79 0.99 0.75 (0.04) KANSAS 3.15 0.96 2.18 1.00 2.15 (0.04) KENTUCKY 1.08 0.94 0.14 1.09 (0.01) (0.15) LOUISIANA 2.34 0.94 1.40 0.91 1.43 0.03 MAINE 2.09 0.95 1.14 0.98 1.11 (0.03) MARYLAND 0.02 0.97 (0.95) 1.05 (1.03) (0.08) MASSACHUSETTS 0.15 0.99 (0.85) 0.97 (0.82) 0.02 MICHIGAN 0.49 0.90 (0.41) 0.71 (0.22) 0.18 MINNESOTA 1.25 0.94 0.31 0.94 0.30 (0.01) MISSISSIPPI 1.83 0.98 0.85 1.02 0.82 (0.04) MISSOURI 1.32 0.95 0.37 0.92 0.41 0.03 MONTANA 7.53 0.96 6.56 1.19 6.34 (0.22) NEBRASKA 1.77 0.97 0.80 1.02 0.74 (0.06) NEVADA 0.67 1.02 (0.35) 1.32 (0.65) (0.30) NEW HAMPSHIRE 0.97 1.06 (0.08) 1.37 (0.40) (0.31) NEW JERSEY 0.04 1.04 (1.00) 1.18 (1.14) (0.14) NEW MEXICO 3.51 1.01
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-97.pdf
  • (5,333) (0.15) MISSISSIPPI 18,339 1.16 6,764 0.43 11,575 0.73 MISSOURI 29,578 0.74 15,514 0.39 14,064 0.35 MONTANA 23,468 3.85 3,074 0.50 20,393 3.34 NEBRASKA 6,281 0.53 5,122 0.43 1,159 0.10 NEVADA 3,253 0.22 7,965 0.55 (4,713) (0.33) NEW HAMPSHIRE 2,474 0.25 5,589 0.57 (3,115) (0.32) NEW JERSEY 2,012 0.03 36,363 0.49 (34,351) (0.46) NEW MEXICO 19,261 1.78 5,717 0.53 13,544 1.25 NEW YORK 10,665 0.07 60,270 0.40 (49,605) (0.33) NORTH CAROLINA 21,837 0.39 23,299 0.41 (1,462) (0.03) NORTH DAKOTA 5,075 1.05 2,312 0.48 2,763 0.57 OHIO 4,477 0.06 27,938 0.35 (23,461) (0.29) OKLAHOMA 27,353 1.17 9,241 0.39 18,113 0.77 OREGON 18,563 0.76 10,774 0.44 7,789 0.32 PENNSYLVANIA 1,384 0.01 35,424 0.37 (34,040) (0.36) RHODE ISLAND 0 0.00 3,774 0.48 (3,774) (0.48)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-99.pdf
  • 20.20 95.44 Delaware 23.71 4.63 3.75 39.03 0.99 0.56 72.67 21.23 93.90 District of Columbia 32.34 3.76 0.03 30.96 3.58 1.04 71.72 44.85 116.57 Florida 28.79 5.08 12.01 31.39 2.57 0.74 80.58 20.83 101.41 Georgia 37.64 4.96 9.45 32.80 2.08 0.90 87.83 22.26 110.10 Hawaii 35.42 4.76 3.82 27.79 1.13 0.96 73.88 18.23 92.11 Idaho 27.91 5.33 7.66 37.77 0.00 1.25 79.92 16.91 96.83 Illinois 30.09 4.48 12.35 27.52 2.27 0.59 77.31 21.51 98.82 Indiana 27.72 4.63 14.84 25.99 1.11 0.72 75.02 16.36 91.39 Iowa 22.31 5.07 13.73 30.04 2.33 0.85 74.32 21.09 95.41 Kansas 30.28 4.62 12.48 30.43 4.77 0.73 83.30 17.78 101.08 Kentucky 35.20 4.96 12.13 30.18 0.89 0.88 84.24 19.00 103.24 Louisiana 36.84 4.98 9.45 26.81 3.22 0.63
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend100.pdf
  • 0 5.25 5.25 New Mexico 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 New York 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 North Carolina 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 North Dakota 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Northern Mariana Islands 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 Ohio 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 Oklahoma 5.25 1.17 0.58 5.83 7.00 Oregon 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Pennsylvania 5.25 2.50 1.25 6.50 9.00 Puerto Rico 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 Rhode Island 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 South Carolina 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 South Dakota 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 Tennessee 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Texas 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Utah 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Vermont 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Virginia 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend199.pdf
  • 0 5.25 5.25 NEW MEXICO 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NEW YORK 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NORTH CAROLINA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NORTH DAKOTA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 OHIO 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 OKLAHOMA 5.25 1.17 0.58 5.83 7.00 OREGON 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 PENNSYLVANIA 5.25 2.50 1.25 6.50 9.00 PUERTO RICO 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 RHODE ISLAND 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 SOUTH CAROLINA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 SOUTH DAKOTA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 TENNESSEE 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 TEXAS 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 UTAH 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 VERMONT 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 VIRGINIA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend200.pdf
  • 0.00 6.10 6.10 New Mexico 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 New York 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 North Carolina 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 North Dakota 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Northern Mariana Islands 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Ohio 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Oklahoma 6.10 1.17 0.58 6.68 7.85 Oregon 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Pennsylvania 6.10 2.50 1.25 7.35 9.85 Puerto Rico 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Rhode Island 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 South Carolina 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 South Dakota 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Tennessee 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Texas 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Utah 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Vermont 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Virginia 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend299.pdf
  • 0 5.25 5.25 New Mexico 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 New York 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 North Carolina 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 North Dakota 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Northern Mariana Islands 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 Ohio 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 Oklahoma 5.25 1.17 0.58 5.83 7.00 Oregon 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Pennsylvania 5.25 2.50 1.25 6.50 9.00 Puerto Rico 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 Rhode Island 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 South Carolina 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 South Dakota 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 Tennessee 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Texas 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Utah 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Vermont 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 Virginia 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf
  • 0.00 6.75 6.75 New Mexico 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 New York 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 North Carolina 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 North Dakota 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 Northern Mariana Islands 6.75 0.00 0.00 6.75 6.75 Ohio 6.75 0.00 0.00 6.75 6.75 Oklahoma 6.75 1.17 0.58 7.33 8.50 Oregon 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 Pennsylvania 6.75 2.50 1.25 8.00 10.50 Puerto Rico 6.75 0.00 0.00 6.75 6.75 Rhode Island 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 South Carolina 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 South Dakota 6.75 0.00 0.00 6.75 6.75 Tennessee 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 Texas 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 Utah 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 Vermont 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00 Virginia 6.75 3.50 1.75 8.50 12.00
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend504.pdf
  • 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 Ohio 6.94 7.75 7.27 0.00 3.50 0.96 0.00 1.75 0.48 6.94 9.50 7.75 6.94 13.00 8.71 Oklahoma 5.25 7.75 7.15 0.00 1.16 1.13 0.00 0.58 0.57 5.25 8.33 7.72 5.25 9.49 8.85 Oregon 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.50 9.50 9.50 13.00 13.00 13.00 Pennsylvania 6.01 7.75 7.72 0.00 2.50 1.20 0.00 1.25 0.60 6.01 9.00 8.32 6.01 11.50 9.52 Puerto Rico 6.75 7.75 7.75 3.30 3.50 3.31 1.65 1.75 1.66 8.40 9.50 9.41 11.70 13.00 12.72 Rhode Island 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.40 3.40 3.40 1.70 1.70 1.70 9.45 9.45 9.45 12.85 12.85 12.85 South Carolina 7.61 7.75 7.75 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.74 7.61 9.50 9.49 7.61 13.00 12.98 South Dakota
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
  • 1.50 2000 172.2 0.12 0.13 0.52 0.09 0.06 1961 29.9 0.25 1.53 2001 177.1 0.10 0.11 0.35 0.08 0.06 1962 30.2 0.25 1.54 2002 179.9 0.09 0.09 0.28 0.07 0.05 1963 30.6 0.25 1.49 2003 184.0 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.07 0.05 1964 31.0 0.25 1.48 1965 31.5 0.24 1.40 1966 32.4 0.24 1.38 1967 33.4 0.24 1.34 1968 34.8 0.24 1.25 1969 36.7 0.24 1.20 Note: Data for some prior years have been revised. 1/ Starting in 1992, billed revenue per minute for international service differs in Table 6.1 and Table 13.4. Data in Table 6.1 are calculated using all U.S. billed minutes and revenues. Data for Table 13.4 represent charges for most U.S. billed calls that originate or terminate in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
  • 0.00 6.10 6.10 New Mexico 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 New York 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 North Carolina 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 North Dakota 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Northern Mariana Islands 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Ohio 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Oklahoma 6.10 1.17 0.58 6.68 7.85 Oregon 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Pennsylvania 6.10 2.50 1.25 7.35 9.85 Puerto Rico 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Rhode Island 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 South Carolina 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 South Dakota 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Tennessee 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Texas 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Utah 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Vermont 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Virginia 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend803.pdf
