FCC Web Documents citing 1.41

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-436A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-436A1.pdf
  • necessity. Accordingly, we deny the informal petitions. We further find that LAWA has satisfied the requirements to obtain a waiver of Section 90.311(a)(2) of the Commission's rules. We therefore grant LAWA's request for waiver. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Petition to Dismiss or Deny submitted by National Science and Technology Network, Inc., filed on September 20, 2006, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-583A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-583A1.pdf
  • of mobile and portable radios to remove pre-rebanding channels. Petitioners also request a stay of the Boston Order. We dismiss the petition for reconsideration for lack of standing because the Boston Order is limited to the facts presented in the record of that proceeding and does not adversely affect Petitioners. We also deny Petitioners' stay request. However, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, we treat the Petition as an informal request for Commission action for the purpose of explaining with greater specificity the conditions under which Sprint may be required to pay for multiple touches of 800 MHz mobile and portable radios during rebanding. II. BACKGROUND In the Boston Order, we addressed Boston's claim that the purchase of inventory-tracking
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-220A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-220A1.pdf
  • for rulemaking filed on November 12, 2009, by the California Public Utilities Commission (``CPUC''). The CPUC petitions the Commission, pursuant to Section 1.401 of the Commissions rules, requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) grant state public utilities commissions direct access to the Commission's Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) database. The CPUC also informally requests, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, that the Commission act to allow the CPUC password-protected access to the NORS database that is ``limited to California-specific disruption and outage data.'' NORS is the web-based filing system through which certain communications providers submit reports to the Commission of disruptions to communications as required by Part 4 of the Commission's rules. Reports of service disruptions
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-576A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-576A1.pdf
  • it could not have retained outside counsel earlier, and its assertion that it has raised public interest considerations in its pleading is unsupported and insufficient to overcome ``the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.'' In the alternative, Smartcomm asks that its opposition be treated as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Acceptance of Smartcomm's request pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Rules is discretionary. In support of its request, Smartcomm states only that treating its opposition as an informal request would advance the public interest and allow the issues raised in Sprint's petition to be ``fully aired.'' Such generalized claims are insufficient to merit our accepting the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-585A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-585A1.pdf
  • a direct injury. The Commission has consistently held that claims amounting to a ``remote'' or ``speculative'' injury are insufficient to confer standing. PSI's and Smartcomm's claims based on hypothetical future applications for spectrum are too remote and speculative to confer standing. In the alternative, Smartcomm asks that its opposition be treated as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Acceptance of Smartcomm's request pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Rules is discretionary. In support of its request, Smartcomm states only that treating its opposition as an informal request would provide the Commission with ``an important opportunity to develop a full record.'' We find that this is insufficient to merit our accepting the Smartcomm pleading as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1334A1.txt
  • Act). Under Section 312 of the Act, the Commission has authority to revoke a station license when, inter alia, conditions come to its attention that would have warranted an original refusal of the application. However, we do not recognize petitions to revoke submitted by third parties. Rather, we treat such requests as informal requests for Commission action, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Reconsideration under the Section 312(a)(2) revocation provision has been fundamentally predicated on a lapse of this 30-day period. However, in this immediate case, thirty days had not lapsed when Unocal filed its petition. Thus, Unocal could have requested the same relief through reconsideration under Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 4. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1609A1.txt
  • does not demonstrate any impediment to its shared use of spectrum that would conflict with the Commission's Part 90 Rules. Pursuant to Section 90.187(e), however, the grant will be limited to ten channels. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, application FCC File No. A034945, filed by Cumulous Communications on March 12, 1999, IS REFERRED to the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch for further processing consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 10. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority granted under the provisions of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1629A1.txt
  • have reviewed RCN's motion for stay and will grant it pending resolution of its application for review before the Commission. Our action herein should not be construed as an indication of the eventual outcome of RCN's application. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the issues raised by RCN bear further analysis. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1.41, 1.43 and 1.202(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, that the motion for stay filed by RCN Telecom Services, Inc. IS GRANTED, pending the resolution of the application for review. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau Brunson Communications, Inc. v. RCN Telecom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2158A1.txt
  • Rcd at 13648, 13654. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. 570 (rel. Jun. 28, 2000). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.4. 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(g). Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 2; Petition to Deny WinStar at 2. Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 3; Petition to Deny WinStar at 3. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See 47 U.S.C. § 402(h); Applications of Cambridge Partners, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-322, ¶ 6 (rel. Sept. 15, 2000); Qualcomm Incorporated, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Giving Effect to the Mandate of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Order, FCC 00-219, ¶ 11 (rel. June 8, 2000). Application of Pinelands, Inc. (Transferor) and BHC Communications, Inc.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2169A1.txt
  • 2. Petition to Deny Adelphia at 3; Petition to Deny AT&T Wireless at 3; Petition to Deny Atlantis at 3; Petition to Deny Bachow at 3; Petition to Deny DCT at 3; Petition to Deny Milkyway at 3; Petition to Deny Nextband at 3; Petition to Deny PTPMS at 3; Petition to Deny Zephyr at 3. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See 47 U.S.C. § 402(h); Applications of Cambridge Partners, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-322, ¶ 6 (rel. Sept. 15, 2000); Qualcomm Incorporated, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Giving Effect to the Mandate of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Order, FCC 00-219, ¶ 11 (rel. June 8, 2000). Application of Pinelands, Inc. (Transferor) and BHC Communications, Inc.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2233A1.txt
  • extent stated herein. CSAA does not demonstrate that grant of the subject applications would result in any impediment to its shared use of spectrum that is inconsistent with the Commission's Part 90 Rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the objection submitted on April 2, 1999 by the California State Automobile Association, Inc. to RF Data, Inc.'s application for 150.935 MHz, FCC File No. D117346, IS DENIED to the extent stated herein and in other respects granted. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the objection submitted on April 2, 1999 by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2243A1.txt
  • involving the petitioners' applications, the Commission must carry out the judgement of the court. Thus, we conclude that no further action regarding the petitioners' claims is required or warranted in the instant matter. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309 and 402(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, 402(h), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the petition to condition authorization of File No. 0000138811, filed by Broadband WirelessAccess Services, Stevan A. Birnbaum, Cambridge Partners, Inc., HiCap Networks, Inc., William R. Lonergan, PIW Development Corporation, Paul R. Likins, Cornelius T. Ryan, Southfield Communications LLC, SMC Associates, Video Communications Corporation, and Wireless Telco on September 25, 2000 IS DISMISSED.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2391A1.txt
  • provides that MAS stations must be placed in operation within eighteen months from the initial date of grant. Further, if the licensee fails to place the stations in operation in a timely manner, the authorization cancels automatically. On October 9, 1998, CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet) petitioned the Commission to revoke the MAS licenses issued to Wincomm, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, on the basis that Wincomm no longer exists, did not construct the stations and has not operated the stations as required. On November 22, 1999, the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) of the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division) mailed a certified letter to Wincomm, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2675A1.txt
  • do not believe that MariTEL's speculative predictions of possible interference constitutes a sufficient basis upon which to grant its request. Rather, we believe that the previously noted international considerations necessitate the denial of MariTEL's request. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the request for temporary suspension of equipment certification filed by WJG MariTEL Corporation on December 8, 1999, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2850A1.txt
  • upon the failure to review the entire record, as opposed to the time period between the filing of pleadings and the time a grant was made. In this case, PLMR is not a service subject to the formal procedures associated with the disposition of petitions to deny. Rather, CSAA and ITA's objections fall within the informal objection provisions of Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Under Section 1.41, there is no requirement for a formal pleading cycle, and the Commission may grant an application without waiting for any specific amount of time after the submission of informal protests and objections. Moreover, we believe that CSAA has had a full and fair opportunity to present its arguments in its objection and in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2868A1.txt
  • or additional frequency pair.'' The Branch further requested that Mr. Gronemeier provide frequency justifications in full detail as required by Section 90.313 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR § 90.313. On April 10, 2000, Mr. Gronemeier responded to the Branch's March 15, 2000 letter. On March 31, 2000, Samtrans simultaneously filed two pleadings, a Petition for Reinstatement pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, and a Petition to Deny, pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules. In its Petition for Reinstatement, Samtrans seeks to have its authorization to operate Station KYC941 reinstated. In its Petition to Deny, Samtrans requests that we deny Mr. Gronemeier's five applications seeking the same frequency pairs as were authorized to Samtrans under Station KYC941.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2903A1.txt
  • deadline, and that NECC's applications, filed just before the deadline for mutually exclusive applications, declared themselves to be mutually exclusive with WWC's application. Because the Petition was untimely filed, and NECC offers no reasonable excuse for its lateness, we dismiss the Petition. 4. Although the Petition is untimely, we may still consider the Petition as an informal objection, pursuant to §1.41 of the Commission's rules. We are not persuaded, however, that NECC has raised any substantive reasons that would cause us to dismiss WWC's application. Nevertheless, we seek clarification of WWC's alternative CGSA determination under Section 22.911(b) of the Commission's rules. Therefore, the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch of the Commercial Wireless Division will submit a letter to WWC directing it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-474A1.txt
  • 2-5. 47 C.F.R. § 1.727. We note that in its Opposition to Emergency Motion for Disqualification, Mercury argued that High Plains' Petition to Deny did not comply with all of the procedural requisites of section 1.727. However, even if the Emergency Motion were procedurally defective, Bureau could have entertained it as an informal request for Commission action pursuant to section 1.41. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. Western PCS BTA I Corp., 13 FCC Rcd. 8305, 8319-20 ¶ 37; US West Communications, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd. 8286, 8299-300 ¶ 37. See, e.g., Western PCS BTA I Corp., 13 FCC Rcd. 8305, 8319-20 ¶ 37; US West Communications, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd. 8286, 8299-300 ¶ 37. High Plains Petition to Deny at 5-7. 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-713A1.txt
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action of Application FCC File No. 9600002 filed on October 1, 1999, by Paul R. Likins IS DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-714A1.txt
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action filed on October 27, 1999, by AA&T Wireless Services IS DENIED. 9. These actions are taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-715A1.txt
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action filed on October 27, 1999, by Wireless Telco IS DENIED. 9. These actions are taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-716A1.txt
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action for File Number 9600013 filed on October 1, 1999, by Paul R. Likins IS DENIED. 9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-717A1.txt
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action filed September 30, 1999, by Linda Chester IS DENIED. 9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-794A1.txt
  • . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action for File Number 9507932 filed on October 1, 1999, by HiCap Networks, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-795A1.txt
  • . . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action for File Number 9600083 filed on February 4, 2000, by AA&T Wireless Services IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-796A1.txt
  • . . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action for File Number 9510617 filed on December 21, 1999, by Steven A. Birnbaum IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-797A1.txt
  • . . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action for File Number 9503087 filed on February 18, 2000, by Cambridge Partners, Inc. IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-798A1.txt
  • . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action for File Number 9510601 filed on October 1, 1999, by Wireless Telco IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-87A5.txt
  • 1.50 2.55 2.52 2.23 Germany 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.71 1.69 1.72 2.61 2.58 2.63 Greece n/a 1.81 n/a n/a 1.81 n/a n/a 2.59 n/a Italy 1.54 1.51 1.00 2.52 2.47 1.60 n/a n/a 2.30 Ireland n/a 2.20 1.00 n/a 4.15 1.60 n/a 5.18 2.26 Luxembourg n/a 2.01 2.25 n/a 2.01 2.25 n/a 2.01 2.25 Netherlands 2.00 1.17 1.00 2.00 1.60 1.41 2.52 2.06 1.70 Portugal n/a 1.20 0.99 n/a 2.37 1.63 n/a 18.00 2.58 Spain 1.51 1.49 0.99 1.51 1.49 1.59 4.22 4.17 3.07 Sweden 1.68 1.14 0.86 2.15 1.77 1.16 2.98 2.41 1.59 U.K. 0.64 0.61 0.62 0.91 0.87 0.90 1.74 1.69 1.27 Attachment 4 EU interconnection rates U.S. Cents per minute at peak rates Local Single Transit Double Transit
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1143A1.txt
  • to a timely filing. Rather, the Weblink Request for a retroactive bidding credit is analogous to the facts of Community Teleplay in which the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``Bureau'') rejected Community Teleplay's request for a retroactive bidding credit because the filing was untimely. Like Weblink, Community Teleplay, which won licenses in the 218-219 MHz auction, filed a belated request under Section 1.41 of our rules and relied on Graceba to argue that its filing was not untimely. In addition, like Weblink, Community Teleplay's request was not filed as a supplement to a timely filed petition for reconsideration. Community Teleplay and Weblink both participated in auctions that preceded the Adarand decision. Community Teleplay's petition was found to be untimely because it was filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1411A1.txt
  • frequency coordination process and thus serve the public interest. Finally, as ATA no longer considers itself representative of the PLMR community and wishes to cease its FAC functions, we will grant its decertification request. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4 (i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Request for Transfer filed by the American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc., and the American Trucking Associations, Inc., on July 13, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above and DENIED in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. IS CERTIFIED to provide frequency coordination
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1497A1.txt
  • that certain actions provided for in the Commission's Rules are not yet available for electronic filing via the Universal Licensing System (ULS) and must be filed manually. Specifically, the Commission's Rules state that the following items may be filed electronically: (a) informal requests for Commission action in application and licensing matters pertaining to Wireless Radio Services, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.41; (b) pleadings associated with licenses, applications, waivers and other documents in the Wireless Radio Services, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.45; (c) petitions, pleadings, and other documents associated with licensing matters in the Wireless Radio Services, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.49(e); (d) pleadings, briefs or other documents for application and licensing matters involving the Wireless Radio Services, see 47 C.F.R. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1775A1.txt
  • precedent, we note that all frequency coordinators that are certified to coordinate PLMR frequencies in the 800 MHz band are thereby certified to coordinate 800 MHz General Category applications that are subject to frequency coordination. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(I), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Request for Certification filed by International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., and the International Municipal Signal Association on July 6, 2000 is GRANTED to the extent discussed above. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(I), and Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1783A1.txt
  • Secretary's Office, as Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules requires. We note that the Set-aside Request was signed. As for filing with the Secretary's Office, Crinklaw assumes that the Set-aside Request is a petition for reconsideration and thus subject to the procedural requirements of Section 1.106. The Set-aside Request is in fact an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, which does not specify a location for submitting such requests. Accordingly, we find that neither argument warrants dismissal of the Set-aside Request. Next, Crinklaw argues that the ITA interference analysis was flawed. Specifically, Crinklaw asserts that the analysis considered the 19 dBu interference contour of Station WPQA434 and the 37 dBu service contour of Station WPLD779,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1830A1.txt
  • solution, if in fact the Comtronics application had been incorrectly coordinated. By letter dated March 12, 2001, the PCIA stated that Town Taxi's license might not have been accounted for and proposed modifying the Comtronics license for Station WPPD215 by deleting frequency 152.2775 MHz. DISCUSSION We will treat Town Taxi's Petition as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Town Taxi argues that revocation is warranted because Comtronics' operation will cause interference to Town Taxi's operations. Town Taxi attaches an interference analysis prepared by the ITA which states that Comtronics' interference contour (19 dBu) overlaps Town Taxi's service area (37 dBu) contour. Town Taxi states that it was never asked to consent to Comtronics' proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1848A1.txt
  • had been incorrectly coordinated. By letter dated March 12, 2001, PCIA stated that it was possible that it had incorrectly coordinated the Noll application and proposed modifying the Noll license for Station WPRH950 by replacing frequency 157.620 MHz with 159.555 MHz. DISCUSSION We believe that ITA's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. ITA argues that license set aside is warranted because Noll's license was granted in violation of Section 90.187 of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, ITA argues that the Noll station does not afford the required adjacent-channel interference protection. ITA suggests that the Noll license poses a risk of harmful interference to Commenco's operations in the Platte, Missouri
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1948A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.949(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.949(a), the application for renewal of the authorization for Station WCU411 submitted by Midvale Sawtooth Telephone, Inc. on January 31, 2001 is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the request for database correction and reinstatement nunc pro tunc of the authorization to operate Station WCU411 filed by Midvale Sawtooth Telephone, Inc. on January 31, 2001 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1958A1.txt
  • on the PG&E informal petition because the request should be viewed as a petition for reconsideration of the CMMC license grant and therefore is fatally flawed because it was filed more than thirty days after public notice of the license grant. We believe, however, that PG&E's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we will address the merits of PG&E's request. 9. PG&E argues that license set-aside is warranted because CMMC's license was granted in violation of Section 90.187 of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, PG&E argues that the CMMC station does not afford the required adjacent-channel interference protection. PG&E suggests that the CMMC license poses a risk of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1959A1.txt
  • might be co-channel licensees that were not accounted for and proposed as a solution that the Comserv license for Station WPRH220 be modified by reducing the ERP on frequencies 452.1375 MHz, 452.2875 MHz, and 452.6625 MHz from twenty to ten watts. DISCUSSION We believe that ITA's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. ITA argues that license set aside is warranted because Comserv's license was granted in violation of Section 90.187 of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, ITA argues that the Comserv station does not afford the required co-channel and adjacent channel interference protection. ITA contends that the Comserv license poses a risk of harmful interference to several stations in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1990A1.txt
  • that it was possible that it had incorrectly coordinated the Fresno application and proposed as a solution that the Fresno license for Station WPPA630 be modified by removing frequencies 153.215/159.600 MHz and 153.515/159.660 MHz. III. DISCUSSION 7. We believe that the requests of PWSC, PG&E and SCGC (Petitioners) are most properly characterized as informal requests for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. PWSC, PG&E, and SCGC argue that license set aside is warranted because Fresno's license was granted in violation of Section 90.187 of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, PWSC, PG&E and SCGC argue that the Fresno station does not afford the required co-channel and adjacent-channel interference protection. Under these circumstances, they contend, the grant of Fresno's license should
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1991A1.txt
  • if the Horizon application had been incorrectly coordinated. By letter dated April 12, 2001, PCIA stated that there might be PSE&G licenses that were not accounted for and proposed modifying the Horizon license for Station WPOY784 by removing frequency 153.6125 MHz. DISCUSSION We believe that PSE&G's petition is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. PSE&G argues that license set-aside is warranted because Horizon's license was granted in violation of Section 90.187 of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, PSE&G argues that the Horizon station does not afford the required adjacent channel interference protection. PSE&G suggests that the Horizon license poses a risk of harmful interference to PSE&G's operations in the Fort Lee,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2213A1.txt
  • 1999 and an Erratum thereto on January 7, 2000. Superior filed a Motion to Accept Rebuttal Statement in Lieu of Motion to Strike on January 7, 2000. Range did not oppose this Motion. Although a reply to a reply is prohibited by Commission rules, we accept Superior's latter pleading as an informal request for Commission action. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See In the Matter of Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, WT Docket No. 96-18, and Implementation of Section 309 (j) of the Communications Act-Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd. 3108 (1996). Fill-in sites include modifications of existing transmitter sites or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2269A1.txt
  • incorrectly coordinated. By letter dated March 12, 2001, PCIA stated that it was possible that it had incorrectly coordinated the Excel application and proposed modifying the Excel license for Station WPQK656 by removing frequencies 462.4875/467.4875 MHz and replacing them with frequencies 461.0625/466.025 MHz. III. DISCUSSION ITA's petition is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. ITA argues that license set-aside is warranted because Excel's license was granted in violation of Section 90.187 of the Commission's Rules. Specifically, ITA argues that the Excel station does not afford the required adjacent channel interference protection. ITA suggests that the Excel license poses a risk of harmful interference to stations in the Wrightwood and Ontario,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2270A1.txt
  • action on a second application to file a post-grant petition for reconsideration of the second application because there was insufficient time for the party to file a pre-grant opposition. Because under this rationale, TRW could arguably file a post-grant petition for reconsideration, we will consider the substance of TRW's pre-grant petition to deny as an informal objection pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Substantive Arguments. We are not persuaded by TRW's arguments opposing Mountain Microwave's renewal applications. In its renewal applications, Mountain Microwave demonstrated that it had twelve links for Station WPNE403, in the area of Eureka, California, which contains a population of 240,350, and twelve links for Station WPNE749 in the area of Mt. Lassen, California, which contains
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2282A1.txt
  • action on a second application to file a post-grant petition for reconsideration of the second application because there was insufficient time for the party to file a pre-grant opposition. Because under this rationale, TRW could arguably file a post-grant petition for reconsideration, we will consider the substance of TRW's pre-grant petition to deny as an informal objection pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Substantive Arguments. We are not persuaded by TRW's arguments opposing GEC's renewal applications. In its renewal applications, GEC demonstrated that it had eighteen links for Station WPNG290, in the area of Colorado Springs, Colorado, which contains a population of 716,411, and thirty links for Station WPNG380 in the area of Cleveland, Ohio, which contains a population
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2284A1.txt
  • action on a second application to file a post-grant petition for reconsideration of the second application because there was insufficient time for the party to file a pre-grant opposition. Because under this rationale, TRW could arguably file a post-grant petition for reconsideration, we will consider the substance of TRW's pre-grant petition to deny as an informal objection pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Substantive Arguments. We are not persuaded by TRW's arguments opposing grant of the subject Spectrum renewal applications. In its renewal applications, Spectrum demonstrated that it had twelve links for Station WPNE976, in the area of Eureka, California area, which contains a population of 249,325, and twelve links for Station WPNE984 in the area of Mt. Lassen,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2431A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. §154(i), and Section 90.155 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.155, Stations WPPZ660, WPPZ661 and WPPZ662 HAVE CANCELLED due to their failure to be placed in operation in a timely manner. Therefore, the Cancellation Request filed by Mobile Relay Associates, Inc. on June 22, 2001 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Objection filed on February 17, 2000, on behalf of Mobile Relay Associates, Inc. relating to FCC Application File Numbers D133825, D134193, D134194, D134195, D134196, D134197, D134370, D134371 and D134372 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2595A1.txt
  • 23, 2001, PCIA stated that there might be a co-channel license that was not accounted for and proposed as a solution that the Racing Radios license for Station WPQA386 be modified by changing the frequency pair 451.2875/456.2875 MHz to 451.5125/456.5125 MHz. DISCUSSION We believe that Rayfield's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Rayfield argues that an investigation and remedy is warranted because the Racing Radios station does not afford the required interference protection to Rayfield's station in the Bolivar, Missouri area. PCIA admits ``that there may be a co-channel license that was not accounted for'' and recommends modifying Racing Radios' license to resolve the problem. Based upon our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2623A1.txt
  • of the Commission's rules. Rather, NECC was fully aware of the 30-day deadline, and for reasons not explained, filed its Petition to Deny well after that deadline. Accordingly, we affirm the December Order's dismissal of NECC's Petition to Deny as late-filed. NECC also interprets the December Order as having considered its Petition to Deny as an informal objection under section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. NECC contends that its objections caused the Branch to request additional information from WWC about its Application. NECC then reasons that, because the Application was returned to WWC and WWC was required to file an amendment, the Application ``was not grantable'' and the Division dismissed NECC's Petition to Deny prematurely. We disagree. NECC misinterprets the decisions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-277A1.txt
  • when no timely petition for reconsideration of the grant was filed. Indeed, reconsideration under the Section 316 modification provision has been fundamentally predicated on a lapse of this 30-day period. However, the Commission does not have formal procedures recognizing ``petitions to modify'' submitted by third parties. Rather, we treat such requests as informal requests for Commission action, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Thus, we are granting the Petition in part and will consider the Request on the merits pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Turning to the merits of the Request, we find that JPJ has shown that the Town's license was probably granted in error in 1996. Nonetheless, we further find that JPJ has not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2826A1.txt
  • was served on the parties to the proceeding on June 12, 2001. AirPaging filed its Petition for Reconsideration on June 8, 2001, and Dave's sent its Response to Petition for Reconsideration, which includes an affidavit dated June 28, 2001, but no certificate of service, also to the Gettysburg office. AirPaging's Emergency Request was filed as an informal request under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Because AirPaging's Emergency Request and Petition for Reconsideration raise similar issues about the same licenses, and effectively seek the same remedy, we apply the Commission's procedural rules for petitions for reconsideration to both sets of documents. A document is filed with the Commission upon its receipt at the location designated by the Commission. The Commission maintains
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2836A1.txt
  • following types of pleadings: (i) petitions to deny filed pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''); (ii) petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 405 of the Act; (iii) applications for review filed pursuant to Section 5(c)(4) of the Act; (iv) informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules; (v) petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; and, (vi) comments or oppositions to open video system certification made pursuant to section 76.1502 (e)(1) of the Commission's rules. Id., ¶ 2. The Bureau makes this temporary procedural change pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 0.131(c). See also 5 U.S.C. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2914A1.txt
  • clarify that the Space Data Waiver Order allows it to operate its balloon-borne repeaters on all of its contiguous continental United States Major Trading Areas (MTA) licenses for NPCS channels 26 and 30 and its NPCS MTA licenses covering Honolulu (MTA047), Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (MTA025), and Alaska (MTA049). In the alternative, Space Data, pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 requests that we amend the Space Data Waiver Order to allow Space Data's above-described operations. Interested parties may file comments on Space Data's request on or before December 27, 2001. Parties interested in submitting reply comments must do so on or before January 11, 2002. All comments should reference Space Data's request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-298A1.txt
  • state the grounds therefore.'' ACSC filed no such separate pleading with its Supplement, which was filed after the thirty-day filing deadline. Accordingly, the Supplement is defective and thus will not be considered. In the Petition, ACSC argues that the Branch erred in dismissing the Request as untimely, under Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules because it was filed under Section 1.41 of the Rules and thus not governed by the thirty-day filing deadline of Section 1.106(f). Alternatively, ACSC avers that it is an ``affected person'' under Section 1.4(b)(5) of the Commission's Rules, which provides that the first day to be counted for the thirty-day deadline is the date appearing on the document sent to persons affected by the action. Because the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3018A1.txt
