FCC Web Documents citing 1.26

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.pdf
  • Wall Site 1: Exterior House Wall Site 2: Inter-Unit Townhouse Wall Transmit Antenna: --Location Outdoors Garage Townhouse A, ground floor --Mount Wood/fiberglass mast Wood/fiberglass mast Wood tripod --Floor Asphalt driveway Concrete slab Carpeted concrete slab --Height (center of antenna) 0.97 m and 1.47 m 0.97 m and 1.47 m for2-m distance 0.97 m and 2.39m for10- m distance 0.88m and 1.26m at 2-m distance 0.88m and 1.45m at 10- m distance TV: --Location Outdoors Outdoors Townhouse B, ground floor --Mount 0.85-m tall plastic cart 0.85-m tall plastic cart 0.85-m tall plastic cart --Floor Asphalt driveway Asphalt driveway extensionat 2-m distance Grass at 10-m distance Carpeted concrete slab --Aspect Angle Front, rear, rightside, right- rear (~45 deg.) Front and rear Rear #
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.txt
  • 1.68 1.05 2.77 2.74 1.68 n/a n/a 2.41 Ireland n/a 2.44 1.05 n/a 4.60 1.68 n/a 5.75 2.37 Luxembourg n/a 2.23 2.36 n/a 2.23 2.36 n/a 2.23 2.36 Netherlands 2.20 1.30 1.05 2.20 1.78 1.48 2.77 2.29 1.78 Portugal n/a 1.33 1.04 n/a 2.63 1.71 n/a 19.97 2.71 Spain 1.66 1.65 1.04 1.66 1.65 1.67 4.63 4.63 3.22 Sweden 1.84 1.26 0.90 2.36 1.96 1.22 3.27 2.67 1.67 U.K. 0.70 0.68 0.65 1.00 0.97 0.94 1.91 1.88 1.33 Notes: September 1997, $/ECU = 1.0981 May 1998, $/ECU = 1.1096 September 1999, $/EURO = 1.0497 Source: Interconnection Rates: 1997, 1998 from Porte-Parole, Falling Cost of Fixed Networked Telecommunications in Europe, July 1998, 1999 from The European Commission, Fifth Report on the Implementation
• 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
  • HDFSS applications. Therefore the U.S. supports the identification of these bands for HDFSS on a global basis. The U.S. will continue to participate in ITU-R studies related to agenda item 1.25 and develop views on other frequency bands as appropriate. (12.04.01) Document IWG-4/005 April 12, 2001 WRC-2003 Advisory Committee Informal Working Group 4 (IWG-4) IWG-4 PRELIMINARY VIEWS On Agenda Item 1.26 WRC-2003 Agenda Item 1.26: To consider the provisions, under which earth stations located on board vessels, could operate in fixed satellite networks, taking into account the ITU-R studies in response to Resolution 82. Issue - At WRC-2000 Resolution 82 was adopted which recognizes the existence and importance of communications services provided by VSAT like terminals on board ships operating in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-101A1.txt
  • allocated. Reasons: Many administrations are currently in the process of determining how to appropriately provide for HDFSS services in their countries. Some of these administrations are looking to the ITU for guidance on spectrum management issues concerning the FS and HDFSS and this Resolution provides that guidance. 43 DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE Doc. WAC/088(19.12.01) Agenda Item 1.26: To consider the provisions, under which earth stations located on board vessels, could operate in fixed satellite networks, taking into account the ITU-R studies in response to Resolution 82. Background - Information Resolves 4 of Resolution 82 states that until WRC-03 takes further action, agreement between the administrations licensing Earth stations on board vessels (ESVs) and affected administrations should be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1415A1.txt
  • co-frequency GSO FSS and BSS systems. No additional regulatory provisions are needed for HEO systems in these bands, and no lessening of the protection required by GSO systems in the same bands should be considered. III. Informal Working Group 4: Fixed Service/Fixed-Satellite Service Sharing DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE Doc. WAC/112(04.06.02) (Additional Draft Proposals on Agenda Item 1.26) WRC-03 Agenda Item 1.26: to consider provisions under which earth stations located on board vessels could operate in fixed satellite networks, taking into account the ITU-R studies in response to Resolution 82 (WRC-2000); Background Information: The Conference Preparatory text for WRC-03 provides information on 1) Analysis of studies; 2) Methods to Satisfy the agenda and 3) Regulatory and Procedural Considerations.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1557A1.txt
  • GLP also has informed us that the only known foreign investor holding a five percent or greater interest in Loral Space is the AXA group of companies, which, it asserts, is based in France, with an aggregate interest of 6.2 percent in Loral Space. GLP also states that, according to the records of Loral Space as of March 29, 2002, 1.26 percent of the outstanding shares of Loral Space are registered to foreign entities with addresses in WTO Member countries. GLP provides no further information as to foreign ownership of Loral Space capital stock, but notes that Lockheed Martin, a U.S. corporation, is Loral Space's largest shareholder, with a 15.3 percent ownership interest. Based on this information, we attribute to GLP
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1589A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1589A5.txt
  • 8020321KE. 5 9 3 627 195 14 1400 3 8020321KE. 5 5 4 721 725 22 1100 4 8020321KE. 5 6 4 557 593 27 900 4 8020321KE. 5 7 4 2755 2769 38.64 4200 4 8020321KE. 5 8 4 376 396 49.5 600 106 8020321KE. 6 6 1 83 14 1.8 900 81 8020321KE. 6 7 1 381 67 1.26 4200 181 8020321KE. 6 8 1 44 10 0.6 600 28 8020321KE. 6 9 1 143 15 6.3 1400 137 8020321KE. 6 5 2 118 15 2.75 1100 2 8020321KE. 6 9 2 134 14 10.5 1400 124 8020321KE. 6 5 3 440 186 16.5 1100 3 8020321KE. 6 6 3 305 152 18 900 3 8020321KE. 6 7 3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.txt
  • 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 is sought purxtant to the provisions of other Lawful U.S. Process. VAOl/GRIFJ/20093.12 1.26 "Telmex" means Telefonos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation, and includes its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary Teninver, S.A. de C.V. 1.27 "Transactional Data" means: (a) "call identifying information,"as defined in 47 U.S.C. 5 1001(2), including without limitation the telephone number or similar identifying designator associated with a Domestic Communication; 09 any information possessed by a Domestic Communications Company relating
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A3.txt
  • 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 Board the mandate of which is to oversee security matters and implementation
• 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
  • 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: (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 Domestic Communication; (b) any information possessed by VSNL America, or an entity acting on behalf of VSNL America, relating specifically to the identity and physical address of a customer or subscriber, or account
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1564A2.txt
  • -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 -1.26 -1.28 Std Dev 0.55 0.68 0.56 0.51 0.72 0.69 0.56 1.64 0.68 Note: The overall means and standard deviations (lower right corner of the chart) omitted data for receiver G4 for reasons discussed in the section of this chapter entitled, "Desired Signal Source: SFU Versus ATSC997". The variability among these measured differences in D/U ratios for the change in undesired
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.txt
  • Religious 1,750 1.18 Shopping 1,388 0.93 Sitcom 13,668 9.19 Spanish 1,817 1.22 Sports 8,468 5.69 Violent 1,298 0.87 Weather 132 0.09 Total 148,724100.00Total 148,724100.00 Source:TMSandauthorcalculations.SeeTable3forallocationofTMSProgramTypestoEstimationProgram Types(i.e.theProgramTypesusedinthisstudy).SeeTables29-31forallocationofTMSCategoriestoEstimation Categories(i.e.theCategoriesusedinthisstudy). 33 Table5:BroadcastNetworksintheEstimationDataset ProgramType Number Share MajorBroadcastNetworks ABC 183 11.56 CBS 185 11.69 NBC 187 11.81 FOX 168 10.61 CW 93 5.87 MNT 74 4.67 IndependentandPublic"Networks" IND1 86 5.43 IND2 40 2.53 IND3 20 1.26 IND4 12 0.76 IND5 9 0.57 IND6 5 0.32 IND7 3 0.19 IND8 1 0.06 IND9 1 0.06 PBS1 181 11.43 PBS2 91 5.75 PBS3 40 2.53 PBS4 22 1.39 PBS5 6 0.38 PBS6 4 0.25 OtherBroadcastNetworks AZA 5 0.32 ION 52 3.28 TBN 37 2.34 TEL 22 1.39 TLF 19 1.20 UNI 37 2.34 Total 1,583100.00 Source:Authorcalculations.Note:IND1-IND9(PBS1-PBS6)are"virtualnetworks"consistingofthefirst,second, etc.Independent(Public)televisionstationofferedineachNielsenDMA.SeeSection4.1formoredetails.AZA =AztecaAmerica,ION=The"i"network,TBN=TrinityBroadcastingNetwork,TEL=Telemundo,TLF=
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A5.txt
  • 0.14 Percentage of Market Population Aged 18 to 24 0.0614 0.7610 1.0633 0.1380 0.2600 1.1479 -0.49 Percentage of Market Population Aged 25 to 34 -1.0162 0.3550 0.3620 -0.3503 0.2470 0.7045 -4.65 Percentage of Market Population Aged 35 to 44 0.1788 0.6890 1.1958 0.3506 0.2510 1.4199 -1.09 Percentage of Market Population Aged 45 to 64 0.1650 0.6400 1.1794 -0.0204 0.8640 0.9799 1.26 Percentage of Market Population Aged 65 or over -0.3998 0.2800 0.6704 -0.0322 0.7640 0.9683 -2.53 Percentage of College Graduates in Market Population -0.0046 0.9430 0.9954 -0.0189 0.5160 0.9813 0.09 Noncommercial (1=yes) 0.6763 0.6690 1.9666 -1.0931** 0.0330 0.3352 23.03 In Arbitron Metro (1=yes) 1.7455 0.1270 5.7289 -0.1297 0.8010 0.8783 11.37 Segments Aired in Morning Drive 0.4737 0.1530 1.6059 -0.1495 0.3180 0.8612
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.txt
  • 0.75 0.61 -0.02 - Average Block, Advertisements, Evening 1.18 1.27 1.10 1.15 1.55 1.06 -0.22 - Average Block, Entertainment/Leisure/DJ Banter, Evening 0.82 0.73 0.87 0.81 0.90 0.13 -0.60 - Average Block, Music, Evening 2.57 2.77 2.60 2.40 2.44 2.95 0.18 + Average Block, News, Evening 0.37 0.31 0.33 0.43 0.59 0.24 -0.07 - Average Block, Sports, Evening 0.99 0.81 0.77 1.26 1.69 1.13 0.32 + Number of Stations 24.20 47.68 26.00 16.85 13.00 8.57 -39.11 - FM Only Stations Percent Local, AM Drive 0.78 0.87 0.76 0.79 0.83 0.68 -0.18 - Percent Network/Syndicated, AM Drive 0.20 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.32 0.18 + Percent Live, AM Drive 0.67 0.74 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.60 -0.13 - Percent Advertisements, AM Drive 0.24 0.25
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.txt
  • -9.7 (1.34) Cross-owned radio and newspaper 2.1 (0.38) 4.6 (0.75) 3.7 (0.30) 7.7 (0.61) 42.4* (1.98) 42.0* (1.89) 7.4 (0.95) 7.0 (0.89) Differences in contributions (Dem-Rep; $100K) 0.2 (0.29) 0.6 (0.84) 1.5 (0.66) 2.3 (0.95) -2.3 (0.77) -2.2 (0.73) -0.5 (0.61) -0.4 (0.54) (Cross-owned newspaper) X (Differences in contributions) -0.0 (0.00) 0.1 (0.06) 5.4** (2.00) 5.5** (2.43) 7.5 (1.25) 7.5 (1.26) -0.4 (0.20) -0.2 (0.07) Other control variables Ownership and network controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Time and length of broadcast fixed effects No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes DMA and date fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Adjusted R-squared .01 .01 .05 .05 .29 .28 .06 .05 Notes: Ordinary least
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4106A1.txt
  • Error Hours Circulation Feb. 2003/ 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nov. 2003 Feb. 2004/ 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nov. 2004 TABLE 10 - WWBT VIEWING IN UNIN. AREAS OF MADISON COUNTY, VA Survey Households Share Standard Net Standard Year Studied Viewing Error Weekly Error Hours Circulation Feb. 2003/ 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nov. 2003 Feb. 2004/ 12 1.29 1.26 6.01 5.72 Nov. 2004 TABLE 11 - WRC-TV VIEWING IN UNIN. AREAS OF MADISON COUNTY, VA Survey Households Share Standard Net Standard Year Studied Viewing Error Weekly Error Hours Circulation Feb. 2003/ 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nov. 2003 Feb. 2004/ 12 2.64 2.75 4.33 4.49 Nov. 2004 WVIR-TV requests that the Commission grant its petition for reconsideration so that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4389A1.txt
  • this amounts to 1.11 percent of the population and 2.16 percent of the area covered by the proposed station. Reply, Exhibit 1 at 3. Specifically, HFC concedes that there is an overlap of 0.92 square kilometers, with a maximum width of 0.27 kilometers (886 feet). Opposition , Exhibit 1 at 3. HFC states that the proposed station's contour would overlap 1.26 percent of the total area within the existing WLOF(FM) contour. Id. HFC is silent about the size of the overlap in terms of population and percentage of the proposed new station's contour. Id. See Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 2 FCC Rcd 7374 (1987); KSOO-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 43 FCC Rcd 879, 880 (1973); WNNE Licensee, Inc., Memorandum Opinion
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1455A2_Rcd.pdf
  • human disturbance and its effects on Lesser Prairie-Chickens are Robel et al. 2004 and Pitman et al. 2005. These studies showed that Lesser Prairie-Chickens generally avoid vertical structures, with non-breeding birds generally keeping at least 0.37 mile (0.60 kilometer) from buildings and transmission lines and towers. Most nests were found 13939 Environmental Consequences to be placed at least 0.78 mile (1.26 kilometers) from buildings, 0.49 mile (0.79 kilometer) from improved roads, and 0.22 mile (0.35 kilometer) from transmission lines. However, Pitman et al. 2005 also found that distance to various disturbance types was a poor predictor of nest success, which is apparently more dependent on various vegetative characteristics. The precise mechanism controlling grouse and prairie-chicken abandonment of otherwise suitable habitat in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-187A2_Rcd.pdf
  • 0.90 VA 10,336 431 236 85 22 65,386 3,499 20.10 788.86 6,641.23 2,992.35 0.92 2.40 0.00 985.47 146.08 VT 4,503 173 90 14 3 37,538 1,655 4.81 442.30 2,659.01 163.53 1.10 0.05 0.00 341.63 12.16 WA 15,349 315 160 37 17 57,162 24,267 5.68 1,088.31 44,466.89 4,603.23 2.38 427.15 1.70 1,059.48 152.85 WI 6,850 292 158 50 16 27,384 4,935 1.26 828.75 5,976.03 405.64 0.11 166.33 0.09 625.55 54.03 WV 34,010 585 227 51 12 239,292 9,955 25.67 1,763.05 21,508.00 2,114.20 5.07 0.62 2.27 1,674.70 7.30 WY 12,227 79 49 23 6 12,085 24,245 11.53 950.74 25,168.92 4,569.35 1.35 14.85 3.02 1,280.53 21.63 AS* 51 2111 n/a 53 0.00 8.34 27.46 1.67 0.00 2.36 0.00 0.12 0.01 GU* 73211 n/a 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-2A1.txt