  • 0.00¢ 0.00¢ 0.73¢ 0.37¢ 2.24¢ 257 643 913 BellSouth 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.20 1.13 27,108 55,240 76,617 Cincinnati Bell 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.26 1.60 992 2,133 3,134 Citizens 0.12 0.00 0.71 0.54 2.69 2,035 4,506 6,560 Iowa Telecomm 0.03 0.00 0.86 0.27 2.36 413 326 739 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.15 1.41 20,509 37,988 58,539 SBC 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.17 1.25 71,493 76,858 149,482 Sprint 0.02 0.00 0.60 0.13 1.52 6,978 18,896 26,128 Valor 0.54 0.11 0.78 0.34 2.98 358 916 1,274 Verizon 0.02 0.00 0.42 0.23 1.35 53,826 128,385 182,882 Price Caps 0.01 0.00 0.44 0.20 1.33 183,968 325,891 506,268 NECA 0.20 0.20 1.45 0.83 5.08 11,755 21,652 18,521 All Price Caps and NECA 0.02 0.01 0.48 0.22 1.46 195,723
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itltrd98.pdf
  • $1.00 $1.00 $0.80 Spain 1/ 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 1.7 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.3 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR .44 SDR .35 SDR .25 SDR Switzerland 5.5 GF 1.6 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.4 SDR 1.4 SDR 1.25 SDR 1.12 SDR 1.12 SDR .808 SDR .808 SDR .61 SDR .61 SDR .35 SDR .35 SDR .25 SDR .22 SDR Taiwan $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.90 $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.14 $1.00 Thailand N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.30 $2.30 $2.00 $1.75 $1.60 $1.60 $1.55 $1.50 $1.40
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itltrd99.pdf
  • N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.00 $1.75 $1.75 $1.65 $1.50 $1.50 $1.35 $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.15 $0.95 $0.70 $0.55 $0.42 Russia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $3.00 $3.00 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 Saudia Arabia $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.201.5 SDR1.25 SDR1.0 SDR South Africa N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.80 $1.80 $1.50 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 $0.80 $0.70 Spain 1/ 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 1.7 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.3 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR .44 SDR
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd00.pdf
  • 0.73 0.67 0.57 Canada 9/ 0.53 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 China 1.69 1.79 1.76 2.02 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 Colombia 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.15 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 Dominican Republic 1.02 1.07 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.30 Egypt 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.33 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 El Salvador 1.07 1.13 1.15 1.19 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69 France 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.04 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 Germany 15/ 1.06 1.08 1.12 1.08 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 Greece 1.09 1.12 1.17 1.17 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 Guatemala 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.18 1.19
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd01.pdf
  • 0.25 0.22 -69.2 Canada 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.19 -37.6 China 2.02 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.24 -79.0 Colombia 1.15 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.43 0.26 0.21 -77.0 Dominican Republic 0.97 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.15 -73.9 Egypt 1.33 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 -73.3 El Salvador 1.19 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69 0.60 0.32 0.28 -74.2 France 1.04 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 0.41 0.33 0.22 -65.4 Germany 1.08 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.29 -43.2 Greece 1.17 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 0.62 0.25 0.27
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-1.pdf
  • type are determined by multiplying the allocation factor by the type of revenues. (See Table 1.14.) Table 1.24 shows ILEC toll revenues of large ILECs reported in Table 2.10 of the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers, and ILEC intrastate toll revenues.30 ILEC intrastate toll revenues are the product of ILEC reported revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Table 1.25 shows how non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues are allocated between states based on intrastate access minutes and intrastate access revenues.31 Non-LEC toll is the difference between intrastate toll revenues and LEC toll revenues.32 Intrastate toll revenues are reported in Table 1.14, and LEC toll revenues are reported in Table 1.24. Column 1 shows access minutes for allocation. Access minutes for allocation
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-2.pdf
  • 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 Ohio 6.94 7.75 7.27 0.00 3.50 0.96 0.00 1.75 0.48 6.94 9.50 7.75 6.94 13.00 8.71 Oklahoma 5.25 7.75 7.15 0.00 1.16 1.13 0.00 0.58 0.57 5.25 8.33 7.72 5.25 9.49 8.85 Oregon 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.50 3.50 3.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 9.50 9.50 9.50 13.00 13.00 13.00 Pennsylvania 6.01 7.75 7.72 0.00 2.50 1.20 0.00 1.25 0.60 6.01 9.00 8.32 6.01 11.50 9.52 Puerto Rico 6.75 7.75 7.75 3.30 3.50 3.31 1.65 1.75 1.66 8.40 9.50 9.41 11.70 13.00 12.72 Rhode Island 7.75 7.75 7.75 3.40 3.40 3.40 1.70 1.70 1.70 9.45 9.45 9.45 12.85 12.85 12.85 South Carolina 7.61 7.75 7.75 0.00 3.50 3.49 0.00 1.75 1.74 7.61 9.50 9.49 7.61 13.00 12.98 South Dakota
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • 9.64 2.63 Colorado 1.06 -1.88 2.99 7.93 Connecticut 0.83 -5.72 6.94 0.00 Delaware 2.68 -1.49 4.23 0.00 District Of Columbia -0.22 -0.54 0.32 0.00 Florida 4.59 -1.46 6.14 10.47 Georgia 6.39 -2.60 9.23 -2.49 Guam -9.34 0.00 -9.34 0.00 Hawaii 10.84 -0.31 11.19 217.38 Idaho 2.95 -0.88 3.87 3.72 Illinois -1.64 -2.42 0.80 24.24 Indiana 0.20 2.54 -2.28 8.39 Iowa 1.25 -1.41 2.70 33.47 Kansas 0.95 -3.83 4.96 14.79 Kentucky 2.14 -0.84 3.00 -2.35 Louisiana 4.89 -1.44 6.42 0.06 Maine 8.09 1.12 6.89 -5.41 Maryland 2.28 0.21 2.06 -1.49 Massachusetts 10.32 -2.67 13.34 -26.18 Michigan 0.18 -5.08 5.54 -9.16 Minnesota 2.96 -2.08 5.15 6.50 Mississippi 9.19 -0.70 9.96 54.13 Missouri 10.18 -1.78 12.18 9.37 Montana 0.83 -1.08 1.93 -3.45 Nebraska 2.88
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-7.pdf
  • 2.53 2.81 2.70 Total Connection Charge 49.25 47.55 46.60 47.26 47.15 45.57 45.01 44.92 44.46 43.58 43.70 43.67 43.74 43.95 44.10 42.95 42.39 Additional Charge If Drop Line and Connection Block Needed n.a. n.a. 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.61 n.a.: not available *Rate is based upon flat-rate service where available, and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. Table 7.6 Average Residential Rates for Local Service in Urban Areas, 1986-2002 (As of October 15) 7 - 19 Table 7.7 Average Local Rates for Businesses with a Single
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-intro.pdf
  • Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll Revenues ...................................... Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ............................... Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ......................... Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-1.pdf
  • type are determined by multiplying the allocation factor by the type of revenues (see Table 1.14). Table 1.24 shows ILEC toll revenues of large ILECs reported in Table 2.11 of the Statistics of Communications Common Carriers, and ILEC intrastate toll revenues.31 ILEC intrastate toll revenues are the product of ILEC reported revenues and the adjustment formula in Table 1.17. Table 1.25 shows how non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues are allocated between states based on intrastate access minutes and intrastate access revenues.32 Non-LEC toll is the difference between intrastate toll revenues and LEC toll revenues.33 Intrastate toll revenues are reported in Table 1.14, and LEC toll revenues are reported in Table 1.24. Column 1 shows access minutes for allocation. Access minutes for allocation
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-2.pdf
  • 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 3.50 3.34 1.67 1.75 1.67 8.42 10.00 9.92 11.76 13.50 13.26 Rhode Island 8.19 8.20 8.20 0.00 3.40 3.32 0.00 1.70 1.66 8.19 9.90 9.86 8.19 13.30 13.17 South Carolina 7.50 8.25 8.23 0.00 3.50 3.48 0.00 1.75 1.74 7.50 10.00 9.97 7.50 13.50 13.46 South Dakota
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
  • 0.00 -3.61 3.75 14.96 Puerto Rico -4.17 -3.59 -0.60 -100.00 Rhode Island -3.65 -7.22 3.84 0.00 South Carolina 1.10 -2.30 3.48 4.39 South Dakota 3.23 -4.17 7.72 9.37 Tennessee 1.60 -2.82 4.54 7.11 Texas -4.26 -3.30 -0.99 3.74 Utah 1.16 -4.78 6.25 4.71 Vermont -2.18 -0.96 -1.24 -11.03 Virgin Islands -4.72 0.80 -5.48 -15.51 Virginia -2.06 -2.55 0.51 -36.58 Washington 1.25 -3.38 4.80 -9.48 West Virginia -2.73 -1.35 -1.40 -8.92 Wisconsin -2.51 -4.63 2.22 12.04 Wyoming 0.21 -2.62 2.90 -1.14 Industry -1.48 -2.95 1.52 1.24 * Percentage changes from 2003 to 2004. Source: Calculated from National Exchange Carrier Association data. High Cost Loop Support Payments in Later Year* NTS Revenue Requirement per Loop Unseparated Unseparated NTS Revenue Requirement Number of Loops
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-7.pdf
  • 1.41 Total Connection Charge 49.25 47.55 46.60 47.26 47.15 45.57 45.01 44.92 44.46 43.58 43.70 43.67 43.74 43.95 44.10 42.95 41.16 40.76 Additional Charge If Drop Line and Connection Block Needed n.a. n.a. 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 5.85 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 2.22 2.66 3.03 3.62 3.62 3.64 n.a.: not available * Revised estimates. **Subject to revision. ***Rate is based upon flat-rate service where available, and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. Beginning in 2001, all rates reflect flat-rate service. ****Beginning in 2002, additional monthly charges for touch-tone service are included in the monthly
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-intro.pdf