  • as the thirty-day time period for filing reconsideration petitions has elapsed - - and the Commission has consistently held that it is without authority to extend or waive that time period - - no action can be taken on PG&E's request. discussion We believe that PG&E's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. The request clearly and concisely sets forth the facts relied upon, the regulatory provision (Section 90.187) governing the licensing of trunked systems operating on frequencies between 150 MHz and 512 MHz, the interest of the person or entity submitting the request, and the relief sought. Contrary to Shatzki's assertion, PG&E's request need not be considered a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3022A1.txt
  • PG&E as to why it failed to file a petition for reconsideration within the thirty-day filing period for such petitions. CMMC also argues that the petition was actually a petition for reconsideration and should be treated as one. It further argues that Section 1.106 is a formal procedure that had to be met and would preclude an informal objection under 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. In addition, CMMC argues that Section 1.113(a) of the Commission's Rules prohibits the Bureau from considering any revocation or modification of the license it issued under delegated authority more than thirty days after the license is granted. We conclude that CMMC's arguments are without merit and must be rejected. In proposing to modify CMMC's license, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3024A1.txt
  • with the Commission for review. See Letter to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, from Todd Slamowitz, Esq., filed on September 14, 2001. The partnership agreements of all of the Assignees are substantively identical. Consumers Alliance also was provided with copies of the partnership agreements. See Reply at 4 n.10. In its Petition, Consumers Alliance requests that the Commission, pursuant to sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R §§ 1.41, 1.939, and Sections 309(e) and 403 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(e), 403, initiate a full evidentiary investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the above-captioned applications. Specifically, an applicant must demonstrate that it, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in the applicant and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-842A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ET Docket No. 00-258 Report No. 164 DA 01-751 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: April 3, 2001 Released: April 4, 2001 By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau: 1. The Mass Media Bureau (``Bureau'') has before it an ``Emergency Petition to Defer Action on Applications'' filed by Verizon Wireless (``Verizon'') pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Verizon requests that the Commission defer action on pending applications for two-way authority that have been filed by Multipoint Distribution Service (``MDS'') and Instructional Television Fixed Service (``ITFS'') licensees. The Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (``WCA'') filed an opposition to Verizon's petition. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Verizon's request to delay approval of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-944A1.txt
  • applicants and other coordinators as to which entities provide coordination services for 800 MHz and 900 MHz PLMR frequencies, we will announce the certification of any additional coordinators for this spectrum by public notice. V. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Request for Certification filed by United Telecom Council on March 9, 2000 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that United Telecom Council, the Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc., the Personal Communications Industry Association, Inc., and MRFAC, Inc., ARE CERTIFIED to provide frequency coordination services for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-947A1.txt
  • MHz of this spectrum is currently being used to provide land-based trunked dispatch, and therefore, only a portion of this spectrum should be included in a market concentration analysis. The Revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines suggest using the variable that best indicates firms' future competitive significance, which may include sales, shipments, production, capacity, or reserves. Revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines at § 1.41. Both the Applicants and Southern use spectrum as the underlying variable for their market concentration analyses. Spectrum is an input in the provision of telecommunication services and a measure of capacity. For the trunked dispatch market, measures of output are unavailable. The choice of spectrum may be a reasonable alternative, but when, as here, extensive build-out has occurred, spectrum is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-98A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-98A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-98A1.txt
  • the exception of the renewal application for Station WPER274, are dismissed without prejudice or returned without action. The renewal application relating to Station WPER274 is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Wyoming State Court litigation discussed herein. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.939, 1.41, that the Petition to Dismiss or Deny/Informal Complaint filed by Communication Technologies, Inc. on August 30, 1999, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application to assign or transfer the licenses for Stations WNJN327, WPER274, WPET577 and WPAF615, filed by Western Management Corporation on July 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1358A1.txt
  • suggestion in DIRECTV's Application for Review, the Bureau did not disregard the contract and did not conclude that Paxson could elect mandatory carriage and remain subject to the retransmission consent agreement. Any contentions in that regard are properly brought before a court of competent jurisdiction to interpret the contract in question. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1.41, 1.43, and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.43, and 1.102, DIRECTV's Motion for Stay IS DENIED. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.283. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Media Bureau See DIRECTV Motion for Stay in CSR No. 5731-M (filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1411A1.txt
  • 1.1202(d)(1). 47 C.F.R. § 0.445(a). See Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086 (DC Cir. 1976). PLMR applications are not subject to the formal procedures associated with petitions to deny as set forth in Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. § 1.939. Rather, objections to such applications are governed by the Commission's informal request rules set forth in Section 1.41. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See Landlinx Communications, Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 24932, 24933 ¶ 4 (2000). 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See, e.g., Applications of WINV, Inc., Assignor, and WGUL-FM, Inc., Assignee, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2032 ¶ 2 (1998); Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, DA 02-876 ¶ 16 (rel. Apr. 16, 2002). NSTN
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1524A1.txt
  • FCC File Nos. 0000138901, 0000138914, and 0000138925 filed on May 24, 2000, FCC File No. 0000222488, filed on September 20, 2000 and FCC File No. 0000472773, filed on May 24, 2001. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, Objection to California Water Service Company's Applications for 932/942 MAS Licenses, dated May 16, 2000 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 308 of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 1.934(f) of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1574A1.txt
  • the Commission granted a post-auction bidding credit to eligible small businesses in the 218-219 MHz service. Lastly, Instapage argues that because the Commission granted a post-auction bidding credit to eligible small business in the 218-219 MHz service, it should do the same here in order ``to eliminate the effects of past discrimination.'' 2. Discussion Instapage filed its Request under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, which provides that a request for Commission action may be submitted informally ``except where formal procedures are required.'' Informal requests have no set filing deadline, unlike petitions for reconsideration of Commission rulemakings, which have mandatory filing deadlines. By statute, Congress limited the Commission's jurisdiction to review petitions for reconsideration to those filed within a specific time.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1722A1.txt
  • 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.955 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.955, that the ULS database will be updated to reflect that Stations WPQF373, WPQC503, WPNP688, WPKA269, WPLS641, and WPMS522 have automatically CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §154(i) and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the Petition for Initiation of License Revocation Proceeding filed by Futronics, Inc., on August 30, 2001 IS DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART to the extent described herein. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1945A1.txt
  • do not find any other type of sanction to be necessary or justified at this time. 32. Finally, Lincoln asserts that we should sanction Minority for filing frivolous pleadings that have abused the Commission's processes. We decline to do so. Minority's pleadings filed relative to our underwriting investigation were not unauthorized from a procedural standpoint. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 and § 1.45. From a substantive standpoint, while we do not accept most of Minority's contentions, we do not find that the licensee has presented facts or legal arguments in a manner lacking good-faith or inconsistent with its right to advocate its views. IV. Ordering Clauses 33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1965A1.txt
  • as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.87(i) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.87(i), that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested to National Science and Technology Network, Inc. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Petition filed by Henry Radio on November 25, 1998 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Petition filed by Henry Radio on May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2028A1.txt
  • an administrative error, it had not served the parties to the proceeding when it originally filed its July 18, 2001 pleading, but had done so on August 3, 2002. At the same time, SBT also filed a motion for leave to accept its Opposition as untimely, or, in the alternative, treat the pleading as an informal objection, pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Discussion Cingular makes three arguments as to why the Bureau should allow a 900 MHz MTA licensee to meet the construction requirements for multiple licenses that it holds by demonstrating that it is providing substantial service across its entire network, thereby relieving the licensee of the construction requirements for any one particular license. For the reasons
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2512A2.txt
  • 310(d) of the Communications Act and for 1 Declaratory Ruling Pursuant to Section 1 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act 1 To: The Commission PETITION TO ADOPT CONDITIONS TO AUTHORIZATION AND LICENSES The Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") respectfully submit this Petition to Adopt Conditions to Authorization and Licenses ("Petition"), pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 0 1.41. Through this Petition, the DOJ and the FBI hereby advise the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") that the DOJ and the FBI have no objection to the FCC granting the relief requested in the applications filed in the above-referenced matter (herein referred to as "requested relief `), provided that the Commission conditions the grant of the requested relief on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2558A1.txt
  • 7, 2002 By the Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 1. On May 2, 2002, Direct Connect USA, Inc. (Direct Connect) filed the above-captioned application, along with a request for waiver of the separation requirements between stations in the 470-512 MHz band. On July 1, 2002, Mountain Broadcasting Corporation (Mountain) filed Informal Comments under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules seeking denial of the application. In its comments, Mountain argues that grant of Direct Connect's application would result in harmful interference to Mountain's television station WMBC-DT. On July 3, 2002, the Commercial Wireless Division's Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, on its own motion, denied Direct Connect's waiver request and dismissed the application. Accordingly, we dismiss Direct
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2763A1.txt
  • to take any action in regard to the subject license because no objection was made to the initial license application, and the time period for reconsideration of the license grant had expired. The Division rejected Shatzki's arguments, concluding that PG&E's revocation request and PCIA's request for license modification were most properly characterized as informal requests for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, the Division had the authority, under its own auspices, to initiate a license modification proceeding if warranted by the public interest. The Division went on to find that the coordination of Shatzki's application was defective because written consent was neither sought nor received from PG&E, an affected adjacent channel licensee, as required by Section 90.187
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2795A1.txt
  • of this frequency pair to Station WPIR684 is encumbering the recommendation of 460 MHz frequencies within the range of this channel. Therefore, ITA urges the Commission to replace the frequency pair with a valid frequency pair or set aside the authorization. DISCUSSION We believe that ITA's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Hertz's operation on frequency pair 463/468.2650 MHz has a potential to interfere with stations in its vicinity operating on properly assigned, adjacent channels. We conclude Hertz's application should not have been granted to the extent that such action authorized operation on an invalid frequency pair. We find that ITA's suggestion to set aside Hertz's authorization is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3225A1.txt
  • If you have questions regarding this matter, you may contact Tracy Simmons, Deputy Chief of the Division's Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch at (717) 338-2657, or Brian Marenco of the Division's Policy and Rules Branch at (202) 418-0838. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Simpler Petition requesting revocation of Sunshine's license Station WPNQ622, filed on September 8, 2000 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sunshine Communications shall state whether it is willing to file an application to modify its license for Station WPNQ622, Philadelphia, PA., to conform to the FIT's proposal within
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3351A1.txt
  • Arcom's Petition and refer the captioned Bronx Communications application to the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division's Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch for further processing in accordance with Commission rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 5(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 0.331 and 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331, 1.41, the Petition to Deny (Informal Objection) filed by Ralph Addington d/b/a Arcom Communications on June 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Private land mobile radio applications are not subject to the formal procedures
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3483A1.txt
  • for the community of Marietta, Ohio, for each year surveyed. In the results obtained by Nielsen herein, the February 2000/November 2000 reported results for WSAZ-TV, with one standard error added, are 0.21 percent share of total viewing hours and a 23.89 percent net weekly circulation. For February 2001/November 2001, the reported results for WSAZ-TV with the standard errors added are 1.41 percent share of total viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of 12.44 percent. For both years, the share of total weekly viewing hours and the net weekly circulation both fall below the required 3 percent and 25 percent minimums for significantly viewed status when the standard errors are considered. Accordingly, we find that the submitted audience surveys are sufficient
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3569A1.txt
  • the modification and will be deemed to have consented to the modification. Further, as we propose to modify Supreme's license under call sign WNGS881 on our own motion, we dismiss IL Cooperative's Petition as moot. IV. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41, 0.331 and 0.131 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 0.331, 0.131, the Request to Supersede Authorization filed by Illinois Cooperative Association, Inc. d/b/a Clear Talk on May 3, 2001 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS PROPOSED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § § 154(i), 316, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-52A1.txt
  • license checkpoints and multi-jurisdiction teams involving member jurisdictions as well as nonmember jurisdictions including Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Inglewood, the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Torrance, the California Highway Patrol, the El Camino College Campus Police, and the Palos Verdes Estates Police Department. Discussion. As a preliminary matter, we note that El Segundo filed the Petition pursuant to Sections 1.41 and 1.87 of the Commission's Rules. Section 316(a) of the Act allows the Commission to modify a license ``if in the judgment of the Commission such action will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity, or the provisions of this Act or of any treaty ratified by the United States will be more fully complied with.'' However, the Commission does
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-876A1.txt
  • that applications or notifications concerning minor modifications to authorizations need not be placed on public notice as accepted for filing prior to grant. We therefore agree with Nextel that the Notifications are not subject to petitions to deny and that an objection to the Notifications filed prior to grant should have been submitted as an informal objection pursuant to section 1.41 of our rules. A challenge filed after the grant of the Notifications should have been submitted as a petition for reconsideration. However, we do not consider the failure merely to label a pleading correctly necessarily to be a fatal procedural flaw. To do so would elevate form over substance. Accordingly, we will treat a Supreme Petition filed prior to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-988A1.txt
  • it followed the commonly accepted procedures in effect at the time it gave its frequency recommendation. FIT admits, however, that if the revised procedures agreed to by the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) in April 2000 were applied, JJ's application should not have been coordinated. DISCUSSION We will treat Cara's request as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Cara argues that a modification or revocation is warranted because JJ's station does not afford the required interference protection to Lake Las Vegas' station. FIT asserts that JJ's application was coordinated in compliance with the LMCC procedures then in effect. Based upon our analysis, we conclude that the JJ's application should not have been coordinated because
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1099A1.txt
  • the existing coverage areas of Pottstown and Haines & Kibblehouse and preventing harmful interference , while not unduly disrupting Sunshine's operations. Given that Sunshine has consented to such modification, there is no need for further notice or action before we so modify the subject license. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal requests for Commission action filed by Pottstown and Haines & Kibblehouse on August 31, 2000, ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated above and ARE OTHERWISE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and 47 C.F.R. § 1.87, that the license for Station WPNQ622, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, of Sunshine Communications Corporation, IS MODIFIED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1146A1.txt
  • WSM's license was defective to the extent that it authorized operations on frequency 151.8600 MHz. Accordingly, we propose the modification of WSM's license for Station WPIZ793 by replacing frequency 151.8600 MHz with 151.8650 MHz. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the request to initiate a proceeding to revoke or modify the license for Station WPIZ793, filed by the Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc., on October 3, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above and IS OTHERWISE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1445A1.txt
  • We therefore direct the Licensing Branch to reinstate the license for Station KNKP513 on the condition that Teletouch file a modification application to delete the 931.7125 MHz frequency from the station license. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 0.331 and 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331, 1.41, the Informal Request for Commission Action filed by Teletouch Licenses, Inc. on June 3, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent described herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy & Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-By-Site Action, Public Notice, Report No. 1152 (April 17, 2002).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1734A1.txt
  • application for review was proper because the issue of timeliness was before the Bureau, (2) that the Commission should have treated it as a petition for reconsideration, and (3) that the dismissal was erroneous. Therefore, Kay reiterated assertions that he raised in his application for review. In his Petition, Kay requested, pursuant to Section 316 of the Act and Section 1.41 of the Rules, that the Commission modify the captioned authorizations. In this connection, Kay argued that license modification was warranted because the subject license grants did not comply with the Commission's co-channel separation rules. The Commission denied Kay's Petition, treated Kay's license modification request as an informal request for action and dismissed it without prejudice. Further Petition. Here, Kay reasserts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1911A1.txt
  • on so sparse a record. Conclusion. Based on the information available to us, we find that we have insufficient evidence on which to conclude that Station WPLU580 discontinued operation for at least twelve months. Accordingly, we deny Vino's request. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the request for initiation of revocation proceeding filed November 20, 2001 by Vino Farms IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131 and 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2067A1.txt
  • 15, 1996. Id. at 1. Mass Media Bureau Multipoint Distribution Service Actions, Public Notice, Report No. D-925-A (rel. May 7, 1997). Comments at 1. Id. Id. at 2. TVC argues that Grand Alliance lacks standing to file comments regarding the grant of TVC's application. Opposition at 2-3. Standing, however, is not a prerequisite for filing informal comments. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See, e.g., Applications of WINV, Inc., Assignor, and WGUL-FM, Inc., Assignee, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2032 ¶ 2 (1998). Opposition at 8-10. A strike pleading is a pleading filed in bad faith for the primary purpose of blocking, impeding, or delaying the grant of an application. William P. Johnson and Hollis P. Johnson, d/b/a Radio Carrollton, Decision,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2078A1.txt
  • authorization to operate on the channel. We granted BFI's Petition on March 2, 2001, along with a waiver regarding acceptance of the late-filed renewal application. Thereafter, on March 26, 2001, we granted BFI's renewal application. On June 6, 2001, we granted Champion a license to operate on the channel. On December 19, 2002, BFI filed an informal request under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules to revoke Champion's captioned license. BFI avers that because Champion's station was authorized at the same location where BFI's license was reinstated for exclusive use, Champion's license grant is either a ministerial error or contrary to the BFI Grant Letter. Furthermore, BFI states that Champion's operation of Station WPSK972 has caused significant interference to BFI's operation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2155A1.txt
  • protected co-channel station, and contains no exception for temporary locations. Finally, MRA's application 0000628268 is defective for noncompliance with Sections 90.187 and 90.313, and will be dismissed pursuant to Section 1.934(d) of the Commission's Rules. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Petition for Enforcement Action filed by James A. Kay, Jr., on December 4, 2001 IS GRANTED IN PART to the extent stated herein and otherwise DENIED IN PART, and the Commission's licensing records SHALL BE MODIFIED to reflect the cancellation of the licenses for Stations WIJ226, WII664, and WII622. IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-223A1.txt
  • the Commission's licensing records to reflect the existence of the license for Station WMX652. We will also direct LTAB to process the applications for renewal of license Cardiff filed for Stations WMX652 and WMX653. Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Petition for Reinstatement filed by Cardiff Communications Partners II on January 25, 2002 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL PROCESS the applications for renewal of license filed by Cardiff Communications Partners II on March 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2436A1.txt
  • other licensee receiving the operator license he had qualified for, but that Osterkamp's operator privileges had not been returned to Technician Class operator privileges. Therefore, the W5YI VEC urged us to modify Osterkamp's license to correct the operator privileges authorized. Discussion. We believe that W5YI VEC's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Based on the information now before us, it appears that the W5YI VEC intended to request that we modify the operator privileges of the licensee of amateur station KB0VOT. It also appears to us that the grant of Advanced Class operator privileges to Osterkamp was erroneous because he did not pass the examinations necessary to qualify
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2724A1.txt
  • sale of this limited number of ten-second units will result in significant congestion. Accordingly, we grant the petition and extend the waiver period for a period of ninety days from the date of this Order. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41 and 1.925 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.925, the Petition for Clarification filed by Garmin International, Inc. on May 8, 2003, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the waiver granted to Garmin International, Inc., on September 29, 2000, and subsequently extended on April 12, 2001, and August 21, 2002, IS EXTENDED for a period of ninety
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2885A1.txt
  • operation as required under Section 1.955 of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, such renewal is invalid ab initio as there was no license extant which could be renewed. We will modify the Commission's licensing records accordingly. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the Commission's licensing records SHALL BE MODIFIED to reflect the cancellation of the license for Station WIL722. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2905A1.txt
  • requests, we believe that NTC has demonstrated that no reasonable alternatives exist. Thus, we conclude that grants of both Section 21.303(d) waiver requests are warranted under the first prong of the waiver standard. 8. Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Waiver Requests Pursuant to Section 21.303(d)(3) filed by National Television Company on March 29, 2002, and on August 29, 2002 ARE GRANTED. 9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2976A1.txt
  • lease or option. In all other respects, however, we conclude that reconsideration is not warranted under the circumstances presented. Thus, we affirm the Division's dismissal of the application for the other stated reasons. . Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the petition for reconsideration filed by Tekkom, Inc. on January 16, 1996 IS GRANTED IN PART and is otherwise DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3030A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3030A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3030A1.txt
  • Technical Analysis Branch of the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division will process Direct Connect's application in accordance with this decision. Accordingly, we grant Direct Connect's Petition for Reconsideration to the extent discussed herein. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 C.F.R. §§ 145(i), 309, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, that the informal objection filed by Entravision Holdings, LLC on May 23, 2002, IS DISMISSED. , the Waiver Request filed by Direct Connect USA, Inc., on April 4, 2002, IS GRANTED subject to the condition that the proposed operations will provide full interference protection to any existing full-power or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3307A1.txt
  • and some other Licensees. Petitioners assert that there is a pattern of license acquisition followed quickly by license assignment that it believes is persuasive evidence that Kurian is trafficking in Commission licenses. DISCUSSION Although the Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license, it has treated such requests as informal requests for action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Because we are treating the Petition as an informal request, we agree with Petitioners that they are not required to demonstrate standing. Based upon our review and analysis the information before us, we conclude that the record in this proceeding does not support the initiation of a license revocation proceeding under any of the three theories
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-349A1.txt
  • and that the Walker Request is ``defective and must not be considered'' because it was not served on RF Data nor filed with the Office of the Secretary as required for a petition for reconsideration. DISCUSSION We believe that the ITA Request and Walker Request (collectively ``the Requests'') are most properly characterized as informal requests for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. RF Data's assertion notwithstanding, the Walker Request need not be considered a petition for reconsideration for us to consider the merits thereof. We also find that RF Data's reference to Walker's pending request for extension of time to construct Station WPSV754 irrelevant to whether the grant of the frequency pair 471/474.3875 MHz to Station WPTJ220 was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3542A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. 443747 File Nos. 853314-29, 853333-34 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 3, 2003 Released: November 6, 2003 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Introduction. On December 26, 2002, Warren C. Havens (Havens) filed a petition styled ``Request for Commission Action Under 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, and Complaint Under § 208 of the Communications Act.'' By this petition, Havens seeks the revocation of several licenses for Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) Stations held by Mobex Network Services, LLC (Mobex), parent corporation of Regionet Wireless Licensee, LLC (Regionet). Mobex has opposed Havens' Petition and Complaint. Havens has not replied. For the reasons stated below, we shall dismiss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3618A1.txt
  • Commission's Rules. In light of our conclusions, we grant WONC's petition for reconsideration only to the extent that it requests that we rescind the grant of the renewal of the license for Station WMI297. 14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 21.303(d) and 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 21.303(d) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.4, that the petition for declaration of license forfeiture filed by Wireless One, Inc., on August 26, 1996 in connection with Station WMI297, only to the extent reflected herein, IS GRANTED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-447A1.txt
  • been assigned to VSS because it already has been assigned to the American Association of Railroads (AAR) for nationwide geographic use. On March 6, 2002, VSS filed a response in which it concedes that assignment of the AAR frequency was improper. Discussion. We believe that ITA's Petition is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Based on our analysis, we agree with ITA and VSS that frequency pair 938/899.4125 MHz should not have been assigned to Station KNNF731 because VSS's operations are within AAR's protected zone, and VSS did not obtain AAR's concurrence. However, we find that ITA's suggestion to rescind the grant to VSS is unnecessary in the instant case
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-447A1_Erratum.doc
  • been assigned to VSS because it already has been assigned to the American Association of Railroads (AAR) for nationwide geographic use. On March 6, 2002, VSS filed a response in which it concedes that assignment of the AAR frequency was improper. Discussion. We believe that ITA's Petition is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Based on our analysis, we agree with ITA and VSS that frequency pair 938/899.4125 MHz should not have been assigned to Station KNNF731 because VSS's operations are within AAR's protected zone, and VSS did not obtain AAR's concurrence. However, we find that ITA's suggestion to rescind the grant to VSS is unnecessary in the instant case
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-469A1.txt
  • to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's May 17, 2001 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to The KBOO Foundation, licensee of noncommercial Station KBOO-FM, is hereby RESCINDED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, the informal request, filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, by Sarah Jones on October 2, 2002, IS HEREBY DISMISSED AS MOOT. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER And FORFEITURE ORDER shall be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested to John Crigler, Esq., Counsel for The KBOO Foundation, Garvey, Schubert & Barer, 1000 Potomac Street, N.W., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-571A1.txt
  • to previously authorized Station WMI390 in Dayton, Ohio, as required by the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we will direct the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch to dismiss the application as defective pursuant to Section 21.20(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Objection filed by the W.A.T.C.H TV Company on February 5, 1997 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and Sections 21.20 and 21.902 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 21.30, 21.902,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-690A1.txt
  • of the instant applications and, at the very least, requiring an investigation by the Commission. Discussion. Private land mobile radio applications are not subject to the formal procedures associated with petitions to deny as set forth in Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules. Rather, objections to such applications are governed by the Commission's informal request rules set forth in Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. We deny Arcom's Informal Requests because they do not raise substantial or material questions of fact that a grant of the applications would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. With respect to Thomas, it is our understanding that Thomas brought this matter to the Enforcement Bureau's attention before Arcom filed its pleadings, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-783A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 312, the Petition for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, Petition for Revocation filed by E.S.P. Leasing Corp. (ESP) on October 25, 2001 is DENIED insofar as it seeks revocation of the license for Station WNXN838. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Request to reinsert a secondary status condition on the authorization for Station WNXN838 filed by the Personal Communications Industry Association on November 13, 2001 (file no. 0000530603) is DISMISSED as moot. IT IS PROPOSED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-81A1.txt