  • 1.70 2.40 2.60 11 - 20 1.60 1.40 1.70 21 - 30 1.10 2.00 2.10 31 - 40 1.20 1.40 1.50 41 - 50 1.20 1.80 1.80 51 - 60 1.40 2.00 2.40 61 - 70 1.40 1.50 1.40 71 - 80 0.50 0.80 2.10 81 - 90 1.70 2.70 1.90 91 - 100 0.80 1.10 1.40 1 - 100 1.26 1.71 1.89 101 - 110 1.60 2.10 2.20 111 - 120 1.40 1.50 1.50 121 - 130 0.70 0.90 0.80 131 - 140 1.20 1.80 2.10 141 - 150 1.00 1.00 1.00 151 - 160 1.40 1.50 1.70 161 - 170 1.10 1.50 1.30 171 - 180 0.80 1.10 0.90 181 - 190 0.70 0.90 1.50 191 - 200 0.90
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208380A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208380A7.txt
  • 2 4,992 2,574 1.70 2.17 3.43 5.05 6 18 16 16 16Venezuela 1,913 2,412 0 4,325 1,700 0.79 1.31 1.49 2.14 1 19 n.a. n.a. n.a.Denmark 1,267 234 2,520 4,021 542 0.46 2.89 5.82 7.00 6 20 23 29 29Argentina 779 3,150 30 3,959 1,128 0.24 0.46 0.76 1.34 6 21 28 27 23Colombia 1,391 2,273 24 3,688 1,313 0.61 1.26 1.54 3.11 7 22 15 17 17Taiwan 1,647 1,837 48 3,532 4,580 0.87 0.71 1.64 2.32 7 23 n.a. 21 18India 1,453 1,986 23 3,462 734 0.72 1.44 1.77 2.50 1 24 17 18 12Italy 2,650 709 92 3,451 1,765 3.31 2.60 2.09 2.34 9 25 26 28 27Russia 1,528 1,484 40 3,052 439 1.00 1.53 2.38 3.53 7 26
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-209149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-209149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-209149A1.txt
  • 5.25 5.107 0.67 0.54 0.510 0.21 WB 10 63 .052 0.84 4.34 1.423 0.35 0.55 0.287 0.16 PAX 10 65 .054 0.85 3.39 0.381 0.18 1.06 3.908 0.58 UNI/TEL 10 38 .032 0.74 3.39 0.659 0.22 2.26 5.526 0.64 Religious 10 41 .034 0.76 5.98 2.762 0.46 8.07 23.033 1.32 Independent 10 196 .163 0.95 6.79 33.372 1.78 2.11 16.744 1.26 total 130 1204 1.000 n(j) = the number of observations in the sample for group j n = the number of observations in the sample, 130 N(j) = the number of observations in the population for group j N = the number of observations in the population, 1204 p(j) = the proportion of the population comprising group j, e.g., N(j)/N
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.txt
  • 1.54 1950 0.19 0.22 24.1 1.33 1.52 1951 0.20 0.22 26.0 1.29 1.41 1952 0.20 0.22 26.5 1.27 1.38 1953 0.21 0.22 26.7 1.30 1.37 1954 0.22 0.22 26.9 1.38 1.36 1955 0.23 0.22 26.8 1.43 1.37 1956 0.23 0.22 27.2 1.43 1.35 1957 0.24 0.22 28.1 1.41 1.30 1958 0.24 0.22 28.9 1.38 1.27 1959 0.24 0.22 29.1 1.38 1.26 1960 0.24 0.22 29.6 1.36 1.24 1961 0.25 0.22 29.9 1.39 1.23 1962 0.25 0.22 30.2 1.40 1.21 1963 0.25 0.22 30.6 1.35 1.20 1964 0.25 0.22 31.0 1.34 1.18 1965 0.24 0.22 31.5 1.27 1.16 1966 0.24 0.22 32.4 1.25 1.13 1967 0.24 0.22 33.4 1.21 1.10 1968 0.24 0.22 34.8 1.13 1.05 1969 0.24 0.22 36.7 1.09 1.00
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228584A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228584A3.txt
  • 0.46 1.40 7 20 20 19 13Philippines 6,588 5,675 2 12,265 3,611 1.16 1.11 1.59 2.17 6 21 22 n.a . n.a .New Zealand 1,786 3,418 6,110 11,314 2,642 0.19 0.13 1.63 2.16 7 22 23 21 16Venezuela 2,016 5,157 3,855 11,028 20,536 0.22 0.38 0.70 1.31 6 23 21 24 28Colombia 2,566 5,079 2,941 10,586 1,592 0.32 0.31 0.58 1.26 8 24 27 26 n.a .Malaysia 810 7,456 630 8,896 2,368 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.37 6 25 n.a . n.a . n.a .Macau 70 8,064 0 8,134 6 0.01 0.22 8.00 1.50 7 26 n.a . n.a . n.a .South Africa 579 7,144 0 7,723 1,052 0.08 0.30 0.80 0.66 1 27 24 22 23Argentina 1,427 4,249 1,368 7,044 11,207
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.txt
  • 1.25 1.20 1.04 1.06 0.91 0.55 0.50 0.26 0.21 -79.9 United Kingdom 0.91 0.87 0.79 0.73 0.57 0.49 0.42 0.41 0.43 0.36 0.19 -60.3 Viet Nam 2.29 2.27 1.83 1.71 1.35 1.27 1.13 0.85 0.90 0.87 0.51 -59.8 Average for Countries Shown Above 0.96 0.95 0.86 0.83 0.69 0.62 0.55 0.48 0.45 0.31 0.26 -58.8% Average for Other Countries 1.23 1.26 1.14 1.14 0.98 0.90 0.75 0.63 0.57 0.39 0.29 -67.5 Average for All Countries 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.89 0.74 0.67 0.59 0.51 0.47 0.33 0.26 -60.8 Canada, India Mexico, Philippines 0.72 0.73 0.67 0.64 0.55 0.52 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.29 0.25 and UK as Percent of Total Average for Other Countries 1.23 1.19 1.07 1.03 0.82 0.72 0.62 0.54 0.48
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.txt
  • 1.32 1.25 1.20 1.04 1.06 0.91 0.55 0.50 0.26 0.21 0.31 -66.4 United Kingdom 0.87 0.79 0.73 0.57 0.49 0.42 0.41 0.43 0.36 0.19 0.18 -58.3 Vietnam 2.27 1.83 1.71 1.35 1.27 1.13 0.85 0.90 0.87 0.51 0.29 -74.1 Average for Countries Shown Above 0.95 0.86 0.83 0.69 0.62 0.55 0.48 0.45 0.31 0.26 0.19 -4.3% Average for Other Countries 1.26 1.14 1.14 0.98 0.90 0.75 0.63 0.57 0.39 0.29 0.22 -2.3 Average for All Countries 1.00 0.91 0.89 0.74 0.67 0.59 0.51 0.47 0.33 0.26 0.20 -3.8 Canada, India Mexico, Philippines 0.73 0.67 0.64 0.55 0.52 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.29 0.25 0.16 and UK as Percent of Total Average for Other Countries 1.19 1.07 1.03 0.82 0.72 0.62 0.54 0.48
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262086A1.txt
  • $2,193 $20,690 $716 $13,809 $40,787 Costs and Expenses 1,709 23,881 1,282 14,097 34,886 Interest Expense 379 402 48 1,531 1,023 Other Income and Adjustments 1 (20) 111 (11) (63) (506) Income Taxes 13 520 0 (88) 2,186 Net Income (Loss) 72 (4,002) (625) (1,794) 5,887 Earnings per Share 0.24 (12.48) (2.12) (1.00) 1.78 Dividends per Share 2.50 0.80 0 0 1.26 Average Shares Outstanding (millions) 304 321 296 1,801 3,310 Property, Plant and Equipment - Net 3,338 6,259 729 16,853 50,046 Total Assets 6,668 17,060 1,026 24,324 108,844 Long-Term Debt 4,267 5,909 728 16,690 21,231 Shareholders' Equity 1,362 4,230 (47) (2,612) 40,504 Operating Data Customer Lines (thousands) 2 2,321 - - 15,522 52,356 Number of Employees 6,373 40,400 2,400 41,000 162,700
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • Payments - Total by Study Area ..................................... Table 3.30 High-Cost Support Mechanisms ­ Monthly Support per Loop by State .............. Table 3.16 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................................
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A2.txt
  • Payments - Total by Study Area ..................................... Table 3.30 High-Cost Support Mechanisms ­ Monthly Support per Loop by State .............. Table 3.16 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................................
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.txt
  • intrastate access minutes. Column 3 shows each state's percentage of intrastate access revenues.33 The allocation percentages for non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues, presented in Column 4, are (75% * Column 2) + (25% * Column 3). Intrastate toll revenues by type presented in Columns 5 and 6 are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. In Table 1.26, interstate toll revenues are allocated on a per state basis by interstate access minutes. Interstate access minutes are from Table 8.4. The allocation percentages are each state's percentage of interstate access minutes. Interstate toll revenues by type presented are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. (see Table 1.14). 31 Intrastate access revenues are a proxy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.txt
  • 31.27 -0.09 31.40 0.00 250299 C HAYNEVILLE TEL. CO., INC. -15.26 -2.34 -13.22 -35.30 250300 C HOPPER TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. -0.96 -1.86 0.92 -2.47 250301 A FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF LAMAR COUNTY, LLC 14.22 0.92 13.18 105.58 250302 C ALLTEL ALABAMA 2.07 -0.05 2.12 -5.51 250304 C MILLRY TEL. CO., INC. 0.87 -0.64 1.52 -6.05 250305 C MON-CRE TEL. COOP. INC. 1.26 0.88 0.37 -1.18 250306 C FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF ALABAMA, LLC 36.59 -1.91 39.24 2,668.71 250307 C MOUNDVILLE TEL. CO. 0.21 -1.24 1.47 -2.55 250308 C NEW HOPE TEL. COOP., INC.-AL 8.19 -6.67 15.93 23.70 250311 A OAKMAN TEL. CO., INC. 20.14 5.88 13.47 66.56 250312 A OTELCO TELEPHONE LLC 4.10 -0.60 4.73 0.00 250314 C PEOPLES TEL. CO. 1.64 -3.59
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.txt
  • 429 704 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.16 1.61 16,077 29,870 46,146 SBC 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.24 1.35 57,523 62,245 118,294 Sprint 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.14 1.54 4,656 17,943 21,559 Valor 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.38 2.34 306 994 1,301 Verizon 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.20 1.32 36,547 102,421 139,757 Price Caps 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.22 1.41 139,121 283,585 401,476 NECA 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.71 4.03 *** *** 18,994 All Price Caps and NECA 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 1.53 *** *** 420,470 NA: Not Available. * ** ***NECA no longer files information regarding originating and terminating Carrier Common Line (CCL) charges. #Data reflect only those company study areas subject to price-cap regulation. Source: Access tariff filings. Effective 07/01/03, the carrier common line (CCL) rates
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 3 Index of Tables and Charts Interstate Access Support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A2.txt
  • Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 3 Index of Tables and Charts Interstate Access Support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.txt
  • intrastate access minutes. Column 3 shows each state's percentage of intrastate access revenues.35 The allocation percentages for non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues, presented in Column 4, are (75% * Column 2) + (25% * Column 3). Intrastate toll revenues by type presented in Columns 5 and 6 are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. In Table 1.26, interstate toll revenues are allocated on a per state basis by interstate access minutes. Interstate access minutes are from Table 8.4. The allocation percentages are each state's percentage of interstate access minutes. Interstate toll revenues by type presented are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. (see Table 1.14). 32 ILECs' toll revenues are assumed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
  • DBA FRONTIER COMM 14.77 0.49 14.22 51.16 542311 C CAL-ORE TELEPHONE CO. 9.54 0.00 9.54 12.37 542313 C DUCOR TELEPHONE COMPANY 1.32 0.40 0.91 0.18 542315 C GLOBAL VALLEY NETWORKS 12.82 3.20 9.32 0.00 542318 C FORESTHILL TELEPHONE COMPANY 14.04 -0.03 14.08 41.80 542319 C VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC.-CA (GTE) -5.99 -2.27 -3.80 0.00 542321 C HAPPY VALLEY TELEPHONE COMPANY -4.94 -1.26 -3.72 -19.73 542322 C HORNITOS TELEPHONE COMPANY -1.54 -0.76 -0.79 -7.20 542323 C WINTERHAVEN TELEPHONE COMPANY 3.55 -8.64 13.35 17.99 542324 C KERMAN TELEPHONE COMPANY 10.57 1.64 8.78 14.41 542332 C THE PONDEROSA TELEPHONE COMPANY 4.80 0.05 4.75 5.02 542334 C SUREWEST TELEPHONE -2.47 -3.85 1.44 -19.75 542338 C SIERRA TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. 4.36 1.01 3.32 3.31 542339 C THE
• 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
  • 2: Inter-Unit Townhouse Wall Transmit Antenna: -- Location Outdoors Garage Townhouse A, ground floor -- Mount Wood/fiberglass mast Wood/fiberglass mast Wood tripod -- Floor Asphalt driveway Concrete slab Carpeted concrete slab -- Height (center of antenna) 0.97 m and 1.47 m 0.97 m and 1.47 m for 2-m distance 0.97 m and 2.39 m for 10-m distance 0.88 m and 1.26 m at 2-m distance 0.88 m and 1.45 m at 10-m distance TV: -- Location Outdoors Outdoors Townhouse B, ground floor -- Mount 0.85-m tall plastic cart 0.85-m tall plastic cart 0.85-m tall plastic cart -- Floor Asphalt driveway Asphalt driveway extension at 2-m distance Grass at 10-m distance Carpeted concrete slab -- Aspect Angle Front, rear, right side, right-rear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.txt
  • Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A2.txt
  • Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.txt
  • intrastate access minutes. Column 3 shows each state's percentage of intrastate access revenues.37 The allocation percentages for non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues, presented in Column 4, are (75% * Column 2) + (25% * Column 3). Intrastate toll revenues by type presented in Columns 5 and 6 are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. In Table 1.26, interstate toll revenues are allocated on a per state basis by interstate access minutes. Interstate access minutes are from Table 8.4. The allocation percentages are each state's percentage of interstate access minutes. Interstate toll revenues by type presented are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. (see Table 1.14). 34 ILECs' toll revenues are assumed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.txt
  • 10.32 13.70 474427 C CITIZENS TEL CO OF ID DBA FRONTIER COMM OF ID -9.69 -0.87 -8.90 -32.05 475103 C QWEST CORPORATION - ID -1.83 -3.29 1.50 0.00 475162 C QWEST CORPORATION - IDAHO -0.46 -3.74 3.41 0.00 TOTAL ILLINOIS -1.60 -5.17 3.77 -2.17 340976 A ADAMS TEL. COOP. 14.40 -3.42 18.45 47.76 340978 C ALHAMBRA-GRANTFORK TEL. CO. -0.67 -1.90 1.26 -6.89 340983 A CAMBRIDGE TEL. CO.-IL -1.65 -6.39 5.06 6.79 340984 C CASS TELEPHONE COMPANY 6.35 -1.81 8.32 14.74 340990 A CLARKSVILLE MUTUAL TEL. CO. 10.31 -1.85 12.39 41.84 340993 A CROSSVILLE TEL. CO. 5.61 -4.98 11.15 37.44 340998 A FRONTIER COMM. OF DEPUE, INC. 2.52 -8.58 12.14 41.82 341003 C EGYPTIAN TEL. COOP. ASSN. 9.22 -3.83 13.57 21.52 341004
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A6.txt
  • 16,523,999 123.97 2,016,439 15.13 American Samoa 16,399 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Arizona 1,094,454 42,028,584 38.40 25,160,054 22.99 16,868,530 15.41 Arkansas 474,206 18,119,675 38.21 12,247,000 25.83 5,872,675 12.38 California 6,437,202 295,041,865 45.83 167,294,612 25.99 127,747,253 19.85 Colorado 779,826 24,039,309 30.83 14,888,633 19.09 9,150,676 11.73 Connecticut 575,059 21,206,966 36.88 17,197,532 29.91 4,009,434 6.97 Delaware 120,937 896,122 7.41 743,613 6.15 152,509 1.26 Dist. of Columbia 76,876 1,393,543 18.13 817,903 10.64 575,640 7.49 Florida 2,675,024 63,444,513 23.72 48,559,266 18.15 14,885,247 5.56 Georgia 1,598,461 67,357,073 42.14 46,871,055 29.32 20,486,018 12.82 Guam 30,986 3,676,431 118.65 2,175,963 70.22 1,500,468 48.42 Hawaii 182,818 4,024,386 22.01 2,198,793 12.03 1,825,593 9.99 Idaho 261,982 4,429,466 16.91 3,329,928 12.71 1,099,538 4.20 Illinois 2,111,706 98,753,181 46.76 49,196,327 23.30 49,556,854 23.47 Indiana 1,035,074