  • 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr97-5.pdf
  • subject to revision four months after release 609 Table 5.8 Average Monthly Residential Rates (in October of each year) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Monthly Unlimited Service Charge$10.50$12.10$12.17$12.58$12.44$12.32$12.30$12.39$13.10$13.12$13.22$13.28$13.62$13.70 Subscriber Line Charges * 0.00 0.00 1.01 2.04 2.66 2.67 3.53 3.55 3.56 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.54 3.54 Taxes, including 911 charges 1.08 1.25 1.36 1.51 1.56 1.58 1.70 1.85 2.00 2.03 2.17 2.24 2.34 2.34 Total 11.5813.3514.5416.1316.6616.5717.5317.7918.6618.7018.9419.0719.5019.58 Lowest Generally Available Monthly Rate 5.37 5.62 5.75 5.96 5.81 5.67 5.67 5.68 6.18 6.22 6.43 6.47 6.68 7.06 Subscriber Line Charges * 0.00 0.00 1.01 2.04 2.66 2.67 3.53 3.55 3.56 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.54 3.54 Taxes, including 911 charges 0.56 0.58 0.70 0.84 0.94
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-2.pdf
  • 0.00 5.25 5.25 NEW MEXICO 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NEW YORK 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NORTH CAROLINA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NORTH DAKOTA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 5.25 0.00 0.00 5.25 5.25 OHIO 5.25 0.00 0.00 5.25 5.25 OKLAHOMA 5.25 1.17 0.58 5.83 7.00 OREGON 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 PENNSYLVANIA 5.25 2.50 1.25 6.50 9.00 PUERTO RICO 5.25 0.00 0.00 5.25 5.25 RHODE ISLAND 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 SOUTH CAROLINA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 SOUTH DAKOTA 5.25 0.00 0.00 5.25 5.25 TENNESSEE 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 TEXAS 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 UTAH 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 VERMONT 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 VIRGINIA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-9.pdf
  • 1,106.2 1,071.6 218.2 231.3 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 421.8 994.8 1,227.6 3,572.2 8.3 1,951.4 9,915.6 2,947.6 2,553.1 For Scheduled Downtime More than 2 Minutes Number of Occurrences or Events 18 9 30 20 6 48 661 1 58 Events per Hundred Switches 1.3 0.7 1.8 1.6 0.7 2.9 45.7 0.0 4.0 Events per Million Access Lines 0.87 0.41 1.25 1.07 0.33 3.02 39.21 0.05 7.71 Average Outage Duration in Minutes 3.9 2.9 7.7 5.4 12.5 6.2 3.3 6.0 121.0 Avg. Lines Affected per Event in Thousands 15.6 29.2 18.8 58.3 32.0 27.1 12.5 4.9 6.7 Outage Line-Minutes per Event in Thousands 54.1 75.3 150.5 337.4 291.2 151.6 39.3 29.4 1,999.4 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 46.9 30.6 188.8
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-2.pdf
  • 0 5.25 5.25 NEW MEXICO 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NEW YORK 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NORTH CAROLINA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NORTH DAKOTA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 OHIO 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 OKLAHOMA 5.25 1.17 0.58 5.83 7.00 OREGON 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 PENNSYLVANIA 5.25 2.50 1.25 6.50 9.00 PUERTO RICO 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 RHODE ISLAND 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 SOUTH CAROLINA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 SOUTH DAKOTA 5.25 0 0 5.25 5.25 TENNESSEE 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 TEXAS 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 UTAH 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 VERMONT 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50 VIRGINIA 5.25 3.50 1.75 7.00 10.50
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-7.pdf
  • 2.11 2.44 2.32 2.30 2.29 2.30 2.33 2.44 2.36 2.46 2.40 Total Connection Charge 49.25 47.55 46.60 47.26 47.15 45.57 45.01 44.92 44.46 43.58 43.70 43.67 43.83 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed n.a. n.a. 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 Lowest-cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.45 1.52 1.78 1.68 1.66 *Rate is based upon flat-rate service where available, and measured/message service with 100 five-minute, same-zone business-day calls elsewhere. 7 - 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrj99-9.pdf
  • 1,106.2 1,071.6 218.2 231.3 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 421.8 994.8 1,227.6 3,572.2 8.3 1,951.4 9,915.6 2,945.4 2,553.1 For Scheduled Downtime More than 2 Minutes Number of Occurrences or Events 18 9 30 20 6 48 661 1 58 Events per Hundred Switches 1.3 0.7 1.8 1.6 0.7 2.9 45.7 0.0 4.0 Events per Million Access Lines 0.87 0.41 1.25 1.07 0.33 3.02 39.21 0.05 7.71 Average Outage Duration in Minutes 3.9 2.9 7.7 5.4 12.5 6.2 3.3 6.0 121.0 Avg. Lines Affected per Event in Thousands 15.6 29.2 18.8 58.3 32.0 27.1 12.5 4.9 6.7 Outage Line-Minutes per Event in Thousands 54.1 75.3 150.5 337.4 291.2 151.6 39.3 29.4 1,999.4 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 46.9 30.6 188.8
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs00-0.pdf
  • 0.00 6.10 6.10 NEW MEXICO 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 NEW YORK 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 NORTH CAROLINA 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 NORTH DAKOTA 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 OHIO 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 OKLAHOMA 6.10 1.17 0.58 6.68 7.85 OREGON 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 PENNSYLVANIA 6.10 2.50 1.25 7.35 9.85 PUERTO RICO 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 RHODE ISLAND 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 SOUTH CAROLINA 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 SOUTH DAKOTA 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 TENNESSEE 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 TEXAS 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 UTAH 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 VERMONT 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 VIRGINIA 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs01-0.pdf
  • 0.00 6.10 6.10 New Mexico 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 New York 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 North Carolina 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 North Dakota 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Northern Mariana Islands 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Ohio 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Oklahoma 6.10 1.17 0.58 6.68 7.85 Oregon 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Pennsylvania 6.10 2.50 1.25 7.35 9.85 Puerto Rico 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Rhode Island 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 South Carolina 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 South Dakota 6.10 0.00 0.00 6.10 6.10 Tennessee 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Texas 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Utah 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Vermont 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35 Virginia 6.10 3.50 1.75 7.85 11.35
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll Revenues ...................................... Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ............................... Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ......................... Table 1.25 3 Index of Tables 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/QualSvc/qual98.pdf
  • 1,106.2 1,071.6 218.2 231.3 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 421.8 994.8 1,227.6 3,572.2 8.3 1,951.4 9,915.6 2,947.6 2,553.1 For Scheduled Downtime More than 2 Minutes Number of Occurrences or Events 18 9 30 20 6 48 661 1 58 Events per Hundred Switches 1.3 0.7 1.8 1.6 0.7 2.9 45.7 0.0 4.0 Events per Million Access Lines 0.87 0.41 1.25 1.07 0.33 3.02 39.21 0.05 7.71 Average Outage Duration in Minutes 3.9 2.9 7.7 5.4 12.5 6.2 3.3 6.0 121.0 Avg. Lines Affected per Event in Thousands 15.6 29.2 18.8 58.3 32.0 27.1 12.5 4.9 6.7 Outage Line-Minutes per Event in Thousands 54.1 75.3 150.5 337.4 291.2 151.6 39.3 29.4 1,999.4 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 46.9 30.6 188.8
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • $1.23 $1.00 $0.85 $0.66 $0.50 $0.50 Philippines $1.98 $1.92 $1.85 $1.68 $1.68 $1.34 $1.23 $1.00 $1.00 $0.72 $0.57 $0.38 $0.38 Poland $1.50 $1.50 $1.35 $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.15 $0.95 $0.70 $0.55 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Russia $3.00 $3.00 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 Saudia Arabia $2.36 $2.36 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 1.5 SDR 1.25 SDR 1.0 SDR $0.28 $0.28 Sierra Leone $3.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 0.6 SDR 0.6 SDR Singapore 0.84 SDR0.84 SDR 0.68 SDR 0.62 SDR 0.62 SDR 0.62 SDR 0.62 SDR 0.62 SDR 0.62 SDR 0.38 SDR $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 South Africa $2.00 $2.00 $1.80 $1.80 $1.50 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.38
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/01socc.pdf
  • $1.30 $1.30 $1.23 $1.00 $0.85 $0.66 $0.50 $0.38 $0.38 Philippines $1.92 $1.85 $1.68 $1.68 $1.34 $1.23 $1.00 $1.00 $0.72 $0.57 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Poland $1.50 $1.35 $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.15 $0.95 $0.70 $0.55 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Russia $3.00 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 Saudia Arabia $2.36 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.201.5 SDR1.25 SDR1.0 SDR $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 Sierra Leone $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.500.6 SDR 0.6 SDR $0.56 Singapore 0.84 SDR0.68 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.38 SDR $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 South Africa $2.00 $1.80 $1.80 $1.50 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.38 $0.38 Spain 10/ 1.6 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.3
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/02socc.pdf