  • the above-captioned Chevas Peak application before Gem filed its Petition, Chevas Peak subsequently requested cancellation of the authorization in question. Based on the record before us, we find that the Petition is moot and we dismiss it. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the Informal Petition to Deny filed by Gem State Communications, Inc., on December 3, 2001, IS DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ramona E. Melson Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Private
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-830A1.txt
  • issue already have been dismissed. We also grant the Petition, and shall set aside the authorizations of the Seventeen Licensees to operate at Potato Hill on frequency 854.9125 MHz. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, that the Informal Complaint filed by William Bolthouse Farms, Inc., George S. Gillam, and Felder Communications on March 12, 2002 IS GRANTED IN PART and DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART to the extent indicated herein. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the grant of the license for Station WPUI236
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-843A1.txt
  • 309, and Sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. on March 19, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 0.331 and 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331, 1.41, the Petition to Correct the Database filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. on June 19, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent specified herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Petition to Deny filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. (Mar. 19, 2002) (Petition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1106A1.txt
  • In order to inform applicants and other coordinators as to which entities provide coordination services for these two categories, we will announce the certification of any additional coordinators for this spectrum by public notice. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Request for Certification filed by the Industrial Telecommunications Association on June 27, 2002 IS GRANTED to the extent discussed above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Industrial Telecommunications Association and the American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. ARE CERTIFIED to provide frequency coordination services for the Part 90 929-930 MHz paging
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1404A1.txt
  • lacked an adequate showing of why it was not possible to participate earlier in the proceeding, the Petitions are not in full compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 1.106(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules and are therefore procedurally defective. In addition we note that, Mountain requests, in the alternative, that we treat its filing as an ``informal'' request. Section 1.41 provides that a request for Commission action may be submitted informally ``[e]xcept where formal procedures are required.'' We have previously stated that ``where the request for Commission action under Section 1.41 clearly and concisely sets forth the facts relied upon, the regulatory provision governing the license, the interest of the person submitting the request and the relief sought,'' we have
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2069A1.txt
  • Lousiana, LLC Request for Stay ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6268-M CSR-6272-M Adopted: July 8, 2004 Released: July 12, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction Before us is a Request for Partial Stay of Order (``Request'') filed by Classic Cable of Louisiana, LLC and Friendship Cable of Arkansas (``Classic''), pursuant to Sections 1.41 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, of the Media Bureau's Order (``Order'') granting must carry status to KEJB(TV), El Dorado, Arkansas (``KEJB'') on Classic's cable systems serving various communities in Louisiana and Arkansas. The Order requires Classic to commence carriage of KEJB no later than 60 days from the date of release of the Order, based on deficiencies in Classic's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2614A1.txt
  • Brazilian government to operate the Star One C1 satellite at the 65° W.L. orbit location. Letter from Alvin Lezama Pereira, Director General, CONATEL, to Jeree Payton, Satellite Division, International Bureau (Feb. 27, 2004). This letter did not comply with the Commission's filing procedures Nevertheless, we will treat this letter as an informal comment to the Petition. 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.154(b); 1.41. Id. DISCO II, 12 FCC Rcd at 24107-56 (paras. 30-145). DISCO II, 12 FCC Rcd at 24159-69 (paras. 151-74). DISCO II, 12 FCC Rcd at 24157-59 (paras. 146-50). DISCO II, 12 FCC Rcd at 24169-72 (paras. 175-82). DISCO II, 12 FCC Rcd at 24112 (para. 39). DISCO II, 12 FCC Rcd at 24112 (para. 25). DISCO II, 12 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2843A1.txt
  • the Matter of: ) ) Freewave Technologies, Inc. ) File No. EB-02-TS-581 ) Grantee of Equipment ) Authorizations, FCC ID#s KNY-DGR-115, ) KNY-205-108213, KNY-1931852313419 ) and KNY-21161341911919 ) ORDER Adopted: August 31, 2004 Released: September 2, 2004 By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division: I. Introduction In this Order, we address an informal request for Commission action filed pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'') by Microwave Data Systems, Inc. (``MDS''), which requests revocation of the above-captioned equipment authorizations for Part 15 spread spectrum transmitters held by Freewave Technologies, Inc. (``Freewave''). For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss in part and deny in part MDS's request. II. Background On July 31, 1996, an equipment certification for a Part 15 spread
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2983A1.txt
  • dated August 13, 2004 (``Motion to Dismiss''). Request for Declaratory Ruling at 1. Motion to Dismiss at 1. Motion to Stay Upfront Payment Date at 1. Motion to Stay Auction at 1. Telesaurus VPC LLC, AMTS Consortium, and Warren Havens (the ``Responders'') have filed pleadings in opposition, and Mobex responded. The Responders have filed: (i) Opposition to the Mobex § 1.41 Request to Dismiss the Applications of Telesaurus VPC LLC and AMTS Consortium LLC to Participate in Auction No. 57, dated September 8, 2004 (``Opposition to Motion to Dismiss''); (ii) Opposition to Request for Declaratory Ruling, AMTS Auction 57, dated September 7, 2004 (``Opposition to Request for Declaratory Ruling''); and (iii) Opposition to the Two Motions for Stay, AMTS Auction 57,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3375A1.txt
  • initiation of a rulemaking proceeding; and the ITA request is functionally an untimely petition for reconsideration. We therefore dismiss ITA's Informal Request for Certification to coordinate frequencies formerly allotted to the RRS, PRS, and AERS. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Request for Certification filed by the Industrial Telecommunications Association on January 27, 2003, IS DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Michael J. Wilhelm Chief, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3700A1.txt
  • Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order, we address two petitions filed by Warren C. Havens (Havens) regarding the above-captioned Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) applications. As discussed below, the applications were dismissed in 2000 for failure to comply with the coverage rules in effect at the time. On December 3, 2002, Havens filed a petition for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, requesting that the applications be processed under the licensing rules adopted in 2002 in the Fifth Report and Order in PR Docket No. 92-257. On July 15, 2003, he filed a petition for forbearance from or, in the alternative, waiver of those coverage requirements as applied to the above-captioned applications. For the reasons that follow, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-385A1.txt
  • Nonetheless, we will not hesitate to scrutinize applications that merit further attention, and request additional information from applicants as appropriate to ensure that the letter and spirit of the Commission's licensing rules and policies are being followed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Petition to Deny filed by Gem State Communications, Inc. on February 5, 2003 IS DENIED, and the above-captioned applications SHALL BE PROCESSED consistent with this Order and the Commission's Rules. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-396A1.txt
  • and that Saga take steps to prevent its employee from further insulting Western's radio personality does not constitute an attempt to control the ``basic operating policies of the station,'' as Saga maintains. 13. The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license, but rather treats such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Saga claims that Western's actions ``evidence[] a lack of fitness to be a Commission licensee'' and therefore the Commission should initiate a proceeding requiring Western to show cause why its license for WRNX(FM) should not be revoked. Because we reject Saga's claims, Saga's request to initiate a revocation proceeding is dismissed as moot. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-656A1.txt
  • on June 14, 2002, by Nextel against Fresno (``Nextel/Fresno Motion''). The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license. See, e.g., In the Matter of MCI Telecommunications Corp., 3 FCC Rcd 3155 (1988); KDSK, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 893 (1983). The Commission, however, has treated such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of the SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act-Competitive Bidding, First Report and Order, Eighth Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-670A1.txt
  • the merger had been directors of the corporation prior to the merger. We are not persuaded that we should issue an order to show cause why the Alliance's licenses should not be revoked. Although the Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license, it has treated such requests as informal requests for action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Even if Dallas MDS had established that Alliance had engaged in an unauthorized transfer of control, an unauthorized transfer of control does not provide a basis for instituting a revocation proceeding in the absence of misrepresentation or other intent to deceive the Commission. In this case, Dallas MDS has presented no evidence that Alliance misrepresented facts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-724A1.txt
  • station are required to submit an FRN as part of their request because those applicants are seeking a license from the Commission. We note that Shekinah provided its FRN when it resubmitted its application. Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc filed by Shekinah Network on September 16, 2002 IS GRANTED, and the application for extension of time to construct filed by Shekinah Network on August 14, 2002 IS REINSTATED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-725A1.txt
  • other site-based permittees. Accordingly, we will not establish a construction deadline for Station WFY595-H01 at this time, but VCI's permit will be subject to whatever action the Commission takes in WT Docket No. 03-66. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the petition for reconsideration filed by Virginia Communications, Inc. on March 14, 2003 IS GRANTED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John J. Schauble Deputy Chief, Broadband Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1045A1.txt
  • the public interest by allowing incumbent LECs to implement revised PIC change charges at one time, rather than in a piecemeal fashion, which could create customer confusion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1-4, 201, 203, 205, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201, 203, 205, and 403, sections 1.3 and 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3 and 1.41, and authority delegated under sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that the informal request of the incumbent LECs for a limited waiver of the date for filing tariff revisions related to the PIC Change Charge Order IS GRANTED, to the extent discussed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1099A1.txt
  • August 13, 2004 (``Motion to Dismiss''). Request for Declaratory Ruling at 1. Motion to Dismiss at 1. Motion to Stay Upfront Payment Date at 1. Motion to Stay Auction at 1. Telesaurus VPC LLC, AMTS Consortium, and Warren Havens (the ``Responders'') filed pleadings in opposition, and Mobex responded. The Responders pleadings in opposition included: (i) Opposition to the Mobex § 1.41 Request to Dismiss the Applications of Telesaurus VPC LLC and AMTS Consortium LLC to Participate in Auction No. 57, dated September 8, 2004 (``Opposition to Motion to Dismiss''); (ii) Opposition to Request for Declaratory Ruling, AMTS Auction 57, dated September 7, 2004 (``Opposition to Request for Declaratory Ruling''); and (iii) Opposition to the Two Motions for Stay, AMTS Auction 57,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1608A1.txt
  • convenience, or necessity. Accordingly, we deny the informal petition. We further find that the City has satisfied the requirements to obtain a waiver of Section 90.311(a)(2) of our Rules. We therefore grant the City's request for waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the informal petition submitted by National Science and Technology Network, Inc. on October 5, 2004 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.925 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.925, the request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-166A1.txt
  • public interest benefits the Commission articulated in the 800 MHz R&O, in furtherance of its mandate to promote safety of life, health and property through radio communications under the Communications Act, as amended. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to the authority of Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41 and 1.43 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.43 that the Motion for Partial Stay of the Land Mobile Communications Council, in the above-captioned proceeding, filed January 12, 2005, IS DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to the authority of Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1945A1.txt
  • the permit under review.'' Section 312 of the Act provides the Commission with the discretion to institute revocation proceedings on its own motion, but does not specifically create rights in third parties, such as Willsyr, to file petitions to revoke licenses or permits. The Commission has traditionally treated petitions to revoke as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Filing a petition to revoke does not enhance Willsyr's argument that it has standing in the instant proceeding. Moreover, we find that Willsyr's request for revocation contains no allegations which raise public interest concerns meriting further consideration. With respect to the three-pronged standing requirement, traditionally, in a sales context, injury has been asserted in three ways:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1957A1.txt
  • that the license be corrected accordingly. It also indicates that Station WAH is causing interference to Automatic Identification System (AIS) operations on the frequency, resulting in a hazard to navigation for international shipping within approximately two hundred miles of St. Thomas. Discussion. We believe that NTIA's letter is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. NTIA argues that IRAC's approval of the use of frequency 162.025 MHz was temporary, and renewal of the approval was specifically conditioned on the use being coordinated again with the IRAC. However, it appears that, due to administrative oversight, the renewal of the license for Station WAH was not coordinated with the IRAC. Under these circumstances,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2479A1.txt
  • that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 155(c), 309(j) and 405, and 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, the Application for Review filed by Sainte Partners II, LP IS HEREBY DISMISSED for failure to comply with the requirements of 47 C.F.R. § 1.115. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 155(c), 309(j) and 405, and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.43, and 1.44, the Request for Stay of Auction No. 81 filed by Sainte Partners II, LP IS HEREBY DENIED. These actions are taken under authority delegated pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131 and 0.331(c). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine W. Seidel Acting Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See ``Applicants for Low Power Television Construction Permits to be Awarded in Auction No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2908A1.txt
  • participate in these matters previously . . . .'' Petition at 6. Id. Report No. 25676 (``Broadcast Applications''). See R&S Media, 19 FCC Rcd 6300 (2004). Id. Id. Id. Petitioners assert that it may circumvent the procedural requirements of Section 1.106 by requesting that the information in its Petition be considered as an ``Informal Request'' for Commission Action under Section 1.41, citing National Science and Technology Network, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 11133, 11136 (WTB 2002) (``National Science'') and Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 17 FCC Rcd 98, 101 (WTB 2001) (``PG&E''). Notwithstanding that precedent from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``WTB'') is not binding on the Media Bureau staff, the WTB in National Science clearly stated that the petitioner had filed an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2951A1.txt
  • of harmful interference. Given that, as PSI acknowledges, it is entitled to interference protection from geographic licensees and PSI makes no showing of harmful interference or economic harm, we conclude that this speculative concern regarding interference is insufficient to establish standing. Nonetheless, we will, as requested by PSI, treat its petition as an informal request for relief pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, and proceed to address the merits. PSI observes that the assignment application was filed five business days after ACL was granted the license for Call Sign WQPC810, and infers that the parties agreed to the sale while ACL's license application was pending. PSI then suggests that ACL's license should be rescinded for failure to update its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3016A1.txt
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's Rules required the Division to address the IWTI Objection prior to processing ARINC's application. We disagree. As IWTI acknowledges, petitions to deny do not lie against private land mobile radio (PLMR) applications. As a matter of practice, the Division treats such filings as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, and ordinarily addresses such matters prior to acting on the application at issue. That does not mean, however, that an objecting party is entitled to a decision before the Division acts on the application. Indeed, the Commission has rejected the assertion that these ``informal requests must be treated formally by the Commission.'' Nonetheless, because the present
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3018A1.txt
  • LMCC consensus requires non-overlapping stations to satisfy such an analysis. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES After careful consideration of the information before us, we again conclude that El Segundo's application was properly coordinated. Accordingly, we deny NSTN's Petition. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Informal Petition for Reconsideration of National Science and Technology Network, Inc., filed on July 7, 2005, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Michael J. Wilhelm Chief, Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3019A1.txt
  • to Sections 4(i), 309, 337(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, 337(c), and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the petition for reconsideration filed by Mountain Broadcasting Corporation, on August 22, 2002, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART to the extent indicated herein. , 303(r), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the license for Station WPYR980, Mineola, New York, SHALL BE MODIFIED to include the following special conditions: --``Waiver of Rule Sections 90.305, 90.307 and 90.309, to permit use of Channel 19 frequencies outside a 50-mile radius of Philadelphia, is granted subject to the condition that the licensee must accept interference from full-power
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3135A1.txt
  • station has not operated for over one year, the license subsequently terminated for permanent discontinuance of operations pursuant to Section 90.157 of the Commission's Rules. We will modify the Commission's licensing records accordingly. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration and Informal Request for Initiation of License Revocation Proceeding filed by Atlantic Telecommunications on July 8, 2002 IS GRANTED, and the Commission's licensing records SHALL BE MODIFIED to reflect the cancellation of the license for Station WIL295. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-338A1.txt
  • 40 days after the deadline, without seeking a waiver of the deadline. We, however, grant McElroy's request, in the alternative, to consider its pleading as an informal objection. Because Section 1.925 does not provide formal procedures for responding to requests for waivers, we grant McElroy's request to consider its pleading as an Informal Objection to WWC's Waiver Request under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. While we grant McElroy's request, we deny the Informal Objection and grant WWC waiver of Section 22.949(b)(3) of the Commission's rules. We may grant a waiver pursuant to Section 1.925 of the Commission's rules if it is shown that: (1) the underlying purpose of the rule would not be served or would be frustrated by application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-347A1.txt
  • the Commission revoke the above-captioned authorization granted to ESP Leasing Corp. (ESP) for operation on frequency 936.7500 MHz, on the grounds that ESP's Station WPRM224, Chicago, Illinois, does not afford the required interference protection to NIPSCO's Station WNVR291, Crown Point, Indiana. For the reasons stated below, we treat NIPSCO's petition as an informal request for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, and initiate a proceeding to modify ESP's license for Station WPRM224 to delete frequency pair 936/897.7500 MHz. Background. NIPSCO is authorized to operate on frequency 936.7500 MHz under Call Sign WNVR291. It is authorized to operate on the associated mobile frequency 897.7500 MHz under Call Sign WPAH495. The license for Station WPAH495 authorizes mobile operations within
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-461A1.txt
  • us a petition for reconsideration, and a request for leave to file the petition out of time, submitted by Warren C. Havens (Havens) on December 30, 2004. Havens seeks reconsideration of the November 29, 2004, action by the Chief, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Division), denying his December 3, 2002 petition for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, and his July 15, 2003 petition for forbearance from or, in the alternative, waiver of the coverage rules in effect at the time the above-captioned applications were dismissed in 2000. For the reasons that follow, we deny the request for leave and dismiss the petition for reconsideration as untimely. 2. Background. Havens filed the above-captioned Automated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-82A1.txt
  • Communications Act, as amended. Accordingly, as precedent dictates, we conclude that Movants have wholly failed the Virginia Petroleum test for grant of a stay and deny their Motion for Stay Pending Appellate Review. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to the authority of Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and sections 1.41 and 1.43 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.43 that the Motion for Partial Stay of Decision Pending Appellate Review submitted by Mobile Relay Associates and Skitronics, LLC, in the above-captioned proceeding on November 19, 2004, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority of Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1010A1.txt
  • allegation that the licenses for Stations KLH414 and KL3784 cancelled automatically due to discontinuance of station operation, pursuant to Section 90.157 of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we deny NSTN's informal Petition to Dismiss or Deny the application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the informal Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc., on or about July 14, 2004, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communication Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1094A1.txt
  • milestone. Warren Havens, an M-LMS licensee, and three entities in which he is the majority interest holder and serves as President-Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC (THL, an M-LMS licensee), Telesaurus VPC, LLC (TVL), and the AMTS Consortium LLC (ACL) (collectively, with Mr. Havens, the ``Havens Group'')-oppose Progeny's request. Specifically, on May 2, 2005, the Havens Group filed a request under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, asking the Commission to place Progeny's Extension Request on public notice for comment. That filing also included a discussion of ``facts and arguments'' regarding the Extension Request, which the Havens Group asked the Commission to consider as ``an informal petition to deny under Section 1.41'' in the event that the Commission did not place the Extension
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1207A1.txt
  • and WPKX764, Nob Hill, California, to operate on frequency pair 935/896.225 MHz was defective. Accordingly, we propose to modify FCI 900's licenses for Station WPSL997 and WPKX764 to delete authority for frequencies 896.225 MHz and 935.225 MHz. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal request submitted by the Long Beach Unified School District on August 19, 2003 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above. IT IS PROPOSED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and Section 1.87 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-130A1.txt
  • on September 21, 2006, the Commission rescheduled Auction No. 62 to begin on January 12, 2006. Fireside did not file an application to participate in Auction No. 62 and thus is not a qualified bidder in the auction. On January 10, 2006, Fireside filed its Request. discussion We consider Fireside's Request to be an informal request for action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Fireside contends that it will suffer ``irreparable damage'' if the bidding goes forward because it will be ``assessed crippling monetary penalties at the conclusion of Auction No. 62'' unless its Petition for Reconsideration is first decided. We disagree. An injury qualifies as ``irreparable harm'' only if it is ``both certain and great; it must be actual
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1397A1.txt
  • Dallas, Texas. For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that frequency 936.9000 MHz was properly assigned to Moses under Call Sign WPTG843. There are irrelevancies and procedural deficiencies in the pleadings of both parties. However, all pleadings are directed to the same issue and we treat them collectively and for convenience as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. The single issue presented is which party should have the right to use frequency 936.9000 MHz in the Dallas area: (1) DART, which was previously licensed for the frequency but neglected to list it on applications for renewal of the license for Station WNJU479; or (2) Moses, who subsequently filed for and received a license for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1401A1.txt
  • we dismiss Havens's petition for reconsideration or alternative relief setting aside the grant of an extension of time for PSI to file an opposition to the petition to deny. Grant of an extension of time is an interlocutory action. Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules specifically prohibits petition for reconsideration of interlocutory actions. That Havens alternatively requested relief under Section 1.41 of the Rules does not exempt the petition from dismissal, for a party cannot evade the procedural requirements of Section 1.106 by concurrently requesting the same relief under Section 1.41. Finally, if we were to consider the merits of the petition, we would deny it. Contrary to the assertion in the petition, Havens was not prejudiced by the extension because
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1460A1.txt
  • providing international public telecommunications services. The Petition states that ITSO is requesting the license modifications to assure that Intelsat and any successor or subsequent satellite operator using the orbital locations and associated frequency assignments adheres to the core principles established by the ITSO Agreement. We will treat the Petition as an informal request for Commission action under 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 and accept comments on the petition. Following conclusion of the comment cycle, the Commission will decide whether to propose a modification to the Intelsat licenses consistent with 47 U.S.C. § 316. Should the Commission decide to do so, it will notify Intelsat in writing of the proposed action and reasons therefor and afford Intelsat the opportunity to protest such proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1582A1.txt
  • 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the pleading cycle filed by Warren Havens on November 1, 2005, IS GRANTED to the extent described above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Emergency Request regarding the pleading cycle filed by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC on November 2, 2005, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.3 and 1.925 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1619A1.txt
  • delete call sign WPRS297 from the ULS database, Ferrari's Petition to Revoke the license for station WPRS297, and Ferrari's Petition to Deny the captioned application to assign the license for station WPRS297 from Earth to ESP Wireless. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Petition to Deny filed by Ferrari Equipment Company on June 3, 2005, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Request filed by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1872A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1872A2.txt
  • No. 06-106 File Nos. ITC-T/C-20060518-00283; SES-T/C-20060517-000828; SES-T/C-20060517-000829; SAT-T/C-20060517-00062; and 0020-EX-TC-2006 PETITION TO ADOPT CONDITIONS TO AUTHORIZATIONS AND LICENSES The United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), including the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), together with the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") (collectively, the "Agencies"), respectfully submit this Petition to Adopt Conditions to Authorizations and Licenses ("Petition"), pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") rules.1 Through this Petition, the Agencies advise the Commission that they have no objection to the Commission granting its consent in the above-referenced proceeding, provided that the Commission conditions the grant on Motient Corporation ("Motient"), SkyTerra Communications, Inc. ("SkyTerra"), and Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV") (together, the "Applicants") abiding by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-199A1.txt
  • radio communications under the Communications Act, as amended. Accordingly, as precedent dictates, we conclude that Preferred has failed the Virginia Petroleum test for grant of a stay and deny its Request for Stay. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to the authority of Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and sections 1.41 and 1.43 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.43 that the Request for Stay submitted by Preferred Communications Systems, Inc., in the above-captioned proceeding on November 9, 2005, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Michael J. Wilhelm
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2115A1.txt
  • Fuson, however, does not identify either KNLW614 or KNLW615 as ``under discussion'' or the date of such discussions other than ``2000.'' We find that the Fuson Declaration does not demonstrate that Contact either failed to timely construct or permanently discontinued operations. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41, 22.317, and 22.511 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 22.317, 22.511, the Informal Request for License Revocation, filed on September 10, 2003, by William Wayne, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. Sincerely, Roger S. Noel Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2249A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Report No. AUC-65 DA 06-1520 FCC File No. 0002653156 FCC File No. 0002658043 ORDER Adopted: October 30, 2006 Released: October 31, 2006 By the Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Introduction We have before us a Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Sections 1.939, 1.2108, and 1.41 (``Petition'') of the Commission's Rules, filed by AMTS Consortium LLC and Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC regarding the two above-referenced applications for authorizations to provide air-ground radiotelephone service in the 800 MHz band. The Havens Parties' pleading is based on allegations that certain Auction 65 rules were ``unconstitutionally vague, otherwise defective, and thus unenforceable'' and that because the auction
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2317A1.txt
  • request seeking waiver of Section 27.50(f)(1), which specifies a peak 2 kW Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) limit for fixed and base station operations in the 1670-1675 MHz band. OP LLC's application and waiver request are restricted for ex parte purposes under Section 1.1208. On November 2, 2006, Aloha Partners, L.P. filed an Informal Request for Commission Action under Section 1.41, in which it opposes grant of OP LLC's application unless the Commission concurrently increases power limits for licensees in the 700 MHz and several other bands in WT Docket No. 03-264. WT Docket No. 03-264 is a pending permit-but-disclose rulemaking proceeding, in which the Commission has requested comment on, inter alia, the possibility of increasing power limits for certain spectrum
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2545A1.txt
  • the 115° W.L. orbital location. That application will be addressed in a separate order. See New ICO Satellite Services G.P., SAT-MOD-20051021-00206. ICO Modification Application at 4. ICO Modification Application at 4. See Public Notice, Policy Branch Information, Report No. SAT-00325 (Oct. 21, 2005). Intelsat notes that its letter is filed untimely and asks that the letter be considered under section 1.41 of the Commission's rules (Informal Requests for Commission Action), 47 C.F.R § 1.41. Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from Jennifer Hindin, Counsel for Intelsat North America LLC (March 27, 2006) (Intelsat Letter). Comments were also filed by ManSat Ltd (ManSat), which asserted that for the Ka-band frequencies, it had International Telecommunication Union (ITU) priority over ICO at 93°
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-789A1.txt