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 512 Motion picture and sound recording industries 93,918.1 846.0 0.90 0.13 513 Broadcasting and telecommunications 714,742.7 159,944.0 22.38 24.97 514 Information and data processing services 157,148.0 10,148.6 6.46 1.58 521CI Federal Reserve banks, credit intermediation, and related activities 718,853.5 2,631.4 0.37 0.41 523 Securities, commodity contracts, and investments 420,955.7 2,511.6 0.60 0.39 524 Insurance carriers and related activities 622,099.8 7,863.7 1.26 1.23 525 Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 111,358.9 85.4 0.08 0.01 531 Real estate 2,155,769.3 12,445.6 0.58 1.94 532RL Rental and leasing services and lessors of intangible assets 316,039.7 4,458.7 1.41 0.70 5411 Legal services 264,683.3 4,932.6 1.86 0.77 5412OP Miscellaneous professional, scientific and technical services 1,014,144.6 22,576.5 2.23 3.52 5415 Computer systems design and related services 277,992.6 6,761.6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A1.pdf
  • Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A2.pdf
  • Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A3.pdf
  • intrastate access minutes. Column 3 shows each state's percentage of intrastate access revenues.38 The allocation percentages for non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues, presented in Column 4, are (75% * Column 2) + (25% * Column 3). Intrastate toll revenues by type presented in Columns 5 and 6 are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. In Table 1.26, interstate toll revenues are allocated on a per state basis by interstate access minutes. Interstate access minutes are from Table 8.4. The allocation percentages are each state's percentage of interstate access minutes. Interstate toll revenues by type presented are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. (see Table 1.14). 35 ILECs' toll revenues as reported in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A5.pdf
  • 5.17 Virgin Islands 13.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.58 0.00 0.00 31.04 Virginia 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.90 0.08 1.16 Washington 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.44 0.14 1.69 West Virginia 0.61 0.01 0.00 1.71 0.00 0.15 1.21 0.24 3.92 Wisconsin 0.74 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.01 0.62 2.85 Wyoming 3.33 0.07 0.00 2.97 0.00 3.10 1.26 2.48 13.21 Industry $0.63 $0.02 $0.00 $0.15 $0.00 $0.62 $0.29 $0.21 $1.91 Based on 2007 support payments and reported loops or lines from USAC filing for the Fourth Quarter 2007. Support Term Total High Cost Support Support Access Switching High Cost Support Interstate Interstate Support Notes: Details may not appear to add to totals due to rounding. Common Line Valve
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A6.pdf
  • 16,602,501 124.56 1,999,687 15.00 American Samoa 16,399 1,839,904 112.20 0 0.00 1,839,904 112.20 Arizona 1,094,454 42,462,812 38.80 29,353,264 26.82 13,109,548 11.98 Arkansas 474,206 17,864,939 37.67 12,559,937 26.49 5,305,002 11.19 California 6,437,202 286,702,767 44.54 215,252,501 33.44 71,450,266 11.10 Colorado 779,826 23,994,986 30.77 16,728,495 21.45 7,266,491 9.32 Connecticut 575,059 20,784,658 36.14 17,535,704 30.49 3,248,954 5.65 Delaware 120,937 896,122 7.41 743,613 6.15 152,509 1.26 Dist. of Columbia 76,876 1,293,018 16.82 858,542 11.17 434,476 5.65 Florida 2,675,024 63,099,958 23.59 53,148,544 19.87 9,951,414 3.72 Georgia 1,598,461 66,554,116 41.64 53,486,812 33.46 13,067,304 8.17 Guam 30,986 3,676,431 118.65 2,175,963 70.22 1,500,468 48.42 Hawaii 182,818 4,015,501 21.96 2,284,033 12.49 1,731,468 9.47 Idaho 261,982 4,411,898 16.84 3,481,009 13.29 930,889 3.55 Illinois 2,111,706 100,479,430 47.58 64,092,034 30.35 36,387,396 17.23 Indiana 1,035,074
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................................
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A2.txt
  • Data - Percentage Changes by Study Area ...........Table 3.32 ILEC Loops - by State or Jurisdiction ..................................................... Table 3.20 ILEC Loops - by Study Area ............................................................... Table 3.34 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payments by State or Jurisdiction .................................
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.txt
  • intrastate access minutes. Column 3 shows each state's percentage of intrastate access revenues.39 The allocation percentages for non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues, presented in Column 4, are (75% * Column 2) + (25% * Column 3). Intrastate toll revenues by type presented in Columns 5 and 6 are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. In Table 1.26, interstate toll revenues are allocated on a per state basis by interstate access minutes. Interstate access minutes are from Table 8.4. The allocation percentages are each state's percentage of interstate access minutes. Interstate toll revenues by type presented are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. (see Table 1.14). 36 ILECs' toll revenues as reported in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • 259788 C CENTURYTEL OF ALABAMA, LLC (SOUTHERN) -3.71 -6.67 3.17 -26.88 259789 C CENTURYTEL OF ALABAMA, LLC (NORTHERN) 1.95 -4.84 7.13 0.00 ALASKA TOTAL 0.98 -8.75 10.66 8.57 610989 C ADAK EAGLE ENTERPRISES, LLC DBA ADAK TEL UTIL 35.17 3.68 30.36 36.92 613000 C ACS OF ANCHORAGE, INC. -4.79 -14.70 11.62 INFINITE 613001 C ARCTIC SLOPE TEL. ASSOCIATION COOP.INC. 13.25 1.26 11.84 17.85 613001A C ARCTIC SLOPE TEL. ASSOCIATION COOP.INC. -7.83 -0.47 -7.40 -100.00 613002 C BETTLES TELEPHONE CO. INC. -5.63 -4.17 -1.52 -100.00 613003 C BRISTOL BAY TELEPHONE COOP. INC. 4.02 -0.18 4.21 3.11 613004 C BUSH-TELL INC. 5.77 -1.72 7.62 7.87 613005 A CIRCLE UTILITIES -22.94 -2.27 -21.14 -50.53 613006 C COPPER VALLEY TEL. COOP. INC. 16.45 -6.54 24.60
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
  • International Calls Calls 1/ All Goods Restated All Goods Restated Net of and Services in 2008 and Services in 2008 Access and (1982-1984 Dollars (1982-1984 Dollars Universal = 100) = 100) Service Cost 1930 16.7 $0.27 $3.54 1970 38.8 $0.23 $1.28 $2.43 $0.20 1931 15.2 0.27 3.81 1971 40.5 0.25 1.30 2.35 0.22 1932 13.7 0.26 4.12 1972 41.8 0.24 1.26 2.31 0.21 1933 13.0 0.28 4.56 1973 44.4 0.25 1.23 2.29 0.22 1934 13.4 0.27 4.37 1974 49.3 0.26 1.12 2.25 0.22 1935 13.7 0.27 4.17 1975 53.8 0.27 1.09 2.23 0.24 1936 13.9 0.25 3.89 1976 56.9 0.29 1.08 2.20 0.25 1937 14.4 0.22 3.24 1977 60.6 0.28 1.01 2.18 0.25 1938 14.1 0.21 3.27 1978 65.2 0.29 0.95
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.02 16 0.01 47,594 0.02 Ohio 4,537 3.64 1,463 3.34 10 2.39 9,357 3.66 10,548,312 3.34 Oklahoma 1,267 1.02 519 1.19 4 0.99 2,808 1.10 3,184,449 1.01 Oregon 1,359 1.09 571 1.30 7 1.81 3,007 1.18 3,785,895 1.20 Pennsylvania 5,494 4.41 2,186 5.00 12 2.93 9,895 3.87 12,685,420 4.02 Puerto Rico 786 0.63 210 0.48 5 1.26 2,502 0.98 3,426,206 1.09 Rhode Island 302 0.24 316 0.72 1 0.33 874 0.34 814,300 0.26 South Carolina 1,728 1.39 472 1.08 7 1.75 3,573 1.40 5,142,939 1.63 South Dakota 261 0.21 140 0.32 1 0.30 611 0.24 848,210 0.27 Tennessee 2,436 1.95 751 1.72 8 2.09 5,791 2.26 6,452,823 2.04 Texas 9,020 7.24 2,349 5.37 33 8.17 20,390 7.97
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.txt
  • 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.02 16 0.01 47,594 0.02 Ohio 4,537 3.64 1,463 3.34 10 2.39 9,357 3.66 10,548,312 3.34 Oklahoma 1,267 1.02 519 1.19 4 0.99 2,808 1.10 3,184,449 1.01 Oregon 1,359 1.09 571 1.30 7 1.81 3,007 1.18 3,785,895 1.20 Pennsylvania 5,494 4.41 2,186 5.00 12 2.93 9,895 3.87 12,685,420 4.02 Puerto Rico 786 0.63 210 0.48 5 1.26 2,502 0.98 3,426,206 1.09 Rhode Island 302 0.24 316 0.72 1 0.33 874 0.34 814,300 0.26 South Carolina 1,728 1.39 472 1.08 7 1.75 3,573 1.40 5,142,939 1.63 South Dakota 261 0.21 140 0.32 1 0.30 611 0.24 848,210 0.27 Tennessee 2,436 1.95 751 1.72 8 2.09 5,791 2.26 6,452,823 2.04 Texas 9,020 7.24 2,349 5.37 33 8.17 20,390 7.97
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 MICHIGAN 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.01 0.18 1.09 MINNESOTA 1.26 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.13 0.55 3.88 MISSISSIPPI 1.04 0.04 0.00 5.71 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.15 8.17 MISSOURI 1.49 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.29 0.16 3.03 MONTANA 3.99 0.04 0.00 2.38 0.00 3.53 0.11 0.66 10.70 NEBRASKA 2.30 0.04 0.00 0.61 0.00 2.46 0.72 1.27 7.41 NEVADA 0.33 (0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.67 0.32 1.66 NEW HAMPSHIRE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A9.txt
  • 0.20 1.92 1,778 CenturyLink 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.21 2.15 18,727 Cincinnati Bell 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.62 2.64 1,959 Consolidated 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.29 3.02 432 FairPoint 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.24 1.53 3,203 Frontier 0.06 0.00 0.56 0.37 1.97 14,823 Hawaiin Telecom 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 2.04 835 Innovative 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.18 1.95 244 Pacific Telecom 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.15 1.26 47 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.19 1.95 26,566 Verizon 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.27 1.68 66,373 Windstream 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.32 1.81 6,828 Price Caps 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.26 1.73 259,037 NECA 0.00 0.00 2.61 0.48 6.36 10,821 All Price Caps and NECA 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.27 1.92 269,858 Source: Access tariff filings. Minute 3 The total charge per conversation minute
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312921A1.txt
  • cited regularly regarding human disturbance and its effects on Lesser Prairie-Chickens are Robel et al. 2004 and Pitman et al. 2005. These studies showed that Lesser Prairie-Chickens generally avoid vertical structures, with non-breeding birds generally keeping at least 0.37 mile (0.60 kilometer) from buildings and transmission lines and towers. Most nests were found to be placed at least 0.78 mile (1.26 kilometers) from buildings, 0.49 mile (0.79 kilometer) from improved roads, and 0.22 mile (0.35 kilometer) from transmission lines. However, Pitman et al. 2005 also found that distance to various disturbance types was a poor predictor of nest success, which is apparently more dependent on various vegetative characteristics. The precise mechanism controlling grouse and prairie-chicken abandonment of otherwise suitable habitat in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-130A1.txt
  • and the data show a clear downward trend towards parity from September through December. See Metric PR 4-04 (missed due dates for platform dispatch order). With respect to non-dispatch UNE-P orders, although Verizon's October 2000 performance data show a disparity between the intervals in which competitors' UNE-P orders are completed as compared to Verizon's retail POTS orders (1.77 days vs. 1.26 days) (Metric PR 2-01), Verizon's other average completed interval measures for UNE-P show no statistically significant disparities in that month, nor do any of its average completed interval measures for UNE-P in November and December 2000. Furthermore, the performance data show that Verizon consistently misses a lower percentage of competitors' due dates for UNE-P non-dispatch orders than for its own
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.txt
  • 2.41 13.75 5.82 13.47 3.14 4b PO-1-06 Facility Available (Loop Qualification) - CORBA 13.17 2.42 11.00 2.36 13.75 2.71 13.47 2.62 PO-1-06 Facility Available (Loop Qualification) - Web GUI 13.17 6.35 11.00 5.65 13.75 2.70 13.47 4.96 PO-1-07 Rejected Query - EDI 0.13 2.85 0.16 2.45 0.10 2.52 0.10 2.26 PO-1-07 Rejected Query - CORBA 0.13 1.05 0.16 4.29 0.10 1.26 0.10 1.17 PO-1-07 Rejected Query - Web GUI 0.13 5.74 0.16 4.80 0.10 3.65 0.10 3.51 PO-1-08 OSS Interface - % Timeouts - EDI 0.10 0.25 1.53 0.64 PO-1-08 OSS Interface - % Timeouts - CORBA 0.12 0.36 0.40 0.12 PO-1-08 OSS Interface - % Timeouts - Web GUI 0.54 0.21 0.37 PO-1-09 Parsed CSR - EDI 2.75 3.17 2.76
• 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
  • 11.00 NA 13.75 NA 13.47 NA PO-1-06 Facility Available (Loop Qualification) - CORBA 13.17 2.42 11.00 2.60 13.75 2.87 13.47 3.44 PO-1-06 Facility Available (Loop Qualification) - Web GUI 13.17 6.35 11.00 6.56 13.75 1.86 13.47 5.30 PO-1-07 Rejected Query - EDI 0.13 2.85 0.16 1.90 0.10 2.52 0.10 2.26 PO-1-07 Rejected Query - CORBA 0.13 1.05 0.16 1.28 0.10 1.26 0.10 1.17 PO-1-07 Rejected Query - Web GUI 0.13 5.74 0.16 4.12 0.10 3.65 0.10 3.51 PO-1-08 OSS Interface - % Timeouts - EDI 0.10 0.00 0.40 0.41 PO-1-08 OSS Interface - % Timeouts - CORBA 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.16 PO-1-08 OSS Interface - % Timeouts - Web GUI 0.82 0.04 0.00 PO-1-09 Parsed CSR - EDI 2.75 3.17 2.76
• 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
  • identifying designators; the physical location of equipment, if known and if different from the location information provided under (f) below; types of services; length of service; fees; and usage, including billing records; and any information indicating as closely as possible the physical location to or from which communication is transmitted. The term does not include the content of any communication. 1.26 "United States," "US" or "U.S." means the United States of America including all of its States, districts, territories, possessions, commonwealths, and the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 1.27 "U.S. LES" means a land earth station facility located in any state of the United States that is involved with the transmission of satellite communications and meets all
• 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
  • -- --- Programming and equipment $36.99 $34.93 $37.13 $2.20 6.3%* Standard error 0.39 0.69 0.37 -- --- Number of channels 59.37 60.92 59.27 -1.65 -2.7% Standard error 1.03 1.45 1.00 -- --- Rate per channel † $0.600 $0.551 $0.603 $0.052 9.4%* Standard error 0.01 0.02 0.01 -- --- No. of satellite channels 44.88 46.42 44.79 -1.63 -3.5% Standard error 0.89 1.26 0.86 -- --- Rate per satellite channel $0.801 $0.744 $0.805 $0.061 8.2% Standard error 0.02 0.04 0.02 -- --- July 1, 2000 BST $12.57 $11.95 $12.62 $0.67 5.6% Standard error 0.50 0.55 0.49 -- --- Major CPST $18.88 $17.64 $18.95 $1.31 7.4% Standard error 0.54 0.80 0.51 -- --- Programming total $31.45 $29.59 $31.57 $1.98 6.7%* Standard error 0.33 0.57