  • $1.00 $0.85 $0.66 $0.50 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Philippines 8/ 9/ $1.85 $1.68 $1.68 $1.34 $1.23 $1.00 $1.00 $0.72 $0.57 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Poland 9/ $1.35 $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.15 $0.95 $0.70 $0.55 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Russia $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 Saudia Arabia $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.201.5 SDR1.25 SDR1.0 SDR $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 Sierra Leone $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.500.6 SDR 0.6 SDR $0.56 $0.56 Singapore 9/ 0.68 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.38 SDR $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 South Africa 9/ $1.80 $1.80 $1.50 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Spain 9/ 1.5 SDR 1.5 SDR
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/03socc.pdf
  • $2.30 $2.30 $2.30 $2.20 $2.00 $1.20 $1.20 $0.84 $0.54 $0.42 $0.42 Peru $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 $1.30 $1.23 $1.00 $0.85 $0.66 $0.50 $0.38 Philippines $1.68 $1.68 $1.34 $1.23 $1.00 $1.00 $0.72 $0.57 Poland $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.15 $0.95 $0.70 $0.55 $0.38 Russia $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 Saudia Arabia $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.201.5 SDR1.25 SDR1.0 SDR $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 Sierra Leone $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.500.6 SDR0.6 SDR $0.56 $0.56 Singapore 0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.38 SDR South Africa $1.80 $1.50 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 Spain 1.5 SDR1.3 SDR1.2 SDR1.0 SDR0.44 SDR0.35 SDR 0.2 SDR Switzerland .808 SDR.61 SDR0.61 SDR0.35 SDR0.35 SDR0.25 SDR Taiwan $1.40
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 Saudia Arabia $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 South Africa $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.80 $1.80 $1.50 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 Spain 1/ 2/ 5.3 GF 5.3 GF 1.7 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.3 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR Switzerland 1.4 SDR 1.4 SDR 1.25 SDR 1.12 SDR 1.12 SDR .808 SDR .808 SDR .61 SDR .61 SDR .35 SDR .35 SDR Taiwan $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.90 $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 Thailand $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.30 $2.30 $2.00 $1.75 $1.60 $1.60 $1.55 $1.50 United Kingdom 1/ 2/ $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 .68 SDR 0.54 SDR 0.44 SDR 0.33 SDR 0.25 SDR
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • (0.17) (1.32) 5.3 LA MAINE 31.3 4.1 27.2 22.8 4.3 0.50 (0.08) 0.04 0.46 3.9 ME MARYLAND 324.8 239.1 85.7 60.0 25.7 5.25 2.31 2.82 10.38 15.3 MD MASSACHUSETTS 292.1 54.6 237.5 205.7 31.8 2.86 2.73 1.97 7.56 24.3 MA MICHIGAN 253.6 177.8 75.8 60.9 14.9 (2.34) 0.07 0.28 (1.99) 16.9 MI MINNESOTA 30.5 35.4 (4.9) (7.7) 2.8 (2.97) (1.41) (1.25) (5.64) 8.5 MN MISSISSIPPI 52.3 23.4 28.9 25.4 3.5 (0.66) 0.01 (0.34) (0.99) 4.5 MS MISSOURI 205.3 147.2 58.2 44.5 13.6 0.66 (0.18) 0.18 0.67 13.0 MO MONTANA (4.2) 5.1 (9.3) (7.7) (1.6) (1.74) (0.97) (0.70) (3.41) 1.8 MT NEBRASKA 128.8 33.2 95.6 72.2 23.3 7.22 5.24 6.32 18.78 4.6 NE NEVADA 90.9 50.4 40.5 31.8 8.7 0.09 (0.16) 0.03
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • $3.00 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 Saudia Arabia $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.201.5 SDR 1.5 SDR South Africa $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.80 $1.80 $1.50 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 $0.80 Spain 1.7 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.3 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR .44 SDR .35 SDR .2 SDR Switzerland 1.25 SDR 1.12 SDR 1.12 SDR .808 SDR .808 SDR .61 SDR .61 SDR .35 SDR .35 SDR .25 SDR .2 SDR Taiwan $2.00 $1.90 $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.14 $1.00 Thailand $2.50 $2.30 $2.30 $2.00 $1.75 $1.60 $1.60 $1.55 $1.50 $1.20 $1.05 United Kingdom $1.06 $1.06 $1.06.68 SDR 0.54 SDR 0.44 SDR 0.33 SDR 0.25 SDR 0.25
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • $1.20 Peru $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 $1.30 $1.23 $1.00 $0.85 $0.66 Philippines $1.98 $1.92 $1.85 $1.68 $1.68 $1.34 $1.23 $1.00 $1.00 $0.72 $0.57 Poland $1.50 $1.50 $1.35 $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.15 $0.95 $0.70 $0.55 $0.38 Russia $3.00 $3.00 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 Saudia Arabia $2.36 $2.36 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.201.5 SDR 1.25 SDR 1.0 SDR South Africa $2.00 $2.00 $1.80 $1.80 $1.50 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 $0.80 $0.70 Spain 1.6 SDR 1.6 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.5 SDR 1.3 SDR 1.2 SDR 1.0 SDR .44 SDR .35 SDR .2 SDR .2 SDR Switzerland 1.12 SDR 1.12 SDR .808 SDR .808 SDR .61 SDR .61 SDR .35 SDR .35 SDR .25 SDR .2 SDR
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
  • IL Indiana 764.6 (1.15) 765.8 237.8 528.0 273.7 113.5 140.5 527.8 0.191 IN Iowa 326.7 3.20 323.4 86.7 236.7 118.8 51.7 66.2 236.7 IA Kansas 277.3 3.88 273.4 54.0 219.4 98.9 51.9 68.7 219.4 KS Kentucky 465.2 4.71 460.5 127.1 333.5 183.7 75.7 73.8 333.2 0.275KY Louisiana 413.8 4.65 409.1 67.0 342.2 197.5 76.9 67.3 341.7 0.456 LA Maine 162.1 1.25 160.8 33.8 127.1 53.5 40.0 33.5 127.1 ME Maryland 623.5 9.81 613.7 97.0 516.7 272.3 89.3 154.1 515.6 1.045MD Massachusetts 861.1 10.66 850.5 56.1 794.4 386.1 215.1 193.1 794.4 MA Michigan 1,178.4 2.34 1,176.1 345.8 830.3 458.0 155.3 216.5 829.9 0.402 MI Minnesota 509.3 9.85 499.5 116.9 382.6 175.1 77.2 130.3 382.6 MN Mississippi 247.0 8.13 238.9 28.7 210.2 107.4
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/prelim02socc.pdf
  • $1.00 $0.85 $0.66 $0.50 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Philippines 8/ 10/ $1.85 $1.68 $1.68 $1.34 $1.23 $1.00 $1.00 $0.72 $0.57 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Poland 10/ $1.35 $1.30 $1.25 $1.20 $1.15 $0.95 $0.70 $0.55 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Russia $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 $2.60 Saudia Arabia $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.201.5 SDR1.25 SDR1.0 SDR $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 Sierra Leone $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.500.6 SDR 0.6 SDR $0.56 $0.56 Singapore 10/ 0.68 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.62 SDR0.38 SDR $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 South Africa 10/ $1.80 $1.80 $1.50 $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $1.00 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Spain 10/ 1.5 SDR 1.5 SDR
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/2000/fcc00163.doc
  • panel. That definition states that UWB devices must have a -20 dB fractional bandwidth of at least 0.25. In order for the fractional bandwidth to equal or exceed 0.25, the -20 dB bandwidth must be at least 25% of the center frequency. Under this formula, the minimum -20 dB bandwidth is 250 megahertz if the center frequency is 1 GHz, 1.25 gigahertz if the center frequency is 5 GHz, and 2.5 gigahertz if the center frequency is 10 GHz. Alternatively, M/A-Com suggests that a distinction between devices that operate above and below 10 GHz is needed because at higher frequencies the benefits of UWB may be achieved with lower fractional bandwidths. M/A-Com believes that UWB should be defined as a fractional
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/1998/fcc98235.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/1998/fcc98235.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Notices/1998/fcc98235.wp
  • earth station antennas operating at Ka-band frequencies. It may be desirable to re-evaluate the minimum off-axis angle at which we impose the performance envelope, similar to the example Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-235 84 47 C.F.R. § 25.209(g). The antenna performance standard for small antennas operating in the 12/14 GHz band with diameters as small as 1.2 meters starts at 1.25o instead of 1o. 85 This requirement is for networks whose coordination information was received by the ITU after May 17, 1996; use of these techniques is encouraged for other networks. 86 47 C.F.R. § 25.204. See 28 GHz First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19005. 87 Id. 27 followed for small diameter Ku-band antennas in Section 25.209(g).84 We
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Public_Notices/1999/pnin9052.pdf
  • and V-band frequencies. Lockheed Martin proposes to launch a constellation of 32 satellites into a medium earth orbit. The satellites will be operated in a circular orbit of 4 planes at an altitude of 10,352 km. Lockheed Martin proposes to serve the broadband switched and ultra-broadband trunked markets on a non-common carrier basis. The broadband switched component will operate using 1.25 GHz of uplink spectrum at 28.35-29.1 GHz and 29.5-30.0 GHz bands and 1.25 GHz of downlink spectrum at 18.05-18.3 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. The system's trunked V-band component will operate using 3 GHz of uplink spectrum in the 47.2-50.2 GHz band and 3 GHz of downlink within the 37.5-42.5 GHz band. The satellites will be interconnected by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • in that it allows more efficient channel reuse within a given service area, and can be used to control the number of response stations operating within a channel and optimize transmitter data rates commensurate with the particular communications service being provided. Petitioners suggest that code division multiple access ("CDMA") emissions could facilitate the use of 4 or 5 channels of 1.25 to 1.5 MHz bandwidth each within a single 6 MHz channel for relatively low data rates, while Quadrature Phase Shift Keying ("QPSK") and Quadrature Amplitude Modulation ("QAM") could accommodate higher data rates using multiple channels within a 6 MHz channel. With respect to 125 kHz channels now available for response use, Petitioners believe that subdivision of these channels should also
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.wp