  • was granted on October 5, 2004. Mobile Relay Associates, Informal Objection, filed July 27, 2004 (Informal Objection). We also have before us a Reply to the Informal Objection filed by NSTN. Letter, dated August 4, 2004, from Ted S. Henry, President, NSTN, to Secretary, FCC (NSTN Reply). There is no standing requirement to file an informal objection pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7028, 7033 ¶ 16 (WTB CWD 2002); National Science and Technology Network, Inc., Order on Further Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 11133, 11135-36 ¶ 5 (WTB PSPWD 2002) (``[t]he question of whether MRA had standing to file a petition to deny against NSTN's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-791A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File Nos. 852997-853009 File Nos. 853010-853014 ORDER ON FURTHER RECONSIDERATION Adopted: March 31, 2006 Released: April 4, 2006 By the Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 1. Introduction. In this Order on Further Reconsideration, we address a petition for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for relief pursuant to Sections 1.2 or 1.41 of the Commission's Rules filed by Warren C. Havens (Havens) on March 24, 2005. Havens seeks reconsideration of a February 22, 2005 action by the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau). The February 22, 2005 action dismissed Havens's petition for reconsideration of the Division's denial of Havens's requests for relief from the Commission's coverage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1087A1.txt
  • filing on October 31, 2005. On July 7, 2006, the Division granted in part and denied in part Petitioners' petition to deny PSI's application to renew its license for Station WHG545. As an initial matter, the Division declined to address PSI's challenge to Petitioners' standing, deciding instead to treat the petition as an informal request for relief pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules in the event Petitioners lacked standing to file a formal petition to deny. On the merits, the Division granted the petition with respect to the Wailuku site because PSI, in a supplement to its opposition to the petition to deny, indicated that it had decided to abandon the site and no longer sought to renew the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1197A1.txt
  • of Treatment of Bids by Bidders Sharing a Controlling Interest,'' Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 5058 (WTB 2006) (``Auction No. 65 Supplemental Procedures Public Notice''). Id. at 5058 and n.4. Division Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5120 ¶ 10 On August 7, 2006, the Havens Parties filed a ``Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Sections 1.939, 1.2108, and 1.41.'' Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC and AMTS Consortium LLC, Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Sections 1.9393, 1.2108 and 1.41, filed on Aug. 7, 2006 (``Auction No. 65 Applications Petition''). The applicants, AC BidCo LLC and LiveTV, LLC, filed oppositions. See AC BidCo LLC, Opposition to Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, filed on Aug. 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-147A1.txt
  • Station WQBI769 transmits continuous data in a polling mode. Therefore, we encourage PCIA, the frequency coordinator involved here, to investigate whether Toyota can use alternate frequencies that would alleviate the potential for harmful interference. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Petition filed on November 2, 2004 by National Science & Technology Network, Inc. IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone, Deputy Chief Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau cc:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1729A1.txt
  • the Joint Preliminary Injunction to permit the sale the license (provided the proceeds were split between Mr. and Ms. Kurian), and that the Objection was procedurally defective. The Division dismissed the Objection insofar as it was a petition to deny, and denied it on the merits to the extent it was an informal request for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. The Division explained that the Nevada litigation between the Kurians was ``precisely the type of private dispute with respect to which the Commission defers to a court of competent jurisdiction.'' The Division also stated that the Nevada court was better positioned than the Commission to determine whether the proposed partitioning of the license for Station WQCP809
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1808A1.txt
  • 1.939(d). PTD at 2. . Cingular--AT&T Wireless Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 21548 ¶ 47. Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 ¶ 6 (1983). We reserve the right to revisit this conclusion in the future in the appropriate context if additional evidence of rule violations comes to our attention. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1808 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1808 �@ˆþÿ �@ˆþÿ �@ˆþÿ �@ˆþÿ �@ˆþÿ Q \ g m u € `` - ¦ ª Ê Ë Ì Ñ ò ó ô h_ hÅ h_ �@ˆþÿ � @& > Z tm ¯ Ä G Z „ ' Å Ä ò _
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-182A1.txt
  • and club name. Therefore, grant of those applications is void. Consequently, we will correct our records to reflect the trustee and club name information that was associated with the license prior to the filing of those applications. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Amateur Radio Service Club Station Call Sign K4WCF SHALL BE MODIFIED to the extent indicated above. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau cc:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-201A1.txt
  • licenses. Section 312 of the Communications Act provides the Commission with the discretion to institute revocation proceedings on its own motion. That provision does not specifically create rights in third parties to file petitions to revoke licenses or permits. Nonetheless, the Commission has traditionally acted on such petitions by treating them as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we will treat NY3G's Petition as an informal request and will consider its arguments in making our determination as to whether we should institute proceedings to revoke TVC's F group licenses. We conclude that there is no statutory basis pursuant to Section 312(a) upon which to institute revocation proceedings against TVC's F group licenses. Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2039A1.txt
  • 26, 2006, Petitioner replied to the Opposition. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the Petition insofar as it might be treated under section 1.939 of the Commission's rules as a Petition to Deny the Application. We also deny the Petition insofar as it might be treated as an informal request to defer action on the Application pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. BACKGROUND Petitioner states that she was previously married to Thomas K. Kurian (``Mr. Kurian''), that while they were married, he held a number of Commission licenses in his name and in other names, and that they were divorced in 2005 pursuant to a decree of a Nevada court. Petitioner notes that, on September 22, 2003, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.txt
  • Filing. Section 312 of the Communications Act provides the Commission with the discretion to institute revocation proceedings on its own motion. That provision does not specifically create rights in third parties to file petitions to revoke licenses or permits. Nonetheless, the Commission has traditionally acted on such petitions by treating them as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. VCI cites no authority for the proposition that a request for informal relief involving a station precludes Commission action on applications involving that station. Moreover, as originally filed, it was unclear what action, if any, the Withdrawal was requesting of the Commission. Most of the Withdrawal reported that VCI was withdrawing its consent to Black Hawk's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2709A1.DOC http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2709A1.txt
  • note that bidders who are found to have violated the Commission's rules in connection with their participation in the competitive bidding process may be subject to sanctions. Accordingly, your request to disqualify an Auction 72 bidder from participating in the auction is denied. Sincerely, Gary D. Michaels Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ``Request Under Section 1.41 Including Emergency Action Prior to Auction No. 72,'' submitted electronically by Warren C. Havens to Margaret Wiener, dated June 19, 2007. Id. See Auction of Licenses for VHF Public Coast and Location and Monitoring Service Spectrum, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 19746, 19749-50 ¶ 7 (Wireless Telecomm. Bur. 2002) (explaining the two-phase auction process in detail). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2105(a)(2)(ix), (x).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-284A1.txt
  • of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.934, that the application for modification of authorization for Station WPMN889 filed by RF Data, Inc. on May 20, 2004 IS DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i) and 303(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Request for Dismissal filed by the California State Automobile Association on August 9, 2004, and supplemented by Supplement to Request for Dismissal filed the California State Automobile Association on September 13, 2004, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT STATED HEREIN. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-287A1.txt
  • six to four watts. Conclusion and Ordering Clauses. For the reasons stated above, we propose to modify Genwest's license for Station WPZC367 by reducing the maximum authorized power on frequency 452.3125 MHz from six to four watts. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the petition to delete frequency request submitted by Jose N. Francis on December 27, 2004 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above. IT IS PROPOSED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and Section 1.87 of Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-290A1.txt
  • IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.939, that the Petition to Deny filed by NTELOS Licenses, Inc. on October 10, 2006 and the Petition to Deny, and in the alternative, Section 1.41 Informal Request to Dismiss or Deny filed Warren C. Havens, et al. on October 1, 2006 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.948 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.948, that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-291A1.txt
  • BRS licenses in the Wichita, Kansas area. The PTD raises concerns that PSI will benefit from the instant assignment of BRS Station WHT743 to American Telecasting and thereby obtain additional funds that could be used to compete against the petitioners in other markets and in other services, such as AMTS and MAS. See PTD at 1. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See Maritime Communications Land Mobile, LLC, Paging Systems, Inc., Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8794 (WTB PSCID 2006) (rejecting petitioners' arguments that the long-form application filed by PSI at the conclusion of AMTS Auction No. 61 should be denied because PSI's incumbent site-based B-Block license in Hawaii is no longer valid, and PSI's concealment of this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3070A1.txt
  • other licensee receiving the operator license for which he had qualified, but that Lewis's operator privileges had not been returned to Technician Class operator privileges. Therefore, W5YI VEC urged us to modify Lewis's license to correct the operator privileges authorized. Discussion. We believe that W5YI VEC's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Based on the information now before us, it appears that W5YI VEC intended to request that we modify the operator privileges of the licensee of amateur station N1LNU. It also appears to us that the grant of General Class operator privileges to Lewis was erroneous because he did not pass the examination necessary to qualify for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3071A1.txt
  • Clauses. For the reasons stated above, we propose to modify Jack in the Box's licenses for Stations WPTC451, WPVM527, WPVS418, and WPVM591, and Taco Bell's license for Station WPXT772, by deleting frequencies 457.5875 MHz and 457.6125 MHz. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the request for relief and advisory opinion submitted by Fresno Mobile Radio on April 29, 2005 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IT IS PROPOSED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and Section 1.87
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3072A1.txt
  • reasons stated above, we propose to modify Jack in the Box's licenses for Stations WPPZ408, WQBI851, WQBI852, WQBI856, WQBI865, and WQBI871, and Taco Bell's license for Station WNXJ551, by reducing the mobile service area to five kilometers. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the request for relief and advisory opinion submitted by Fresno Mobile Radio on April 29, 2005 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IT IS PROPOSED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and Section 1.87
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3100A1.txt
  • the license was improperly granted or that the station is operating in violation of the Commission's Rules. Consequently, we conclude that you have not demonstrated sufficient reason for us to review the licenses listed in your letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the request filed by the Personal Radio Association, Inc. on February 12, 2007 IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3326A1.txt
  • the potential for interference between co-channel stations within thirty-one miles of each other. Therefore, we encourage EWA to investigate whether Yellow Cab can use alternate frequencies that would alleviate the potential for harmful interference. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the informal petition filed on February 8, 2007 by California Portland Cement Company IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0002795572 SHALL BE PROCESSED consistent with this action and the Commission's Rules. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3327A1.txt
  • that the Petition does not provide a basis for denying the above-captioned PA Communications application. We therefore deny the Informal Complaint insofar as it seeks revocation of licenses, and we also deny the Petition. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 312 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 312, and Sections 1.41 and 1.91 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.91, the Informal Complaint, Motion for Revocation of Licenses, and Request for Investigation filed by Ralph Addington d/b/a Arcom Communications on December 1, 2003, IS DENIED IN PART as set forth above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3389A1.txt
  • modifying or revoking NSTN's license for Station WPLT688. We note, however, that MRA previously challenged the frequency coordination for Station WPLT688, and the proceeding has been fully adjudicated. Consequently, we will not revisit the matter. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.41, that the request to initiate license modification proceedings filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc. on February 27, 2007, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A4.txt
  • 2.67 2.72 Children'sProgramming "Children'sProgramming" 1.70 1.91 2.15 1.94 GMoviesorTV-Y/TV-Y7TV 3.18 3.28 3.04 2.94 Eitheroftheabove 4.88 5.19 5.19 4.88 FamilyProgramming NetworksTargetingFamilies 11.46 10.89 10.69 10.74 TY-GProgramming 11.35 12.18 11.93 10.94 Arts,Educational,orDocumentaryProgramming 8.32 7.46 7.05 7.62 Eitherofthetwoabove 19.67 19.64 18.98 18.56 AdultProgramming NetworksShowingAdultProgramming 4.84 4.60 4.89 5.52 NC-17MoviesorTV-MA-S/TV-MA-LTV 0.75 0.48 0.63 0.83 ViolentProgramming "ViolentProgramming" 1.52 1.71 1.94 1.63 TV-PG-VTelevision 1.43 1.45 1.54 1.41 TV-14-VTelevision 1.37 1.40 1.56 1.51 TV-MA-VTelevision 0.15 0.16 0.23 0.22 Anyofthethreeabove 2.95 3.01 3.33 3.14 Anyofthelasttwoabove 1.52 1.56 1.79 1.73 ReligiousProgramming NetworksShowingPrimarilyReligiousProgramming 1.64 1.56 1.49 1.40 "ReligiousProgramming" 3.31 3.15 2.92 2.79 OverallTargeting AverageTVContentRating(wherenotedforTV) 3.71 3.75 3.84 3.93 AverageMPAARating(wherenotedformovies) 3.99 3.93 3.98 3.95 Observations 61,31464,56067,53071,984 Notes:Reportedinthetableisthepercentageofquarter-hoursofprogrammingbyprogramtypeandyear. ItistheanalogofTable6splitoutbyyear.Averageisoverthesamenetworksandtimeperiodsdescribed inthenotestoTable6.Source:Authorcalculations.39 Table11: ProgramAvailabilitybyProgramTypeandTime 6:00p.m.-12:00a.m.EST(orequivalent),2weeks/year,2003-2006 Variable 2003 2004 2005 2006 NewsProgramming AnyNews 47.79 46.11 48.59
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A6.txt
  • 45% 86 Percent Entertainment/Leisure/DJ Banter, Evening 9% 3% 0% 84% 83 7% 2% 0% 65% 86 Percent Music, Evening 52% 56% 0% 97% 83 52% 65% 0% 99% 86 Percent News, Evening 3% 0% 0% 45% 83 3% 0% 0% 21% 86 Percent Sports, Evening 11% 0% 0% 93% 83 12% 0% 0% 81% 86 Average Block, Advertisements, AM Drive 1.41 1.16 0.00 5.58 82 1.30 1.02 0.00 5.58 83 Average Block, Entertainment/Leisure/DJ Banter, AM Drive 2.22 1.64 0.00 15.50 82 2.14 1.12 0.00 17.63 83 Average Block, Music, AM Drive 1.97 2.05 0.00 8.44 82 1.85 2.00 0.00 4.97 83 Average Block, News, AM Drive 0.72 0.57 0.00 3.10 82 0.75 0.63 0.00 2.90 83 Average Block, Sports, AM Drive
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.txt
  • date fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Adjusted R-squared .19 .20 .22 .26 .27 Notes: Absolute values of t-statistics in parentheses (using heteroscedastic-consistent standard errors corrected for clustering by television station); ***p<.01, **p<.05 and *p<.10. 43 Table 11: Total State and Local Poll Coverage (in seconds) Independent variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Local station ownership Cross-owned newspaper 3.3 (1.41) 2.3 (0.57) 0.1 (0.04) 0.4 (0.13) -0.5 (0.17) Cross-owned radio station -10.9 (1.63) -9.6 (1.44) -10.7 (1.44) -11.0 (1.44) Cross-owned radio and newspaper 9.7 (1.10) 10.9 (1.30) 11.5 (1.39) 13.1 (1.58) Parent company coverage of all television households (%) 0.3 (1.55) 0.4 (1.50) 0.4 (1.55) Network owned and operated -10.2* (1.83) -9.9 (1.28) -9.7 (1.30) Network affiliation (omitted category is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3490A1.txt
  • broadband due in part to the unavailability of equipment at economically rational costs.'' SpeedUSNY contends that ``[e]quipment unavailability has been a significant issue in the industry and has stifled the deployment of competitive services.'' It seeks an additional three years from March 27, 2007 to demonstrate substantial service. On April 9, 2007, M2Z filed an informal request, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, that the Bureau rescind its recent grant of SpeedUSNY's renewal application, reconsider its acceptance of and dismiss SpeedUSNY's required notification of substantial service, deny SpeedUSNY's request for extension and waiver, and automatically cancel or revoke the license. M2Z contends that ``[n]otably absent from Speedus's report is any discussion of actual LMDS services currently being offered by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-360A1.txt
  • the request for protection and waiver request. The Division concluded that PSI lacked standing to file the petition to deny because the service contours of its incumbent site-based AMTS Station WQA216 do not overlap any of the areas to be partitioned, but it nonetheless would address the merits of the petition as an informal request for relief pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. It then rejected PSI's argument that the redacted purchase agreement filed by ACL and NUSCO was insufficient to satisfy the purpose of the filing requirement in Section 1.2111(a) of the Commission's Rules. On December 8, 2005, PSI filed a petition for reconsideration of the Order. Discussion. PSI asserts that the Division erred in its decision that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3A1.txt
  • requested by the parties. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.; 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457, 0.459. The parties submitted redacted copies of their pleadings and letters for inclusion in the Commission's public file. Confidential information is included in the attached Appendix. Mediacom filed a ``Motion for Consideration by Full Commission,'' pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.5(c), 0.211, 0. 283(c) and 1.41. Mediacom argues that while retransmission consent matters generally fall within the scope of the Bureau's delegated authority, the Bureau's authority extends only to matters that are minor or routine and that do not present novel questions of law, fact or policy that cannot be resolved under existing precedents and guidelines. Mediacom's motion is denied. We do not believe that Mediacom's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4113A1.txt
  • Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554, Attn: Melvin Spann. If no protest is filed, LCS will have waived its right to protest the modification and will be deemed to have consented to the modification. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the request to initiate modification proceedings submitted by Mobile Relay Associates on March 23, 2004 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above. IT IS PROPOSED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and Section 1.87 of the Commission's Rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4345A1.DOC http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4345A1.txt
  • disaggregate VHF Public Coast (VPC) spectrum from MariTEL to Motorola, Inc. (Motorola). On March 2, 2007, AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, Telesaurus Holding GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation (collectively Petitioners) requested partial reconsideration of the Order. In the alternative, Petitioners request that their petition be treated as an informal request under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the petition. Background. On January 20, 2006, MariTEL filed the above-captioned applications for consent to partition and disaggregate portions of sixteen VPC geographic licenses to Motorola. Accompanying the applications were requests for waivers to permit Motorola to provide this spectrum to third parties to satisfy public safety and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4351A1.txt
  • to individuals who desire to upgrade their amateur radio operator privileges. We suggest that amateur service licensees in the Chicago FM Club who are interested in becoming VEs contact one or more VEC and become accredited VEs. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the request filed by the Chicago FM Club on April 17, 2007 IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone, Deputy Chief Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See Use of Volunteers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-436A1.txt
  • necessity. Accordingly, we deny the informal petitions. We further find that LAWA has satisfied the requirements to obtain a waiver of Section 90.311(a)(2) of the Commission's rules. We therefore grant LAWA's request for waiver. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Petition to Dismiss or Deny submitted by National Science and Technology Network, Inc., filed on September 20, 2006, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4619A1.txt
  • Thus, we find that M2Z has not established standing to petition for reconsideration of the Bureau's adjudicatory selection of CTIA in the Clearinghouse Order. Nonetheless, because we do not take allegations of clearinghouse misconduct lightly, we are deeming M2Z Petition to be an informal request for Commission action to remove CTIA's clearinghouse designation, and are reviewing M2Z's allegations under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Turning to the merits of M2Z's allegations, the Bureau stated in the Clearinghouse Order that ``CTIA and PCIA must provide clearinghouse services on a non-discriminatory, impartial basis.'' M2Z's Petition claims that CTIA's recent actions ``undermine any claim it may have had that it could be considered a `neutral' clearinghouse for the 2.1 GHz band'' as to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4715A1.txt
  • that is the current space station licensee. Petition at 2-3. Petition at 2. Petition of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization Under Section 316 of the Act, IB Docket No. 06-137 and File No. SAT-MSC-20060710-00076, Public Notice, DA 06-1460, 21 FCC Rcd 7923 (IB 2006) (``Public Notice''). The Public Notice accepted the Petition as an informal pleading under 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 and sought comment, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd at 7924. Opposition of Intelsat, IB Docket No. 06-137 and File No. SAT-MSC-20060710-00076 (filed Aug. 17, 2006). ITSO responded to Intelsat's opposition. Reply Comments of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO), IB Docket No. 06-137 and File No. SAT-MSC-20060710-00076 (filed Aug. 28, 2006). Intelsat replied to ITSO's response. Reply of Intelsat, IB
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4945A1.txt
  • approve the Omnibus Settlement Agreement and dismiss all of the pleadings, comments, replies, and supplements filed by Willsyr in connection with the grant of the construction permit and license for Station WOXL-FM to Liberty and the assignment of license for Station WOXL-FM from Liberty to Saga. In conjunction with this proceeding, we also have before us a Withdrawal of Section 1.41 Request for Commission Action filed on August 27, 2007, by the Estate of David T. Murray. As further discussed below, we grant the withdrawal request and dismiss this pleading. Background. Willsyr was among thirteen original applicants seeking an FM construction permit for Channel 243A at Biltmore Forest. After comparative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ'') issued an Initial Decision disqualifying
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-583A1.txt
  • of mobile and portable radios to remove pre-rebanding channels. Petitioners also request a stay of the Boston Order. We dismiss the petition for reconsideration for lack of standing because the Boston Order is limited to the facts presented in the record of that proceeding and does not adversely affect Petitioners. We also deny Petitioners' stay request. However, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, we treat the Petition as an informal request for Commission action for the purpose of explaining with greater specificity the conditions under which Sprint may be required to pay for multiple touches of 800 MHz mobile and portable radios during rebanding. II. BACKGROUND In the Boston Order, we addressed Boston's claim that the purchase of inventory-tracking
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-816A1.txt
  • of Section 90.273(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.273(c), filed on February 3, 2003, by Midport Electronics, Inc. IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT STATED HEREIN subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 11 supra. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Petition to Deny filed on June 8, 2004, by Futronics, Inc. IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See FCC File No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-864A1.txt
  • NSTN's application was filed and granted, MRA's consent was not required. Commission precedent holds that pending applicants are not entitled to the same treatment as existing licensees. As a result, we deny MRA's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316(a), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Request to Initiate Modification Proceedings filed by Mobile Relay Associates on October 1, 2004 IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-865A1.txt
  • harmful interference are expected to cooperate and resolve interference problems by mutually satisfactory arrangements. Based on the information before us, we have no basis for concluding that these grant of MRA's application would be inconsistent with these requirements. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the informal petition to dismiss or deny filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc., dated July 6, 2006 IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0002661086 SHALL BE PROCESSED consistent with this Order and the Commission's Rules. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-866A1.txt
  • amateur service operator license, and not in the public interest because it occurred due only to receipt of a defective data file. Thus, we conclude that your license should be corrected to accurately reflect your current operator privileges. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the amateur service operator license for Amateur Radio Station KI6ASC SHALL BE MODIFIED by replacing General Class operator privileges with Technician Class operator privileges. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1084A1.txt
  • in Auction No. 59 because it was a competing bidder against PSI in Auction No. 59); High Plains Wireless, L.P. v. FCC, 276 F.3d 599, 605 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (holding that auction participant had standing to challenge award to another of a license for which it bid)). See MO&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 1246 ¶ 8 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.41). See MO&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 1246 ¶ 8. See id. See id. (citing Maritime Communications Land Mobile, LLC, Paging Systems, Inc., Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8794 (WTB PSCID 2006) (rejecting petitioners' arguments that the long-form application filed by PSI at the conclusion of AMTS Auction No. 61 should be denied because PSI's incumbent site-based B-Block license in Hawaii is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1085A1.txt
  • of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 And 2500-2690 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 03-66, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, ¶ ¶ 9-16 (2004). See MO&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 1291-1292 ¶ 10. MO&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 1292 ¶ 12, citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See MO&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 1292 ¶ 12. See MO&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 1292 ¶ 12. MO&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 1292 ¶ 12. MO&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 1292 ¶ 12. Section 1.948(i)(1) of the Commission's Rules defines trafficking or warehousing as obtaining or attempting to obtain an authorization for the principal purpose of speculation or profitable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1086A1.txt
  • to Nextel Spectrum. We note that none of the referenced stations have been constructed, and the petitioners present no evidence that they are direct and current competitors with a BRS licensee in the Strasburg, Virginia area. Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition. Although the Petition has been dismissed, it is in our discretion to informally consider its allegations. Pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, requests for action may be submitted informally except where formal procedures are required. In this instance, we note that petitioners are clearly wrong when they argue that ATI, WPV, and Nextel Spectrum are not eligible to hold the license. Because the license in question is a commercial EBS license, WPV may freely hold and assign the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1368A1.txt
  • Docket No. 05-63, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13967, 14021 n.335 (2005) (``Sprint-Nextel'') (citing Applications of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. and Cingular Wireless Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21522, 21547 n.196 (2004)). However, even if RUS lacks standing and/or did not file its Petition in a timely manner, we have discretion under 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 to consider the Petition as an informal request for Commission action (sometimes referred to as an ``informal objection''). See, e.g., Sprint-Nextel, 20 FCC Rcd at 14021 n.335 (citing Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7028, 7033 (WTB 2002) (noting ``there is no standing requirement to file an informal objection pursuant to [47 C.F.R. § 1.41].'')); Application of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1372A1.txt
  • File No. BNPH-20070423AAS. Coosa Valley News, Inc. and Mr. Howard C. Toole, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 18600 (MB 2007), petition for recon. pending (``Toole Decision''). Objection at 2. Id. Id. Opposition at 3-4. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15464 (1996) (``Greater Muskegon Broadcasters''). Id. at 15472 (emphasis added). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 309(d); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.17, 1.41 - 1.77, 73.3584, 73.3587, 73.5006, 73.7004. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.52, 73.3584(b). Coleman Objection, first unnumbered page. Id., second unnumbered page. Id., second-third unnumbered pages. See 47 U.S.C. § 310(d); Dorothy J. Owens, Debtor-in-Possession, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6615 (1990). Cf. Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2392A1.txt
  • lacks standing to bring the Objection. However, since standing is not a perquisite to the filing of an informal objection, Potomac's contention that Birach does not have standing is misplaced. See Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7028, 7033 (WTB 2002) (noting ``there is no standing requirement to file an informal objection pursuant to [47 C.F.R. § 1.41].'')); see also 47 C.F.R. § 73.3587. Id. at 4. Id. at 5. For example, Potomac notes that DRRTS has also been represented by David W. Brown, Esq., of the law firm of Knopf & Brown. See Opposition, Exhibit A. Indeed, Mr. Brown submitted a pre-hearing statement in the very zoning hearing with which Birach takes issue. See id. Potomac also
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2614A1.txt
  • Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System, including automatic notification to the commenter of the official filing date and time. See ECFS Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 11322 ¶ 20. Finally, we note that pleadings are considered to be filed upon their receipt by the Commission, rather than the time of attempted submission. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 (informal requests for Commission action). Havens Further Comments at 2-3. Havens made similar arguments in this proceeding in a document captioned ``Petition to Deny,'' which he submitted with the Skybridge Comments. See e.g., Ex Parte of Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, WT Docket 06-49 (filed May 7, 2007); Petition for Reconsideration and, in the Alternative, Petition to Deny or Request Under
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-444A1.txt
  • the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO), IB Docket No. 06-137 (filed July 10, 2006) (``Petition''); Petition of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization Under Section 316 of the Act, IB Docket No. 06-137 and File No. SAT-MSC-20060710-00076, Public Notice, DA 06-1460, 21 FCC Rcd 7923 (Int'l Bur. 2006) (``Public Notice'') (accepting the Petition as an informal pleading under 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 and seeking comment on the Petition). ITSO had raised similar issues in an earlier proceeding involving the transfer of control of licenses held by two subsidiaries of PanAmSat to Intelsat Holdings Ltd. (``Intelsat''), the indirect parent of Intelsat North America. In that proceeding dealing with the transfer of the PanAmSat authorizations, the Commission declined to adopt the relief ITSO sought
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-578A1.txt
  • stations that are utilized only by mobile units associated with another base station, we reject MRA's position that Section 90.155 prohibits the construction of a base station that will not be utilized by its own associated mobile units. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the Informal Objection filed by Mobile Relay Associates, on May 18, 2007 IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0002919009 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike filed by Mobile Relay Associates on June 7, 2007 IS GRANTED. This action is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-580A1.txt
  • constructed Station WQGU853, applications 0003032483 and 0003032485, because MRA may not concurrently request multiple 470-512 MHz band frequency pairs at the same location. Only after the prior assigned frequency pair is loaded may another frequency pair be requested. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the petitions to dismiss or deny modification application filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc., on May 7, May 30, and September 20, 2007 ARE GRANTED, and applications FCC File Nos. 0002995043, 0002997996, 0003032483, and 0003032485 SHALL BE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that application FCC File No. 0003027621 SHALL BE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-824A1.txt