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • 5.00 12 UNE Loop 2/4 wire analog 8db and 5.5db loop 0.21 3.01 0.26 3.18 0.17 2.96 0.37 2.61 0.35 2.59 12 UNE Loop 4 wire Digital 1.544 mbpd capable/HDSL 0.76 0.23 0.94 0.60 1.07 0.28 1.58 0.60 0.98 0.72 12 UNE Platform - Basic Port and (8db and 5.5db) Basic Loop - Field Work/No Field Work 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.26 0.00 1.17 0.01 1.05 0.02 1.05 13 - 1394200Resale Res POTS 1-30 Days 3.50 5.23 4.00 5.08 3.82 5.44 2.17 4.98 10.40 5.49 e 13 - 1394300Resale Res POTS 31-90 Days 43.0047.92 46.52 46.31 43.78 44.65abcde 13 - 1394500Resale Bus POTS 1-30 Days 4.67 7.04 2.00 6.42 2.50 7.71 6.00 7.00 7.33 6.56abcde 13 - 1395100Resale CTX 1-30 Days 9.03
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-331A1.txt
  • circuits/Dispatch/FL (%) 7.28% 0.00% 6.50% 33.33% 6.57% 0.00% 6.99% 33.33% 1.59% 0.00%1,2,3,4,5 A.2.12.6.1.2ISDN/<10 circuits/Non-Dispatch/FL (%) 0.62% 0.00% 0.74% 5.56% 0.91% 0.00% 0.66% 0.00% 0.86% 0.00% 3,5 A.2.12.6.2.1ISDN/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 0.00% 5 A.2.12.6.2.2ISDN/>=10 circuits/Non-Dispatch/FL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,4,5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized A.2.14.1.1.1Residence/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 4.11 0.51 3.97 1.26 6.97 0.48 6.23 0.29 5.25 0.04 A.2.14.1.1.2Residence/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (hours) 0.94 0.79 1.10 0.86 1.27 0.78 1.02 0.72 0.92 0.73 A.2.14.1.2.1Residence/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 3.51 0.27 2.57 2.03 4.42 1.75 4.10 0.14 1.74 0.02 1,2,3,4,5 A.2.14.2.1.1Business/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 3.00 1.07 5.32 0.76 5.18 0.43 3.97 0.40 3.92 0.03 A.2.14.2.1.2Business/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (hours) 3.35 0.78 2.54 0.91 1.67 0.83 1.37 0.79 1.27
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-286A1.txt
  • to FS operations. In October 2001 and April 2002, the ITU-R Joint Working Party 4-9S (JWP-4-9S), which studied FSS and FS sharing issues, developed several recommendations pertaining to ESV operations. These recommendations described methods that can be used to minimize interference to FS services from ESV operations. Prior to WRC-03, the United States developed a proposal under WRC-03 Agenda Item 1.26 setting forth a method for permitting and licensing ESVs. Specifically, the United States proposed that the Conference adopt a footnote to the International Table of Frequency Allocations stating that administrations operating earth-stations on board vessels in the bands 5925-6425 MHz and 14-14.5 GHz shall take all practicable steps to comply with Resolution 82 and that such use shall not cause
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-12A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-12A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-12A1.txt
  • Wireline incumbent Average $44.40 $31.16 $26.66 Observations 65 65 65 Standard error 0.71 0.87 0.66 Wireline rival Average $36.79 $33.36 $27.17 Observations 50 50 50 Standard error 3.46 3.28 1.84 DBS competition *** Average $41.20 $32.41 $29.36 Observations 52 52 52 Standard error 1.28 1.19 0.84 Wireless competition *** Average $45.58 $29.73 $25.80 Observations 29 29 29 Standard error 0.86 1.26 0.74 Low penetration test Average $45.04 $34.90 $30.34 Observations 39 39 39 Standard error 2.42 2.15 1.99 July 1, 2002 ** Sample groups combined Average $41.30 $29.09 $26.03 Noncompetitive group Average $41.85 $29.44 $26.28 Competitive group Average $37.95 $27.23 $25.10 * Source: Survey. ** From previous survey for comparison. Source: Survey and Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service,
• 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
  • 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 3.10. 1.29. ``Sensitive Information'' means information that is not Classified Information regarding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.txt
  • 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 incidents with respect to the Domestic Companies' products and services, when such incidents materially harm the national security interests of the United States: (i) the insertion of malicious code; insertion and/or transmittal of viruses or worms; denial of
• 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
  • in Annex 2. Any transmissions from ESVs within the minimum distances shall be subject to the prior agreement of the concerned administration(s).'' ITU-R Resolution 902 (WRC-03) Annex 1. Boeing Petition at 22. Boeing Petition at 23. See Intelsat Opposition at 22-23 (citing Document WRC03-0012, ``United States of America, Proposals for the Work of the Conference,'' text related to Agenda Item 1.26). C [ x '' • £ B C F G Z [ • £ � � � � � � § ¨ � � $ I J K � I K X ‚ ‹ æ ó � � � ludes a typographical error. Therefore, as Boeing points out, the United States is a concerned administration in the 14.4-14.5 GHz band
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-63A1_Rcd.pdf
  • limitations in Annex 2. Any transmissions from ESVs within the minimum distances shall be subject to the prior agreement of the concerned administration(s)." ITU-R Resolution 902 (WRC-03) Annex 1. 177Boeing Petition at 22. 178Boeing Petition at 23. 179See Intelsat Opposition at 22-23 (citing Document WRC03-0012, "United States of America, Proposals for the Work of theConference," text related to Agenda Item 1.26). 180Boeing Petition at 24 (citing Resolution 902, Annex 1). Boeing states that the ESV Orderdescribes the United States as a concerned administration in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band. Id. at 23 (citing ESV Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 726, ¶ 128, n.330). Boeing also states that the International Radio Regulations designate the United States as a concerned administration only with regard
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-31A1.txt
  • presentation''); id. § 554(a) (specifying procedures for adjudications ``required by the statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing'' with various exceptions). See, e.g., Workshop Transcript at 27-29 (comments suggesting that the Commission should consider other agencies' practices). 11 C.F.R. § 201.4(a). See, e.g., Appliance Labeling Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 57950, 57962-63; 16 C.F.R. § 1.26(b)(5). 16 C.F.R. § 4.7(b). See Policies and Procedures Regarding Ex Parte Communications During Informal Rulemaking Proceedings, Order, Notice of Inquiry, and Interim Policy Statement, FCC 78-405, 68 F.C.C.2d 804, 806, para. 11, 807, para. 15 (1978) (considering prohibiting ex parte communications in some or all informal rulemaking proceedings but deciding instead to allow ex parte communications subject to procedures ``which
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A1.txt
  • Evolved Over Time ..............................................................................64 Exhibit 4-E: Downlink and Uplink Spectral Efficiencies by Technology ............................................................................................64 Exhibit 4-F: Evolution of Round-Trip Latencies in Wireless Networks, in Milliseconds ................................................................65 Exhibit 4-G: Publicly Announced 4G Wireless Deployments ...............................................................................................................65 Exhibit 4-H: Approach for Analyzing Cost of FWA Network .................................................................................................................67 Exhibit 4-I: Methodology for Determining Maximum Cell Radius for Coverage.............................................................................68 Exhibit 4-J: Link Budget for Delivering 1.26 Mbps Uplink Speeds at 700MHz ................................................................................68 Exhibit 4-K: Classification of Terrain of Census Tracts .........................................................................................................................69 Exhibit 4-L: Maximum Cell Radius for Adequate Coverage in the 700MHz Band ...........................................................................69 Exhibit 4-M: Propagation Loss for Different Terrain Types at 700MHz .............................................................................................69 Exhibit 4-N: Average Cell Size in Each County (in miles) ......................................................................................................................70 Exhibit 4-O: Coverage of Unserved Housing Units by Cell Radius
• 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
  • of trouble reports. See Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. B at 47. For July 1999, Bell Atlantic reports that it received trouble reports within seven days of installation on .34 percent of the lines provisioned through hot cut loops. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. D at 92 (metric PR-6-02 - Hot Cut Loop for July 1999). In August, it received 1.26 percent of troubles reported within seven days. Id. at 103 (metric PR-6-02 - Hot Cut Loop for August 1999). September data reveal that .51 percent of lines provisioned by Bell Atlantic through hot cuts received trouble reports within seven days of the cutover. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Reply Decl. Attach. C at 9 (metric PR-6-02 - Hot Cut Loop for September
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • October November December January Notes Number Full Name VZ CLE C VZ CLE C VZ CLE C VZ CLE C VZ CLE C PR-8-02-2100 Open Orders in a Hold Status > 90 Days 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTS ­ Business PR-2 ­ Average Completed Interval PR-2-01-2110 Average Interval Completed ­ Total No Dispatch 0.65 1.26 0.57 0.86 PR-2-03-2110 Average Interval Completed ­ Dispatch (1-5 Lines) 3.66 4.57 3.62 3.95 POTS ­ Residence PR-2 ­ Average Completed Interval PR-2-01-2120 Average Interval Completed ­ Total No Dispatch 0.49 1.27 0.37 1.22 PR-2-03-2120 Average Interval Completed ­ Dispatch (1-5 Lines) 3.72 4.38 3.49 4.31 POTS & Complex Aggregate PR-2 ­ Average Completed Interval PR-2-18-2103 Average Interval Completed ­
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/Statements/2001/CETVReport97-99.doc
  • 5.25 5.107 0.67 0.54 0.510 0.21 WB 10 63 .052 0.84 4.34 1.423 0.35 0.55 0.287 0.16 PAX 10 65 .054 0.85 3.39 0.381 0.18 1.06 3.908 0.58 UNI/TEL 10 38 .032 0.74 3.39 0.659 0.22 2.26 5.526 0.64 Religious 10 41 .034 0.76 5.98 2.762 0.46 8.07 23.033 1.32 Independent 10 196 .163 0.95 6.79 33.372 1.78 2.11 16.744 1.26 total 130 1204 1.000 n(j) = the number of observations in the sample for group j n = the number of observations in the sample, 130 N(j) = the number of observations in the population for group j N = the number of observations in the population, 1204 p(j) = the proportion of the population comprising group j, e.g., N(j)/N
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2000/releases/98540191.pdf
  • basis of what could be realized given the set of remaining participating bidders and their valuations. 4.2.1 Additive Environment In the additive environment analysis, we normalize "revenue" as the ratio of revenue actually collected divided by the sum of the competitive prices for the remaining agents. Table 4.2.1a Normalized Mean (Median) Revenue: Additive Environment Revenue SMR 1.36 (1.38) Combo 1.28 (1.26) Result 3. Revenue is significantly above the competitive equilibrium predictions. The Revenues are higher in the SMR than the Combo auction. There is a significant amount of jump bidding (above minimum increment requirements) in both the SMR and Combo auctions, that causes the revenue to exceed competitive expectations. One reason that revenue may be even higher in the SMR is
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2000/releases/98540193.pdf
  • the length of the auction. The ANOVA table below verifies this result: Result 7: In these experiments the trade-off indicates that when the points scalar is increased from 1.0 to 1.5 the auction lasts approximately 20% more rounds and efficiency increases by 3%. Table 4.5.1b: ANOVA ­ Bidding Rounds Variable F-statistic p-value Flexible 28.18 0.000 Unequal 3.67 0.058 Environment Pairing 1.26 0.287 CE Exists 1.11 0.294 29 4.6 Bidder Losses It may be in the interest of the auctioneer to minimize bidder losses. This need may arise from a desire to accommodate the budget constraints of smaller buyers. An auction that involves the risk of loss may bias auction participation toward larger bidders who can risk small potential losses for the
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2001/papers/vsmith.pdf
  • by Auction Additive Environment (n = number of total experiments) 100% Efficient Outcomes SMA 11 (n=17) CMA 10 (n=11) Table 26: Mean (Median) Efficiency by Treatment: Superadditive Environments Low Medium High SMA 80.6 (82.5) 79.0 (92.0) 77.1 (84.0) CMA 96.2 (99.0) 96.1 (100) 98.0 (100) Table 27: Normalized Mean (Median) Revenue: Additive Environment Treatment Revenue SMA 1.36 (1.38) CMA 1.28 (1.26) Table 28: Normalized Mean (Median) Revenue: Superadditive Environment Treatment Low Medium High SMA .85 (.83) .95 (.92) 1.05 (1.00) CMA .77 (.81) .89 (.91) .90 (.91) Table 29: Average Rounds per Auction Type Treatment Rounds 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
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/crossreferences/mvd_tl.pdf
  • 9.5283 24.678297 25 7.4799 19.372941 20 0.1695 0.439005 1 14.4543 37.436637 38 183.6262 475.591858 476 0.5766 1.493394 2 107.6485 278.809615 279 0.071 0.18389 1 1.1586 3.000774 4 0.1127 0.291893 1 7.1923 18.628057 19 0.6149 1.592591 2 0.7114 1.842526 2 0.6048 1.566432 2 3.5044 9.076396 10 0.3129 0.810411 1 0.0038 0.009842 1 0.0038 0.009842 1 10.7501 27.842759 28 0.4661 1.207199 2 1.26 3.2634 4 0.0003 0.000777 1 13.1549 34.071191 35 0.4567 1.182853 2 0.2702 0.699818 1 2.7652 7.161868 8 1.2802 3.315718 4 9.6824 25.077416 26 5.7532 14.900788 15 11.6734 30.234106 31 9.7564 25.269076 26 8.3511 21.629349 22 28.1548 72.920932 73 29.4253 76.211527 77 0.0838 0.217042 1 9.1005 23.570295 24 15.5642 40.311278 41 91.6823 237.457157 238 397.8841 1030.519819 1031 664.8117 1721.862303 1722 470.2025
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/rss/index.htm?job=ainf&id=65