  • the measured results will be more comparable to real world experience than if the emission mask method were to be used. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 98-191 347 Second Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,775-76. 348 Approximately 0.4 ppm by automatic frequency control (AFC) locking to base station with intermittent degradation to 2.5 ppm when AFC lock is lost. 349 Approximately 1.25 ppm by AFC locking to base station with intermittent degradation to 5 ppm allowed if AFC lock is lost. 350 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.7. 351 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.202. 352 Authorized bandwidth is the frequency range within which 99 percent of the radiated power appears, extended to include any frequency upon which the power is at least 0.25
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.txt
  • We will dismiss RM-9250 because the declaratory ruling requested therein is unnecessary. E. RM-9673 Background. On May 3, 1999, the Central States VHF Society (CSVHFS) filed a petition for rulemaking, RM-9673, requesting amendment of the amateur radio service rules to prohibit amateur stations from transmitting certain emission types in certain segments of the Very High Frequency (VHF) 6-, 2-, and 1.25-meter amateur service bands and the 70-centimeter amateur service band. It contends that long-distance weak signal work on the VHF amateur service bands above 50 MHz is vital to the continued contributions that amateur radio operators can make to the state of the radio communications art. For this reason, it requests that the rules be amended to protect weak signal operation
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000364.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000364.txt
  • has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements. Wavelength ITU ITU ITU Sharing requirements band Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 See § 97.303 Paragraph HF MHz MHz MHz 80 m 3.675-3.725 3.675-3.725 3.675-3.725 (a) 40 m 7.050-7.075 7.10-7.15 7.050-7.075 (a) 15 m 21.10-21.20 21.10-21.20 21.10-21.20 10 m 28.10-28.50 28.10-28.50 28.10-28.50 VHF MHz MHz MHz 1.25 m --- 222-225 --- (a) UHF MHz MHz MHz 23 cm 1270-1295 1270-1295 1270-1295 (h) (i) 7. Section 97.307 is amended by revising paragraph (f) (10) to read as follows: § 97.307 Emission standards. * * * * * (f) * * * (10) A station having a control operator holding a Novice Class operator license or a Technician Class
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001436.doc
  • May 3, 1999, by the Central States VHF Society (CSVHFS). In that petition, CSVHFS requested amendment of the Amateur Radio Service rules to provide additional spectrum to protect weak signal operations (primarily Morse code telegraphy and single sideband voice emission types) that its members and others engage in from other emissions that are increasingly popular on the 6, 2, and 1.25 m and 70 centimeter amateur service bands. Specifically, CSVHFS requested that we expand the spectrum designated to accommodate weak signal operations to include the lower 300 kHz of the 6 and 2 m bands. CSVHFS also stated that voluntary band plans have not proven successful in limiting wideband emission types from the band segments used for weak signal communications. On
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001662.doc
  • his or her duties. A radio control link requires the use of an auxiliary station. The Commission's Part 97 rules define an auxiliary station as an amateur station, other than in a message forwarding system, that is transmitting communications point-to-point within a system of cooperating amateur stations. An amateur station that is an auxiliary station may transmit only on the 1.25 m and shorter wavelength bands, except the 219-220 MHz, 222.000-222.150 MHz, 431-433 MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments. Kenwood acknowledges that in its Sky Command system the portable VHF/UHF transceiver at the control operator's location (control point), which transmits control information and audio via a channel in the 440 MHz band to the VHF/UHF transceiver interconnected with the HF transceiver, is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001987.doc
  • supplemental comments. LoJack filed reply comments. In addition, the Commission gave public notice of the Petition for Rulemaking on January 7, 2000. Petition for Rulemaking Filed, Public Notice, Report No. 2376 (rel. Jan. 7, 2000). No comments were received. Waiver Request at 1. Id. See, e.g., Petition for Rulemaking at 1-2. LoJack states that its units are installed in approximately 1.25 million vehicles. Id. 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6). See id. Waiver Request at 1. Id. Id. at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3) (formerly 47 C.F.R. § 90.151). See also WAIT Radio v FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972) (waiver of Commission Rules is appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da002038.doc
  • and Order, we now propose the following formulae for upfront payments: Tier 1 (1) 15 MHz licenses - 2.5 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.6 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA Tier 2 (1) 15 MHz licenses - 1.25 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.0 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA A complete list of all licenses, including the related population and upfront payments, is attached hereto as Attachment A. We seek comment on this proposal. For
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da002259.doc
  • No. 35. Specifically, the Bureau proposed upfront payments using the following formula: Tier 1 (1) 15 MHz licenses - 2.5 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.6 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA Tier 2 15 MHz licenses - 1.25 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA (2) 10 MHz licenses - 1.0 % of most recent net high bid for C block licenses in same BTA In its comments, BellSouth/SBC propose that the Bureau set upfront payments using a formula of $0.06*MHz*BTA population. BellSouth/SBC argue that using such a formula would be
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • 5.86 5.79 3.55 5.52 3.74 6.26 3.08 MR-1-02-2000 Status Trouble 4.55 NA 4.27 NA 4.97 NA 4.66 NA 6.37 NA MR-1-03-2000 Modify Trouble 5.62 NA 5.99 NA 5.73 NA 5.42 NA 6.06 NA MR-1-04-2000 Request Cancellation of Trouble 6.8 NA 6.91 1 7.04 NA 6.63 3.41 7.32 NA b,d MR-1-05-2000 Trouble Report History (by TN/Circuit) 0.38 1.8 0.35 1.75 0.41 1.25 0.31 1 0.43 0.72 MR-1-06-2000 Test Trouble (POTS Only)-RETAIL only 62.41 71.09 62.6 58.91 56.04 51.15 56.18 44.46 56.86 45.86 BILLING BI-1 - Timeliness of Daily Usage Feed BI-1-02-2030 % DUF in 4 Business Days 99.95 99.96 99.74 99.96 99.96 BI-2 - Timeliness of Carrier Bill BI-2-01-2030 Timeliness of Carrier Bill 99.58 100 100 100 98.94 BI-3 - Billing Accuracy
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/041004/SimonWilkie.pdf
  • IN CONSUMER SURPLUS DUE TO C-BLOCK AUCTION Assuming No C-block Spectrum Deployed Assuming One-half of C-block Spectrum Deployed Price Elasticity of Demand (a) Annual Loss in Consumer Surplus ($ Billions) Present Value of Loss in Consumer Surplus ($ Billions) Annual Loss in Consumer Surplus ($ Billions) Present Value of Loss in Consumer Surplus ($ Billions) -1.00 16.6 64.1 8.3 32.0 -1.25 13.5 52.2 6.8 26.1 -1.50 11.4 44.1 5.7 22.1 -1.75 9.9 38.1 5.0 19.1 -2.00 8.7 33.6 4.4 16.8 -2.25 7.8 30.0 3.9 15.0 -2.50 7.0 27.1 3.5 13.6 17 31. As shown in Table One, assuming that no C-block spectrum was deployed, the estimated annual loss in consumer surplus caused by the unavailability of the C-block spectrum capacity ranges
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form303-S/303s.pdf
  • do not provide the information requested on this form, the application may be returned without action having been taken upon it or its processing may be delayed while a request is made to provide the missing information. Your response is required to obtain the requested authorization. We have estimated that each response to this collection of information will take from 1.25 to 12 hours. Our estimate includes the time to read the instructions, look through existing records, gather and maintain the required data, and actually complete and review the form or response. If you have any comments on this burden estimate, or on how we can improve the collection and reduce the burden it causes you, please e-mail them to pra@fcc.gov
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form345/345.pdf
  • Employment Opportunity program are set forth in FCC Form 396-A. NOTE: This Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Model Program Report (FCC Form 396-A) is to be utilized only by applicants for new construction permits and by assignees and transferees. FCC NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT 11 We have estimated that each response to this collection of information will take 1.25 hours. Our estimate includes the time to read the instructions, look through existing records, gather and maintain the required data, and actually complete and review the form or response. If you have any comments on this burden estimate, or on how we can improve the collection and reduce the burden it causes you, please e-mail them to pra@fcc.gov or send
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form601/601ps.pdf
  • you must select purpose of `RO' and enter the appropriate Call Sign. Send Non-feeable application for `Renewal Only' to: Federal Communications Commission 1270 Fairfield Road Gettysburg, PA 17325-7245 FCC 601 ­ Main Form Instructions October 2010 - Page 1 FCC 601 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Approved by OMB Main Form 3060 ­ 0798 Information and Instructions Est. Avg. Burden Per Response: 1.25 hours FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 AND THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 We have estimated that each response to this collection of information will take on average 1.25 hours. Our estimate includes the time to read the instructions, look
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-287610A1.html
  • monitor LED lit continually throughout this area, and the unit emitted an audible warning, indicating the RFR in the area likely exceeded the public RFR MPE. The agent determined the following effective radiated power ("ERP") for each of the stations at the site: KTMT-FM = 31.62 kW ERP; KTVL (CH 10) = 132 kW ERP; and KTVL-DT (CH 35) = 1.25 kW ERP. Section 1.1307(b)(3) of the Rules states: "In general, when the guidelines specified in S: 1.1310 are exceeded in an accessible area due to the emissions from multiple fixed transmitters, actions necessary to bring the area into compliance are shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce, at the area in question, power density levels that exceed 5% of