  • as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Partial Reconsideration submitted by National Science and Technology Network, Inc. on July 19, 2007 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the Request for Enforcement Action and License Modification for WQAD318, City of El Segundo, Due to Non-Construction and Non-Operation filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc. on July 24, 2007 IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-88A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-88A1.txt
  • on the face of the license, STAs are granted on a secondary, non-interference basis. Consequently, the application for Station WQEJ993 was not required to protect Station WQEH403, and your request sets forth no basis for modifying Gardali's license. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the request filed by Spectrum Wireless LLC on June 14, 2007 for modification of the license for Station WQEJ993 IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1004A1.txt
  • AMTS Consortium, LLC is now known as Environmentel LLC. See, e.g., FCC File No. 0003649429. Petition to Deny (filed August 27, 2008) (Petition). On September 10, 2008, PSI filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Deny (filed September 10, 2008). On September 22, 2008, Petitioners filed a reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed September 22, 2007) (Reply). On September 30, 2008, PSI filed a motion to strike portions of the Reply. Motion to Strike Portions of Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.42 Request (filed September 30, 2008) (Motion to Strike). Petitioners filed an opposition on October 10, 2008. Opposition to Motion to Strike Portions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1004A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Petition.6 1AMTS Consortium, LLC is nowknown as Environmentel LLC. See, e.g., FCC File No. 0003649429. 2Petition to Deny (filed August 27, 2008) (Petition). On September 10, 2008, PSI filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Deny (filed September 10, 2008). On September 22, 2008, Petitioners filed a reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed September 22, 2007) (Reply). On September 30, 2008, PSI filed a motion to strike portions of the Reply. Motion to Strike Portions of Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.42 Request (filed September 30, 2008) (Motion to Strike). Petitioners filed an opposition on October 10, 2008. Opposition to Motion to Strike Portions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1056A1.txt
  • Spectrum Wireless in 2007, thus authorizing him to file the assignment application as per the Agreement. He also stated that during the process of the assignment of the license to Nevada Cogen, the call sign was changed from WPKU307 to WPMR751 for ``unknown reasons.'' Discussion. We treat Nevada Cogen's Request as an informal request for Commission action, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, which does not limit the time period within which such request must be filed. We therefore are unpersuaded by Mr. Kurian's argument that we should deny the Request as an untimely petition for reconsideration of our consent to the assignment application. Based on the record before us, we conclude that Mr. Kurian was not authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1056A1_Rcd.pdf
  • from Spectrum Wireless in 2007, thus authorizing him to file the assignment application as per the Agreement.11He also stated that during the process of the assignment of the license to Nevada Cogen, the call sign was changed from WPKU307 to WPMR751 for "unknown reasons."12 5. Discussion.We treat Nevada Cogen's Request as an informal request for Commission action, pursuant to Section 1.41of the Commission's Rules,13which does not limit the time period within which such request must be filed.14We therefore are unpersuaded by Mr. Kurian's argument that we should deny the Request as an untimely petition for reconsideration of our consent tothe assignment application.15 6. Based on the record before us, we conclude that Mr. Kurian was not authorized to file an application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1331A1.txt
  • Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(g), that the Petitions to Dismiss or Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on July 13, 2007, August 24, 2007, October 26, 2007, and November 2, 2007 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File Nos. 0002882270, 0002882276, 0002882573, 0002922392, 0002926906, 0002935982, 0002935983, 0002936004, and 0002945440. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1331A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 5447 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3). 55BRS/EBS 3rdMO&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 5720 ¶ 278, quoting47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B). 56BRS/EBS 3rdMO&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 5733 ¶ 303; 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(e). 57BRS/EBS 2ndFNPRM. 8060 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1331 31. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File Nos.0002882270, 0002882276, 0002882573, 0002922392, 0002926906, 0002935982, 0002935983, 0002936004, and 0002945440. 32. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1334A1.txt
  • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of Sprint Nextel Corporation on March 23, 2007 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002862763. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.1200(a) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1334A1_Rcd.pdf
  • of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of Sprint Nextel Corporation on March 23, 2007 IS DISMISSED. 16. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002862763. 17. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.1200(a) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1336A1.txt
  • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the petition for reconsideration filed by Sprint Nextel on January 3, 2007 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 20031128AAA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.1200(a) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1336A1_Rcd.pdf
  • first time at reconsideration stage. As a result, we need not make a determination on the merits of Sprint Nextel's Petition. 40Petition at 9. 41Id. 42Hubbard Opposition at 2. 43Hubbard Opposition at 2-4. 44Hubbard Opposition at 3. 45Hubbard Opposition at 4. 46Hubbard Opposition at 5. 47Hubbard Opposition at 4. 48Sprint Nextel Reply at 8-9. 49Id.at 9, citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, Nassau County Police Department, MemorandumOpinion and Order,19 FCC Rcd 10088, 10092 ¶ 11 (WTB 2004), NewYork Telephone Co., et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 3303, 3304 ¶ 10 (1991). 50Hubbard Opposition at 5. 51Hubbard Opposition at 5 n.1. 52Sprint Nextel Reply at 3-6. 8084 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1336 12. Section 1.106(c) of our rules provides that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1337A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(g), that the Petition to Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on March 30, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002923574. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002923574. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.1200(a) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1337A1_Rcd.pdf
  • amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(g), that the Petition to Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on March 30,2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002923574. 23. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002923574. 24. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.1200(a) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1340A1.txt
  • Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules, petitions to deny are due thirty days after public notice that an application has been accepted for filing. As is indicated in the Appendix, several of the petitions to deny before us are untimely, as they were filed weeks or months after the deadline. Accordingly, we dismiss those petitions. We note that under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, we have discretion to consider these untimely petitions as informal objections. We decline to do so in this instance because, as described in greater detail below, we conclude that the parties have failed to show any cognizable interest in denial of any of the pending applications. Ex Parte Motion Sprint Nextel has argued in certain cases
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1340A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Under Section1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules,37petitions to deny are due thirty days after public notice that an application has been accepted for filing. As is indicated in the Appendix, several of the petitions to deny before us are untimely, as they were filed weeks or months after the deadline. Accordingly, we dismiss those petitions. 12. We note that under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, we have discretion to consider these untimely petitions as informal objections.38We decline to do so in this instance because, as described in greater detail below, we conclude that the parties have failed to show any cognizable interest in denial of any of the pending applications. 2. Ex Parte Motion 13. Sprint Nextel has argued in certain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1341A1.txt
  • of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(g), that the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on May 4, 2007 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002972895. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1341A1_Rcd.pdf
  • C.F.R. § 1.939(g), that the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on May 4, 2007 IS DISMISSED. 42Waiver Request at 1. 4347 C.F.R. § 1.5. 44Declaratory Ruling, supra. 45Id. 8142 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1341 19. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i)of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002972895. 20. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1378A1.txt
  • or that specifies the standard for reporting signal quality. The Commission does not regulate amateur contests; rather, they are self-administered by the amateur community. Consequently, we believe that your concerns should be directed to the contest sponsors. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the petition submitted by Jack Najork on May 6, 2009, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Petition by Jack Najork (filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1378A1_Rcd.pdf
  • signal received or that specifies the standard for reporting signal quality. The Commission does not regulate amateur contests; rather, they are self-administered by the amateur community.6Consequently, we believe that your concerns should be directed to the contest sponsors. Accordingly, ITIS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the petition submitted by Jack Najork on May 6, 2009, IS DENIED. 1Petition by Jack Najork (filedMay6, 2009) (Petition). 2Id. at 3. For voice transmissions, a "signal report" consists of two numbers indicating the readability and strength of the transmitting station's signal at the receiving station. Readability is reported using a scale
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1409A1.txt
  • had to be renewed within the grace period. Because you did not renew the license during the grace period, you must take the required examination and apply for a new license if you wish to be relicensed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the petition submitted by Gary Sabalone on June 11, 2009, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See 47 C.F.R. § 13.13(b). See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1409A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, Report and Order,WT Docket No. 98-20, 13 FCC Rcd 21027, 21071 ¶ 96 (1998). 5See 47 C.F.R. § 13.13(b). 8465 Mr. Gary Sabalone as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the petition submitted by Gary Sabalone on June 11, 2009, IS DENIED. This actionis taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 8466
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1418A1.txt
  • other licensee receiving the operator license for which he had qualified, but that Schmidt's operator privileges had not been returned to Technician Class operator privileges. Therefore, W5YI VEC urged us to modify Schmidt's license to correct the operator privileges authorized. Discussion. We believe that W5YI VEC's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Based on the information now before us, it appears that W5YI VEC intended to request that we modify the operator privileges of the licensee of amateur station WB7NJV. It also appears to us that the grant of Amateur Extra Class operator privileges to Schmidt was erroneous because he did not pass the examination necessary to qualify
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1418A1_Rcd.pdf
  • in the other licensee receiving the operator license for which he had qualified, but that Schmidt's operator privileges had not been returned to Technician Class operator privileges.4Therefore, W5YI VEC urged us to modify Schmidt's license to correct the operator privileges authorized. 4.Discussion.We believe that W5YI VEC's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules.5Based on the information now before us, it appears that W5YI VEC intended to request that we modify the operator privileges of the licensee of amateur station WB7NJV. It also appears to us that the grant of Amateur 1SeeFile No. 0003821761 (filed Apr. 28, 2009). 2See 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(b). 3Letter via e-mail dated June 16, 2009,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1433A1.txt
  • standard 12.5 kHz frequency pair on its current channel center. We believe that it would be contrary to the Commission's intent to grant a waiver to permit RCA to encumber spectrum for which RCA has no immediate need. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41 and 1.925 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.925, the informal petition filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc., to dismiss or deny application FCC File No. 0003370765 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1433A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 12.5 kHz frequency pair on its current channel center. We believe that it would be contrary to the Commission's intent to grant a waiver to permit RCA to encumber spectrum for which RCA has no immediate need. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.41 and 1.925 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.925, the informal petition filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc., to dismiss 6 Id. at 2. 7 See Petition at 1-2. RCA argues that NSTN lacks standing to challenge the application. See Opposition at 2. We note, however, that there is no standing requirement for informal petitions for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1474A1.txt
  • and 1.931 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331 and 1.931, the Request for Special Temporary Authority filed by Kevin R. Nida on October 27, 2006, FCC File No. 0002799178, shall be DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 1.41 and 1.46 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.46, the Motion for Extension of Time filed by James A. Kay, Jr. on November 15, 2006, the Motion to Strike James A. Kay's Opposition to Request for Stay filed by Kevin R. Nida on November 28, 2006, the Motion to Strike Motion to Strike MRA's Opposition to Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1474A1_Rcd.pdf
  • and 1.931 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331 and 1.931, the Request for Special Temporary Authority filed by Kevin R. Nida on October 27, 2006, FCC File No. 0002799178, shall be DISMISSED. 33. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 1.41 and 1.46 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.46, the Motion for Extension of Time filed by James A. Kay, Jr. on November15, 2006, the Motion to Strike James A. Kay's Opposition to Request for Stay filed by Kevin R. Nida on November28, 2006, the Motion to Strike Motion to Strike MRA's Opposition to Request for Stay filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1786A1.txt
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the Petition For Reconsideration filed on December 23, 2008 by Mobile Relay Associates IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Objection filed on December 23, 2008 by Mobile Relay Associates IS GRANTED to the extent set forth above, and applications FCC File Nos. 0003662993, 0003662997, 003662999, and 0003663003 SHALL BE DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1786A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the Petition For Reconsideration filed on December 23, 2008 by Mobile Relay AssociatesISDENIED. 7.ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Informal Objection filed on December 23, 2008 by Mobile Relay Associates IS GRANTED to the extent set forth above, and applications FCC File Nos. 0003662993, 0003662997, 003662999, and 0003663003 SHALL BE DISMISSED. 8.This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2423A1.txt
  • Wireless LLC with respect to File No. 0002647326 on June 6, 2008 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(g), that the Petition to Deny And, in the Alternative, Request Under Section 1.41 filed by Environmentel LLC , Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC and Warren C. Havens on July 8, 2009 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John J.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2423A1_Rcd.pdf
  • AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, and Intelligent Transportation and Monitoring Wireless LLC, Paging Systems, Inc. Petition toDeny (filed July 12, 2006). 5File No. 0002647326 (filed June 23, 2006). 6See PSI Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 7458 ¶ 1. 7File No. 0003872179 (filed Jun. 18, 2009). 8Petition to Deny And, in the Alternative, Request Under Section 1.41 (filed Jul. 8, 2009) (Petition to Deny). 9Withdrawal of File Nos. 0002647326, 0003872179 (filed Nov. 10, 2009). 10File Nos. 0004009815, 0004009827, 0004009834 (filed Oct. 27, 2009, granted Nov. 12, 2009). 13776 Mr. Warren C. Havens pleadings, our dismissal of the AFR and Petition to Deny is without prejudice to consideration of those arguments in the appropriate contexts.11 Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2565A1.txt
  • further operation of those facilities by would be in violation of the Commission's rules. If Spectrum Wireless LLC wishes to operate those facilities in the future, it must first file new applications for permanent authorization. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 1.41 and 1.931 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.931, that the request for renewal of the authorizations for Stations WQEH403, WQEI307, WQEI308, WQEI758, and WQEI759, submitted by Spectrum Wireless LLC on June 19, 2009, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2565A1_Rcd.pdf
  • further operation of those facilities by would be in violation of the Commission's rules. If Spectrum Wireless LLC wishes to operate those facilities in the future, it must first file new applications for permanent authorization. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 1.41 and 1.931 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.931, that the request for renewal of the authorizations for Stations WQEH403, Kurian had allowed to expire, the Division concluded that the cancellation requests were moot, but that the licenses had in fact canceled automatically. See id. at 3 n.14. 6See id. at 3. 7See Pappammal Wellington Kurian, Order on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2626A1.txt
  • right, but rather a matter within the Commission's discretion. Although the Communications Act and Commission rules do not provide a right for opposing parties to file petitions to deny 3650 MHz band registrations that do not appear on public notice as accepted for filing, we have discretion to treat such pleadings as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. We do so here. PTDs' allegations concerning unauthorized operation. Having reviewed the PTDs and World Data's Responses, we find no basis for denying the above-referenced registration applications. We note that the Enforcement Bureau conducted an investigation regarding the unauthorized operation alleged in the Complaint Letter and issued a Notice of Violation. While we believe that rule
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2626A1_Rcd.pdf
  • of right, but rather a matter within the Commission's discretion. Although the Communications Act and Commission rules do not provide a right for opposing parties to file petitions to deny 3650 MHz band registrations that do not appear on public notice as accepted for filing,we have discretion to treat such pleadings as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules.38We do so here. 11. PTDs' allegations concerning unauthorized operation.Having reviewed the PTDs and World Data's Responses, we find no basis for denying the above-referenced registration applications. We note that the Enforcement Bureau conducted an investigation regarding the unauthorized operation alleged in the Complaint Letter and issued a Notice of Violation.39While we believe that rule violations involving
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-603A1.txt
  • regarding discontinuance of operation that was unavailable by the filing deadline, Utopian fails to demonstrate that it could not have obtained the information earlier through other means. While we decline to grant Utopian's request for waiver of Section 1.948(j) to permit late filing of its Petition to Deny, we will instead treat the pleading as an informal objection under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, and we consider below the substantive arguments raised therein. Similarly, while we recognize that Utopian's Request for Order to Show Cause is procedurally defective because the Commission does not recognize motions to revoke, we will treat the pleading as an informal objection and address below the substantive arguments raised therein. Qualifications of Applicants In evaluating whether
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-612A1.txt
  • described in the GMDSS petition in more detail at the time when the upgrade is scheduled. All technical and administrative matters in connection with the proposal and all other related matters will be addressed then. Ordering Clause. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Petition to Request the FCC to Adopt New Policies and Procedures Regarding MMSI Assignments filed on May 29, 2007, by the National GMDSS Implementation Task Force IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-617A1.txt
  • the Order Proposing Modification, and we deny Kay's request for further modification. Should MRA or Kay in the future experience actual, documented interference from LCS's adjacent-channel operations, they may file new requests for license modification. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and Sections 1.41 and 1.87 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.87, that the request to initiate modification proceedings submitted by Mobile Relay Associates on March 23, 2004 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the joint petition for partial reconsideration and request for further modification of license filed by Comm Enterprises, LLC and James A. Kay, Jr. on November 1,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-778A1.txt
  • it had made an error in the March 18, 2008 data file and that Sanders had not qualified for an Amateur Extra Class operator license. Therefore, ARRL VEC urged us to modify Sanders's license to correct the operator privileges authorized. Discussion. We believe that ARRL VEC's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Based on the information now before us, it appears that ARRL VEC intended to request that we modify the operator privileges of the licensee of amateur station W4DES. It also appears to us that the grant of Amateur Extra Class operator privileges to Sanders was erroneous because he did not pass the examination necessary to qualify
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-848A1.txt
  • new equipment authorization. We hereby, on our own motion, grant SERCEL a waiver of the relevant technical requirements to allow it to receive a new equipment authorization consistent with the parameters of the waiver granted herein to Veritas. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the Petition to Deny filed by Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on March 5, 2008 IS DENIED; and the Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions and Supplement to Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions, Supplement to Petition to Deny, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-848A1_Rcd.pdf
  • March 5, 2008); Petition to Deny ­Errata Copy (filed March 6, 2008) ("Petition"). Citations herein to the Petition refer to the Petition to Deny ­Errata Copy. Petitioners captioned their pleading a petition to deny, but petitions to deny do not lie against private land mobile radio applications. Consequently, we shall treat the Petition as an informal objection pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See,e.g.,National Science and Technology Network, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19870, 19872 n.18 (2003). 8Opposition to Petition to Deny (filed March 17, 2008) ("Veritas Opposition"). Opposition to AMTS Consortium LLC, et al. Petition to Deny(filed March 17, 2008) ("PCIA Opposition"). PCIA performed the frequency coordination for Veritas's application. See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-889A1.txt
  • applications will be dismissed. In addition, we direct the licensing staff to take appropriate action to restore Petitioners' ULS access to the licenses for which each is the licensee of record. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 309(d), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), 405, and Sections 1.41, 1.106, and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, 1.939, that the Opposition to Assignment of Authorization and Transfer of Control and Modification, Initiate License Revocation Proceedings filed by Jose Francis, Joy Francis (individually and on behalf of Wireless US, LLC), Satheeshmoorthy Punniamurthy, and Richard Susainathan on December 17, 2007, partially treated as an Informal Objection, IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-889A1_Rcd.pdf
  • that petitions to deny do not lie against applications involving only private radio licenses. See47 U.S.C. §309(a)-(b), (d); S&L Teen Hospital Shuttle, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8153, 8155 ¶ 5 (2001). Therefore, to the extent that the Petition refers to private radio licenses, we will treat it as an informal request for Commission action, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.41. 2Jose Francis seeks reconsideration of the grant of administrative update applications FCC File Nos. 0003252038 (WPRJ763), 0003252045 (WPUH217), 0003252052 (WPVA644), 0003252056 (WPVV972), 0003252057 (WPWD813), 0003252069 (WPYL571), and 0003252098 (WPWQ657); and petitions to deny assignment applications FCC File Nos. 0003253275 (WPRJ763, WPUH217, WPVA644, WPVV972, WPWD813, WPWQ657, WPYL571) and 0003253397 (WPUR576, WPUS424), and consummation notification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-891A1.txt
  • list yourself as the contact person with respect to Station WPXY504. In addition, we direct the licensing staff to take appropriate action to restore Susainathan's ULS access to the S M Leasing licenses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.939, that the Petition to Deny filed by Pappammal Kurian on April 12, 2007, treated as an Informal Objection, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-891A1_Rcd.pdf
  • refer to the pleading as a petition to deny, we note that petitions to deny do not lie against applications involving only private radio licenses. See47 U.S.C. §309(a)-(b), (d); S&L Teen Hospital Shuttle, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8153, 8155 ¶ 5 (2001). We therefore treat the pleading as an informal request for Commission action, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.41. We note that we also have received e-mails from the litigants regarding this matter. Electronic filing of pleadings (i.e., byfacsimile or electronic mail) is no longer permitted, however. See Implementation of Interim Electronic Filing Procedures for Certain Commission Filings, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11381 (2007). Accordingly, we will not separately discuss the e-mails.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-896A1.txt
  • (filed July 5, 2007). See Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Spectrum Scheduled for June 20, 2007, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 14305 (WTB 2006). See Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Licenses; Five Bidders Qualified to Participate in Auction No. 72, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 10064 (WTB 2007). 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(b)(1)(i). See Request Under Section 1.41 Including Emergency Action Prior to Auction No. 72 (submitted June 19, 2007). See Warren Havens, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 11163, 11163 (WTB ASAD 2007), recon. pending (Havens Letter Ruling). On June 20, 2007, AMTS Consortium filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Havens Letter Ruling, which it supplemented on July 19, 2007. Because the present Order renders moot all of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-896A1_Rcd.pdf
  • File No. 0003098334 (filed July 5, 2007). 3SeeAuction of Phase II 220 MHz Spectrum Scheduled for June 20, 2007, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 14305(WTB 2006). 4SeeAuction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Licenses; Five Bidders Qualified to Participate in Auction No. 72, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 10064 (WTB 2007). 547 C.F.R. § 1.2110(b)(1)(i). 6See Request Under Section 1.41 Including Emergency Action Prior to Auction No. 72 (submitted June 19, 2007). 4857 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-896 winning bidders submitted their long-formapplications, when there would be greater opportunity for investigation of such allegations.7 3. On June 27, 2007, the Commission completed Auction 72, with five bidders winning seventy-six licenses.8Cornerstone was the winning bidder fortwelve licenses; AMTS Consortium was the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1013A1.txt
  • incorrect in asserting that the Bureau should have proffered evidence that Watercom and Mobex offered their AMTS indiscriminately. Maritime Petition for Reconsideration at 4. As the applicant requesting a refund, Maritime bore the burden of proffering evidence that its predecessors in interest were the exception to the rule that CMRS providers are treated as common carriers. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41; 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1). See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9171-86, paras. 772-800. Although the Commission has carved out a few discrete exceptions to this rule, see, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(d), Maritime has not argued that any of those exceptions apply here. See Maritime Petition for Reconsideration at 3 (citing Universal Service First Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-113A1.txt
  • Response, footnote 9. Response of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, filed January 4, 2010. For the full particulars of the testing, see IBFS Files listed in footnote 1. The following IBFS File Nos. seek authority to conduct telemetry, tracking, and telecommand during the drift to the assigned orbital location: SES-STA-20091202-01521, SES-STA-20091202-01523, and SAT-STA-20091201-00133. 47. C.F.R. § 25.154(a)(4). 47. C.F.R. § 25.154(b). Section 1.41 of the Commissions rules also contains a provision for informal requests. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 47. C.F.R. § 25.154 (b). In contrast, the Communications Act of 1934 has a statutory standing requirement to file a petition to deny. 47 U.S.C. § 309(d) (providing that ``any party in interest'' may file a petition to deny). When the operator conducts in-orbit testing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-113A1_Rcd.pdf
  • The International Bureau has historically accepted and granted requests for special temporary authority as the means for authorizing in-orbit testing of a newly launch space station.19Based 13The following IBFS File Nos. seek authorityto conduct telemetry, tracking, and telecommand during the drift to the assigned orbital location: SES-STA-20091202-01521, SES-STA-20091202-01523, and SAT-STA-20091201- 00133. 1447. C.F.R. § 25.154(a)(4). 1547. C.F.R. § 25.154(b). Section 1.41 of the Commissions rules also contains a provision for informal requests. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 1647. C.F.R. § 25.154 (b). 17In contrast, the Communications Act of 1934 has a statutory standing requirement to file a petition to deny. 47 U.S.C. § 309(d) (providing that "any party in interest" may file a petition to deny). 18When the operator conducts in-orbit testing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1311A1.txt
  • Order, 25 FCC Rcd 4036 (2010); Paging Systems, Inc. Petition for Reconsideration of Public Notice Announcing Procedures for Auction of Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Licenses (Auction 61), Order on Reconsideration, DA 10-1242 (WTB rel. July 1, 2010). PSI requests that, should we determine that it lacks standing, we treat its pleading as an informal request for Commission action, under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See PSI Petition at 3 n.7. We decline to exercise our discretion to do so, because we address PSI's arguments, and identical or similar arguments raised by MC/LM, infra. See Charles T. Crawford, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 19328, 19330 ¶ 6 (2002). Verde's conclusory assertions that all of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1311A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Order, 25 FCC Rcd 4036 (2010); Paging Systems, Inc. Petition for Reconsideration of Public Notice Announcing Procedures for Auction of Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Licenses (Auction 61), Order on Reconsideration, DA 10-1242 (WTB rel. July 1, 2010). 19PSI requests that, should we determine that it lacks standing, we treat its pleading as an informal request for Commission action, under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.41. See PSI Petition at 3 n.7. We decline to exercise our discretion to do so, because we address PSI's arguments, and identical or similar arguments raised by MC/LM, infra. See Charles T. Crawford, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 19328, 19330 ¶ 6 (2002). 20Verde's conclusory assertions that all of the petitioners'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-197A1.txt
  • 2007) (Jan. 25, 2007 Mobility Division Letter). 47 C.F.R. § 1.925. Jan. 25, 2007 Mobility Division Letter at 3. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces It Is Prepared To Grant 36 VHF Public Coast and Location Monitoring Service Licenses Upon Full and Timely Payment, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 839 (MD, WTB 2007) (Public Notice). See Petition for Reconsideration and Section 1.41 Request (filed Jan. 29, 2007; amended Feb. 1, 2007). Feb. 8, 2007 Mobility Division Letter at 3. Id. Id. Id. In order for its Auction 39 applications (LMS and VPC) to be granted, Telesaurus was required to make full and complete payment of the balance of its winning bids. See id. (citing Public Notice). The Division stated that ``it was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-197A1_Rcd.pdf
  • (Jan. 25, 2007) (Jan. 25, 2007 Mobility Division Letter). 1647 C.F.R. § 1.925. 17Jan. 25, 2007 Mobility Division Letter at 3. 18SeeWireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces It Is Prepared To Grant 36 VHF Public Coast and Location Monitoring Service Licenses Upon Full and Timely Payment, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 839 (MD, WTB 2007) (Public Notice). 19SeePetition for Reconsideration and Section 1.41 Request (filed Jan. 29,2007; amended Feb. 1, 2007). 20Feb. 8, 2007 Mobility Division Letter at 3. 21Id. 1153 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-197 of providing incentives for carriers to serve tribal lands, and promoting the rapid deployment of new services in tribal areas.22 6. At the same time, the Division denied Telesaurus's request for stay of its payment obligation until