  • licenses in the 800 MHz band in the three alternative band configurations. Licenses in only one of these mutually incompatible band configurations will be awarded. Qualified Bidders: 9 Rounds Completed: 89 Bidding Days: 11 Results for Round 89 Gross Revenue: $34,597,000.00 - Dollar Change: 388000.00 - % Change: 1.13 Net Revenue: $33,777,500.00 - Dollar Change: -431500.00 - % Change: - 1.26 New Bids: 2 Withdrawn Bids: 0 Proactive Waivers: 0 Bidders that Reduced Eligibility: 0 Licenses with PWBs*: 2 FCC Held Licenses: 0 Eligible Bidders: 3 (of 9 qualified bidders) * PWBs = Provisionally Winning Bidders http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=65F ri, 26 May 2006 20:25:02 GMT Summary Licenses: Auction No. 65 will offer nationwide commercial licenses in the 800 MHz band in the three
• 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
  • of trouble reports. See Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. B at 47. For July 1999, Bell Atlantic reports that it received trouble reports within seven days of installation on .34 percent of the lines provisioned through hot cut loops. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Decl. Attach. D at 92 (metric PR-6-02 - Hot Cut Loop for July 1999). In August, it received 1.26 percent of troubles reported within seven days. Id. at 103 (metric PR-6-02 - Hot Cut Loop for August 1999). September data reveal that .51 percent of lines provisioned by Bell Atlantic through hot cuts received trouble reports within seven days of the cutover. Bell Atlantic Dowell/Canny Reply Decl. Attach. C at 9 (metric PR-6-02 - Hot Cut Loop for September
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01130.txt
  • and the data show a clear downward trend towards parity from September through December. See Metric PR 4-04 (missed due dates for platform dispatch order). With respect to non-dispatch UNE-P orders, although Verizon's October 2000 performance data show a disparity between the intervals in which competitors' UNE-P orders are completed as compared to Verizon's retail POTS orders (1.77 days vs. 1.26 days) (Metric PR 2-01), Verizon's other average completed interval measures for UNE-P show no statistically significant disparities in that month, nor do any of its average completed interval measures for UNE-P in November and December 2000. Furthermore, the performance data show that Verizon consistently misses a lower percentage of competitors' due dates for UNE-P non-dispatch orders than for its own
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2002/fcc02331.pdf
  • circuits/Dispatch/FL (%) 7.28% 0.00% 6.50% 33.33% 6.57% 0.00% 6.99% 33.33% 1.59% 0.00%1,2,3,4,5 A.2.12.6.1.2ISDN/<10 circuits/Non-Dispatch/FL (%) 0.62% 0.00% 0.74% 5.56% 0.91% 0.00% 0.66% 0.00% 0.86% 0.00% 3,5 A.2.12.6.2.1ISDN/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 0.00% 5 A.2.12.6.2.2ISDN/>=10 circuits/Non-Dispatch/FL (%) 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,4,5 Average Completion Notice Interval - Mechanized A.2.14.1.1.1Residence/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 4.11 0.51 3.97 1.26 6.97 0.48 6.23 0.29 5.25 0.04 A.2.14.1.1.2Residence/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (hours) 0.94 0.79 1.10 0.86 1.27 0.78 1.02 0.72 0.92 0.73 A.2.14.1.2.1Residence/>=10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 3.51 0.27 2.57 2.03 4.42 1.75 4.10 0.14 1.74 0.02 1,2,3,4,5 A.2.14.2.1.1Business/<10 circuits/Dispatch/FL (hours) 3.00 1.07 5.32 0.76 5.18 0.43 3.97 0.40 3.92 0.03 A.2.14.2.1.2Business/<10 circuits/Non- Dispatch/FL (hours) 3.35 0.78 2.54 0.91 1.67 0.83 1.37 0.79 1.27
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • 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 Annual Household Expenditures by Household Income...........................................................................48 Table 2.4 Average Annual
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • $0.97 $1.16 $2.58 $1.08 $1.28 $2.71 $1.15 $1.32 19810.73 1.05 1.80 2.38 1.41 1.07 2.64 1.57 1.16 2.83 1.68 1.25 2.85 1.69 1.35 2.98 1.77 1.48 3.11 1.85 1.53 19821.05 $0.65 $0.61 1.42 $0.89 $0.84 1.80 $1.12 $1.05 2.33 1.46 1.39 2.45 1.45 1.44 2.62 1.65 1.54 2.69 1.69 1.60 2.76 1.73 1.63 3.09 1.93 1.82 19831.05 0.92 0.89 1.42 1.26 1.19 1.80 1.39 1.30 2.33 1.61 1.59 2.45 1.70 1.68 2.62 1.81 1.72 2.69 1.86 1.80 2.76 1.91 1.82 3.09 2.13 1.99 19840.99 0.90 0.97 1.36 1.21 1.31 1.67 1.55 1.65 2.21 2.05 2.09 2.32 2.19 2.23 2.43 2.25 2.33 2.50 2.40 2.43 2.57 2.47 2.49 2.89 2.73 2.69 19851.18 1.10 1.12 1.55 1.44 1.32 1.80 1.71 1.45 2.08 1.98
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • 1970 0.500.500.45 0.550.550.45 1.051.051.05 1.601.101.05 2.101.60 1.55 2.551.60 1.55 3.152.051.55 4.05 2.50 2.05 4.50 2.60 2.15 January 26, 1971 0.520.410.31 0.720.520.38 1.240.950.75 1.791.101.05 2.341.60 1.46 2.651.60 1.55 3.502.051.55 3.70 2.50 2.05 4.50 2.60 2.15 January 22, 1973 0.520.410.31 0.720.520.38 1.240.950.75 1.981.101.05 2.481.60 1.46 2.791.60 1.55 3.602.051.55 4.29 2.50 2.05 4.67 2.60 2.15 March 9, 1975 0.700.450.27 1.020.660.40 1.951.260.78 2.751.781.10 3.152.04 1.26 3.352.17 1.34 3.652.371.45 3.96 2.57 1.58 4.16 2.70 1.66 February 29, 1976 0.910.590.36 1.400.910.56 2.151.390.86 2.951.911.18 3.252.11 1.30 3.452.24 1.38 3.562.311.42 3.76 2.44 1.50 3.96 2.57 1.58 September 13, 19771.000.650.40 1.310.850.52 2.241.450.89 3.041.971.21 3.342.17 1.33 3.542.30 1.41 3.562.311.42 3.76 2.44 1.50 3.96 2.57 1.58 June 6, 1980 1.010.650.40 1.410.910.56 2.351.520.94 3.152.041.26 3.542.30 1.41 3.742.43 1.49 3.772.451.50 3.97 2.58 1.58 4.17
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • 1970 0.500.500.45 0.550.550.45 1.051.051.05 1.601.101.05 2.101.60 1.55 2.551.60 1.55 3.152.051.55 4.05 2.50 2.05 4.50 2.60 2.15 January 26, 1971 0.520.410.31 0.720.520.38 1.240.950.75 1.791.101.05 2.341.60 1.46 2.651.60 1.55 3.502.051.55 3.70 2.50 2.05 4.50 2.60 2.15 January 22, 1973 0.520.410.31 0.720.520.38 1.240.950.75 1.981.101.05 2.481.60 1.46 2.791.60 1.55 3.602.051.55 4.29 2.50 2.05 4.67 2.60 2.15 March 9, 1975 0.700.450.27 1.020.660.40 1.951.260.78 2.751.781.10 3.152.04 1.26 3.352.17 1.34 3.652.371.45 3.96 2.57 1.58 4.16 2.70 1.66 February 29, 1976 0.910.590.36 1.400.910.56 2.151.390.86 2.951.911.18 3.252.11 1.30 3.452.24 1.38 3.562.311.42 3.76 2.44 1.50 3.96 2.57 1.58 September 13, 19771.000.650.40 1.310.850.52 2.241.450.89 3.041.971.21 3.342.17 1.33 3.542.30 1.41 3.562.311.42 3.76 2.44 1.50 3.96 2.57 1.58 June 6, 1980 1.010.650.40 1.410.910.56 2.351.520.94 3.152.041.26 3.542.30 1.41 3.742.43 1.49 3.772.451.50 3.97 2.58 1.58 4.17
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ror02.pdf
  • 14.30 6.94 (0.03) 9.25 5.09 31Home Telephone Company, Inc 9.63 11.77 14.97 (0.21) 6.17 0.91 32Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc 10.83 11.80 14.90 9.39 6.68 7.77 33Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company 23.60 9.37 10.77 6.80 30.67 23.49 34Lancaster Telephone Company 8.97 12.10 (1.64) 8.74 1.23 7.58 35Moultrie Independent Telephone Company (13.34) 13.35 (36.72) (27.70) 71.70 (3.17) 36Odin Telephone Exchange, Inc. 17.25 67.94 1.26 39.19 5.84 37Puerto Rico Telephone Company 9.67 8.59 54.33 16.14 (52.54) 5.54 7.98 38Rock Hill Telephone Company 10.20 12.02 5.42 13.17 0.09 9.37 39Roseville Telephone Company 15.60 12.15 17.44 28.99 19.54 22.98 40Taconic Telephone Corporation 13.65 14.15 17.52 11.31 (2,025.00) 17.47 12.00 41Telephone Utilities Exchange Carrier Assoc 14.66 11.25 34.82 14.47 42TXU Communications Telephone Company, Inc 12.12 12.77 12.94 8.07
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ror96.pdf
  • OFFICEINFORMATIONTRANSPORTTOTAL 61ILLINOIS CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE COMPANY 12.14 13.71 26.90 9.73 (1,025.00) 7.48 8.09 62KERMAN TELEPHONE COMPANY 12.57 12.13 (1.66) 15.89 10.34 15.32 63LINCOLN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 11.51 12.19 9.86 12.25 10.19 11.26 64LUFKIN-CONROE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE 1/ 11.89 11.26 11.98 12.48 (17.54) 14.52 13.18 65MOULTRIE INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE COMPANY 7.16 11.98 4.58 4.06 4.48 66PLAINS COOPERATIVE TELEPHONE ASSN. 7.49 12.21 (4.74) 11.83 (1.26) 4.98 67ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION 10.72 11.20 6.90 12.70 (220.83) 11.06 12.00 68ROCHESTER TELEPHONE SUBSIDIARIES 11.56 11.19 13.04 12.05 11.99 12.07 69ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY 10.95 12.10 5.93 20.90 (1,082.36) (4.46) 9.48 70SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY 12.02 11.73 12.52 12.29 (19.43) 12.51 12.14 71STRASBURG TELEPHONE COMPANY 11.57 12.21 52.97 9.75 21.70 10.53 72TELEPHONE UTILITIES EXCHANGE CARRIER ASSOC. 13.13 12.16 18.48 13.87
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-96.pdf
  • 1.91 TENNESSEE 11,659 0.31 8,471 0.22 3,189 0.08 TEXAS 19,429 0.14 24,144 0.18 (4,715) (0.03) UTAH 4,547 0.37 3,132 0.26 1,415 0.12 VERMONT 4,880 1.07 1,350 0.30 3,530 0.77 VIRGINIA 5,419 0.11 13,066 0.26 (7,646) (0.15) WASHINGTON 7,570 0.19 9,406 0.24 (1,836) (0.05) WEST VIRGINIA 3,245 0.29 2,605 0.23 641 0.06 WISCONSIN 25,433 0.67 6,800 0.18 18,633 0.49 WYOMING 4,134 1.26 1,106 0.34 3,028 0.93 UNITED STATES 426,963 0.22 426,350 0.22 613 0.00 GUAM 0 0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N. MARIANA ISL. 1,295 5.73 22 0.10 1,274 5.63 PUERTO RICO 0 0.00 1,650 0.12 (1,650) (0.12) VIRGIN ISLANDS 0 0.00 237 0.34 (237) (0.34) GRAND TOTAL $428,258 $0.21 $428,258 $0.21 $0 $0.00 17 Table 7 Comparison of Funding Mechanisms (Thousands
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-97.pdf
  • KENTUCKY 25,555 26,778 (1,224) 1.03 1.08 (0.05) LOUISIANA 67,156 29,098 38,058 2.30 1.00 1.30 MAINE 22,370 9,648 12,722 2.31 0.99 1.31 MARYLAND 910 47,296 (46,386) 0.02 1.13 (1.11) MASSACHUSETTS 12,015 59,637 (47,621) 0.22 1.11 (0.89) MICHIGAN 41,458 59,843 (18,385) 0.55 0.80 (0.24) MINNESOTA 41,770 37,072 4,698 1.21 1.07 0.14 MISSISSIPPI 28,343 17,587 10,756 1.79 1.11 0.68 MISSOURI 50,202 40,337 9,864 1.26 1.01 0.25 MONTANA 43,780 7,994 35,786 7.18 1.31 5.87 NEBRASKA 20,831 13,319 7,513 1.74 1.11 0.63 NEVADA 9,134 20,711 (11,577) 0.63 1.43 (0.80) NEW HAMPSHIRE 9,067 14,531 (5,463) 0.92 1.48 (0.56) NEW JERSEY 3,408 94,549 (91,141) 0.05 1.27 (1.22) NEW MEXICO 37,035 14,865 22,170 3.42 1.37 2.05 NEW YORK 96,991 156,709 (59,718) 0.64 1.03 (0.39) NORTH CAROLINA 42,608 60,579 (17,971)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-99.pdf
  • 0.69 Tennessee 10,393 0.25 9,185 0.22 1,208 0.03 Texas 29,651 0.19 29,965 0.19 -314 0.00 Utah 1,488 0.11 3,671 0.26 -2,183 -0.15 Vermont 2,389 0.48 1,344 0.27 1,045 0.21 Virginia 3,342 0.06 14,268 0.25 -10,926 -0.19 Washington 13,268 0.29 10,674 0.24 2,594 0.06 West Virginia 1,061 0.09 2,690 0.22 -1,628 -0.13 Wisconsin 12,832 0.31 7,786 0.19 5,046 0.12 Wyoming 4,501 1.26 1,115 0.31 3,386 0.95 United States 378,101 0.17 475,899 0.22 -97,798 -0.04 Guam 1,946 2.09 144 0.15 1,803 1.94 N. Mariana Islands 0 0.00 54 0.18 -54 -0.18 Puerto Rico 91,622 5.90 2,760 0.18 88,861 5.72 Virgin Islands 7,206 8.93 277 0.34 6,929 8.59 Grand Total 1/ $479,134 $0.22 $479,134 $0.22 $0 $0.00 2/ Net flow of funds is positive
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend100.pdf
  • 2 North American Telephone 58 17.5 3.31 2 Minimum Rate Pricing 344 112.0 3.07 4 RSL COM USA, Inc. 444 183.6 2.42 1 Quest Communications 34 17.5 1.94 2 Equal Net Corporation 31 17.5 1.77 2 Flat Rate Long Distance 65 37.5 1.73 2 Consumer Access 29 17.5 1.66 2 QAI, Inc. 56 37.5 1.49 2 I-Link Communication 22 17.5 1.26 2 Long Distance International, Inc. 38 37.5 1.01 2 Frontier Communications Services 346 538.8 0.64 1 Matrix Telecom 20 37.5 0.53 2 Qwest Communications 648 1,664.2 0.39 1 Lifeline 30 81.0 0.37 2 US Long Distance, Inc. 95 279.1 0.34 1 Excel Communications 336 1,218.7 0.28 1 Tel-Save, Inc. 107 425.9 0.25 1 GTE Communications 138 606.7 0.23 1 NOS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend200.pdf
  • 1.54 1950 0.19 0.22 24.1 1.33 1.52 1951 0.20 0.22 26.0 1.29 1.41 1952 0.20 0.22 26.5 1.27 1.38 1953 0.21 0.22 26.7 1.30 1.37 1954 0.22 0.22 26.9 1.38 1.36 1955 0.23 0.22 26.8 1.43 1.37 1956 0.23 0.22 27.2 1.43 1.35 1957 0.24 0.22 28.1 1.41 1.30 1958 0.24 0.22 28.9 1.38 1.27 1959 0.24 0.22 29.1 1.38 1.26 1960 0.24 0.22 29.6 1.36 1.24 1961 0.25 0.22 29.9 1.39 1.23 1962 0.25 0.22 30.2 1.40 1.21 1963 0.25 0.22 30.6 1.35 1.20 1964 0.25 0.22 31.0 1.34 1.18 1965 0.24 0.22 31.5 1.27 1.16 1966 0.24 0.22 32.4 1.25 1.13 1967 0.24 0.22 33.4 1.21 1.10 1968 0.24 0.22 34.8 1.13 1.05 1969 0.24 0.22 36.7 1.09 1.00
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend298.pdf
  • per Line per Sensitive Sensitive Total Company Originating Terminating per per Charge per Access Access Access Access Conversation CCL CCL Local Minute Minute Minute Minute ** Minute *** Originating Terminating Switching Ameritech 0.47¢ 0.00¢ 0.77¢ 0.31¢ 2.71¢ 18,700 32,377 50,941 Bell Atlantic 0.80 0.00 0.62 0.17 2.48 23,041 46,847 70,045 BellSouth 1.41 0.03 0.80 0.27 3.74 27,870 45,484 73,846 NYNEX 1.26 0.00 1.44 0.26 4.85 18,536 36,892 56,308 Pacific Telesis 0.03 0.00 0.72 0.36 2.24 12,977 26,034 39,054 SBC 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.29 2.57 15,773 25,814 42,030 U S WEST 0.56 0.00 1.02 0.65 4.01 21,351 34,436 55,908 GTE 2.00 1.15 0.92 0.19 5.57 18,388 29,819 48,834 Aliant 0.06 0.00 1.52 0.32 3.85 258 426 688 Frontier 1.19 0.26 1.29 0.36
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend299.pdf
  • 2.48 2.95 1939 22 26 13.9 2.53 2.99 1940 21 26 14.0 2.45 2.97 1941 21 26 14.7 2.30 2.83 1942 22 26 16.3 2.16 2.55 1943 21 22 17.3 1.98 2.07 1944 22 22 17.6 1.99 2.04 1945 21 22 18.0 1.92 1.99 1946 20 22 19.5 1.65 1.84 1947 19 22 22.3 1.40 1.61 1948 19 22 24.1 1.26 1.49 1949 19 22 23.8 1.29 1.51 1950 19 22 24.1 1.31 1.49 1951 20 22 26.0 1.26 1.38 1952 20 22 26.5 1.24 1.35 1953 21 22 26.7 1.27 1.34 1954 22 22 26.9 1.35 1.33 1955 23 22 26.8 1.40 1.34 1956 23 22 27.2 1.40 1.32 1957 24 22 28.1 1.38 1.28 1958 24 22 28.9 1.35
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
  • 429 704 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.16 1.61 16,077 29,870 46,146 SBC 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.24 1.35 57,523 62,245 118,294 Sprint 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.14 1.54 4,656 17,943 21,559 Valor 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.38 2.34 306 994 1,301 Verizon 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.20 1.32 36,547 102,421 139,757 Price-cap Carriers 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.22 1.41 139,121 283,585 401,476 NECA 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.71 4.03 * * 18,994 All Price-cap Carriers and NECA 0.00¢ 0.00¢ 0.50¢ 0.25¢ 1.53¢ * * 420,470 * NECA no longer files information regarding originating and terminating Carrier Common Line (CCL) charges 5 Data reflect only those company study areas subject to price-cap regulation. Source: Access tariff filings. 4 The total charge per conversation minute consists of charges on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