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.pdf
  • coefficient may be evidence of our concern over multiple hypothesis tests that were previously discussed. Table 13 Effect of LPFM Entry on the Ratings of Full-Service Commercial FM Stations in all Radio Markets Independent Variable Contour Measure Market Measure Contour/Market Measure Number of LPFM stations 0.001 (0.53) 0.002 (1.07) -0.008 (2.36)* Number of AM stations in market -0.002 (1.27) -0.002 (1.25) -0.002 (1.48) Number of AM stations in contour -0.002 (0.97) -0.002 (0.89) -0.002 (0.84) Number of FM stations in market 0.000 (0.37) 0.000 (0.32) 0.000 (0.38) Number of FM stations in contour -0.002 (1.59) -0.002 (1.56) -0.002 (1.51) Number of commercial TV stations -0.001 (0.24) -0.001 (0.34) -0.000 (0.10) Number of digital radio stations in market 0.000 (0.86) 0.000 (0.71)
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-286A3.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-286A3.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-286A3.txt
  • kHz bandwidth according to the specifications in Supplement A. Analog AM Modulator When broadcasting the hybrid waveform, this process computes the envelope of the analog AM signal by applying a modulation index and adding a DC offset and as follows: where a(t) is the envelope, m(t-Tdd) is the delayed analog source and g is the modulation gain. Typically, g = 1.25, representing a +125% modulation level. The input analog audio source, m(t), must be preprocessed external to the AM IBOC exciter, so that a(t) does not assume negative values. See Supplement A for a complete description of the requirements on the input analog audio source. Analog/Digital Combiner When broadcasting the Hybrid waveform, the real analog AM baseband waveform, a(t), is coherently
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/MB/Databases/source_code/amstability.html
  • /* critical ? */ { ftol = 0.0175; /* 1.75% under */ ptol = 1.75; /* 1.75 degrees */ } if(inc == 6) /* critical ? */ { ftol = 0.015; /* 1.5% under */ ptol = 1.5; /* 1.5 degrees */ } if(inc == 7) /* critical ? */ { ftol = 0.0125; /* 1.25% under */ ptol = 1.25; /* 1.25 degrees */ } if(inc == 8) /* critical ? */ { ftol = 0.01; /* 1% under */ ptol = 1.0; /* 1.0 degrees */ } if(inc == 9) /* more critical */ { ftol = 0.0095; /* 0.95% under */ ptol = 0.95; /* 0.95 degrees */ } if(inc == 10) /* more critical */ { ftol
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/csreport.pdf
  • IMTS/PL IMTS/PL IMTS/PL Reg 1999 1998 1997 1996 Total Total Total Total Total + Other) Split Split Split CodeRank Rank Rank Rank Country Ckts Ckts Ckts Ckts Ckts Split * Ratio Ratio Ratio 1 1 2 3 3United Kingdom 54,780 205,954 15,601 276,335 57,258 0.25 0.34 0.78 0.69 5 2 1 1 1Canada 77,827 112,021 10,542 200,390 152,901 0.63 1.03 1.25 1.41 5 3 3 2 2Mexico 84,536 42,083 0 126,619 10,593 2.01 1.38 1.57 2.09 7 4 4 4 4Japan 8,681 35,134 1,677 45,492 29,283 0.24 0.57 0.65 0.73 1 5 5 5 5Germany 9,261 21,484 541 31,286 13,521 0.42 0.76 0.64 0.83 1 6 8 13 8Netherlands 1,831 20,687 30 22,548 17,721 0.09 0.34 0.58 0.56 8 7 7
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/mex-bc/am.pdf
  • path. . 1 ,a.. , I'. .e,..- , -. .5 .5 .7 .3 .3 LG 1.1 1.2 L.3 1.c 1.5 1 rr=cuenc*,~ ir: Et!!= -.. 9.' -- - \ -c) .- . . . . .z.\ LIZ. -. - TmP a b C d -2 1.3084 do83 0.0155 .0144 -1.75 I.3165 -.4g1g .6011 0.1884 -1.5 1 .omg .0296 .1488 -.0452 -1.25 07773 .375i -.ry1 00736 -1 .6230 .I547 2654 -.I006 a.75 -3718 .1178 03632 0.1172 1125 5 .2027 .21 jl -.2560 An37 07269 A167 0.1413 -2577 S3 .I504 -. 2325 .5374 -. 1729 +.25 s A057 a.2092 .4148 -. 1239 +S .0642 0.1295 02583 -a99 +J5 .0446 9.1002 .17j4 -.0405 +l .0148 -.0135 .0462 .OOlO km'ex 2/p llrn Tw a b
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/mex-bc/fmbc.pdf
  • .37 118 22 08 1.90 117 08 29 1.15 117 10 59 0.28 118 52 41 4.60 119 11 10 4.80 118 54 08 .56 116 13 30 .55 118 20 06 .01 116 12 04 17.00 116 11 50 3.00 119 03 34 12.50 119 19 57 39.00 119 13 45 .80 117 18 42 3.00 117 17 27 1.25 117 17 31 .31 117 51 37 .Ol 117 56 15 2.30 116 50 15 1.15 116 41 01 .56 116 57 09 .30 116 20 32 4.00 NEW MEXICO GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATES POWER CALL SIGN CHANNEL (LAT) (LON) 0 KYEE KPSAFM KZZX KTZA KNFTFM KATXFM KCDY NEW KZ TT KZPI KDEM NEW KWQQ KZOR KP ER NEW KOKN 232B 279C
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files/ITRND01.pdf
  • 0.25 0.22 0.14 -78.8 Canada 0.41 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.16 -48.4 China 1.80 1.54 1.47 1.28 1.14 0.90 0.73 0.48 0.29 0.24 0.18 -80.5 Colombia 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.84 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.43 0.26 0.21 0.11 -85.2 Dominican Republic 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.70 0.57 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.16 -64.7 Egypt 1.35 1.27 1.25 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.81 0.70 0.44 0.28 0.21 -78.8 El Salvador 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.08 0.81 0.69 0.60 0.32 0.28 0.13 -84.3 France 0.99 0.91 0.81 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.35 0.41 0.33 0.22 0.25 -50.0 Germany 1.05 0.95 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.29 0.31 -22.1 Greece 1.14 1.07 1.10 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.61 0.62 0.25 0.27
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/11thMtgMinutes.pdf
  • 8, 2002@ 9:40 AM Location: Federal Communications Commission Committee Members Present: J. Wengryniuk, Chairperson W. Rummler, Vice Chairperson FCC Employees Present: Ed Jacobs, Ron Netro Meeting Summary The minutes of the February 12th meeting (10th Meeting of IWG-4, Document IWG-4/24 were approved without change. No new documents were introduced. Mr. Wengryniuk summarized the status of the agenda items 1.13, 1.18, 1.25, 1.26, and 1.32 as follows: · Agenda Item 1.13: there are currently three documents (document 19 from Mr. Wengryniuk, and documents 22 and 23 from Skytower) addressing this agenda item. None of these documents were discussed at the meeting. At this point in time all concerns and issues regarding these documents are still open and IWG-4 will address this Agenda
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg4_1st_draftminutes.pdf
  • meeting. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for IWG-4 were discussed and approved with a minor editorial amendment. There was a lengthy discussion of the process for developing preliminary views for each of the Agenda Items in the terms of reference. Coordinators were identified for 3 of the five agenda items within the TOR of IWG-4. These are as follows: A.I. 1.25: Tom Hayden A.I. 1.26: Don Jansky A.I. 1.32: Gonzalo de Dios The coordinators will assemble first drafts of IWG-4 preliminary views and circulate these drafts to the IWG-4 membership by March 16. The goal is to further develop these draft documents by correspondence in time for the next meeting of IWG-4 on April 11. To facilitate the work of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg4_draft_minutes_6_27_02.pdf
  • be difficult issues, if the interested participants (TRW, Winstar, terrestrial Fixed Service representatives, Sky Tower, Sky Station, Hughes) were to engage in on-going off-line discussions, these issues could be resolved prior to the next meeting of IWG-4. Document IWG-4/16 Rev 1 was authored by Tom Hayden/Teledesic and proposed minor changes to an already approved Draft U.S. Proposal on Agenda Item 1.25 (HDFSS). The changes contained in this document were limited to improvements to the language in the Resolution aspect of the Draft Proposal, and were generated during U.S. preparations for the ITU Special Committee meeting. It was agreed that this document would be approved by correspondence, with any and all comments on the documents to be submitted to the author by
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_documents_list.pdf
  • 11, 2002 FCC WRC-03 Advisory Committee Informal Working Group 4 List of Documents Doc. # Status Title/Issue Author Date IWG-4/001 Approved Terms of Reference Chair IWG-4 2/27/01 IWG-4/002 Approved Meeting Minutes from 1st Meeting of IWG-4 W. Rummler 4/11/01 IWG-4/003 Approved IWG-4 Preliminary Views on Agenda Item 1.13 (HAPS) G. Creeser 4/11/01 IWG-4/004 Approved IWG-4 Preliminary Views on Agenda Item 1.25 (HDFSS) T. Hayden 4/12/01 IWG-4/005 Approved IWG-4 Preliminary Views on Agenda Item 1.26 (ESVs) D. Jansky 4/12/01 IWG-4/006 Approved IWG-4 Preliminary Views on Agenda Item 1.32a (V-Band and RA) G. deDios 4/11/01 IWG-4/007 Approved IWG-4 Preliminary Views on Agenda Item 1.32b (V-Band and HDFS/FSS Sharing) G. deDios 4/11/01 IWG-4/008 Approved Meeting Minutes from 2nd Meeting of IWG-4 G. Rappaport 5/15/01
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_12_11_01.pdf
  • Approval: The agenda was approved. Minutes from the November 27th Meeting: The minutes of the November 27th meeting (7th Meeting of IWG-4, Document IWG-4/018) were approved without change. Consideration of Draft IWG-4 WRC-03 Proposals: The meeting considered three documents containing draft new Proposals. The first to be taken up was Document IWG-4/016, a draft set of proposals on Agenda Item 1.25 from Tom Hayden of Teledesic. The author introduced a revision to the document that was dated December 10, 2001, and noted that the document included comments from several participants. The revised document generated considerable discussion, during which many participants provided comments leading to a number of changes that were agreed by the meeting. An FCC representative indicated, however, that there
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_1_16_02.pdf
  • by the FCC. The FCC noted in this PN that, while they were in general agreement with the proposals produced by IWG-4, they had some reservations in regards to these proposals. (See FCC Web site under IB ­ Public Notice). Mr. Roytblat indicated the FCC is supportive of all proposals but has certain reservations on those dealing with Agenda Items 1.25 and 1.26. On the 1.25 issue, it was felt that some softening of the language in the resolves is needed. On 1.26, it was felt that the text should reinforce in a footnote that earth stations on vessels (ESV) are operating on a non-interference basis (NIB) and that the location of the ship is required. This requirement is not acceptable