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1994A1.txt
  • almost two full weeks from the date of public notice to learn of the proposed assignment. Nevertheless, we find that the public interest is served by consideration of the central issue raised by PSI-i.e., whether Repeater has the necessary authority to assign three of the frequencies. We will therefore treat the petition as an informal request for action under section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. We now turn to the petition's merits. As noted above, PSI holds overlay geographic-area licenses for three of the frequencies, 152.060 MHz, 152.150 MHz, and 152.180 MHz, that Repeater proposes to assign to Monterey County. PSI argues that under applicable Commission rules, Repeater's authority for the three frequencies terminated and it therefore cannot assign what it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1994A1_Rcd.pdf
  • almost two full weeks from the date of public notice to learn of the proposed assignment. Nevertheless, we find that the public interest is served by consideration of the central issue raised by PSI-i.e., whether Repeater has the necessary authority to assign three of the frequencies. We will therefore treat the petition as an informal request for action under section 1.41 of the Commission's rules.9We now turn to the petition's merits. 3.As noted above, PSI holds overlay geographic-area licenses for three of the frequencies, 152.060 MHz, 152.150 MHz, and 152.180 MHz, that Repeater proposes to assign to Monterey County. PSI argues that under applicable Commission rules, Repeater's authority for the three frequencies terminated and it therefore cannot assign what it does
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2038A1.txt
  • Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium, LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, and Telesaurus Holding GB, LLC on January 11, 2007, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above and the accompanying Petition to Deny, treated as a Petition for Reconsideration, IS ACCEPTED and DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Requests filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium, LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, Telesaurus Holding GB, LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on April 11, May 2, August 1, September 19, 2008, May 8, 2009, and July 2, 2010 ARE DISMISSED, and applications File Nos. 0003346539-0003346549, 0003377812-0003377814, 0003377819, 0003377822, 0003483180-0003483182, 0003545554, 0003795661, 0004259981-0004259986 SHALL BE PROCESSED in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2038A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Consequently, we need not resolve PSI's contention that Petitioners did not make a timely attempt to file the petition. See Opposition to Request for Leave and Alternative Request (filed Jan. 22, 2007). 3FCC File Nos. 0003346539-0003346549(filed Mar. 5, 2008) (Stations KNKJ881, KNKL530, KNKM280, KNKM298, KNKM299, KNKM300, KNKM302, KNKM304, KNKM379, KNKM636, and KPE202); Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Apr. 11, 2008) (KNKJ881 Petition). PSI filed an opposition on April 18, 2008. Petitioners filed a reply on May 7, 2008. Given that we are dismissing the KNKJ881 Petition, we need not resolve Petitioners' request for leave to file the reply after midnight on the day it was due. 4FCC File Nos. 0003377812-0003377814, 0003377819, 0003377822(filed Mar. 28, 2008)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2105A1.txt
  • WCQ452 is unrelated to those problems. The purpose of the coordination process is to resolve technical problems raised by the proposed operation, not to raise unrelated problems a licensee is experiencing. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority in Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309 and Sections 1.41, 74.502(d), 101.105(a), (b) and (c) and 101.103(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 74.502(d), 101.105(a), (b) and (c) and 101.103(d), the Informal Petition to Deny filed by Southwestern Ohio Public Radio on May 27, 2010 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority in Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2105A1_Rcd.pdf
  • WCQ452 is unrelated to those problems. The purpose of the coordination process is to resolve technical problems raised by the proposed operation, not to raise unrelated problems a licensee is experiencing.35 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority in Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309 and Sections 1.41, 74.502(d), 101.105(a), (b) and (c) and 101.103(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 74.502(d), 101.105(a), (b) and (c) and 101.103(d), the Informal Petition to Deny filed by Southwestern Ohio Public Radio on May 27, 2010 IS DENIED. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority in Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-220A1.txt
  • for rulemaking filed on November 12, 2009, by the California Public Utilities Commission (``CPUC''). The CPUC petitions the Commission, pursuant to Section 1.401 of the Commissions rules, requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) grant state public utilities commissions direct access to the Commission's Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) database. The CPUC also informally requests, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, that the Commission act to allow the CPUC password-protected access to the NORS database that is ``limited to California-specific disruption and outage data.'' NORS is the web-based filing system through which certain communications providers submit reports to the Commission of disruptions to communications as required by Part 4 of the Commission's rules. Reports of service disruptions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-357A1.txt
  • SES AMD 20060804 01315 SES AMD 20060605 00926 ISP PDR 20060804 00010 and ISP PDR 20080501 00011 PETITION TO ADOPT CONDITIONS TO AUTHORIZATIONS AND LICENSES The Department of Justice ("DOJ"), including the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), (collectively, the "Agencies"), submit this Petition to Adopt Conditions to Authorizations and Licenses ("Petition"), pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Federal Communications Commission's ("Commission") rules.1 Through this Petition, the Agencies advise the Commission that they have no objection to the Commission granting the above referenced applications, provided that the Commission conditions its grant on the agreement of Vizada, Inc., VIZADA Services LLC, and their respective direct and indirect owners (collectively "Vizada") to abide by the commitments and undertakings
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-357A1_Rcd.pdf
  • SES AMD 20060804 01315 SES AMD 20060605 00926 ISP PDR 20060804 00010 and ISP PDR 20080501 00011 PETITION TO ADOPT CONDITIONS TO AUTHORIZATIONS AND LICENSES The Department of Justice ("DOJ"), including the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), (collectively, the "Agencies"), submit this Petition to Adopt Conditions to Authorizations and Licenses ("Petition"), pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Federal Communications Commission's ("Commission") 2053 rules.1 Through this Petition, the Agencies advise the Commission that they have no objection to the Commission granting the above referenced applications, provided that the Commission conditions its grant on the agreement of Vizada, Inc., VIZADA Services LLC, and their respective direct and indirect owners (collectively "Vizada") to abide by the commitments and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-495A1.txt
  • its Complaint, Channel 3 has not requested specific sanctions for the alleged unauthorized transfer of control and violation of the Commission's ownership rules, other than an order mandating an ``unwinding'' of the executed agreements. To the extent the Complaint requests that the Commission ``unwind'' the agreements, we will treat the Complaint as a request for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. The Commission analyzes de facto control issues on a case-by-case basis. In determining de facto control, the Commission examines the policies governing station programming, personnel, and finances. The agreements make clear that Eagle Creek has ultimate control over all programming decisions and policies, which will be retained by SangamoreHill once the transaction is consummated and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-576A1.txt
  • it could not have retained outside counsel earlier, and its assertion that it has raised public interest considerations in its pleading is unsupported and insufficient to overcome ``the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.'' In the alternative, Smartcomm asks that its opposition be treated as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Acceptance of Smartcomm's request pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Rules is discretionary. In support of its request, Smartcomm states only that treating its opposition as an informal request would advance the public interest and allow the issues raised in Sprint's petition to be ``fully aired.'' Such generalized claims are insufficient to merit our accepting the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-763A1.txt
  • procedural challenge. It claims that the First Bexley Letter is a petition for reconsideration, and as such, is unreviewable because it was filed on November 13, 2009, more than thirty days after the August 7, 2008, public notice of the Reissuance. We treat the First Bexley Letter and Second Bexley Letter as informal requests for Commission action, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Rules, which does not limit the time period within which such requests must be filed. We therefore are not persuaded by Simply Living's argument that we should deny the First Bexley Letter as an untimely petition for reconsideration. Accordingly, we will address the merits of both the First Bexley Letter and the Second Bexley Letter. Turning now to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-787A1.txt
  • No. BPH-20030107AAQ. File No. BPH-20061005ADV. File No. BPH-20080805ABD. File No. BPH-20091207ABH. We will deny the Susquehanna Motion to Strike. Unlike the cases cited by Susquehanna , the Commission has not established a specific pleading cycle for requests to delete construction permit conditions. In this situation, parties may at any time file informal requests for Commission action. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. In any event, Susquehanna mischaracterizes the 2009 Letter as a ``supplement.'' In fact, this filing seeks relief fundamentally different than that requested in the Petition. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd. 17525, 17540 n.55 (1999) (subsequent history omitted) (the ``Streamlining Order''). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.207,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-943A1.txt
  • is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Petition for Reconsideration (filed June 4, 2009) (PFR). Paging Systems, Inc., Order, 24 FCC Rcd 5309 (WTB MD 2009) (Order). Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed March 19, 2010). FCC File Nos. 0003514970, 0003514976, 0003514977, 0003514978. The petition to deny was filed by Havens, AMTS Consortium, LLC, ITL, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, THL, and Skybridge. See Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 5309 ¶ 2. Id. at 5310 ¶ 2. PSI filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (filed June 17, 2009). Petitioners filed a reply.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-943A1_Rcd.pdf
  • the arguments raised by Petitioners in those proceedings, and emphasized that its determination to grant the PSI renewal applications at issue did not prejudge the resolution of the other referenced proceedings.7Petitioners filed 1Petition for Reconsideration (filed June 4, 2009) (PFR). 2Paging Systems, Inc., Order, 24 FCC Rcd 5309 (WTB MD 2009) (Order). 3Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed March 19, 2010). 4FCC File Nos. 0003514970, 0003514976, 0003514977, 0003514978. 5The petition to deny was filed by Havens, AMTS Consortium, LLC, ITL, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, THL, and Skybridge. 6SeeOrder, 24 FCC Rcd at 5309 ¶ 2. 7Id. at 5310 ¶ 2. 5762 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-943 a petition for reconsideration.8 3.In 2010, PSI filed a renewal application for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-955A1.txt
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the petition for reconsideration filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on March 23, 2007 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-955A1_Rcd.pdf
  • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the petition for reconsideration filed by Sprint NextelCorporation on March 23, 2007 IS DISMISSED. 17. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal objection filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Siemens Networks, Inc. on July 10, 2007 IS DISMISSED. 18. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1103A1.txt
  • it would be burdened by providing a letter to each land station or obtaining written consent for mobile-to-mobile operations from affected licensees. Therefore, we deny Transco's request for waiver of Sections 80.123(a) and 80.479(c). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309(d), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the waiver request filed on July 2, 2009, and supplemented on January 21, 2011, by Vermont Transco LLC in association with application FCC File No. 0003890518 IS GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that application FCC File No. 0003890518 SHALL BE PROCESSED consistent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1103A1_Rcd.pdf
  • how it would be burdened by providing a letter to each land station or obtaining written consent for mobile-to-mobile operations from affected licensees.19Therefore, we deny Transco's request for waiver of Sections 80.123(a) and 80.479(c).20 9.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309(d), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the waiver request filed on July 2, 2009, and supplemented on January21, 2011, by Vermont Transco LLC in association with application FCC File No. 0003890518IS GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. 10.ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that application FCC File No. 0003890518SHALL BE PROCESSED consistent with this Order and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1186A1.txt
  • of other pending proceedings, are more appropriately addressed elsewhere.'' Because the instant case involves a license held by Touch Tel, we will not address arguments against PSI in this proceeding. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 309(d), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), 405, and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request filed by Warren C. Havens, Environmentel, LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Verde Systems, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, and V2G, LLC on May 20, 2011 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1186A1_Rcd.pdf
  • standing.7The Petition to Deny should also be dismissed, Touch Tel argues, because the Petitioners do not operate and provide Broadband Radio Services, they are not a "party in interest" under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules,8and are not 1File No. 0004687226 (filed Apr. 12, 2011) (Renewal Application). 2Petition to Deny to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed May 20, 2011) (Petition). Touch Tel filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Jun. 2, 2011) (Opposition to Petition). Petitioners filed a reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition (filed Jun. 14, 2011). 3Renewal Application. 4Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Accepted For Filing, Public Notice, Report Number 6774 (WTB rel. Apr.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1336A1.txt
  • 2011 Released: August 2, 2011 By the Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau: In this order, we dismiss without prejudice a request filed by the Adams County E-911 Emergency Telephone Service Authority, the Arapahoe County E-911 Emergency Communication Service Authority, and the Jefferson County Emergency Communications Authority (collectively, the ``Colorado 911 Authorities'') seeking Commission action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. The Colorado 911 Authorities request that the Commission reject TracFone Wireless Inc.'s (TracFone) self-certification that it is in compliance with basic 911 and enhanced 911 (E911) requirements in the state of Colorado and compel TracFone to comply with Colorado law relating to 911 funding. The Colorado 911 Authorities' request is premised on the TracFone Forbearance Modification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1399A1.txt
  • and are the subject of other pending proceedings, were more appropriately addressed in those other proceedings in which the Petitioners have raised them. See id. at 6653-6654 ¶3. Warren C. Havens, Environmental, LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Verde Systems, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, and V2G, LLC, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 4, 2011) (Petition to Deny). PSI filed an opposition. Paging Systems, Inc., Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 17, 2011) (Opposition to Petition to Deny). File Nos. 0004593703; 0004593704; 0004593705; 0004593786; 0004593794; 0004593831; 0004593941 (filed Jan. 28, 2011) (Renewal Applications). The Renewal Applications were granted on May 5, 2011.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1399A1_Rcd.pdf
  • licenses and are the subject of other pending proceedings, were more appropriately addressed in those other proceedings in which the Petitioners have raised them. See id. at 6653-6654 ¶3. 3Warren C. Havens, Environmental, LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Verde Systems, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, and V2G, LLC,Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 4, 2011) (Petition to Deny). PSI filed an opposition. Paging Systems, Inc., Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 17, 2011) (Opposition to Petition to Deny). 4File Nos. 0004593703; 0004593704; 0004593705; 0004593786; 0004593794; 0004593831; 0004593941 (filed Jan. 28, 2011) (Renewal Applications). The Renewal Applications were granted on May 5, 2011.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.txt
  • 0 0 MN 21,300 8.01% 2 1.46 1.72 1 1 NE 2,300 0.86% 1 1.64 1.65 0 6 SD 235,500 88.57% 25 5.68 7.32 6 0 SOUTH BEND-ELKHART 93 IN 255,500 75.30% 10 8.67 13.76 8 6 MI 83,800 24.70% 0 4.76 5.71 0 0 SPOKANE 75 ID 127,200 29.30% 4 1.03 6.01 2 2 MT 8,100 1.87% 0 0.03 1.41 0 0 OR 3,000 0.69% 0 0.93 1.87 0 0 WA 295,900 68.15% 14 6.23 8.86 8 7 SPRINGFIELD, MO 74 AR 61,600 14.35% 0 2.9 4.7 0 0 MO 367,800 85.65% 9 6.14 8.64 7 7 SPRINGFIELD-HOLYOKE 110 MA 272,500 100.00% 11 4.79 6.69 3 5 ST. JOSEPH 200 KS 2,900 6.00% 3 2.02 2.02 0 0 MO 45,400
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1543A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) submitted projections of demand and administrative expenses for the fourth quarter of 2011. Accordingly, the projected demand and expenses are as follows: ($ millions) Program Demand Projected Program Support Admin. Expenses Application Of Interest Income Application of True-Ups & Adjustments Total Program Collection (Revenue Requirement) Schools and Libraries 544.20 18.30 (3.76) 1.41 560.15 Rural Health Care 19.71 3.70 (1.28) (0.27) 21.86 High-Cost 1,109.52 4.27 (1.40) (33.68) 1,078.71 Low Income 525.08 2.34 (0.10) 4.48 531.80 TOTAL 2,198.51 28.61 (6.54) (28.06) 2,192.52 USAC Projections of Industry Revenues USAC submitted projected collected end-user telecommunications revenues for October through December 2011 based on information contained in the Fourth Quarter 2011 Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet (FCC Form 499-Q).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1650A1.txt
  • August 4, 2010, over two months after these public notices. Furthermore, their failure to become aware of the renewal applications in a timely fashion does not justify permitting them to late-file their comments. Consequently, we deny the petitions to submit formal late-filed comments. Hughes and DIRECTV alternatively request that the late-filed comments be treated as informal objections. Pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, we grant this alternative request and will consider the late-filed comments as informal requests for Commission action. Requests to Exclude Band Segments. We grant Hughes' and DIRECTV's request to exclude the 28.35-29.1 GHz band segment from the licenses in question. The Commission declined to retain a designation for FS in that band and did not provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1650A1_Rcd.pdf
  • August 4, 2010, over two months after these public notices. Furthermore, their failure to become aware of the renewal applications in a timely fashion does not justify permitting them to late-file their comments. Consequently, we deny the petitions to submit formal late- filed comments. Hughes and DIRECTV alternatively request that the late-filed comments be treated as informal objections.27Pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules,28we grant this alternative request and will consider the late-filed comments as informal requests for Commission action. 9. Requests to Exclude Band Segments. We grant Hughes' and DIRECTV's request to exclude the 28.35-29.1 GHz band segment from the licenses in question. The Commission declined to retain a designation for FS in that band and did not provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1732A1.txt
  • nor direct and is therefore insufficient to confer standing. Further, Benton's belief that the proposed transaction would harm Albion and Rockne does not constitute a direct harm to Benton. Accordingly, we deny the Extension Request to the extent it requests leave to file a formal petition to deny. We will, however, treat Benton's pleading as an informal objection under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, and we consider below each of the substantive arguments raised therein. Real Party in Interest. Benton claims that on at least six occasions, Krisar failed to identify George W. Bott as the real party in interest to the applications. Benton accuses Krisar of misrepresentation and lack of candor and asserts that Krisar did not amend its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1732A1_Rcd.pdf
  • personal nor direct and is therefore insufficient to confer standing. Further, Benton's belief that the proposed transaction would harm Albion and Rockne does not constitute a direct harm to Benton. 8.Accordingly, we deny the Extension Request to the extent it requests leave to file a formal petition to deny. We will, however, treat Benton's pleading as an informal objectionunder Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, and we consider below each of the substantive arguments raised therein.25 9.Real Party in Interest. Benton claims that on at least six occasions, Krisar failed to identify George W. Bott as the real party in interest to the applications.26Benton accuses Krisar of misrepresentation and lack of candor and asserts that Krisar did not amend its application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1800A1.txt
  • propose to modify Mr. Kurian's licenses for Stations KNNF731 and WQO982 to delete frequencies that he added to those licenses from licenses that he obtained from S M Leasing and then canceled. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Request for Reinstatement of Licenses filed by Pappammal Kurian on May 4, 2011 IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT SET FORTH ABOVE AND IS OTHERWISE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the licenses for Stations WPIQ777, WPCX618, and WQAQ340 SHALL BE REINSTATED to Active status in the Commission's Universal Licensing System, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1800A1_Rcd.pdf
  • to modify Mr. Kurian's licenses for Stations KNNF731 and WQO982 to delete frequencies that he added to those licenses from licenses that he obtained from S M Leasing and then canceled. 21. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Request for Reinstatement of Licenses filed by Pappammal Kurian on May 4, 2011 IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT SET FORTH ABOVE AND IS OTHERWISE DENIED. 22. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that the licenses for Stations WPIQ777, WPCX618, and WQAQ340 SHALL BE REINSTATED to Active status in the Commission's Universal Licensing System, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1846A1.txt
  • addresses a request to intervene in a non-hearing proceeding. That staff level case was effectively overruled by JNE Investments where the Commission affirmed that intervention requests are permitted only in hearing proceedings. Neither the Genesee nor Oakland proceedings are in hearing status. Thus, Oakland's motion is subject to dismissal. However, we exercise our discretion to treat Oakland's pleading, under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, as an informal request to accept its Petition for Reconsideration of the Genesee Memorandum Opinion and Order. We conclude that Oakland lacks standing to submit such a petition. Aspen FM cited by Oakland as authority for its being aggrieved/adversely affected by the Genesee Memorandum Opinion and Order is inapposite here. The facts are not remotely the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1952A1.txt
  • Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on May 16, 2011, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the petition for reconsideration or, in the alternative, Section 1.41 request, filed by Warren C. Havens, Environmentel LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, V2G LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on February 4, 2011, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 405, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1952A1_Rcd.pdf
  • at 5915 n.15. 6Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 16, 2011) (May PFR). PSI filed an opposition. Petitioners filed a reply. 747 C.F.R. § 1.925. 8MayPFR at 4-6. 9Id.at 7. 10Id.at 9-27. 11FCC File Nos. 0004439316 (WNGR945), 0004445768 (WNMG656). The grants appeared on public notice on January 5 and 12, 2011, respectively. 12See Petition for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Feb. 4, 2011) (February PFR); Petition for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request filed by Environmentel LLC (filed Feb. 4, 2011) (Environmentel PFR). PSI filed a consolidated opposition. Petitioners filed a consolidated reply. We note PSI's argument that these petitions should be dismissed pursuant to Section 1.106(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1), because
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1953A1.txt
  • relating to that spectrum. We therefore deny the instant petitions regarding the above-captioned applications. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny, Or in the alternative Section 1.41 Request filed on December 2, 2009 by Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation IS DENIED IN PART to the extent set forth herein, and application FCC File No 0003976849 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Order and Order on Reconsideration and the Commission's Rules. IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1953A1_Rcd.pdf
  • VPC spectrum to third parties should be dismissed because the Commission should not have consented to prior applications to assign that spectrum to Motorola from MariTEL, Inc. (MariTEL).7Petitioners (except Verde) filed a petition for reconsideration of the consent to the MariTEL-Motorola assignment 1FCC File No. 0003976849 (filed Nov. 13, 2009). 2Petition to Dismiss or Deny, Or in the alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Dec. 2, 2009) (Petition to Deny). Motorola filed an opposition. Petitioners filed a reply and a supplement. 3FCC File No. 0004295620 (filed July 16, 2010). 4Petition for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Aug. 20, 2010) (Petition for Reconsideration). Motorola filed an opposition. 5See Mobex Network Services, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1994A1.txt
  • and V2G, LLC, Petition for Reconsideration (filed June 6, 2011) (Second Petition). File Nos. 0004593703; 0004593704; 0004593705; 0004593786; 0004593794; 0004593831; 0004593941 (filed Jan. 28, 2011) (Renewal Applications). See Warren C. Havens, Environmental, LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Verde Systems, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, and V2G, LLC, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 4, 2011) (First Petition). The Renewal Applications were granted on May 5, 2011. Second Petition. Paging Systems, Inc.'s Renewal Application for Common Carrier Fixed Point to Point Microwave, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 6653 (FCC WTB BD 2011) (Order). The Order found that Petitioners allegations regarding PSI's character qualifications, which relate to other PSI licenses and are the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1994A1_Rcd.pdf
  • GB, LLC, and V2G, LLC,Petition for Reconsideration (filed June 6, 2011) (Second Petition). 4File Nos. 0004593703; 0004593704; 0004593705; 0004593786; 0004593794; 0004593831; 0004593941 (filed Jan. 28, 2011) (Renewal Applications). See Warren C. Havens, Environmental, LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Verde Systems, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, and V2G, LLC,Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 4, 2011)(First Petition). The Renewal Applications were granted on May 5, 2011. 5Second Petition. 6Paging Systems, Inc.'s Renewal Application for Common Carrier Fixed Point to Point Microwave, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 6653(FCC WTB BD 2011) (Order). The Orderfound that Petitioners allegations regarding PSI's character qualifications, which relate to other PSI licenses and are the subject of other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1.txt
  • to deny against the Renewal Applications because applications for private microwave licenses are not subject to the public notice requirement or the petition to deny requirement set forth in Sections 309(b) and 309(d)(1), respectively, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Accordingly, any opposition filed against the Renewal Applications would be considered an informal objection filed pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, which does not require standing. The Commission has discretion whether or not to consider an informal objection. In this case, most of the arguments raised by Petitioners relate to other licenses, and the Petitioners have already raised these arguments in proceedings concerning those licenses. We note that Petitioners' position is that its allegations concerning PSI's character
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Commission licensee, and that Touch Tel, through its association 1File Nos. 0004573759; 0004573760 (filed Jan. 14, 2011) ("Renewal Applications"). 2Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Accepted For Filing, Public Notice, Report Number 6562 (WTB rel. Jan. 26, 2011); see alsoWireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Action, Public Notice, Report No. 6585 (WTB rel. Feb. 2, 2011). 3Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Feb. 25, 2011) ("First Petition"). Touch Tel filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request, Touch Tel Corporation (filed Mar. 10, 2011) ("Opposition to First Petition"). Petitioners fileda reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request, Warren C. Havens, Environmental, LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1996A1.txt
  • Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John J. Schauble Deputy Chief, Broadband Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau File No. 0004687226 (filed Apr. 12, 2011) (Renewal Application). Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Accepted For Filing, Public Notice, Report Number 6774 (WTB rel. Apr. 20, 2011) at 3. Petition to Deny to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed May 20, 2011) (Petition to Deny) at 1. Id. at 1 and 3. Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Jun. 2, 2011) (Opposition to Petition) at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(a). Opposition to Petition at 2-5. Id. at 8-10. See Touch Tel Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9636
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1996A1_Rcd.pdf
  • provide Broadband Radio Services, they are not a "party in interest" under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules,6and are not 1File No. 0004687226 (filed Apr. 12, 2011)(Renewal Application). 2Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Accepted For Filing, Public Notice, Report Number 6774 (WTB rel. Apr. 20, 2011) at 3. 3Petition to Deny to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed May 20, 2011) (Petition to Deny) at 1. 4 Id.at 1 and 3. 5Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Jun. 2, 2011) (Opposition to Petition) at 2. 647 C.F.R. § 1.939(a). 16488 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1996 aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for Station WNTA626.7Itfurther argued that the Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2095A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2095A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2095A1.txt
  • same as currently required for paper filings; the substance has not changed, only the means. ``Requests should set forth clearly and concisely the facts relied upon, the relief sought, the statutory and/or regulatory provisions (if any) pursuant to which the request is filed and under which relief is sought, and the interest of the person submitting the request.'' 47 C.F.R. §1.41 Statement of relief requested. 47 C.F.R. §76.7(a)(4). Information required by the relevant rule section under which a complaint or request for exemption is being filed. 47 C.F.R. §76.7(a)(2). All documentation necessary to support the request. 47 C.F.R. §76.7(a)(4). Certificate of service. 47 C.F.R. §76.7(a)(3). ). When requesting that filings be withheld from public inspection pursuant to Section 0.459 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-543A1.txt
  • and Sprint Nextel Corp., WT Docket 02-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 3918, 3924 ¶16 (PSHSB 2008). Boston MO&O, 14661, 14666 ¶20. Boston Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 2367 ¶7. (The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed because petitioners lacked standing, but was considered by the Bureau as an informal request for Commission action pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.41.) IPSAN PRM at 17. We assume, however, if IPSAN's system is as critical to public safety as it claims, there must be some provision for preventive maintenance of the mobile data radios. SPRINT SOP at 15-17. IPSAN SOP at 2-3. IPSAN argues that the TA Mediator's RR: (1) ``echoed Nextel's position to a tee (sic),'' and held an ``unfortunate bias
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-585A1.txt
  • a direct injury. The Commission has consistently held that claims amounting to a ``remote'' or ``speculative'' injury are insufficient to confer standing. PSI's and Smartcomm's claims based on hypothetical future applications for spectrum are too remote and speculative to confer standing. In the alternative, Smartcomm asks that its opposition be treated as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Acceptance of Smartcomm's request pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Rules is discretionary. In support of its request, Smartcomm states only that treating its opposition as an informal request would provide the Commission with ``an important opportunity to develop a full record.'' We find that this is insufficient to merit our accepting the Smartcomm pleading as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-592A1.txt
  • appears that J.W. Lail was not authorized to request cancellation of the license for Station KIA206 on August 23, 2010. We therefore conclude that the public interest would be served by reinstating AA's license for Station KIA206. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the request for reinstatement of the license for Station KIA206, filed by Jimmy Wayne Lail on March 9, 2011, IS GRANTED, and the license for Station KIA206 SHALL BE REINSTATED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.131, 0.331.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-592A1_Rcd.pdf