  • 1.54 1950 0.19 0.22 24.1 1.33 1.52 1951 0.20 0.22 26.0 1.29 1.41 1952 0.20 0.22 26.5 1.27 1.38 1953 0.21 0.22 26.7 1.30 1.37 1954 0.22 0.22 26.9 1.38 1.36 1955 0.23 0.22 26.8 1.43 1.37 1956 0.23 0.22 27.2 1.43 1.35 1957 0.24 0.22 28.1 1.41 1.30 1958 0.24 0.22 28.9 1.38 1.27 1959 0.24 0.22 29.1 1.38 1.26 1960 0.24 0.22 29.6 1.36 1.24 1961 0.25 0.22 29.9 1.39 1.23 1962 0.25 0.22 30.2 1.40 1.21 1963 0.25 0.22 30.6 1.35 1.20 1964 0.25 0.22 31.0 1.34 1.18 1965 0.24 0.22 31.5 1.27 1.16 1966 0.24 0.22 32.4 1.25 1.13 1967 0.24 0.22 33.4 1.21 1.10 1968 0.24 0.22 34.8 1.13 1.05 1969 0.24 0.22 36.7 1.09 1.00
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd00.pdf
  • 0.94 0.86 Turkey 1.10 1.17 1.21 1.23 1.32 1.25 1.20 1.04 1.06 0.91 0.55 United Kingdom 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.87 0.79 0.73 0.57 0.49 0.42 0.41 Viet Nam 2.29 2.27 1.83 1.71 1.35 1.27 1.13 0.85 Average for Countries Shown Above0.99 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.86 0.83 0.69 0.62 0.55 0.48 Average for Other Countries 1.20 1.05 1.22 1.23 1.26 1.14 1.14 0.98 0.90 0.75 0.63 Average for All Countries 1.02 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.89 0.74 0.67 0.59 0.51 Average for Canada, Mexico, 0.80 0.74 0.73 0.70 0.71 0.64 0.60 0.51 0.47 0.43 0.39 Germany, and UK Average for Other Countries 1.25 1.29 1.28 1.29 1.24 1.11 1.07 0.86 0.77 0.67 0.58 Shown Above See notes at the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd01.pdf
  • 1.25 1.20 1.04 1.06 0.91 0.55 0.50 0.26 0.21 -79.9 United Kingdom 0.91 0.87 0.79 0.73 0.57 0.49 0.42 0.41 0.43 0.36 0.19 -60.3 Viet Nam 2.29 2.27 1.83 1.71 1.35 1.27 1.13 0.85 0.90 0.87 0.51 -59.8 Average for Countries Shown Above 0.96 0.95 0.86 0.83 0.69 0.62 0.55 0.48 0.45 0.31 0.26 -58.8% Average for Other Countries 1.23 1.26 1.14 1.14 0.98 0.90 0.75 0.63 0.57 0.39 0.29 -67.5 Average for All Countries 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.89 0.74 0.67 0.59 0.51 0.47 0.33 0.26 -60.8 Canada, India Mexico, Philippines 0.72 0.73 0.67 0.64 0.55 0.52 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.29 0.25 and UK as Percent of Total Average for Other Countries 1.23 1.19 1.07 1.03 0.82 0.72 0.62 0.54 0.48
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-1.pdf
  • intrastate access minutes. Column 3 shows each state's percentage of intrastate access revenues.33 The allocation percentages for non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues, presented in Column 4, are (75% * Column 2) + (25% * Column 3). Intrastate toll revenues by type presented in Columns 5 and 6 are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. In Table 1.26, interstate toll revenues are allocated on a per state basis by interstate access minutes. Interstate access minutes are from Table 8.6. The allocation percentages are each state's percentage of interstate access minutes. Interstate toll revenues by type presented are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. (See Table 1.14.) 30 ILECs' toll revenues are assumed to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-2.pdf
  • 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.94 Kansas 0.86 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.90 Kentucky 2.40 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 2.49 Louisiana 0.71 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.73 Maine 10.32 0.05 0.67 0.00 0.02 11.06 Maryland 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 Massachusetts 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.99 Michigan 1.84 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.94 Minnesota 1.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26 Mississippi 1.66 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.67 Missouri 0.82 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.87 Montana 2.55 0.48 0.02 0.03 0.06 3.14 Nebraska 1.65 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.04 1.75 Nevada 2.47 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.01 2.57 New Hampshire 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.75 New Jersey 0.67 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.68 New Mexico 4.72 0.47 0.02 0.03 0.09 5.33 New
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • 1.50 4.95 220348 C BULLOCH CNTY. RURAL TEL. COOP., INC. 11.88 7.03 4.53 13.59 220351 C CAMDEN TEL. & TEL. CO., INC.-GA -4.34 1.98 -6.20 0.00 220354 C CHICKAMAUGA TEL. CORP. -8.71 1.71 -10.24 -97.40 220355 C CITIZENS TEL. CO., INC.-GA -0.51 0.00 -0.50 -7.30 220356 C COASTAL UTILITIES, INC. 15.61 3.46 11.75 60.80 220357 C ALLTEL GEORGIA, INC. -0.36 1.26 -1.60 -12.96 220358 C DARIEN TEL. CO., INC. 12.12 3.64 8.19 18.77 220360 C ELLIJAY TEL. CO. 8.04 1.91 6.02 10.38 220362 C FRONTIER COMM. OF FAIRMOUNT, INC. 4.88 5.17 -0.27 1.79 220364 A GEORGIA TEL. CORP. 14.05 0.70 13.26 INFINITE 3 - 183 Table 3.32 High-Cost Loop Support Percentage Changes from 2000 to 2001 by Study Area Unseparated High
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-intro.pdf
  • Projections - Total by Study Area ........................Table 3.30 High-Cost Support Mechanisms ­ Payments per Loop by State ....................... Table 3.16 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll Revenues ...................................... Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ............................... Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ......................... Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 Interstate Access Support Payment Projections by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-1.pdf
  • intrastate access minutes. Column 3 shows each state's percentage of intrastate access revenues.34 The allocation percentages for non-LECs' intrastate toll revenues, presented in Column 4, are (75% * Column 2) + (25% * Column 3). Intrastate toll revenues by type presented in Columns 5 and 6 are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. In Table 1.26, interstate toll revenues are allocated on a per state basis by interstate access minutes. Interstate access minutes are from Table 8.4. The allocation percentages are each state's percentage of interstate access minutes. Interstate toll revenues by type presented are determined by multiplying the allocation percentage by the type of revenues. (see Table 1.14). 31 ILECs' toll revenues are assumed to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
  • TEL. CO 9.58 -0.13 9.72 39.54 361404 A HARMONY TEL. CO. 8.59 2.22 6.23 16.61 361405 A HILLS TEL. CO., INC.-MN -0.49 -0.91 0.42 -7.07 361408 A HOME TEL. CO.-MN 8.46 -1.00 9.56 33.74 361409 A HUTCHINSON TELEPHONE COMPANY 2.38 -0.60 3.00 0.00 361410 C JOHNSON TELEPHONE COMPANY -5.47 2.26 -7.56 -11.12 361412 A KASSON & MANTORVILLE TEL. CO. 11.98 1.26 10.58 654.04 361413 A MID STATE TEL. CO. DBA KMP TEL. CO. 5.68 -2.86 8.80 23.48 361414 C LAKEDALE TELEPHONE COMPANY 0.59 1.27 -0.67 0.00 361419 A LISMORE COOPERATIVE TELEPHONE CO. -1.27 -5.22 4.17 -1.31 361422 A LONSDALE TELEPHONE COMPANY 12.28 1.82 10.28 INFINITE 361423 A LOWRY TELEPHONE COMPANY, LLC 8.68 -1.32 10.13 44.99 361424 A MABEL COOPERATIVE TELEPHONE CO.-
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-9.pdf
  • 475.7 513.0 5,044.0 812.0 289.1 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 338.4 488.3 70.7 0.0 583.7 236.1 7,311.7 516.7 1,696.0 For Scheduled Downtime More Than 2 Minutes Number of Occurrences or Events 0 18 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 Events per Hundred Switches 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Events per Million Access Lines 0.00 1.26 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.12 Average Outage Duration in Minutes NA 5.1 6.5 NA 4.7 0.0 11.3 0.0 5.5 Avg. Lines Affected per Event in Thousands NA 8.7 4.7 NA 82.3 0.0 14.7 0.0 7.2 Outage Line-Minutes per Event in Thousands NA 33.8 30.0 NA 386.9 0.0 100.3 0.0 39.3 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 0.0 42.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-intro.pdf
  • Payment Projections - Total by Study Area ........................Table 3.29 High-Cost Support Mechanisms ­ Monthly Support per Loop by State .............. Table 3.15 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll ...................................................Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll ............................................ Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll ......................................Table 1.25 Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1 3 Index of Tables and Charts Interstate Access Support
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-7.pdf
  • per Line per Sensitive Sensitive Total Company Originating Terminating per per Charge per Access Access Access Access Conversation CCL CCL Local Minute Minute Minute Minute ** Minute *** Originating Terminating Switching Ameritech 0.47¢ 0.00¢ 0.77¢ 0.31¢ 2.71¢ 18,700 32,377 50,941 Bell Atlantic 0.80 0.00 0.62 0.17 2.48 23,041 46,847 70,045 BellSouth 1.41 0.03 0.80 0.27 3.74 27,870 45,484 73,846 NYNEX 1.26 0.00 1.44 0.26 4.85 18,536 36,892 56,308 Pacific Telesis 0.03 0.00 0.72 0.36 2.24 12,977 26,034 39,054 SBC 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.29 2.57 15,773 25,814 42,030 U S WEST 0.56 0.00 1.02 0.65 4.01 21,351 34,436 55,908 GTE 2.00 1.15 0.92 0.19 5.57 18,388 29,819 48,834 Aliant 0.06 0.00 1.52 0.32 3.85 258 426 688 Frontier 1.19 0.26 1.29 0.36
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-7.pdf
  • 2.48 2.95 1939 22 26 13.9 2.53 2.99 1940 21 26 14.0 2.45 2.97 1941 21 26 14.7 2.30 2.83 1942 22 26 16.3 2.16 2.55 1943 21 22 17.3 1.98 2.07 1944 22 22 17.6 1.99 2.04 1945 21 22 18.0 1.92 1.99 1946 20 22 19.5 1.65 1.84 1947 19 22 22.3 1.40 1.61 1948 19 22 24.1 1.26 1.49 1949 19 22 23.8 1.29 1.51 1950 19 22 24.1 1.31 1.49 1951 20 22 26.0 1.26 1.38 1952 20 22 26.5 1.24 1.35 1953 21 22 26.7 1.27 1.34 1954 22 22 26.9 1.35 1.33 1955 23 22 26.8 1.40 1.34 1956 23 22 27.2 1.40 1.32 1957 24 22 28.1 1.38 1.28 1958 24 22 28.9 1.35
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs01-0.pdf
  • 0.91 -63,309 -0.62 Puerto Rico 143,591 9.24 12,891 0.83 130,701 8.41 Rhode Island 25 0.00 9,839 1.21 -9,814 -1.21 South Carolina 50,342 1.80 32,039 1.15 18,303 0.65 South Dakota 20,953 4.07 6,826 1.32 14,128 2.74 Tennessee 34,352 0.83 42,893 1.04 -8,541 -0.21 Texas 136,446 0.86 139,931 0.89 -3,485 -0.02 Utah 12,347 0.87 17,143 1.21 -4,795 -0.34 Vermont 25,913 5.19 6,274 1.26 19,638 3.93 Virgin Islands 24,153 29.94 1,295 1.60 22,858 28.33 Virginia 37,126 0.65 66,631 1.17 -29,505 -0.52 Washington 51,259 1.14 49,844 1.11 1,414 0.03 West Virginia 63,061 5.18 12,561 1.03 50,500 4.15 Wisconsin 53,860 1.29 36,359 0.87 17,501 0.42 Wyoming 30,386 8.52 5,208 1.46 25,178 7.06 Industry Total $2,236,901 $1.01 $2,236,901 $1.01 $0 $0.00 * Net revenues are positive when
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • - Total by Study Area ....................... Table 3.31 High-Cost Support Mechanisms ­ Net Dollar Flow by State ......................... Table 3.19 Income - Net ........................................................................................................... Table 11.5 Information for Allocating CLEC Revenues .............................................. Table 1.19 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues .....................Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Interstate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.22 Information for Allocating Interstate Toll Revenues ...................................... Table 1.26 Information for Allocating Intrastate Access Revenues .................................. Table 1.23 Information for Allocating LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ............................... Table 1.24 Information for Allocating Mobile Wireless Revenues .................................. Table 1.20 Information for Allocating Non-LEC Intrastate Toll Revenues ......................... Table 1.25 3 Index of Tables and Charts Information for Allocating SLC Revenues ................................................. Table 1.21 Installation, Maintenance, and Customer Complaints ............................................ Table 9.1
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/QualSvc/qual03.pdf
  • 475.7 513.0 5,044.0 812.0 289.1 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 338.4 488.3 70.7 0.0 583.7 236.1 7,198.0 498.3 1,696.0 For Scheduled Downtime More than 2 Minutes Number of Occurrences or Events 0 18 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 Events per Hundred Switches 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Events per Million Access Lines 0.00 1.26 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.12 Average Outage Duration in Minutes NA 5.1 6.5 NA 4.7 NA 11.3 NA 5.5 Avg. Lines Affected per Event in Thousands NA 8.7 4.7 NA 82.3 NA 14.7 NA 7.2 Outage Line-Minutes per Event in Thousands NA 33.8 30.0 NA 386.9 NA 100.3 NA 39.3 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 0.0 42.6
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • 264.1 200.8 63.2 45.0 18.2 1.58 0.56 0.73 2.87 15.4IN Iowa 66.4 27.2 39.3 28.8 10.4 5.17 1.29 (0.68) 5.78 4.6IA Kansas 179.4 117.0 62.3 56.7 5.6 (0.47) 0.02 (0.00) (0.46) 6.1KS Kentucky 122.9 82.3 40.6 30.1 10.5 0.79 (0.35) 0.64 1.08 9.5KY Louisiana 146.6 65.1 81.4 71.0 10.4 1.75 (0.48) 0.77 2.05 8.3LA Maine 28.4 15.0 13.4 4.9 8.5 1.26 0.25 0.63 2.14 6.4ME Maryland 269.5 133.0 136.6 73.0 63.5 9.45 26.62 8.54 44.61 18.9MD Massachusetts 268.2 124.9 143.3 66.1 77.2 12.99 7.57 24.06 44.62 32.6MA Michigan 304.2 217.7 86.5 66.0 20.5 0.24 0.47 0.28 0.99 19.5MI Minnesota 129.6 69.9 59.7 45.0 14.7 3.96 1.02 0.21 5.19 9.6MN Mississippi 158.1 28.8 129.3 122.5 6.9 0.49 (0.18) 0.27 0.57 6.3MS Missouri
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/01socc.pdf
  • 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 0.46 0.46 El Salvador 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.38 France 10/ 1.71 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.19 Germany 1.71 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.19 Greece 2.32 2.19 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 0.25 0.26 0.25 Guatemala 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.51 0.38 0.38 Haiti 1.45 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.92 0.70 0.70 Hong Kong 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 India 2.25 2.25 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.42 1.28