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_5_15_01.pdf
  • meeting dates were established as: June 20, and August 7, 2001, to be associated also with meetings of US WP 4-9S. 8. Other Business It was announced by Tom Hayden, chair of IWG-3, that there would be a meeting at 1:00 p.m., May 16, 2001, between representatives of FCC/Industry, and NTIA to resolve differences on the PV for agenda item 1.25 The meetings adjourned at 4:00 p.m. IWG4 Mins Proposed Agenda for 3rd Meeting of WAC-03 IWG-4 May 15, 2001 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from Last Meeting (See FCC website for minutes) 3. Discussion of IWG-4 Preliminary View Classified as "Premature/Inconsistent" in FCC PN (i.e. Doc WAC/033) 4. Discussion of any IWG-4 Preliminary Views for
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_6_20_01.pdf
  • Summary: Mr. Jack Wengryniuk chaired the meeting. Following the introduction, the draft agenda was approved (See Attachment 1). The chair reported that the Preliminary Views (PVs) for all 5 Agenda Items under the responsibility of IWG-4 were approved by the WAC and forwarded to both the APT and CITEL meetings. It was later noted that the PV for Agenda Item 1.25 that was forwarded to the CITEL meeting was different than the PV developed by IWG-4 and approved by the WAC. The chair noted that there are two questions to consider at the present time regarding these PVs:1) Are any changes necessary to the PVs as a result of the APT or CITEL meetings? 2) Are any of the issues stable
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_april_11_01.pdf
  • to Resolution 84 in item #5, were approved. Giselle Creeser, participating by phone, introduced document 003 re: agenda item 1.13. It was approved with minor modifications, including a statement that the U.S. will follow the work in the ITU regarding the use of HAPS for fixed and mobile services above 3 GHz. Tom Hayden introduced document 004 re: agenda item 1.25. Tom proposed a restructuring of the order of paragraphs, which was accepted. It was suggested that the paper focus on bands above 19.7 GHz. Discussion resulted in agreement that the U.S. interests extend down to the bands above 18.58 GHz. and that the concern could be addressed by adding text regarding the band 17.3- 17.7 GHz. to the background and
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_tor_doc_1.pdf
  • Terrestrial Radiocommunication;" (A.I. 1.13) (2) consideration of a primary allocation to the fixed service in the band 17.3- 17.7 GHz for Region 1, taking into account the primary allocations to various services in all three Regions; (A.I. 1.18) (3) consideration of regulatory provisions and possible identification of spectrum for high density systems in the fixed-satellite service above 17.3 GHz; (A.I. 1.25) (4) consideration of the provisions under which earth stations located on board vessels could operate in fixed-satellite service networks, in accordance with Resolution 82 (WRC-2000); (A.I. 1.26) (5) consideration of technical and regulatory provisions concerning the band 37.5-43.5 GHz, in accordance with Resolutions 128 (WRC-2000) and 84 (WRC-2000); (A.I. 1.32) Where appropriate, IWG-4 recommendations shall address the international Radio Regulations,
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_5/minutes08.pdf
  • of harmful interference between two primary services. A possible alternative text for the footnote was identified. In addition to AARL's objections, Roger LeClair, on behalf of the Army, described for the information of the group the concerns of the Army and suggested that meetings outside of IWG-5 might be useful to facilitate reaching an agreed US proposal on agenda item 1.25. 4. Agenda item 1.24 Donna Bethea distributed comments she had received to date on Document 18 (draft IWG-5 proposal on agenda item 1.24). Loral provided comments in Document IWG-5/18; NASA provided comments (for information as NASA participates in the RCS). Future Meetings: The next IWG-5 meeting, Ninth, will be March 22, PanAmSat, Suite 675, 1122 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • a cable television channel that degrades the transmission of the desired signal and that is due to modulation processes or thermal or other noise-producing effects, but does not include hum and other undesired signals of discrete frequency. System noise is specified in terms of its rms voltage or its mean power level as measured in the 4 MHz bandwidth between 1.25 and 5.25 MHz above the lower channel boundary of a cable television channel. (x) Terminal isolation. The attenuation, at any subscriber terminal, between that terminal and any other subscriber terminal in the cable television system. (y) Visual signal level. The rms voltage produced by the visual signal during the transmission of synchronizing pulses. (z) Affiliate. When used in relation to
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • a cable television channel that degrades the transmission of the desired signal and that is due to modulation processes or thermal or other noise-producing effects, but does not include hum and other undesired signals of discrete frequency. System noise is specified in terms of its rms voltage or its mean power level as measured in the 4 MHz bandwidth between 1.25 and 5.25 MHz above the lower channel boundary of a cable television channel. (x) Terminal isolation. The attenuation, at any subscriber terminal, between that terminal and any other subscriber terminal in the cable television system. (y) Visual signal level. The rms voltage produced by the visual signal during the transmission of synchronizing pulses. (z) Affiliate. When used in relation to
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/peer_review/prlpfm_rpt_economic_study.pdf
  • concern over multiple hypothesis tests that were previously discussed. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-2 93 Table 13 Effect of LPFM Entry on the Ratings of Full-Service Commercial FM Stations in all Radio Markets Independent Variable Contour Measure Market Measure Contour/Market Measure Number of LPFM stations 0.001 (0.53) 0.002 (1.07) -0.008 (2.36)* Number of AM stations in market -0.002 (1.27) -0.002 (1.25) -0.002 (1.48) Number of AM stations in contour -0.002 (0.97) -0.002 (0.89) -0.002 (0.84) Number of FM stations in market 0.000 (0.37) 0.000 (0.32) 0.000 (0.38) Number of FM stations in contour -0.002 (1.59) -0.002 (1.56) -0.002 (1.51) Number of commercial TV stations -0.001 (0.24) -0.001 (0.34) -0.000 (0.10) Number of digital radio stations in market 0.000 (0.86) 0.000 (0.71)
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/peer_review/prstudy1.pdf
  • participation in the survey. From the Nielsen sample disposition, it appears that the Nielsen sample has a high ratio of "Household Members Refused" (18,177) to completed interview (3,101), or a ratio of roughly 6 to 1. Analogous figures for the Pew Internet Project's February 2007 survey are 2,707 initial and second refusals and 2,200 completed interviews, or a ratio of 1.25 to 1. One might also wonder if those who remain in the survey, after having listened to two lengthy paragraphs describing a survey on news consumption, might be sources of response bias. Those who choose to complete the survey may be unusually heavy users of media and very interested in news and current affairs. If that is the case, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/database/spectrum/spinvtbl.pdf
  • on need; analog/digital V/D/Image; 2-way; BW based on need; analog/digital P-R; P- MP USA OmniDir 10.45 ­ 10.5 RADIOLOCATION US58 US108 G32 10.5 ­ 10.55 RADIOLOCATION US59 WTB pt 90 unmodulated carrier P-R P-MP plm: 2,645 10.5 ­ 10.55 RADIOLOCATION US59 303 10.55 ­ 10.6 FIXED Fixed Microwave WTB pt 101 V/D; 1 or 2- way; 400 kHz, 800 kHz, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75 , 5 MHz channels analog/digital S; PTP ils: 3,815 10.55 ­ 10.6 10.6 ­ 10.68 EARTH EXPLORATION- SATELLITE (passive) FIXED US265 SPACE RESEARCH (passive) US277 Fixed Microwave DEMS (Note: systems authorized or applied for prior to 15Jul93, grandfathered) WTB pt 101 V/D; 1 or 2- way; 400 kHz, 800 kHz, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75 , 5 MHz channels analog/
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-broadband-dead-zone-report.pdf
  • 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 (or records) that the system of records notice (SORN) collects, maintains, and uses? 1.24 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? 1.25 What are the purposes for collecting, maintaining, and using the information covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? 1.26 In what instances would the information system's administrator/manager/developer permit disclosure to those groups outside the FCC for whom the information was not initially intended. Such disclosures, which are referred to as "Routine Uses," are those instances that permit the FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ccd.pdf
  • disclosures will be made as PSHSB deems appropriate, but such disclosures will provide a summary or analysis of 12 comments, so that it can not identify an individual's comments and other relevant information. Breach of Federal data: Other Routine Use disclosures not listed above: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? This information will be stored in a locked file cabinet, and the computer files that contain a compilation of the information that is submitted via the two Comment Card websites will be stored in the PSHSB Comment Card Database information system, access to which is available only
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-core-financial.pdf
  • enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others Routine Use disclosures not listed above: Financial Systems Operations Group (FSOG) in OMD-FO has not yet determined what other "routine uses" will be appropriate for this new CFSR information system. 12 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? At this point, because the CFSR is still in the planning stages, the FSOG staff in OMD-FO has not yet determined what this information systems's maintenance and security storage requirements will be, although such policies will be in accordance with contractual and vendor policy and contract agreement(s).