  • that J.W. Lail was not authorized to request cancellation of the license for Station KIA206 on August 23, 2010. We therefore conclude that the public interest would be served by reinstating AA's license for Station KIA206.3 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the request for reinstatement of the license for Station KIA206, filed by Jimmy Wayne Lail on March 9, 2011, IS GRANTED, and the license for Station KIA206 SHALL BE REINSTATED. 5. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.131,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-603A1.txt
  • Moreover, we agree with Comtronics that, because neither licensee utilizes centralized trunking, DCC's consent to the proposed change in station class code is not required. We therefore deny DCC's petition, and will process Comtronics's modification application accordingly. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Petition to Deny filed on February 4, 2011 by DCC Engineering, IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0004595911 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Order and the Commission's Rules. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-603A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Moreover, we agree with Comtronics that, because neither licensee utilizes centralized trunking, DCC's consent to the proposed change in station class code is not required.11 We therefore deny DCC's petition, and will process Comtronics's modification application accordingly. 5.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Petition to Deny filed on February 4, 2011 by DCC Engineering, IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0004595911 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Orderand the Commission's Rules. 6.This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-680A1.txt
  • the licenses, and requested waivers to permit late filing of the applications.5 It requests waivers on the grounds that it timely filed what it intended to be RM 1 See FCC File No. 0002925304, Request for Waiver (WPKC922); FCC File No 0002925303, Request for Waiver (WPKC923). The waiver requests are identical. 2 Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Apr. 6, 2007) (Petition to Deny). PSI filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Apr. 19, 2007). Petitioners filed a reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed May 1, 2007). Petitioners also filed a supplemental pleading. Report under Section 1.65
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-680A1_Rcd.pdf
  • to renew the licenses, and requested waivers to permit late filing of the applications.5 It requests waivers on the grounds that it timely filed what it intended to be RM 1SeeFCC File No. 0002925304, Request for Waiver (WPKC922); FCC File No 0002925303, Request for Waiver (WPKC923). The waiver requests are identical. 2 Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Apr. 6, 2007) (Petition to Deny). PSI filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Apr. 19, 2007). Petitioners filed a reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed May 1, 2007). Petitioners also filed a supplemental pleading. Report under Section 1.65
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-827A1.txt
  • PSI's character qualifications, which relate to other PSI licenses and are the subject of other pending proceedings, are more appropriately addressed elsewhere.'' We therefore will not address those arguments in this proceeding. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.939, the Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request filed by Warren C. Havens, Environmentel, LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Verde Systems, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, and V2G, LLC on March 4, 2011 IS DENIED, and applications File Nos. 0004593703, 0004593704,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-827A1_Rcd.pdf
  • incorporate by reference arguments they raised in other proceedings involving other PSI licenses. The Commission has since held, however, that "Petitioners' allegations regarding PSI's character qualifications, which relate to other PSI licenses and are the subject 1File Nos. 0004593703, 0004593704, 0004593705, 0004593786, 0004593794, 0004593831, and 0004593941 (filed Jan. 28, 2011) (Renewal Applications). 2Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 4, 2011) (Petition to Deny). PSI filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 17, 2011) (Opposition to Petition to Deny). 3Renewal Applications. 4Petition to Deny at 2. 547 C.F.R. § 1.939(a). 6Opposition to Petition to Deny at 2-3. 6653 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-827 of other pending
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-828A1.txt
  • subject of other pending proceedings, are more appropriately addressed elsewhere.'' Because the instant case involves licenses held by Touch Tel, we will not address arguments against PSI in this proceeding. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 309(d), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), 405, and Sections 1.41, 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request filed by Warren C. Havens, Environmentel, LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Verde Systems, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, and V2G, LLC on February 25, 2011 is treated as a petition for reconsideration and IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-828A1_Rcd.pdf
  • and fitness to be a Commission licensee.6On March 10, 2011, Touch Tel responded that the Petition to Deny must be dismissed as moot because the applications were granted on January 26, 2011, one month before Petitioners filed their Petition to Deny.7 1File Nos. 0004573759 and 0004573760 (filed Jan. 14, 2011) (Renewal Applications). 2Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Feb. 25, 2011) (Petition). Touch Tel filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 10, 2011) (Opposition to Petition). Petitioners filed a reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Mar. 18, 2011). 3Renewal Applications. 4Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-123A1.txt
  • Moreover, as we stated previously in the Waiver Order, licensees that operate the Recon Scout in an unauthorized manner are subject to potential Commission enforcement action, including possible license revocation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 308, and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 301, 308, and 309, and Sections 1.41, 1.903, and 1.915 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.903, and 1.915, that the Applications listed in the Appendix ARE REFERRED to the Policy and Licensing Division of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau for processing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Policy and Licensing Division SHALL PROCESS the applications listed in the Appendix subject to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-408A1.txt
  • in the November 29, 2011 data file and that Wilson was qualified for a Technician Class operator license but not a General Class operator license. Therefore, ARRL VEC requested that we modify Wilson's license to correct the operator privileges authorized. Discussion. We believe that ARRL VEC's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Based on the information now before us, it appears that ARRL VEC has requested that we modify the operator privileges granted to the licensee of amateur station WH6DWF. It also appears to us that the grant of General Class operator privileges to Wilson was erroneous because he was not eligible to receive examination credit for one
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-408A1_Rcd.pdf
  • made an error in theNovember 29, 2011 data file and that Wilson was qualified for a Technician Class operator license but not a General Class operator license.3Therefore, ARRL VEC requested that we modify Wilson's license to correct the operator privileges authorized. 4.Discussion.We believe that ARRL VEC's request is most properly characterized as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules.4Based on the information now before us, it appears that ARRL VEC has requested thatwe modify the operator privileges granted to the licensee of amateur station WH6DWF. It also appears to us that the grant of General Class operator privileges to Wilson was erroneous because he was not eligible to receive examination credit for one of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-463A1.txt
  • the License Expiration Letter. Rather, more than eight months later, September 12, 2011, CWH filed the STA Request, seeking authorization to operate the Station temporarily with an emergency ``long-wire'' antenna until necessary repairs could be made and storm-damaged equipment replaced. Subsequently, on September 20, 2011, it filed the Reinstatement Request as an ``informal request for Commission action'' pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. In the Reinstatement Request, CWH states that the License Expiration Letter was issued in error, because the Station's license had not expired pursuant to Section 312(g) of the Act. It acknowledges that WHYN has experienced ``multiple hardships beyond its control, resulting in several unavoidable service interruptions;'' but indicates that it returned the Station to the air
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-537A1.txt
  • Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on December 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and applications File Numbers 0003652393 and 0003652417 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Order and the Commission's Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny Or in the alternative Section 1.41 Request filed by Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on June 12, 2009, IS DENIED, and the Petition to Dismiss or Deny, or in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-537A1_Rcd.pdf
  • DePriest's qualifications to be without merit.28 8. Under the Commission's Jefferson Radiopolicy, an assignment or transfer of control application will not be granted when the seller's qualifications to continue holding the licenses are in issue.29The purpose of the Jefferson Radio policy is to provide a deterrent to licensee misconduct by 22SeePetition to Dismiss or Deny Or in the alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed June 12, 2009 by Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation) (2009 Renewals PTD); Petition to Dismiss or Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Nov. 14, 2011 by Warren C. Havens, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Environmentel LLC, Environmentel-2 LLC, Intelligent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-547A1.txt
  • filed within thirty days from the release date of a Commission action. Here, NJ Transit failed to respond to the January 20, 2011 license cancellation notice until it filed the instant petition for reconsideration on June 1, 2011. Although we dismiss NJ Transit's Petition, we will nonetheless treat the Petition as an informal request for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Based on our review of the pleading in this matter, we believe NJ Transit's license should be reinstated. NJ Transit claims it intended to eliminate only frequency 6197.24 MHz from its license but inadvertently requested the cancellation of its entire license, including its active frequencies 6665.0 MHz on path number one and 6545 MHz on path
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-561A1.txt
  • § 1.955(a)(2), that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL UPDATE the Universal Licensing System to reflect the fact that the licenses listed in the Appendix to this Memorandum Opinion and Order automatically terminated on their respective construction deadlines. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the Request to Cancel Licenses filed by the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition on January 17, 2012 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. These actions are taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John J. Schauble Deputy Chief, Broadband
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-561A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Memorandum Opinion and Order automatically terminated on their respective construction deadlines. 62In light of our actions, we dismiss the FWCC Request, as well as all other responsive pleadings, as moot. 63SeeAppendix A. 64See47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(2). 3833 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-561 20.ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuantto Section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the Request to Cancel Licenses filed by the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition on January 17, 2012 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 21.These actions are taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John J. Schauble Deputy Chief, Broadband
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-595A1.txt
  • Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John J. Schauble Deputy Chief, Broadband Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau File No. 0004687226 (filed Apr. 12, 2011) (Renewal Application). Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Accepted For Filing, Public Notice, Report Number 6774 (WTB rel. Apr. 20, 2011) at 3. Petition to Deny to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed May 20, 2011) (Petition to Deny) at 1. Id. at 1 and 3. Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Jun. 2, 2011) (Opposition to Petition) at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(a). Opposition to Petition at 2-5. Id. at 8-10. See Touch Tel Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9636
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-595A1_Rcd.pdf
  • the Petitioners do not operate and provide Broadband Radio Services, they are not a "party in interest" under Section 1File No. 0004687226 (filed Apr. 12, 2011) (Renewal Application). 2Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Accepted For Filing, Public Notice, Report Number 6774 (WTB rel. Apr. 20, 2011) at 3. 3Petition to Deny to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed May 20, 2011) (Petition to Deny) at 1. 4 Id.at 1 and 3. 5Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Jun. 2, 2011) (Opposition to Petition) at 2. 4042 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-595 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules,6and arenot aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for Station WNTA626.7Itfurther argued that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-676A1.txt
  • the text of the Havens Parties' separately-filed petition for reconsideration. This petition to deny, along with its appendix and numerous exhibits, exceeds 250 pages in length. The petition requests that, in the event that the Havens Parties are found to lack standing to file a petition to deny, the claims in the petition should be considered informally pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. The petition also contains arguments concerning the Havens Parties' standing and an assertion that Silke's long-form application is defective on the grounds that it lacks information concerning certain agreements. The petition includes a discussion of Havens's challenge to the rule requiring a higher upfront payment for an entity that has previously been delinquent or has defaulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-676A1_Rcd.pdf
  • reference the text of the Havens Parties' separately-filed petition for reconsideration. This petition to deny, along with its appendix and numerous exhibits, exceeds 250 pages in length.33The petition requests that, in the event that the Havens Parties are found to lack standing to file a petition to deny, the claims in the petition should be considered informally pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules.34 The petition also contains arguments concerning the Havens Parties' standing and an assertion that Silke's long-form application is defective on the grounds that it lacks information concerning certain agreements.35The petition includes a discussion of Havens's challenge to the rule requiring a higher upfront payment for an entity that has previously been delinquent 2847 C.F.R. § 1.2105(b)(2).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-738A1.txt
  • Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392, and the Waiver Order, 25 FCC Rcd 5145, 5161, 5164 ¶¶ 48, 55 (2010). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David L. Furth Acting Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau See Request for Stay, PS Docket 06-229 (filed Apr. 25, 2012). The Waiver Recipients filed their request as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See Requests for Waiver of Various Petitioners to Allow the Establishment of 700 MHz Interoperable Public Safety Wireless Broadband Networks, PS Docket No. 06-229, 25 FCC Rcd 5145 ¶¶ 55, 64 (2010) (Waiver Order). The Bureau granted a similar waiver to the State of Texas in May 2011. See Requests for Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-851A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ULS File No. 0003250058 ULS File No. 0003274382 ORDER Adopted: May 31, 2012 Released: May 31, 2012 By the Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Introduction For the reasons set forth below, the we hereby deny the Petition for Reconsideration and, in the alternative, Petition to Deny or Informal Request for Action under Section 1.41, filed by Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, AMTS Consortium LLC, and Telesaurus-VPC LLC, along with Warren Havens (collectively, ``Petitioners''), of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's (``Bureau'') grant of the above-captioned application (``Application'') seeking approval of the transfer of control of Progeny LMS, LLC (``Progeny LMS'') to Progeny LMS Holdings LLC (``Progeny Holdings'') and the acceptance of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-856A1.txt
  • each with 10-year license term that expired in April/May 2009: FCC File Nos. 0003798879, 0003798880, 0003798881, 0003798882, 0003798883, 0003798884, 0003798885, 0003798886, 0003798887 and 0003798888; and 4 licenses issued in October/November 1999, each with 10-year license term that expired in October/November 2009: FCC File Nos. 0003976777, 0003976778, 0003976779 and 0003976780. See Petition to Dismiss or Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (Petition to Deny) filed by Warren C. Havens, Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation (collectively referred to as Havens) filed on October 30, 2009 to ULS File Nos. 0003976777, 0003976778, 0003976779, and 0003976780; and on February 26, 2010 to ULS File Nos. 0004100107, 0004100194, 0004100250, 0004100301,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-879A1.txt
  • 13, 2011). PSI challenges Petitioners' standing in these proceedings. We need not resolve the standing dispute because, even if we accorded standing, for the reasons stated infra we would not find Petitioners' arguments persuasive. See Pamplin Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 2571, 2572 n.4 (2008). Petition to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Sept. 9, 2011) (WPSZ434 Renewal Petition). DD filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Sept. 19, 2011) (DD Opposition). Petitioners filed a reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Oct. 4, 2011). FCC File
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-936A1.DOC http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-936A1.txt
  • construction notifications filed by Gateway Telecom, LLC dba StratusWave Communications for Educational Broadband Service Stations WQHJ858 and WQHJ859 (File Nos. 0003872836, 0004079884) ARE ACCEPTED, and it IS FOUND that EBS Stations WQHJ858 and WQHJ859 are providing substantial service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the two Requests for Commission Action filed by Utopian Wireless Corporation on April 26, 2010, filed concerning Stations WQHJ858 and WQHJ859, respectively, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405 and Sections 1.106, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-956A1.txt
  • dismiss, as moot, DRPA's request to dismiss New Jersey's application now that New Jersey no longer seeks to license frequency pair 811/856.2125 MHz. We also dismiss DRPA's application for 811/856.2125 MHz because it lacks evidence of frequency coordination. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the request to dismiss New Jersey Department of Correction's application, filed by Delaware River Port Authority on February 22, 2006, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 90.175 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-95-944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-95-944A1.txt
  • 148 W.L. (channels 1-17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31)." In February 1990, Advanced applied Several of the pleadings submitted by the panics were not timely filed or were not authorized under the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.45. Such pleadings shall only be considered as informal requests for Commission action or informal comments. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. The parties' requests for extension of time are hereby denied. Satellite Syndicated Systems, Inc., 99 F.C.C. 2d 1369 (1984). Advanced's initial grant authorized it to provide service from two satellites, each to deliver six channels to half of the continental United States. Advanced subsequently applied for, and was granted, authority to increase the number of satellites in its system to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-97-2191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-97-2191A1.txt
  • Section31O(b)(4)wereapplicablehere,permittingCDRadiotoholdaSOARSlicenseewouldbein thepublicinterest. 29. WerejectPrimosphere'sargumentthat,becauseCDRadiocouldchangethenatureof itsservice,itmustthereforebesubjecttothealienownershipstandardsetforthforbroadcasters.CD 78 79 80 81 82 83 SeeLoralCommonCarrierOrderat 9. Id Idat 10. SeeIntheMatterofLoralCorporationRequestforDeclaratolJ'RulingConcerningSection310fb}(4) oftheCommunicationsActof1934.DA97-725(May14,1997). SeeIntheMatterofLoralCorporationRequestforaDeclaratolJlRulingConcerningSection310(b)(4) oftheCommunicationsActof1934,DA-97-725 8(citingLoralCommonCarrierOrderat 9):see alsoDISCOIINPRM. SeeFCCFonn430,ExhibitVIII,ControlofSatelliteCDRadfo,Inc.(August31,1997).SeealsoIn theMatterofSatelliteCDRadio,Inc.RequestforDeclaratoryRulingforFurtherExemptionPursuant to47C.F.R25.116(c)(;)DA97-1327(releasedJune26,1997). 7984. FederalCommunicationsCommission DA97-2191 Radioproposestoofferserviceasaprivatesatelliteoperator.84IntheeventthatCDRadioelectsto changeitsclassification,itmustseekanappropriaterulingfromtheCommissionanditsownership structurewouldbesubjecttoreviewatthattime.85 (d) Primosplzere'sSupplementalPleading. 30. Finally,wefindPrimosphere'ssupplementalpleadingraisingcharacterissues I procedurallydeficientandlegallyirrelevant.First, itwasfiledalmosttwomonthsafterthedeadline forfilingrepliestoCDRadio'sOppositionandwasnotaccompaniedbytherequisitemotionfor leavetofileadditionalpleadings.86Second,Primosphere'ssupplementalpleadingwasnotsupported byanaffidavitfromanindividualwithknowledgeabouttheunderlyingfactualassertions.87Third, theallegationsmadewereinconnectionwithRobertFriedland,notDarleneFriedland,andthereis insufficientevidenceintherecordtosupportanytheorythatRobertFriedlandisinfacttheownerof thestockinquestion.Fourth,evenifweweretolookto Mr.Friedland'scharacter,SDARSisnota broadcastservice,andthustheheightenedscrutinygiventothecharacterofbroadcastlicenseesisnot appropriatehere.88Finally,evenifweweretoapplyabroadcastlicensinganalysis,theallegationsin Primosphere'ssupplementarerelatedtounadjudicatedclaimsandpendinglitigation,andarethus irrelevant.89 (2) AdditionalIssues. 84 SeeAmendmentat5.SeealsoCompendiumat73. 8S 86 87 88 89 47C.F.R.§1.2. See47C.F.R.§1.41and§25.154. 47C.F.R.§1.16. 47C.F.R.§73.4280;seealsoIntheMatterofPolicyRegardingCharacterQualificationsinBroadcast Licensing,MemorandumOpinionandOrder,FCC92-448(releasedOctober9,1992). See47.C.F.R.165;seealsoIntheMatterofLoralCorporationRequestforaDeclaratoryRuling ConcerningSection310(b)(4)oftheCommunicationsActof1934,atn.40and41(citingLetterfrom ClayPendarvis.ActingChiejDistributionServicesBranchVideoServicesDivision,MassMedia Bureau.toPhilipL.Verveer(datedApril6,1994),whichstated,"[t]heCommissionhasconsistently takenthepositionthatitisnottheproperforumfortheresolutionofprivatecontractualdisputesand thatsuchmattersareappropriatelylefttothecourtsorotherfor[a]whichhavethejurisdictionto resolvethem."(citingSonderlingBroadcastingCo.,46RR2d889,894(1979),Transcontinent TelevisionCorp.(WROC-TV),21RR2d945(1961);JohnR.Runner.Receiver(KBIF),36RR2d773 (1979))). 7985 FederalCommunicationsCommission DA97-2191 31. VariouspartieshaveraisedissueswithrespecttoCORadio'sapplicationthroughout theseveralyearsofthependingsatelliteOARSproceeding.'JOInMarch1997,theCommission releasedthe SDARSOrderandaddressedmanyoftheissuesraisedthroughouttheproceeding, including:(1)thepublicinterestandeconomicimpactofSOARSonterrestrialbroadcasters,(2)the licensingplan,(3)servicerulesforSOARS,and(4)technicalrules.91Manyofthepetitionswere filedafterCDRadiofirstfileditsapplicationin1990.Totheextentthatthereareremainingissues thatwerenotresolvedinthe SDARSOrder,wewilladdressthemherein. 32. CommentersraiseissuesconcerningthepublicinterestbenefitsofsatelliteDARSand itseconomicimpactonterrestrialradiobroadcasters.92Theseissueswerethoroughlyexaminedinthe SDARSOrder.93Specifically,theNationalAssociationofBroadcasters("NAB")questionswhetherit isinthepublicinteresttograntCDRadioasatelliteradiolicense. ItassertsthatCDRadiowillbe unabletoprovideservicetourbanareasandwillonlybeabletoprovideservicetoruraland suburbanareaswithSouth-facingwindowsbecauseitsproposedlinkmarginwillnotprovidehigh qualityservice.94 33. NAB.doesnotestablishthatgrantingCDRadioanSOARSlicensewouldcontravene thepublicinterest.95AsindicatedinCDRadio'supdatedamendment,CDRadiowillutilizesatellite spatialdiversityandtimediversitytoavoidoutagesfromblockage,multipathandtreefoliage.Its twosatellitesprovideadequateelevationanglestomobilereceiversinthecontiguousUnitedStates. IncoreurbanareasandtUnnels,CDRadiointendstoaugmentitsSOARStransmissionsby 90 91 92 93 9S Seesupra n.2. SeeSOARSOrder. SeeBSBCommunicationsPetitiontoDenyat3-5;KYSTPetitiontoDenyatI(statingthatsatellite SOARSwillresultinthedemiseofsmallindependentownedradiostations);SouthwestFlorida CommunityRadioInc.PetitiontoDenyat2(wherepetitionerrequeststheCommissiontorecognizethe heavyeconomicburdenplacedonlocalbroadcasterswiththeadditionofCDRadioandothersatellite radiosystems;AMSCSubsidiaryCorporationCommentsrequeststheCommissiontoensurethatthereis ademonstrateddemandforoneormoresatelliteOARSsysteminthe2310-2360MHzbandsto maximizespectrumuse);KSBJPetitiontoDenyat2;KTFA92.5FMRadioPetitiontoDenyat3 (commentersconcernedwithlocalismarguethatsatelliteOARSwillfloodthemarketwithtoomany signalsandintumrepresslocalism). SOARSOrderat f1l7-38. NABPetitiontoDenyat4.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-204983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-204983A1.txt
  • were filed by Adaptive, APCO, ArrayComm, ALTV, FLEWUG, MSTV, NAB, Nelson Repeater Services, Northcoast Communications, Rand McNally, TRW, GPS Industry Council, and US WEST. The full names of petitioners and a list of parties filing oppositions and replies are listed in Appendix A. The late-filed petition for reconsideration submitted by FLEWUG is considered as an informal comment pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. 3 Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Red 476 (2000) (700 MHz First Report and Order). 20846 Federal Communications Commission ______FCC 00-224 described in our Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement? and applied in the 700
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208380A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208380A7.txt
  • 1996 Total Total Total Total Total + Other) Split Split Split Code Rank Rank Rank Rank Country Br. Ckts Br. Ckts Br. Ckts Br. Ckts Br. Ckts Split * Ratio Ratio Ratio 1 1 2 3 3United Kingdom 54,780 205,954 15,601 276,335 57,258 0.25 0.34 0.78 0.69 5 2 1 1 1Canada 77,827 112,021 10,542 200,390 152,901 0.63 1.03 1.25 1.41 5 3 3 2 2Mexico 84,536 42,083 0 126,619 10,593 2.01 1.38 1.57 2.09 7 4 4 4 4Japan 8,681 35,134 1,677 45,492 29,283 0.24 0.57 0.65 0.73 1 5 5 5 5Germany 9,261 21,484 541 31,286 13,521 0.42 0.76 0.64 0.83 1 6 8 13 8Netherlands 1,831 20,687 30 22,548 17,721 0.09 0.34 0.58 0.56 8 7 7 6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-215526A1.txt
  • 7.00 9.20 0.00 0.00 4.31 0.59 99 5 19 Qwest 4.97 6.53 7.87 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.18 10,031 1,864 4,763 SBC 4.75 4.84 5.21 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.04 30,776 6,991 18,550 Sprint 4.91 6.38 7.95 0.00 0.00 2.37 0.44 5,281 828 1,850 Verizon 4.99 6.39 7.37 0.00 0.00 2.19 0.56 33,959 7,059 16,595 Price Caps 4.91 5.93 6.69 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.22 97,927 19,652 49,416 NECA 3.50 NA 5.97 NA NA 0.00 NA 9,642 NA 2,163 Price Caps and NECA $4.78 $5.93 $6.66 $0.00 $0.00 $1.35 $0.22 107,569 19,652 51,579 NA - Not Available. Source: Access tariff filings. 1/ This table shows average rates (weighted by access lines) for all local exchange carriers (LECs) that file access tariffs subject to price-cap
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218025A1.txt
  • electronically, by overnight delivery service, or by hand delivery: petitions to deny filed pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act); petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 405 of the Act; applications for review filed pursuant to Section 5(c)(4) of the Act; informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules; petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; and, filings made pursuant to section 76.1502 (e)(1) of the Commission's rules. This filing requirement does not apply to requests for review of decisions issued by the Universal Service Administrative Company filed pursuant to sections 54.719-54.725 of the Commission's rules, or any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232519A1.txt
  • Industrial Tele- 01/27/03 Request Amendment of the Commission's communications Association Rules to Certify ITA to Frequency. Coordinate the Power Radio Service, (Filed By Jeremy Denton, Railroad Radio Service, and 1110 N. Glebe Road Automobile Emergency Radio Service. Suite 500 Arlington, VA 22201) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- FCC ITA captioned its filing as an Informal Request for Certification, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.41, but alternatively requested that its filing be treated as a Petition for Rule Making, under 47 C.F.R. 1.401, if a rule making proceeding is necessary. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov +D`ƒ +D`ƒ Áÿ‰PNG RRµ~Rªnð |ƒoð |ƒoð
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-241376A1.txt
  • TO: No. of Station(s) listed:1 MICHIGAN SATELLITE SYSTEMS, INC. FROM: Current Licensee: Atlantic Coast Satellite Telecommunications LLC MICHIGAN SATELLITE SYSTEMS, INC. Application for Consent to Assignment Viacom Communications Services, Inc. E030283 SES-LIC-20031107-01579E Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Application for Authority Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, International Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: CBS News DC LOCATION: ERA 1 1.41 meters ANTENNA ID: 10 KuS Television, Data MCPC 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Television, Data MCPC 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: CBS News - ALSAT - (ALSAT) Page 1 of 23 Pacific Lutheran University E030293 SES-LIC-20031110-01611E Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Application for Authority Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service 47 ° 8 ' 42.00 "
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-242291A1.txt
  • of Communication: BRISTOW - ALSAT - (ALSAT) BRISTOW - New Skies 806 - (319.5 E.L.) BRISTOW - PAS-3R - (43.0 W.L.) Viacom Communications Services, Inc. E030283 SES-AMD-20031209-01793E Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Amendment Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service Amendment filed to add EIRP and EIRP density. SITE ID: CBS News CONUS ALASKA HAWAII, DC LOCATION: ERA 1 1.41 meters ANTENNA ID: 10 KuS 49.50 dBW Television, Data MCPC 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Television, Data MCPC 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: CBS News - ALSAT - (ALSAT) Page 10 of 31 Viacom Communications Services, Inc. E030335 SES-AMD-20031209-01794E Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Amendment Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service, Fixed Satellite Service "AMD"
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243256A1.txt
  • - (15.5 W.L.) 1 - INMARSAT Ltd-3 - (178 E.L.) 1 - INMARSAT Ltd-3 - (54 W.L.) Viacom Communications Services, Inc. E030335 SES-LIC-20031106-01762E Date Effective: 01/22/2004 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Grant of Authority 01/22/2004 - 01/22/2019 Application for Authority Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: 1 2000 K St NW, Washington, DC LOCATION: ERA 1 1.41 meters ANTENNA ID: 10 KuS Television, data MCPC 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W 49.50 dBW Television, Data MCPC 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: 1 - ALSAT - (ALSAT) DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC E930304 SES-MOD-20031003-01366E Date Effective: 01/22/2004 Class of Station: Fixed Earth Stations Grant of Authority 11/19/2003 - 11/19/2018 Application for Modification Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243833A1.txt
  • Commission, by its International Bureau, took the following actions pursuant to delegated authority. The effective dates of the actions are the dates specified. Viacom Communications Services, Inc. E030283 SES-AMD-20031209-01793E Date Effective: 02/04/2004 Class of Station: Temporary Fixed Earth Station Grant of Authority Amendment Nature of Service:Domestic Fixed Satellite Service SITE ID: CBS News CONUS ALASKA HAWAII, DC LOCATION: ERA 1 1.41 meters ANTENNA ID: 10 KuS 49.50 dBW Television, Data MCPC 14000.0000 - 14500.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Television, Data MCPC 11700.0000 - 12200.0000 MHz 36M0G7W Points of Communication: CBS News - ALSAT - (ALSAT) COX SOUTHWEST HOLDINGS, L.P. E010195 SES-ASG-20040113-00069P Date Effective: 02/05/2004 TO: No. of Station(s) listed:3 COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Consummated FROM: Current Licensee: COX SOUTHWEST HOLDINGS, L.P. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-249262A1.txt
  • and Foreign Minutes 1964 20.2 $62.9 $30.3 $32.6 12.0 $19.6 $3.11 $1.50 $1.62 $1.63 $1.62 1965 25.5 78.2 37.2 41.1 15.4 24.7 3.07 1.46 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256582A1.pdf
  • dismissed to avoid duplicative proceedings. In their Response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Complainants argue that the pleadings are not duplicative and that the Bureau should order Visionary to reduce power, cease operations, or at ``the very least'' give Visionary ``a substantial fine.'' 19. We will consider the Complainants' Complaint as an informal request for action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. The investigation that culminated in this NAL began prior to the filing of the Complaint. However, at least one of the remedies requested by the Complainants, that of a substantial fine, is being proposed against Visionary. This remedy is consistent with our proceedings under the RFR Rules. In addition, we are requiring Visionary to file a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259812A1.txt
  • of all those who watch something other than free-to-air television. 97 percent of U.S. television households are passed by a cable system. Slide 6: Cable Modem Growth in the US 1999-2004 - Chart This chart shows the exponential growth of cable modem growth since 1999. Today the use of cable modems stands at to 18.6 million lines, up from only 1.41 in 1999. Slide 7: DSL Price Drop (Verizon v. SBC) - Chart This vibrant competition between DSL and cable modems is what enabled the Commission to deregulate the provision of DSL without risking an increase in DSL prices. Since February of 2002, prices of DSL have dropped about 40%. Slide 8: States with FTTH Deployment - Chart Fiber to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259812A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-259812A2.txt
  • DSL broadband subscribers in the U.S. 42% DSL 58% Cable Modem Federal Communications Commission 5 Historical Residential Broadband Market Share 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q2 99Q3 99Q4 99Q1 00Q2 00Q3 00Q4 00Q1 01Q2 01Q3 01Q4 01Q1 02Q2 02Q3 02Q4 02Q2 03 DSL Cable Federal Communications Commission 6 Cable Modem Growth in the U.S. 1.41 3.58 7.1 11.37 16.45 18.6 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Jun-04 Millions of Con nection s Source: FCC's High Speed Services for Internet Access Report, 12/04 Federal Communications Commission 7 DSL Price Drop Source: USA Today, Nov. 14, 2003, p. C1; Wall Street Journal, Nov. 28, 2003 0 10 20 30 40 50