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/02socc.pdf
  • 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 0.46 0.46 0.46 El Salvador 9/ 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.38 France 9/ 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Germany 9/ 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Greece 9/ 2.19 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.27 Guatemala 9/ 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.38 Haiti 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.92 0.70 0.60 0.46 Hong Kong 9/ 1.90 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 India 2.25 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/03socc.pdf
  • 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.55 0.38 Dominican Republic 1.36 1.29 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.38 0.38 Egypt 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 El Salvador 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 France 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 Germany 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 Greece 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 Guatemala 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.51 Haiti 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.92 0.70 0.60 0.46 Hong Kong 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 India 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.42 1.28 1.08 0.85 0.68 0.46 0.46 Israel 2.28 2.16 2.16 1.90 1.18 0.70 0.59 Italy 1.65 1.51
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • FOR LONG DISTANCE MESSAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE UNITED STATES-OVERSEAS COUNTRY CLASSES OF SERVICE INITIAL MINUTE EACH ADDITIONAL MINUTE ALL DAYS STANDARD DISCOUNT ECONOMY STANDARD DISCOUNT ECONOMY 8AM-6PM 6PM-MIDN MIDN-8AM 8AM-6PM 6PM-MIDN MIDN-8AM ARGENTINA INTERNATIONAL DIAL $2.22 $1.47 $1.22 $1.97 $1.30 $1.09 ALL OTHER* 3.60 2.75 2.24 1.97 1.30 1.14 2PM-8PM 8PM-3AM 3AM-2PM 2PM-8PM 8PM-3AM 3AM-2PM AUSTRALIA (INCLUDING TASMANIA) INTERNATIONAL DIAL 1.93 1.26 1.10 1.71 1.12 0.99 ALL OTHER* 3.19 2.57 1.79 1.48 1.29 1.19 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM 6PM-7AM 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM 6PM-7AM AUSTRIA INTERNATIONAL DIAL 1.59 1.18 1.07 1.44 1.07 0.98 ALL OTHER* 2.08 1.54 1.32 1.46 1.09 0.99 8AM-5PM 5PM-11PM 11PM-8AM 8AM-5PM 5PM-11PM 11PM-8AM BAHAMAS INTERNATIONAL DIAL 1.28 0.92 0.84 1.14 0.84 0.76 ALL OTHER* 1.30 1.09 0.99 1.19 1.05 0.99 7AM-1PM 1PM-6PM
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 1.98 0.64 1.22 1978 2.06 3.96 1.34 2.57 0.82 1.58 1.86 3.56 1.21 2.31 0.74 1.42 1.59 3.04 1.03 1.98 0.64 1.22 1979 2.06 3.96 1.34 2.57 0.82 1.58 1.86 3.56 1.21 2.31 0.74 1.42 1.59 3.04 1.03 1.98 0.64 1.22 1980 15/ 2.17 4.17 1.41 2.71 0.87 1.67 1.97 3.77 1.28 2.45 0.79 1.51 1.65 3.15 1.07 2.05 0.66 1.26 1981 16/ 2.50 4.80 1.63 3.12 1.00 1.92 2.29 4.39 1.49 2.85 0.92 1.76 1.92 3.67 1.25 2.39 0.77 1.47 1982 17/ 2.70 5.15 1.62 3.09 1.08 2.06 2.34 4.49 1.40 2.69 0.94 1.80 2.05 3.90 1.23 2.34 0.82 1.56 1983 2.70 5.15 1.62 3.09 1.08 2.06 2.34 4.49 1.40 2.69 0.94 1.80 2.05 3.90 1.23 2.34 0.82 1.56 1984
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • 0.72 FL GEORGIA 95.8 0.001 95.8 92.6 3.20 3.20 GA HAWAII 24.3 0.131 24.1 24.1 HI IDAHO 46.0 0.992 45.0 42.4 2.68 2.68 ID ILLINOIS 276.0 15.449 260.5 223.7 36.85 36.85 IL INDIANA 207.9 5.958 201.9 183.3 18.61 18.61 IN IOWA 98.6 0.627 97.9 94.5 3.43 3.43 IA KANSAS 112.6 112.6 107.5 5.12 5.12 KS KENTUCKY 82.1 4.021 78.1 76.8 1.26 1.26 KY LOUISIANA 53.7 53.7 53.1 0.60 0.60 LA MAINE 118.4 118.4 118.4 (0.04) (0.04)ME MARYLAND 97.9 97.9 79.1 18.86 2.2 4.1 6.3 12.52 MD MASSACHUSETTS 374.9 374.9 374.9 (0.04) (0.04)MA MICHIGAN 799.4 0.069 799.3 798.2 1.12 1.12 MI MINNESOTA 52.7 0.386 52.3 51.0 1.26 1.26 MN MISSISSIPPI 87.0 87.0 86.5 0.50 0.50 MS MISSOURI 239.3 1.309 238.0 213.9 24.12
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • 1.98 0.64 1.22 1978 2.06 3.96 1.34 2.57 0.82 1.58 1.86 3.56 1.21 2.31 0.74 1.42 1.59 3.04 1.03 1.98 0.64 1.22 1979 2.06 3.96 1.34 2.57 0.82 1.58 1.86 3.56 1.21 2.31 0.74 1.42 1.59 3.04 1.03 1.98 0.64 1.22 1980 15/ 2.17 4.17 1.41 2.71 0.87 1.67 1.97 3.77 1.28 2.45 0.79 1.51 1.65 3.15 1.07 2.05 0.66 1.26 1981 16/ 2.50 4.80 1.63 3.12 1.00 1.92 2.29 4.39 1.49 2.85 0.92 1.76 1.92 3.67 1.25 2.39 0.77 1.47 1982 17/ 2.70 5.15 1.62 3.09 1.08 2.06 2.34 4.49 1.40 2.69 0.94 1.80 2.05 3.90 1.23 2.34 0.82 1.56 1983 2.70 5.15 1.62 3.09 1.08 2.06 2.34 4.49 1.40 2.69 0.94 1.80 2.05 3.90 1.23 2.34 0.82 1.56 1984
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
  • 6.6 0.76 0.76 0.36 1.88 4.7DE District of Columbia 202.4 56.7 145.7 90.4 55.3 11.36 12.65 23.80 47.81 7.5DC Florida 965.8 600.9 364.9 291.5 73.4 6.58 (0.91) 2.41 8.08 65.3 FL Georgia 280.4 171.9 108.5 83.0 25.5 3.17 0.58 0.59 4.34 21.2GA Hawaii 137.2 86.0 51.3 44.8 6.5 0.70 (1.06) 0.46 0.09 6.4 HI Idaho 25.3 21.5 3.8 1.7 2.2 (1.26) (0.69) (0.41) (2.36) 4.5 ID Illinois 483.7 333.9 149.8 116.6 33.1 1.23 0.54 0.59 2.36 30.8 IL Indiana 273.5 195.8 77.8 59.1 18.7 2.02 (0.37) 0.81 2.45 16.2 IN Iowa 48.7 41.0 7.7 5.1 2.6 (1.59) (0.75) (0.95) (3.29) 5.9 IA Kansas 174.9 75.3 99.6 94.9 4.8 (0.74) (0.03) (0.00) (0.78) 5.5KS Kentucky 135.1 73.8 61.3 49.3 12.0 1.17 0.39
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/prelim02socc.pdf
  • 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 0.46 0.46 0.46 El Salvador 10/ 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.38 France 10/ 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Germany 10/ 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 Greece 10/ 2.19 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.27 Guatemala 10/ 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.38 Haiti 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.92 0.70 0.60 0.46 Hong Kong 10/ 1.90 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 India 2.25 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/scard97.pdf
  • forms 10K and/or 10Q. (9) Dun & Bradstreet report. (10) The complaint and revenue to- tals for Billing Information Con- cepts, Inc. (BIC) includes revenue data and complaints served data for the following BIC subsidiaries: En- hanced Services Billing, Inc.; Bill- ing Information Concepts, Inc. dba Zero Plus Dialing; and Billing In- formation Concepts, Inc. dba US Billing. Quest Communications 1.26 137 109 (3) Sprint Communications Company, L. P. 0.16 1,250 7,944 (6) TELCAM 8.22 83 10 (9) Telco Communications Group 0.59 251 429 (6) Telephone Billing Service 392 (7) Texas Amtel 1.04 113 109 (3) The Furst Group 3.56 388 109 (3) Trans National Telephone 2.29 250 109 (3) USLD Communications 1.04 196 188 (6) US Teleconnect 2.22 242 109
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992194.doc
  • the target licensee, filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a decision by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Office of Operations (Office of Operations) awarding a request for a finder's preference to Laura Lee Fairbanks (Fairbanks). The Bureau's Office of Operations awarded a preference after Fairbanks demonstrated that station WNXU277 was not constructed at the authorized coordinates but at a location approximately 1.26 miles away. For the reasons that follow, we find that the error in location was minor and that station WNXU277 was constructed in substantial accordance with its authorization. Accordingly, the Petition for Reconsideration is granted, the finder's preference award to Fairbanks is set aside, and the license for Station WNXU277 is reinstated. Background On June 15, 1994, Fairbanks filed a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • October November December January Notes Number Full Name VZ CLE C VZ CLE C VZ CLE C VZ CLE C VZ CLE C PR-8-02-2100 Open Orders in a Hold Status > 90 Days 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 POTS ­ Business PR-2 ­ Average Completed Interval PR-2-01-2110 Average Interval Completed ­ Total No Dispatch 0.65 1.26 0.57 0.86 PR-2-03-2110 Average Interval Completed ­ Dispatch (1-5 Lines) 3.66 4.57 3.62 3.95 POTS ­ Residence PR-2 ­ Average Completed Interval PR-2-01-2120 Average Interval Completed ­ Total No Dispatch 0.49 1.27 0.37 1.22 PR-2-03-2120 Average Interval Completed ­ Dispatch (1-5 Lines) 3.72 4.38 3.49 4.31 POTS & Complex Aggregate PR-2 ­ Average Completed Interval PR-2-18-2103 Average Interval Completed ­
• http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/Statements/2001/CETVReport97-99.doc
  • 5.25 5.107 0.67 0.54 0.510 0.21 WB 10 63 .052 0.84 4.34 1.423 0.35 0.55 0.287 0.16 PAX 10 65 .054 0.85 3.39 0.381 0.18 1.06 3.908 0.58 UNI/TEL 10 38 .032 0.74 3.39 0.659 0.22 2.26 5.526 0.64 Religious 10 41 .034 0.76 5.98 2.762 0.46 8.07 23.033 1.32 Independent 10 196 .163 0.95 6.79 33.372 1.78 2.11 16.744 1.26 total 130 1204 1.000 n(j) = the number of observations in the sample for group j n = the number of observations in the sample, 130 N(j) = the number of observations in the population for group j N = the number of observations in the population, 1204 p(j) = the proportion of the population comprising group j, e.g., N(j)/N
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4389A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4389A1.pdf
  • this amounts to 1.11 percent of the population and 2.16 percent of the area covered by the proposed station. Reply, Exhibit 1 at 3. Specifically, HFC concedes that there is an overlap of 0.92 square kilometers, with a maximum width of 0.27 kilometers (886 feet). Opposition , Exhibit 1 at 3. HFC states that the proposed station's contour would overlap 1.26 percent of the total area within the existing WLOF(FM) contour. Id. HFC is silent about the size of the overlap in terms of population and percentage of the proposed new station's contour. Id. See Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 2 FCC Rcd 7374 (1987); KSOO-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 43 FCC Rcd 879, 880 (1973); WNNE Licensee, Inc., Memorandum Opinion
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-2A1.pdf
  • 1.70 2.40 2.60 11 - 20 1.60 1.40 1.70 21 - 30 1.10 2.00 2.10 31 - 40 1.20 1.40 1.50 41 - 50 1.20 1.80 1.80 51 - 60 1.40 2.00 2.40 61 - 70 1.40 1.50 1.40 71 - 80 0.50 0.80 2.10 81 - 90 1.70 2.70 1.90 91 - 100 0.80 1.10 1.40 1 - 100 1.26 1.71 1.89 101 - 110 1.60 2.10 2.20 111 - 120 1.40 1.50 1.50 121 - 130 0.70 0.90 0.80 131 - 140 1.20 1.80 2.10 141 - 150 1.00 1.00 1.00 151 - 160 1.40 1.50 1.70 161 - 170 1.10 1.50 1.30 171 - 180 0.80 1.10 0.90 181 - 190 0.70 0.90 1.50 191 - 200 0.90
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/circuit.pdf
  • 20% -17% 28 27 19 9Russia 1,266 533 22 1,821 451 2.38 3.53 6.16 20% 79% 35% -18% 29 29 30 6Argentina 773 1,012 1 1,786 626 0.76 1.34 3.59 11% 95% 47% 1% 30 30 n.a. 10Maritime - Atlantic 0 1,137 630 1,767 0 0.00 0.00 n.a. 0% 0% 55% 0% Top 30 international Points Circuits156,147175,379 7,005338,531 85,912 0.89 1.26 4.37 27% 79% 50% 27% Total for all International Points 182,357185,972 9,754378,083 96,448 0.98 1.41 4.69 25% 79% 48% 26% Top 30 as % of All Intern'l Points 85.6% 94.3% 71.8% 89.5% 89.1% Regional Total 1Western Europe 39,357 46,313 1,301 86,971 49,562 0.85 0.93 2.21 28% 40% 34% 49% 2Africa 2,635 743 90 3,468 292 3.55 5.82 9.63 8% 77%
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/csreport.pdf
  • 2 4,992 2,574 1.70 2.17 3.43 5.05 6 18 16 16 16Venezuela 1,913 2,412 0 4,325 1,700 0.79 1.31 1.49 2.14 1 19 n.a. n.a. n.a.Denmark 1,267 234 2,520 4,021 542 0.46 2.89 5.82 7.00 6 20 23 29 29Argentina 779 3,150 30 3,959 1,128 0.24 0.46 0.76 1.34 6 21 28 27 23Colombia 1,391 2,273 24 3,688 1,313 0.61 1.26 1.54 3.11 7 22 15 17 17Taiwan 1,647 1,837 48 3,532 4,580 0.87 0.71 1.64 2.32 7 23 n.a. 21 18India 1,453 1,986 23 3,462 734 0.72 1.44 1.77 2.50 1 24 17 18 12Italy 2,650 709 92 3,451 1,765 3.31 2.60 2.09 2.34 9 25 26 28 27Russia 1,528 1,484 40 3,052 439 1.00 1.53 2.38 3.53 7 26
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/csreport_2000.pdf
  • 1,947 0.45 0.30 1.43 1.11 7 20 23 n.a . 21India 1,839 5,920 0 7,759 280 0.31 0.46 1.40 1.77 6 21 20 23 29Argentina 1,041 6,347 151 7,539 8,467 0.16 0.22 0.46 0.76 7 22 17 13 12Philippines 3,862 3,647 2 7,511 1,567 1.06 1.59 2.17 3.42 6 23 21 28 27Colombia 1,699 5,452 142 7,293 7,526 0.30 0.58 1.26 1.52 8 24 n.a . n.a . n.a .New Zealand 827 6,225 31 7,083 124 0.13 0.90 2.16 1.83 6 25 18 16 16Venezuela 1,890 4,896 180 6,966 1,065 0.37 0.70 1.31 1.49 7 26 29 21 24Malaysia 613 5,942 0 6,555 128 0.10 0.25 0.37 0.37 1 27 19 n.a . n.a .Denmark 1,258 763 4,410 6,431 657 0.24
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files/ITRND01.pdf
  • 1.32 1.25 1.20 1.04 1.06 0.91 0.55 0.50 0.26 0.21 0.31 -66.4 United Kingdom 0.87 0.79 0.73 0.57 0.49 0.42 0.41 0.43 0.36 0.19 0.18 -58.3 Vietnam 2.27 1.83 1.71 1.35 1.27 1.13 0.85 0.90 0.87 0.51 0.29 -74.1 Average for Countries Shown Above 0.95 0.86 0.83 0.69 0.62 0.55 0.48 0.45 0.31 0.26 0.19 -4.3% Average for Other Countries 1.26 1.14 1.14 0.98 0.90 0.75 0.63 0.57 0.39 0.29 0.22 -2.3 Average for All Countries 1.00 0.91 0.89 0.74 0.67 0.59 0.51 0.47 0.33 0.26 0.20 -3.8 Canada, India Mexico, Philippines 0.73 0.67 0.64 0.55 0.52 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.29 0.25 0.16 and UK as Percent of Total Average for Other Countries 1.19 1.07 1.03 0.82 0.72 0.62 0.54 0.48
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/11thMtgMinutes.pdf
  • 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 Item
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg4_1st_draftminutes.pdf
  • 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 IWG-4, Giselle Creeser volunteered
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg4_draft_minutes_5_30_02.pdf
  • Because of the extensive discussion, the document was tabled until the next meeting of IWG-4. The parties interested in this issue were asked to discuss it among themselves prior to the next meeting and come to an agreement that can be considered at the next meeting. 2.2 IWG-4/30 Rev. 1 - Earth Stations on Board Vessels ­ WRC-03 Agenda Item 1.26 This document proposes two additional changes to the Radio Regulations in support of the proposal previously adopted by IWG-4 and the WAC. The first is a definition of the term `Earth Station on Vessel' and the second is an off-axis EIRP limit for such stations. This document was conditionally approved pending resolution of correct reference for off-axis EIRP recommendations and
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_documents_list.pdf