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-criminal-investigative-files.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 13 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-crisis.pdf
  • required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No 12 Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-dqc.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ecfs.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-email.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 2 Information about individuals in a system of records may routinely be disclosed for the following conditions, e.g., "routine uses"; however, in each of these routine uses that are checked, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the information,
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-experimental-radio.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 2 Information about individuals in a system of records may routinely be disclosed for the following conditions, e.g., "routine uses"; however, in each of these routine uses that are checked, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the information, i.e., records, files, documents, and data, etc., is
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-faca.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-financial.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? Security profiles policies have been established 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? This information is retrieved online 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 11 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-foia.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 12 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-general-investigative-files.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 2 Information about individuals in a system of records may routinely be disclosed for the following conditions, e.g., "routine uses"; however, in each of these routine uses that are checked, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the information,
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ils.pdf
  • which the information has been collected. 11 First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-investigations-hearings.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-labor-employee-relations.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-lmts.pdf
  • correspondence prior to filing these documents. 1.24 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? The legal authorities for maintenance of the PII covered by FCC/OLA-1, "Legislative Management Tracking System (LMTS)" SORN are 5 U.S.C. 301, 44 U.S.C. 3101 and 47 U.S.C. 154(i), (j), and (k), and 47 U.S.C. 155(a). 12 1.25 What are purposes for collecting, maintaining, and using the information covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? OLA uses the LMTS information system, including the PII covered by FCC/OLA-1, "Legislative Management Tracking System (LMTS)" SORN, to store and manage correspondence from members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the President, and Vice President. This correspondence
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-pams.pdf
  • address(es); and (2) Contractors--name, home address, home telephone number(s), personal cell phone number(s), pager/PIN, and personal e-mail address(es). 1.24 What is the legal authority that authorizes the development of the information system and the information/data collection? The legal authority for maintenance of the personally identifiable information (PII) covered by FCC/OMD-26, "Personnel Availability Management System (PAMS)" SORN is 44 U.S.C. 3101. 1.25 What are the purposes for collecting, maintaining, and using the information covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? 12 The purposes for collecting, maintaining, and using the information covered by FCC/OMD-26, "Personnel Availability Management System (PAMS)" SORN, are: (1) To enable the FCC will know whom to contact, e.g., FCC employees and/or contractors, in the case of any kind
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-pay-leave-garnish.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 2 Information about individuals in a system of records may routinely be disclosed for the following conditions, e.g., "routine uses"; however, in each of these routine uses that are checked, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the information, i.e., records, files, documents, and data, etc., is
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-personal-security-files.pdf
  • individuals in a system of records may routinely be disclosed for the following conditions, e.g., "routine uses"; however, in each of these routine uses that are checked, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the information, i.e., records, files, documents, and data, etc., is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information has been collected 13 Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-physical-access.pdf
  • required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: 12 Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-reasonable-accommodation-requests.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-remedy.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 2 Information about individuals in a system of records may routinely be disclosed for the following conditions, e.g., "routine uses"; however, in
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-rmis.pdf
  • Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: U.S. Department of Justice for drug debarment and other actions; U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for pay and leave activities, employee benefits, retirement deductions, etc. 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 12 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? Electronic information is stored and maintained in the RMIS's electronic databases, which are secured through passwords, encryption, etc. Paper documents, including computer printouts and paper forms, etc., are stored and maintained in file cabinets that are locked when not in use. Access to the electronic data and
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-small-business-contacts.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-telephone-call-details.pdf
  • notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.23 What are the categories of individuals covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.24 What are the categories of records, e.g., types of information (or records) that the system of records notice (SORN) collects, maintains, and uses? Yes No Please explain your response: 13 1.25 What is the legal authority under which the FCC collects and maintains the information covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.26 What are the purposes for collecting, maintaining, and using the information covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.27 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-transit.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-uls.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 14 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-violators.pdf
  • notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 12 1.23 What are the categories of individuals covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.24 What are the categories of records, e.g., types of information (or records) that the system of records notice (SORN) collects, maintains, and uses? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What is the legal authority under which the FCC collects and maintains the information covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.26 What are the purposes for collecting, maintaining, and using the information covered by the system of records notice (SORN)? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.27 In what instances would the
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pshsb-coop-plan.pdf
  • obligations required by the National Finance Center: First responders, e.g., law enforcement, DHS, FEMA, DOD, NTIA, etc.: Government-wide oversight by NARA, DOJ, and/or OMB: Labor relations (NTEU): Law enforcement and investigations: Program partners, e.g., WMATA, etc.: Breach of Federal data: Others "third party" disclosures: 1.24 Will the information be disclosed to consumer reporting agencies? Yes No Please explain your response: 1.25 What are the policies for the maintenance and secure storage of the information? 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? 1.28 Once the information is obsolete or out-of-date, what policies and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/consumer090002.pdf
  • on the horizontal axis and the number of outlets in each medium on the vertical axis. See text for explanation. 46 Table 1: Television Outlets, 1994-2000 year N uhf vhf uhf+vhf network indep. public net+ind+pub 1994207 2.29 2.63 2.46 1995207 2.96 2.29 5.25 2.72 2.52 1.71 6.96 1996207 3.09 2.34 5.43 4.20 1.23 1.71 7.14 1997207 3.19 2.35 5.54 4.29 1.25 1.71 7.25 1998207 3.37 2.37 5.74 4.74 1.40 1.72 7.87 1999207 3.54 2.37 5.91 4.94 1.46 2000207 3.65 2.39 6.04 5.02 1.57 1.73 8.32 linked sample year N uhf vhf uhf+vhf network indep. public net+ind+pub 1994 2.64 2.88 3.33 1995143 3.76 2.63 6.38 3.01 3.37 2.04 8.42 1996143 3.88 2.68 6.56 4.85 1.71 2.03 8.59 1997143 3.98 2.69 6.67 4.95
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/waldfogel-a.pdf
  • Table 4: Do Newspaper Preferences Vary By Race? Newspaper Market Share by Race, Markets with Competing Daily Papers (Hybrid Zips) Chicago Tribune (Chicago Sun-Times) Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia Daily News) Boston Globe (Boston Herald) Washington Post (Washington Times) (19% Black) (19% Black) (6% Black) (27% Black) % Black -0.455 -0.298 -0.522 -0.278 -0.359 -0.125 -0.100 -0.068 (14.54)** (9.18)** (10.93)** (5.29)** (3.58)** (1.25) (3.18)** (1.84) Median Income (000) 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.001 (2.63)** (2.21)* (2.02)* (1.55) % College Degree 0.638 0.076 0.503 -0.053 (9.14)** (0.44) (5.92)** (1.02) % Over Age 65 -0.126 -0.923 -1.023 -0.339 (0.44) (1.42) (3.66)** (1.84) % Under Age 30 0.279 -0.940 -0.653 -0.307 (1.36) (1.37) (2.70)** (2.02)* Constant 0.621 0.100 0.825 1.067 0.632 0.668 0.923 1.072 (42.18)** (0.69) (53.16)**
• http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/techtopics/techtopics11.html
  • that leverage the standards-based technical specifications defined by the standards bodies. The following table summarizes some of the key attributes of the WiMAX technology standard. WiMAX Standards IEEE 802.16 IEEE 802.16-2004 IEEE 802.16e Standardization Date 2003 2005 2006 Spectrum Band Licensed 10-66 GHz Licensed and Unlicensed sub-11 GHz Licensed, Sub-6 GHz Channel Bandwidths 1.75, 3.5, 5, 7, 10, 20 MHz 1.25, 2.5, 5, 7, 10, 14, 20 MHz Service Fixed Fixed/Nomadic Fixed, Mobile Air Interface OFDM / OFDMA OFDM / OFDMA S-OFDMA Range LOS up to 5 km LOS & near-LOS up to 30 km; Non-LOS up to 5 km Non-LOS up to 10 km Channel Capacity Up to 134 Mbps Up to 70 Mbps Up to 35 Mbps Duplexing Mode
• http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/files/0801fcc.pdf
  • got a 3 different problem than most of you. I probably 4 have more spectrum in one radio than the world has 5 used to date. 6 DR. LUCKY: Can we have some of it? 7 MR. PHANEUF: Yeah. It turns out my 8 radios are 60 gigahertz right now, and it's very 9 easy for me to transmit full-duplex 1.25 gigahertz 10 data rate real stuff. It's a wireless link to 11 fiber. 12 My problem with the licensed band, or 13 the unlicensed band, not a problem really, is that 14 I was really -- I, being my company, was the first 15 guy in. And when you're the first guy in and 16 you're trying to develop new
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/VerizonRFI.pdf
  • Acarrier/channel that supports EVDO "LTE" An LTEcarrier conforming to E-UTRA Release 8 or later "Other Acarrier that does not conform to one of the technologies listed above 3/13/2012 6 Deployed Carriers Instructions "Deployed Carriers" Table Column H: ICarrier BW_MHz Description: This field contains the bandwidth in MHz of the carrier described in this record. Format of Field.' Number Possible Entries: 1.25Carrier = 1 X 1.25Carrier = EVDO 1.4Carrier = LTE 3Carrier=LTE 5 Carrier=LTE 10Carrier=LTE Carrier = Other Column I:ICenter Freq_MHz Description: This field contains the unrounded center frequency in MHz of the downlink carrier described in this record. Format of Field: Number Example Entries: 1937.5, 2142.625, etc. Column J: ICarrier ActiveI Description: This field is used to indicate whether a carrier
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/comsat-telenor/fcc01-369.pdf
  • "TBS" has the meaning given to it in the Preamble, and also encompasses its directly or indirectly wholly-owned Norway-incorporated subsidiaries, Telenor Satellite Mobile Ventures AS and Telenor Satellite Mobile AS, including all of their successors, assigns and subsidiaries. 1.24 "Telenor USA" has the meaning given to it in the Preamble. It includes all successors, assigns and subsidiaries of Telenor USA. 1.25 "Transactional Data" means: a. Call-identifying information, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 1001(2), including without limitation the telephone number or similar identifying designator associated with a communication; b. Internet address or similar identifying designator associated with a communication; c. The time, date, size, and duration of a communication; d. Any information relating to identity and physical address of a Telenor
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/echostar-directv/bortnik_comment060302.pdf
  • Polonia. Sincerely, Tomasz Bortnik 35 Campo Terr. Red Bank, NJ 07701 --Boundary_(ID_KH6eVctcSHjQN0b1c4MMJg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

    ECFS - E-mail Filing
    <PROCEEDING>01-348
    <DATE>6/2/02

    <NAME>Tomasz Bortnik
    <ADDRESS1>35 Campo Terr.
    <ADDRESS2>

    <CITY>Red Bank
    <STATE>­1.25, higher than the demand elasticity he calculated with the alleged "error in variable." So, if Dr. MacAvoy's "error" is corrected to address Dr. -11- 9. Rather than presenting some type of economic rebuttal to show that higher prices would not obtain, Dr. Willig merely claims that "the choice of New EchoStar's national price would put greater weight on the competitive