  • 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 IWG-4/009 Approved IWG-4 Preliminary Views on Agenda Item 1.26 (ESVs) D. Jansky 5/16/01
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_12_11_01.pdf
  • be due to the author by the close of business on December 14. The meeting intended that this approach would allow the draft proposal on Agenda Item 1.25 to be approved in time for consideration at the December 19, 2001 WAC meeting. The second document to be taken up was Document IWG-4/017rev.3, a draft set of proposals on Agenda Item 1.26 from Don Jansky of Jansky-Barmat Telecom. The author introduced revisions to the document. During discussion on the document, some format changes and other editorial revisions were noted and agreed, along with a revision to the Background Information section that was proposed by the Vice Chairperson of IWG-4. The representative of the U.S. Navy indicated that the Navy has concerns with
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_1_16_02.pdf
  • 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 to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_5_15_01.pdf
  • Jacobs Minutes Prepared by:Don Jansky 1. Meeting opened at 3:00 p.m. following closure of USWP 4-9S 2. The agenda, as distributed electronically, was approved 3. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without amendment. 4. Preliminary Views (PV) Mr. Jacobs presented a revised version of the Preliminary View, previously agreed by IWG-3 and the WAC, concerned with agenda item 1.26 (Earth Stations on Board Vessels). After some discussion, the revision was agreed as Doc. IWG-4/009, with the understanding that language would be added mentioning CITEL-PCC-III Resolution 108. 5. Other comments on PVs. The Chairman noted that comments were received from Winstar, APCO, and Skytower on the FCC Public Notice asking for comments on the PVs previously agreed by IWG-4. Representatives
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_6_20_01.pdf
  • remain our own. With respect to Agenda Item 1.32, it was reported that much progress was made. The US background and issue sections from the PV are included in the output of the CITEL meeting. It was reported that there are a number of areas of agreement regarding Resolution 84 included in the CITEL output. With respect to Agenda Item 1.26, all of the US PV was accepted. It was noted that Brazil also had a PV on this agenda item. The chairman again raised the issue of whether the work on any of the 5 agenda items is at the stage where proposals can be developed. The participants in the meeting did not identify any agenda items in which the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_minutes_april_11_01.pdf
  • GHz. to the background and modifying the issue statement. After a number of modifications the document was tentatively approved, pending distribution of an additional paragraph to be added. Additional text to be distributed by noon 4/13 and comments resolved by COB 4/17. It was noted that silence will be construed as consent. Don Jansky introduced document 005 re: agenda item 1.26. Don proposed additional text under preliminary view a., based on results of the recent 4-9S meeting. After some discussion and minor modifications the document was approved. Gonzalo de Dios introduced document 006 re: agenda item 1.32a. It was approved with minor editorial corrections. Steve Baruch introduced document 007 re: agenda item 1.32b. It was approved after some discussion and modification.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-03/files/docs/meeting/iwg/iwg_4/wrc03_iwg_4_tor_doc_1.pdf
  • 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, their Appendices, Resolutions and Recommendations, including additions, modifications or suppressions that may be required. The IWG recommendations for U.S. proposals to WRC-03 shall be supported by narrative
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/peer_review/prlpfm_rpt_economic_study.pdf
  • Metro Markets Ranked by Size 2005 2007 2009 1 -10 1.70 2.40 2.60 11 -20 1.60 1.40 1.70 21 -30 1.10 2.00 2.10 31 -40 1.20 1.40 1.50 41 -50 1.20 1.80 1.80 51 -60 1.40 2.00 2.40 61 -70 1.40 1.50 1.40 71 -80 0.50 0.80 2.10 81 -90 1.70 2.70 1.90 91 -100 0.80 1.10 1.40 1 -100 1.26 1.71 1.89 101 -110 1.60 2.10 2.20 111 -120 1.40 1.50 1.50 121 -130 0.70 0.90 0.80 131 -140 1.20 1.80 2.10 141 -150 1.00 1.00 1.00 151 -160 1.40 1.50 1.70 161 -170 1.10 1.50 1.30 171 -180 0.80 1.10 0.90 181 -190 0.70 0.90 1.50 191 -200 0.90 0.80 0.90 101 -200 1.08 1.31 1.39 201 -210 1.10
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/peer_review/prrespstudy4.pdf
  • 102.02 253.18 *** 28.28 FOX 1,041.92 *** 110.91 106.79 *** 24.84 IND 416.43 *** 114.22 181.47 *** 62.30 WB 216.00 ** 103.54 31.12 34.39 REL -31.41 92.52 88.27 81.85 UPN -156.12 * 91.11 -20.51 22.21 UNI 1,626.04 *** 116.03 -73.93 55.86 PAX 258.35 *** 86.44 75.88 56.88 PUB 1,934.30 *** 390.39 1,573.05 * 812.15 TBN 5.90 73.67 -76.16 48.30 INS -1.26 159.65 24.37 56.18 TEL 1,495.41 *** 148.22 44.41 42.44 AZT 1,217.53 *** 309.24 5.03 65.04 TLF -369.72 *** 102.06 -120.71 ** 59.33 SHP -535.00 *** 98.90 -125.91 * 68.44 EDU 513.24 *** 144.91 535.79 342.60 HSN 31.84 158.48 -141.65 *** 40.86 HTV 414.60 *** 43.59 386.83 *** 44.78 Additional Dummy Variables Used: Every Market-Year Every Market-Year (not shown in table)
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/peer_review/prrespstudy4c.pdf
  • 6.10 1.85*** 0.000 6.35 Crossowned With Newspaper 1.46** 0.04 4.29 1.43** 0.041 4.16 Crossowned With TV Station 0.79*** 0.00 2.20 0.79*** 0.000 2.21 Commercial Station -1.45*** 0.00 0.24 -1.50*** 0.000 0.22 Local Marketing Agreement -0.42 0.15 0.66 -0.39 0.182 0.67 Sibling News Station in Market 0.39*** 0.01 1.47 0.41*** 0.007 1.51 Owner in Same State 0.24* 0.06 1.27 0.23* 0.078 1.26 Parent Stations in Market 0.04 0.16 1.04 0.05 0.138 1.05 Broadband Lines per Person -6.21 0.360 0.00 Year 2002 -0.13 0.41 0.88 -0.77 0.260 0.46 Year 2003 -0.11 0.49 0.90 -0.57 0.259 0.56 Year 2004 0.09 0.59 1.09 -0.17 0.583 0.84 % News Stats in Mkt Previous Period -28.40 0.001 0.001 -28.99 0.0001 0.001 Fit Information Intercept Only With Covariates
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-broadband-dead-zone-report.pdf
  • 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 to disclose information from a SORN to specific "third parties." These disclosures may be for the following reasons: (check all
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ccd.pdf
  • 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 to PSHSB employees. 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? PSHSB staff can retrieve the personally identifiable information (PII) in the Comment Card Database information system by such personal identifiers as the individual submitter's name, personal e-mail address, and/or personal cell phone and telephone numbers. Except for an individuals name, PSHSB is not requesting other PII. Personal cell phone numbers, home telephone numbers,
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-core-financial.pdf
  • 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). 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? At this point, because the CFSR is still in the planning stages, the FSOG staff in OMD-FO has not yet determined exactly how the CFSR's information retrieval mechanisms will operate, although the personally identifiable information in this new information system can be retrieved via on-line access but will with sufficient various security and
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-criminal-investigative-files.pdf
  • 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 the data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-crisis.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-dqc.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ecfs.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-email.pdf
  • 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, i.e., records, files, documents, and data, etc., is compatible with the purpose(s) for which
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-experimental-radio.pdf
  • 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 compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information has been collected 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 the data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-faca.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-financial.pdf
  • 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 and procedures have the system's managers/owners established for the destruction/purging of the data? The obsolete or out-of-date information is changed
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-foia.pdf
  • 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 the data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-general-investigative-files.pdf
  • 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, i.e., records, files, documents, and data, etc., is compatible with the purpose(s) for which
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-ils.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-investigations-hearings.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-labor-employee-relations.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-lmts.pdf
  • U.S. Senate, the President, and Vice President. This correspondence might include attachments that could contain PII from individuals who contacted their Congressional representative and/or Senator concerning various personal and/or telecommunications issues affecting them, i.e., telephone and cable bills, etc. FCC employees may be seeking Congressional assistance with their personal employment issues at the Commission, i.e., hiring and promotion matters, etc. 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," 2 are those instances that permit the FCC to disclose information from a SORN to specific "third parties." These disclosures may be for the following reasons: (check
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-pams.pdf
  • this information along with periodic updates to keep any contact information current. The FCC's current policy is to maintain the personally identifiable information (PII), e.g., FCC employee's name, etc., in the PAMS information system only during a COOP exercise or activation scenario. Once the COOP scenario has been deactivated or the exercise completed, the PII will be deleted shortly thereafter. 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," 2 are those instances that permit the FCC to disclose information from a SORN to specific "third parties." These disclosures may be for the following reasons: (check
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-pay-leave-garnish.pdf
  • 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 compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information has been collected. 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 the data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-personal-security-files.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-physical-access.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-reasonable-accommodation-requests.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-remedy.pdf
  • 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 each of these routine uses that are checked, the FCC will determine whether disclosure
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-rmis.pdf
  • 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 the paper documents is restricted to OMD-FO staff who have a need to access based on their job duties, activities, and responsibilities. 1.26 How is information in this system retrieved? The personally identifiable information (PII) in the RMIS information system can be retrieved via on-line access. 1.27 What policies and/or guidelines are in place on how long the bureau/office will retain the information? The FCC's Office of the Managing Director-Performance Evaluation and Records Management (OMD-PERM) has not yet assigned a records retention schedule
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-small-business-contacts.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-telephone-call-details.pdf
  • 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 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," 2
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-transit.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-uls.pdf
  • 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 the data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pia-violators.pdf
  • 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 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," 3
• http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/System_of_records/pshsb-coop-plan.pdf
  • 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 data? 1.29 Have the records retention and disposition schedule(s) been issued or approved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/jtconsumer_reply060502.pdf
  • .78% .77% .76% .76% 33% .81 .80 .79 .78 .77 50% .86 .84 .83 .81 .79 100% .99 .95 .93 .89 .88 10 PERCENT PRICE INCREASE MSO PROGRAM SERVICE CABLE OWNERSHIP OF MVPD SUBSCRIBERS OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE 30% 35% 40% 50% 60% 25% .83% .81% .80% .77% .76% 33% .88 .85 .83 .80 .78 50% .98 .94 .91 .86 .83 100% 1.26 1.18 1.12 1.04 .98 Besen, Stanley M. 2002. "Declaration" attached to "Application and Public Interest Statement," In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses Comcast Corporation and AT&T Corp., Transferors, To AT&T Comcast Corporation, Transferee, February 28. p. 19. 64 EXHIBIT V-3: % OF A NETWORK'S AUDIENCE THAT MUST DROP CABLE TO MAKE A
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/comsat-telenor/fcc01-369.pdf
  • if known and if different from the location information provided under (f) below; types of services; length of service; fees; and usage, including billing records; and f. any information indicating as closely as possible the physical location to or from which communication is transmitted. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 01-369 32 The term does not include the content of any communication. 1.26 "United States," "US" or "U.S." means the United States of America including all of its States, districts, territories, possessions, commonwealths, and the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 1.27 "U.S. LES" means a land earth station facility located in any state of the United States that is involved with the transmission of satellite communications and meets all