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-261024A2.txt
  • and Foreign Minutes 1964 20.2 $62.9 $30.3 $32.6 12.0 $19.6 $3.11 $1.50 $1.62 $1.63 $1.62 1965 25.5 78.2 37.2 41.1 15.4 24.7 3.07 1.46 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A1.txt
  • 1.02 Georgia 4,802,916 88.2 1.13 Guam 67,194 0.0 NA Hawaii 687,601 99.8 1.00 Idaho 726,447 90.7 1.10 Illinois 7,658,859 95.1 1.05 Indiana 3,620,575 95.4 1.05 Iowa 1,608,595 72.5 1.38 Kansas 1,484,063 83.2 1.20 Kentucky 2,086,307 78.2 1.28 Louisiana 2,388,005 92.1 1.09 Maine 849,769 82.4 1.21 Maryland 3,741,166 99.8 1.00 Massachusetts 3,984,705 99.9 1.00 Michigan 5,962,539 96.2 1.04 Minnesota 2,848,843 70.9 1.41 Mississippi 1,376,962 92.9 1.08 Missouri 3,386,695 80.5 1.24 Montana 523,879 66.7 1.50 Nebraska 850,404 78.2 1.28 Nevada 1,314,168 95.5 1.05 New Hampshire 784,265 92.7 1.08 New Jersey 6,327,653 99.8 1.00 New Mexico 967,109 84.8 1.18 New York 11,999,917 96.5 1.04 North Carolina 4,841,751 89.7 1.11 North Dakota 365,028 51.9 1.93 N. Mariana Islands 24,047 0.0 NA Ohio 6,659,105 95.0 1.05
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A3.txt
  • 1.02 Georgia 4,802,916 88.2 1.13 Guam 67,194 0.0 NA Hawaii 687,601 99.8 1.00 Idaho 726,447 90.7 1.10 Illinois 7,658,859 95.1 1.05 Indiana 3,620,575 95.4 1.05 Iowa 1,608,595 72.5 1.38 Kansas 1,484,063 83.2 1.20 Kentucky 2,086,307 78.2 1.28 Louisiana 2,388,005 92.1 1.09 Maine 849,769 82.4 1.21 Maryland 3,741,166 99.8 1.00 Massachusetts 3,984,705 99.9 1.00 Michigan 5,962,539 96.2 1.04 Minnesota 2,848,843 70.9 1.41 Mississippi 1,376,962 92.9 1.08 Missouri 3,386,695 80.5 1.24 Montana 523,879 66.7 1.50 Nebraska 850,404 78.2 1.28 Nevada 1,314,168 95.5 1.05 New Hampshire 784,265 92.7 1.08 New Jersey 6,327,653 99.8 1.00 New Mexico 967,109 84.8 1.18 New York 11,999,917 96.5 1.04 North Carolina 4,841,751 89.7 1.11 North Dakota 365,028 51.9 1.93 N. Mariana Islands 24,047 0.0 NA Ohio 6,659,105 95.0 1.05
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A5.txt
  • COOP.INC. 21.06 7.82 12.28 62.28 613002 C BETTLES TELEPHONE CO. INC. -4.77 0.00 -4.77 -17.02 613003 C BRISTOL BAY TELEPHONE COOP. INC. 3.59 -2.88 6.66 5.72 613004 C BUSH-TELL INC. 10.90 1.09 9.71 15.06 613005 A CIRCLE UTILITIES 28.24 16.67 9.92 38.65 613006 C COPPER VALLEY TEL. COOP. INC. 10.90 -4.07 15.60 15.05 613007 C CORDOVA TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC. 17.55 -1.41 19.24 49.36 613008 C ACS OF FAIRBANKS, INC. 1.92 -8.17 10.98 34.58 613010 C ACS - NORTHLAND GLACIER STATE 2.15 -1.56 3.77 1.60 613011 C INTERIOR TELEPHONE COMPANY INC. -5.81 -6.96 1.24 -7.19 613011A C INTERIOR TELEPHONE COMPANY INC. -2.92 0.88 -3.77 -12.79 613012 C ACS - ALASKA JUNEAU -0.88 -4.05 3.31 0.00 613013 C KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES -0.99 -4.13
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262986A9.txt
  • Telecom 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.61 3.60 274 429 704 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-265358A1.txt
  • Low-Income Households All Households 1984 to 1997 1997 to 2005 1984 to 1997 1997 to 2005 Ohio 1987 4.96 81.0% 88.5% 86.8% 7.5% * -1.7% 93.2% 95.0% 93.7% 1.8% -1.4% Oklahoma 1996 0.83 81.9% 78.9% 84.7% -3.0% 5.8% 91.0% 91.8% 90.5% 0.7% -1.2% Oregon 1986 5.21 76.4% 90.5% 92.7% 14.1% * 2.1% 91.4% 95.3% 94.5% 3.9% * -0.8% Pennsylvania 1996 1.41 85.6% 93.6% 91.5% 8.0% * -2.1% 94.4% 97.3% 95.0% 3.0% * -2.4%# Rhode Island 1987 5.07 86.4% 87.6% 88.7% 1.2% 1.1% 94.0% 94.6% 94.0% 0.5% -0.5% South Carolina 1995 5.23 66.1% 76.2% 87.3% 10.1% * 11.0%* 85.1% 92.0% 94.2% 6.9% * 2.2% South Dakota 1988 0.04 84.6% 90.5% 87.6% 5.9% -3.0% 93.0% 94.7% 95.4% 1.7% 0.6% Tennessee 1992 4.67 71.1%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A1.txt
  • 1,893 3,169 1.09 Oregon 996 1,654 2,651 420 286 706 1,416 1,940 3,356 1.15 Pennsylvania 3,355 6,141 9,497 1,393 1,174 2,567 4,748 7,315 12,063 4.14 Puerto Rico 642 1,305 1,947 236 171 407 877 1,476 2,354 0.81 Rhode Island 274 536 809 99 72 171 372 608 980 0.34 South Carolina 1,161 2,162 3,324 453 347 801 1,615 2,509 4,124 1.41 South Dakota 192 325 517 82 68 150 274 393 667 0.23 Tennessee 1,521 2,918 4,439 598 405 1,004 2,119 3,323 5,442 1.87 Texas 5,267 11,824 17,091 2,243 2,277 4,519 7,509 14,101 21,610 7.41 Utah 595 1,007 1,602 247 154 401 842 1,161 2,003 0.69 Vermont 194 262 456 87 46 134 282 308 590 0.20 Virgin Islands 82 64
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A3.txt
  • 1,893 3,169 1.09 Oregon 996 1,654 2,651 420 286 706 1,416 1,940 3,356 1.15 Pennsylvania 3,355 6,141 9,497 1,393 1,174 2,567 4,748 7,315 12,063 4.14 Puerto Rico 642 1,305 1,947 236 171 407 877 1,476 2,354 0.81 Rhode Island 274 536 809 99 72 171 372 608 980 0.34 South Carolina 1,161 2,162 3,324 453 347 801 1,615 2,509 4,124 1.41 South Dakota 192 325 517 82 68 150 274 393 667 0.23 Tennessee 1,521 2,918 4,439 598 405 1,004 2,119 3,323 5,442 1.87 Texas 5,267 11,824 17,091 2,243 2,277 4,519 7,509 14,101 21,610 7.41 Utah 595 1,007 1,602 247 154 401 842 1,161 2,003 0.69 Vermont 194 262 456 87 46 134 282 308 590 0.20 Virgin Islands 82 64
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A5.txt
  • 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.08 Michigan 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) 0.26 0.01 0.12 0.72 Minnesota 0.96 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.13 0.60 2.95 Mississippi 1.06 0.01 0.00 5.71 0.00 0.48 0.72 0.16 8.15 Missouri 0.90 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.33 0.18 2.10 Montana 3.49 0.03 0.00 2.55 0.00 2.55 0.17 1.05 9.84 Nebraska 1.58 0.05 0.00 0.67 0.00 1.41 0.54 1.04 5.29 Nevada 0.39 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.65 0.41 1.83 New Hampshire 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.19 0.43 0.93 New Jersey 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 New Mexico 1.75 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.74 0.81 4.33 New York 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.08 0.29 North Carolina 0.17
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A8.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269251A8.txt
  • Low-Income Households All Households 1984 to 1997 1997 to 2005 1984 to 1997 1997 to 2005 Ohio 1987 4.96 81.0% 88.5% 86.7% 7.5% * -1.7% 93.2% 95.0% 93.6% 1.8% -1.4% Oklahoma 1996 0.83 81.9% 78.9% 84.6% -3.0% 5.7% 91.0% 91.8% 90.5% 0.7% -1.3% Oregon 1986 5.21 76.4% 90.5% 92.7% 14.1% * 2.2% 91.4% 95.3% 94.4% 3.9% * -0.9% Pennsylvania 1996 1.41 85.6% 93.6% 91.3% 8.0% * -2.3% 94.4% 97.3% 94.9% 3.0% * -2.4%# Rhode Island 1987 5.07 86.4% 87.6% 88.7% 1.2% 1.1% 94.0% 94.6% 94.0% 0.5% -0.6% South Carolina 1995 5.23 66.1% 76.2% 87.1% 10.1% * 10.9%* 85.1% 92.0% 94.1% 6.9% * 2.1% South Dakota 1988 0.04 84.6% 90.5% 87.4% 5.9% -3.1% 93.0% 94.7% 95.3% 1.7% 0.6% Tennessee 1992 4.67 71.1%
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270407A1.txt
  • 1,893 3,169 1.09 Oregon 996 1,654 2,651 420 286 706 1,416 1,940 3,356 1.15 Pennsylvania 3,355 6,141 9,497 1,393 1,174 2,567 4,748 7,315 12,063 4.14 Puerto Rico 642 1,305 1,947 236 171 407 877 1,476 2,354 0.81 Rhode Island 274 536 809 99 72 171 372 608 980 0.34 South Carolina 1,161 2,162 3,324 453 347 801 1,615 2,509 4,124 1.41 South Dakota 192 325 517 82 68 150 274 393 667 0.23 Tennessee 1,521 2,918 4,439 598 405 1,004 2,119 3,323 5,442 1.87 Texas 5,267 11,824 17,091 2,243 2,277 4,519 7,509 14,101 21,610 7.41 Utah 595 1,007 1,602 247 154 401 842 1,161 2,003 0.69 Vermont 194 262 456 87 46 134 282 308 590 0.20 Virgin Islands 82 64
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.txt
  • 1.66 0.77 1.44 155 206 Texas 14,608,898 7.52 10.18 8.18 886 1,176 Utah 955,304 0.49 0.60 0.52 56 75 Vermont 388,000 0.20 0.11 0.18 19 26 Virginia 7,090,786 3.65 2.56 3.38 366 485 Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA Washington 3,751,472 1.93 2.68 2.12 229 304 West Virginia 1,288,234 0.66 0.49 0.62 67 89 Wisconsin 2,428,970 1.25 1.89 1.41 153 203 Wyoming 286,361 0.15 0.17 0.15 17 22 Total 3/ 194,357,934 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% $10,862 $14,419 NA - Not Applicable. Note: LEC is an abbreviation for local exchange carrier. Figures may not add due to rounding. 1/ Access minutes are in thousands and include both originating and terminating minutes. 2/ Allocation percentage is a function of both access minutes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A3.txt
  • 1.66 0.77 1.44 155 206 Texas 14,608,898 7.52 10.18 8.18 886 1,176 Utah 955,304 0.49 0.60 0.52 56 75 Vermont 388,000 0.20 0.11 0.18 19 26 Virginia 7,090,786 3.65 2.56 3.38 366 485 Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA Washington 3,751,472 1.93 2.68 2.12 229 304 West Virginia 1,288,234 0.66 0.49 0.62 67 89 Wisconsin 2,428,970 1.25 1.89 1.41 153 203 Wyoming 286,361 0.15 0.17 0.15 17 22 Total 3/ 194,357,934 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% $10,862 $14,419 NA - Not Applicable. Note: LEC is an abbreviation for local exchange carrier. Figures may not add due to rounding. 1/ Access minutes are in thousands and include both originating and terminating minutes. 2/ Allocation percentage is a function of both access minutes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A5.txt
  • 12.46 42.74 351310 A TITONKA TEL. CO. 9.12 -2.09 11.45 40.17 351316 C UNITED FARMERS TEL. CO. 21.55 1.48 19.78 0.00 351319 A VAN BUREN TEL. CO., INC. 9.54 -4.04 14.16 44.47 351320 A VAN HORNE COOP. TEL. CO. 5.47 -5.48 11.58 38.93 351322 A VENTURA TEL. CO., INC. 10.39 -2.31 12.99 42.78 351324 A VILLISCA FARMERS TEL. CO. 8.49 -1.41 10.03 35.08 351326 A WALNUT TEL. CO. -0.52 -5.85 5.65 10.49 351327 C WEBB-DICKENS TEL. CORP. 40.99 -3.58 46.23 0.00 351328 A WEBSTER-CALHOUN COOP. TEL. ASSN. 15.30 -3.16 19.07 48.52 351329 A WELLMAN COOP. TEL. ASSN. -2.72 -7.01 4.61 6.23 351331 A WEST IOWA TEL. CO. 0.60 -4.52 5.37 10.80 351332 A WEST LIBERTY TEL. CO. 2.66 1.07 1.57 -22.74
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.txt
  • the use of average schedules to avoid the difficulties and expenses involved with conducting company-specific cost studies. 7 - 4 Table 7.3 (As of December 31, 2006) Holding Companies Loops Percent of Loops AT&T Inc. 65,669,563 44.72 % Verizon Communications Inc. 45,524,091 31.00 Qwest Communications International, Inc. 13,066,748 8.90 Embarq Corporation 6,603,481 4.50 Windstream Corporation 3,014,037 2.05 CenturyTel, Inc. 2,065,242 1.41 Citizens Communications Company 2,001,652 1.36 Cincinnati Bell 814,120 0.55 TDS Telecommunications Corporation 619,888 0.42 Hawaiian Telecom Communications, Inc. 586,201 0.40 Commonwealth Telephone Enterprises, Inc. 298,947 0.20 Alaska Communications Systems 240,814 0.16 Iowa Network Services, Inc. 240,796 0.16 FairPoint Communications, Inc. 239,994 0.16 Consolidated Communications, Inc. 219,929 0.15 Madison River Telephone Company 164,179 0.11 Comporium Communications 139,126 0.09 D&E Communications, Inc.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 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 2.43 1.06 55 Management of companies and enterprises 389,531.5 14,824.6 3.81 2.31 561 Administrative and support services 570,480.6 11,109.6 1.95 1.73 562 Waste management and remediation services 70,882.2 770.7 1.09 0.12 61
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A1.pdf
  • 6,602,383 95.4 1.05 Puerto Rico 1,068,168 100.0 1.00 Rhode Island 380,875 100.0 1.00 South Carolina 1,966,021 70.3 1.42 South Dakota 307,807 55.3 1.81 Tennessee 2,827,951 84.8 1.18 Texas 10,308,842 91.9 1.09 Utah 977,879 90.7 1.10 Vermont 385,123 83.8 1.19 Virginia 3,869,542 97.1 1.03 Virgin Islands 68,130 0.0 NA Washington 2,989,810 97.3 1.03 West Virginia 903,931 81.9 1.22 Wisconsin 2,680,202 71.0 1.41 Wyoming 253,599 80.8 1.24 Total 146,856,926 92.4% 1.08 NA - Not Applicable. 1/ USF loops, a measure of access lines, are defined in subcategory 1.3 of 47 C.F.R. 36.154(a). 2/ Average percent reporting to ARMIS (Report 43-01) is based on USF loops. USF Loops 1/ Year End 1 - 46 Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues: 2006
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A3.pdf
  • 6,602,383 95.4 1.05 Puerto Rico 1,068,168 100.0 1.00 Rhode Island 380,875 100.0 1.00 South Carolina 1,966,021 70.3 1.42 South Dakota 307,807 55.3 1.81 Tennessee 2,827,951 84.8 1.18 Texas 10,308,842 91.9 1.09 Utah 977,879 90.7 1.10 Vermont 385,123 83.8 1.19 Virginia 3,869,542 97.1 1.03 Virgin Islands 68,130 0.0 NA Washington 2,989,810 97.3 1.03 West Virginia 903,931 81.9 1.22 Wisconsin 2,680,202 71.0 1.41 Wyoming 253,599 80.8 1.24 Total 146,856,926 92.4% 1.08 NA - Not Applicable. 1/ USF loops, a measure of access lines, are defined in subcategory 1.3 of 47 C.F.R. 36.154(a). 2/ Average percent reporting to ARMIS (Report 43-01) is based on USF loops. USF Loops 1/ Year End 1 - 46 Table 1.18 Information for Allocating Incumbent Local Exchange Revenues: 2006
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A5.pdf
  • 10.88 17.48 613017A C ALASKA TELEPHONE COMPANY 6.40 -0.61 7.06 0.00 613018 C NUSHAGAK ELECTRIC & TELEPHONE COOP., INC. 7.57 2.60 4.84 9.64 613019 C OTZ TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC. -7.57 1.87 -9.27 -23.53 613020 C ACS - NORTHLAND SITKA -4.25 -0.81 -3.46 -31.58 613022 C ACS - ALASKA GREATLAND -28.32 12.21 -36.12 0.00 613023 C UNITED UTILITIES INC. 2.50 1.08 1.41 -1.57 613023A C UNITED UTILITIES INC. -1.46 -1.63 0.18 -100.00 613025 C YUKON TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. -9.01 -1.98 -7.17 -25.60 613026 A NORTH COUNTRY TELEPHONE COMPANY 11.49 7.78 3.43 12.11 613028 C SUMMIT TEL & TEL CO OF ALASKA 10.33 7.48 2.64 10.26 TOTAL AMERICAN SAMOA -9.91 -1.92 -8.15 0.00 673900 C AMERICAN SAMOA TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY -9.91 -1.92 -8.15 0.00
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287688A7.pdf
  • 2,612 0.06 North Dakota 695 367 1.89 Northern Mariana Islands 0 69 0.00 Ohio 85 2,139 0.04 Oklahoma 129 1,378 0.09 Oregon 12 977 0.01 Pennsylvania 58 1,893 0.03 Puerto Rico 0 3,859 0.00 Rhode Island 0 55 0.00 South Carolina 51 1,205 0.04 South Dakota 964 503 1.92 Tennessee 167 1,827 0.09 Texas 958 3,280 0.29 Utah 746 531 1.41 Vermont 83 448 0.18 Virgin Islands 41 109 0.38 Virginia 312 1,503 0.21 Washington 68 1,136 0.06 West Virginia 119 1,043 0.11 Wisconsin 2,169 1,757 1.23 Wyoming 115 354 0.33 Totals $38,345 58,795 $0.65 1 Source: USAC data. Rollups performed by the Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC. Note: Disbursements through June 30, 2008. Because of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A1.txt
  • 1,098 94 Iowa 429 0.89 425 1 497 42 Kansas 396 0.82 392 1 458 39 Kentucky 684 1.42 676 1 791 67 Louisiana 827 1.72 818 2 957 82 Maine 271 0.56 268 0 314 27 Maryland 999 2.07 988 2 1,155 99 Massachusetts 1,093 2.27 1,081 2 1,264 108 Michigan 1,331 2.76 1,316 2 1,539 131 Minnesota 679 1.41 672 1 786 67 Mississippi 548 1.14 542 1 634 54 Missouri 994 2.06 983 2 1,149 98 Montana 162 0.34 160 0 187 16 Nebraska 255 0.53 252 0 295 25 Nevada 360 0.75 356 1 416 35 New Hampshire 198 0.41 196 0 229 20 New Jersey 1,291 2.68 1,277 2 1,493 127 New Mexico 314 0.65 310
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A3.txt
  • 1,098 94 Iowa 429 0.89 425 1 497 42 Kansas 396 0.82 392 1 458 39 Kentucky 684 1.42 676 1 791 67 Louisiana 827 1.72 818 2 957 82 Maine 271 0.56 268 0 314 27 Maryland 999 2.07 988 2 1,155 99 Massachusetts 1,093 2.27 1,081 2 1,264 108 Michigan 1,331 2.76 1,316 2 1,539 131 Minnesota 679 1.41 672 1 786 67 Mississippi 548 1.14 542 1 634 54 Missouri 994 2.06 983 2 1,149 98 Montana 162 0.34 160 0 187 16 Nebraska 255 0.53 252 0 295 25 Nevada 360 0.75 356 1 416 35 New Hampshire 198 0.41 196 0 229 20 New Jersey 1,291 2.68 1,277 2 1,493 127 New Mexico 314 0.65 310
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295442A5.txt
  • GRAND TOTAL 45,723,900,361 135,787,625 336.73 1,065,606,677 100.000 Source: National Exchange Carrier Association, Universal Service Fund 2008 Submission of 2007 Study Results (September 30, 2008) 3 - 30 Table 3.18 ILEC High-Cost Loop Support Data Percentage Changes from 2006 to 2007 by State or Jurisdiction State or Jurisdiction ALABAMA -3.55 -5.52 2.09 -9.88 ALASKA 0.98 -8.75 10.66 8.57 AMERICAN SAMOA 20.93 -1.41 22.66 0.00 ARIZONA 3.42 -7.79 12.15 8.61 ARKANSAS 3.48 -6.67 10.88 20.09 CALIFORNIA 4.81 -6.27 11.82 5.50 COLORADO 3.20 -7.36 11.40 0.87 CONNECTICUT 3.46 -7.81 12.22 0.00 DELAWARE 6.73 -9.55 18.01 0.00 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 0.73 -7.65 9.08 0.00 FLORIDA -6.19 -8.60 2.63 5.93 GEORGIA -6.23 -7.00 0.83 -22.31 GUAM 1.25 -1.02 2.29 -71.60 HAWAII -1.82 -7.49 6.13 -0.82 IDAHO
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.txt
  • 2003 184.0 0.08 0.09 0.21 0.06 0.05 1964 31.0 0.25 1.73 2004 188.9 0.08 0.09 0.14 0.06 0.05 1965 31.5 0.24 1.64 2005 195.3 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.05 1966 32.4 0.24 1.61 2006 201.6 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.04 1967 33.4 0.24 1.56 2007 207.3 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.04 1968 34.8 0.24 1.46 2008 215.3 1969 36.7 0.24 1.41 1/ Sources: Estimates for 1930 through 1981 are based on information in AT&T's Long Lines Statistics, 1930-1963, 1946-1970, and Starting in 1992, billed revenue per minute for international service differs in Table 6.1 and Table 13.4. Data in Table 6.1 are calculated using all U.S. billed minutes and revenues. Data for Table 13.4 represent charges for most U.S. billed calls
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • 10,443 5,241 15,684 6.56 North Carolina 4,568 2,461 7,028 2.94 North Dakota 333 179 512 0.21 N. Mariana Islands 13 9 22 0.01 Ohio 5,718 2,828 8,546 3.58 Oklahoma 1,698 855 2,554 1.07 Oregon 1,825 981 2,806 1.17 Pennsylvania 6,549 3,357 9,905 4.15 Puerto Rico 1,286 753 2,039 0.85 Rhode Island 534 267 801 0.34 South Carolina 2,157 1,206 3,363 1.41 South Dakota 371 209 580 0.24 Tennessee 3,328 1,722 5,050 2.11 Texas 11,829 5,656 17,485 7.32 Utah 1,155 606 1,761 0.74 Vermont 317 197 514 0.22 Virgin Islands 64 56 120 0.05 Virginia 4,126 2,283 6,409 2.68 Washington 3,328 1,698 5,026 2.10 West Virginia 824 536 1,359 0.57 Wisconsin 2,651 1,365 4,016 1.68 Wyoming 273 165 437 0.18 Total $157,737
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A3.txt
  • 10,443 5,241 15,684 6.56 North Carolina 4,568 2,461 7,028 2.94 North Dakota 333 179 512 0.21 N. Mariana Islands 13 9 22 0.01 Ohio 5,718 2,828 8,546 3.58 Oklahoma 1,698 855 2,554 1.07 Oregon 1,825 981 2,806 1.17 Pennsylvania 6,549 3,357 9,905 4.15 Puerto Rico 1,286 753 2,039 0.85 Rhode Island 534 267 801 0.34 South Carolina 2,157 1,206 3,363 1.41 South Dakota 371 209 580 0.24 Tennessee 3,328 1,722 5,050 2.11 Texas 11,829 5,656 17,485 7.32 Utah 1,155 606 1,761 0.74 Vermont 317 197 514 0.22 Virgin Islands 64 56 120 0.05 Virginia 4,126 2,283 6,409 2.68 Washington 3,328 1,698 5,026 2.10 West Virginia 824 536 1,359 0.57 Wisconsin 2,651 1,365 4,016 1.68 Wyoming 273 165 437 0.18 Total $157,737
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • THE CHAMPAIGN TEL CO -3.34 -9.46 6.77 -9.10 300597 C THE CHILLICOTHE TEL -4.94 -10.06 5.69 -8.73 300598 C MCCLURE TEL CO 36.27 -6.18 45.25 54.41 300604 A COLUMBUS GROVE TEL -4.33 -8.04 4.04 -100.00 300606 C CONNEAUT TEL CO -24.28 -9.44 -16.39 -57.27 300607 C CONTINENTAL OF OHIO -4.59 -2.34 -2.30 0.00 300609 A DOYLESTOWN TEL CO -14.13 -12.90 -1.41 0.00 300612 C FARMERS MUTUAL TEL -9.96 -3.60 -6.59 0.00 300613 C LITTLE MIAMI COMM. 2.12 -7.54 10.46 14.99 300614 A FORT JENNINGS TEL CO 2.98 -2.34 5.45 -30.48 300615 C FRONTIER NORTH-OH -2.71 -11.32 9.70 0.00 300618 C GERMANTOWN INDEPEND -15.11 -10.93 -4.69 -100.00 300619 A GLANDORF TEL CO 2.96 -0.97 3.98 -73.69 300625 A KALIDA TEL CO 1.20
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A7.txt
  • 0.15 Georgia 1,226 2,520 0.49 Guam 72 155 0.46 Hawaii 134 335 0.40 Idaho 172 862 0.20 Illinois 969 1,878 0.52 Indiana 589 1,691 0.35 Iowa 474 1,600 0.30 Kansas 235 1,193 0.20 Kentucky 475 2,069 0.23 Louisiana 15 1,111 0.01 Maine 1 854 0.00 Maryland 0 385 0.00 Massachusetts 146 335 0.44 Michigan 1,177 1,769 0.67 Minnesota 2,246 1,594 1.41 Mississippi 161 1,821 0.09 Missouri 443 1,799 0.25 Montana 753 705 1.07 Nebraska 1,436 811 1.77 Nevada 0 305 0.00 New Hampshire 15 380 0.04 New Jersey 0 0 NA New Mexico 361 856 0.42 New York 18 1,537 0.01 North Carolina 260 2,612 0.10 North Dakota 917 367 2.49 Northern Mariana Islands 0 69 0.00 Ohio 312 2,139 0.15
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311775A1.txt
  • 2.16 1.08 9.38 11.54 Maine 7.99 3.50 1.75 9.74 13.24 8.02 3.50 1.75 9.77 13.28 8.00 3.50 1.75 9.75 13.25 Maryland 7.36 3.41 1.71 9.07 12.48 7.40 3.50 1.75 9.15 12.65 7.40 3.49 1.75 9.15 12.64 Massachusetts 8.10 3.50 1.75 9.85 13.35 8.10 3.50 1.75 9.85 13.35 8.10 3.50 1.75 9.85 13.35 Michigan 7.26 2.22 1.11 8.38 10.60 7.47 2.83 1.41 8.88 11.71 7.44 2.75 1.37 8.81 11.56 Minnesota 7.21 1.74 0.87 8.08 9.82 7.14 0.61 0.31 7.45 8.06 7.21 1.70 0.85 8.06 9.76 Mississippi 8.25 3.34 1.67 9.92 13.26 8.25 3.48 1.74 9.99 13.47 8.25 3.43 1.71 9.97 13.39 Missouri 7.32 3.48 1.74 9.06 12.54 7.15 2.67 1.34 8.48 11.15 7.24 3.12 1.56 8.81 11.93 Montana 8.25 2.47 1.24 9.49
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-155A1.txt
  • the American Cable Association (``ACA''), the National Black Media Coalition (``NBMC''), the WEYS Television Corporation (``WEYS''), and a group of petitioners objecting to certain broadcasts made by Howard Stern (``the Stern Petitioners''). In addition, the A.H. Belo Corporation (``Belo'') filed a letter opposing the applications after the petition to deny period had expired. We will exercise our discretion pursuant to §1.41 and treat the letter as an informal objection. For the reasons stated below, we deny the petitions and informal objection and grant the applications subject to conditions to ensure compliance with our multiple ownership and cross-ownership rules. Introduction On November 16, 1999, CBS and Viacom filed applications seeking Commission consent to the transfer of control of CBS and its subsidiary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-202A1.txt
  • certify, prior to acquiring additional systems, the percentage change in ownership resulting from such acquisition. Consumers Union argues that the former Section 76.503 required that the horizontal certification be made at the same time that applications for transfers of licenses are filed with the Commission. Second, Consumers Union filed a request with the Commission (``Consumers Union Forfeiture Request'') under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules requesting that the Commission initiate a forfeiture proceeding based on allegations that AT&T has made material misrepresentations to, and failed to be candid with, the Commission regarding AT&T's filing practices under Section 76.503(c), that AT&T has filed its certifications late, and that AT&T has failed to report in its certifications sufficient information for the Commission to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-224A1.doc
  • were filed by Adaptive, APCO, ArrayComm, ALTV, FLEWUG, MSTV, NAB, Nelson Repeater Services, Northcoast Communications, Rand McNally, TRW, GPS Industry Council, and US WEST. The full names of petitioners and a list of parties filing oppositions and replies are listed in Appendix A. The late-filed petition for reconsideration submitted by FLEWUG is considered as an informal comment pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 476 (2000) (700 MHz First Report and Order). Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd at 19870 (para. 7). See Pub. Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-314A1.txt
  • or a summary thereof published in the Federal Register. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license. See, e.g., Danbury Cellular Telephone Company, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 4186, 4188 n.2 (CCB 1991). The Commission, however, has treated such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR §1.41. In this case, the Petition was treated as an informal complaint. An investigation was initiated to investigate the allegations made in the Petition. This Order is based, not upon the Petition, but upon the results of the Bureau's investigation and, unless otherwise noted, the facts described in this Order were developed in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-435A1.txt
  • * * * * (c) Except for opposition to petitions to deny an application filed pursuant to § 25.220 of this Chapter, oppositions to petitions to deny an application or responses to comments and informal objections may be filed 10 days after the petition, comment, or objection is filed and must be in accordance with other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter. (d) Except for opposition to petitions to deny an application filed pursuant to § 25.220 of this Chapter, reply comments by the party that filed the original petition may be filed with respect to pleadings filed pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section within 5 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired unless
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-51A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-51A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-51A1.txt
  • (requires that the applicable frequency coordinator recommend the most appropriate frequency for requests between 25 and 470 MHz). See generally 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(b), 309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.901-1.981; see also In the Matter of Michael McDermott, FCC 96-16, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 5750, ¶ 6 (1996) (Michael McDermott). 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(j), 309(a); 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 47 U.S.C. § 309. See Michael McDermott, 11 FCC Rcd. at 5753 ¶ 9. Typically, in order for the Commission to deny an application for authorization, the petitioner must make allegations of fact sufficient to show that the grant of the application is, prima facie, inconsistent with the public interest. 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1); In re Applications of Missouri RSA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-90A1.pdf
  • applicants to identify whether they seek to provide common carrier services or other services permitted under the final rules adopted therein.118 114See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 308(b) (authorizing the Commission, during the term of any license, to require a licensee's submission of information to enable the Commission to determine whether such license should be revoked). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 (informal requests for Commission action). 11547 U.S.C. § 303(y). 116NPRM at para. 57. 117 Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service ("WCS"), GN Docket No. 96-228, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10797-10802 paras. 25-36 ("Part 27 Report and Order"). 118700 MHz First Report and Order at para. 46. Federal Communications Commission FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-90A1_Erratum.doc
  • Manager for violating the Communications Act or the Commission's regulations or policies. When there is a dispute between a Guard Band Manager, or its spectrum user, and a non-contracting party, and the Guard Band Manager is unable or unwilling to resolve such dispute in a timely fashion, the non-contracting party may file a complaint with the Commission pursuant to § 1.41 of this chapter. § 27.607 Performance requirements and annual reporting requirement. Guard Band Managers are subject to the performance requirements specified in § 27.14(a) of this part. Guard Band Managers are required to file an annual report providing the Commission with information about the manner in which their spectrum is being utilized. Such reports shall be filed with the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-114A1.txt
  • SLTHS's license reinstatement application when it was first received. Although the Communications Act and Commission rules do not provide a right for opposing parties to file petitions to deny private land mobile radio license applications, the Bureau and the Division, as a matter of practice, have treated pleadings such as Kay's as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Had Branch staff been aware of Kay's opposition, it would have - in keeping with its own practices - considered the merits of the Petition to Deny before ruling on the subject application for reinstatement. Similarly, had the Division known of the timeliness and proper procedural filing of Kay's petition for reconsideration, it would not have
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-208A2.txt
  • Reported within 30 Days 4.28 0.48 1.63 0.54 1.95 1.27 1.90 1.18 PR-8-01 Open Orders in a Hold Status > 30 Days 1.01 0.00 1.07 0.00 1.09 0.00 1.33 0.00 PR-8-02 Open Orders in a Hold Status > 90 Days 0.60 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.83 0.00 Resale Special Services PR-2-01 Average Interval Completed - Total No Dispatch 2.04 1.41 2.02 1.72 1.81 2.51 24.78 1.67 4a,3n PR-2-02 Average Interval Completed - Total Dispatch 11.62 10.40 10.79 5.11 9.18 5.11 24.79 8.00 1b,2a,3a,4a PR-2-06 Average Interval Completed - DS0 3.00 3.07 3.28 1.55 3.04 2.95 6.82 4.00 4a,1x PR-2-07 Average Interval Completed - DS1 16.19 7.44 18.04 2.75 13.40 4.00 25.02 NA 1a,2a,3a PR-2-08 Average Interval Completed - DS3 31.80
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-328A1.txt
  • CMRS Competition Report, FCC 01-192, at 25. Under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, 57 Fed. Reg. 41552 (dated Apr. 2, 1992, as revised, Apr. 8, 1997) (``DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines''), ``market shares will be calculated using the best indicator of firms' future competitive significance.'' See DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines at § 1.41. Thus, market shares may be based on measures of current output (in the case of CMRS, measures such as subscribers, revenue or minutes, for example) or measures of current capacity (in the case of CMRS, measures such as total quantity of spectrum available or quantity of spectrum held where service has been launched, for example). Parties have submitted both output-based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-329A1.txt
  • Syracuse NY Citadel Communications Corporation 1946 Apr-00 500 0 1.1 B WNTQ FM CHR Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Citadel Communications Corporation 1956 Apr-00 4600 8.7 1.6 B WYYY FM AC Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1946 Jan-99 4250 6.3 1.76 B WBBS FM Country Syracuse, NY 78 Fulton NY Clear Channel Communications 1961 Jul-99 5800 10.2 1.41 B WHEN AM Sports Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1941 Jul-99 800 2.5 0.72 B WSYR AM Talk Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1922 Jul-99 3400 8.1 1.03 B WWHT FM CHR Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1958 Jul-99 2000 7.6 0.81 B WPHR FM Urban Syracuse, NY 78 Auburn NY
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-345A1.txt
  • service, or by hand delivery: (i) petitions to deny filed pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act); (ii) petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 405 of the Act; (iii) applications for review filed pursuant to Section 5(c)(4) of the Act; (iv) informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules; (v) petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; and, (vi) comments or oppositions to open video system certification made pursuant to section 76.1502 (e)(1) of the Commission's rules. The types of pleadings described in (i) through (vi) are referred to in this document as ``Covered Pleadings.'' The filing requirement
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-63A1.txt
  • have spared ourselves the continued litigation and enforcement issues raised in proceedings like this one. At the end of the day, Petrocom simply wishes to provide service to the public. I believe our Gulf licensing delays have unfairly limited that ability. I look forward to a prompt resolution of their petition and an auction of these licenses. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.44(e) and 1.115. See Letter to Richard S. Myers, Esq., et al, from Charles E. Dziedzic, Assistant Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau (May 15, 2000). See Letter to Richard S. Myers, Esq., et al, from Charles E. Dziedzic, Assistant Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau (August 15, 2000). Authorization was granted pursuant to pursuant to 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-168A1.txt
  • appropriate use of the Commission's enforcement and prosecutorial discretion. We note in this regard that the Bureau resolved numerous similar situations through similar consent decrees or through admonishments. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), 5(c)(4), and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 155(c)(4) and 503(b), and Sections 1.41, 1.43 and 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.43, 1.115, that the ``Petition for Special Relief, or in the Alternative, Application for Review'' filed by the Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ, Inc. on February 15, 2002, IS DENIED, and that the ``Request for Stay'' filed by the Office of Communications of the United
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-187A1.txt
  • MR-5-01-5000 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days 0 0 20 0 10 6.25 6.67 0 27.3 12.5 1,2 NETWORK PERFORMANCE NP-1 - Percent Final Trunk Group Blockage NP-1-01-5000 % Final Trunk Groups Exceeding Blocking Standard 0.62 0 0.31 0 0.65 0 0.65 0 1.96 0 NP-1-02-5000 % FTG Exceeding Blocking Std. -(No Exceptions) 0.62 1.69 0.31 1.65 0.65 1.71 0.65 1.41 1.96 3.07 NP-1-03-5000 Number FTG Exceeding Blocking Std. - 2 Months 0 0 0 0 0 NP-1-04-5000 Number FTG Exceeding Blocking Std. - 3 Months 0 0 0 0 0 NP-2 - Collocation Performance - New NP-2-01-6701 % On Time Response to Request for Physical Collocation 100 100 100 100 NA 1,2,3,4 NP-2-02-6701 % On Time Response to Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-274A1.txt
  • the Bureau had been afforded no opportunity to consider. On reconsideration, however, Kay contends that the AFR was proper, that we should have treated it as a petition for reconsideration, and that the dismissal was erroneous. Therefore, Kay reiterates assertions that he raised in his AFR. In the alternative, Kay requests that we modify the captioned authorizations pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. For the reasons stated below, we deny Kay's Petition in part and dismiss it in part. Kay makes four arguments in his Petition. First, he argues that his AFR was procedurally proper because the issues raised in his AFR had been placed before the Bureau. Second, Kay argues that even if his AFR were improper, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-289A1.txt
  • moved six of the sixteen stations to locations that were within a half-mile from the initial location of record. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Site-by-Site Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. 849 (WTB May 9, 2001). Because the Commission's Rules do not specifically provide for filing protests of construction notices, we will treat Havens's submission as informal requests pursuant to Section 1.41 of our rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 (2001). Letter via Electronic Mail from Warren Havens, President, and Jimmy Stobaugh, Operations Manager, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, to Scot Stone and Kimberly Kleppinger, Federal Communications Commission (dated June 26, 2001). Id. at 1-2. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Site-by-Site Action, Public Notice, Report No. 908 (WTB July 11, 2001). Electronic Mail from Scot
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-330A1.txt
  • FCC 02-330 California Performance Metric Data Sept. 2002 August 2002 Metric Name and Disaggregation Metric Number July 2002 May 2002 June 2002 24 - 2400100% Block Common Trnks: Common Trnks 0.98 2.00 0.33 2.00 0.33 2.00 0.81 2.00 0.93 2.00 26 - 2600200NXX Load LERG Effect Dt: Whlsle 99.92 n/a100.00 n/a100.00 n/a100.00 n/a100.00100.00 28 - 2800200Resale 1.26 3.35 1.23 3.31 1.41 2.63 1.28 2.43 1.46 2.53 28 - 2800300Unbundled 1.32 3.35 1.30 3.31 1.49 2.63 1.35 2.43 1.52 2.53 28 - 2800500Meet Pt 1.80 3.35 1.78 3.31 2.17 2.63 1.70 2.43 1.57 2.53 30 - 3000100Resalse 100.0099.00100.0099.00100.0099.00100.0099.00100.0099.00 30 - 3000200Unbundled 100.0099.00100.0099.00100.0099.00100.0099.00100.0099.00 30 - 3000300Fac/Int Cnnct 100.0099.00100.0099.00100.0099.00100.0099.00100.0099.00 31 - 3100200Resale 99.2699.04 99.6499.55 99.8099.42 99.7499.52 99.8199.51 31 - 3100300Unbundled 99.0799.04 99.8999.55 99.9199.42 99.8399.52
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-62A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-62A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-62A1.txt
  • by approximately 10 percent due in large part to including the revenues earned by WSTH(FM) from outside the Columbus area. Without revenue data for stations in the relevant market, we cannot calculate market shares that reflect Clear Channel's asserted overstatement of its revenues. Id. Davis Letter at 11. U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Horizontal Merger Guidelines, Section 1.41 (Issued: April 2, 1992; Revised April 8, 1997). WRLD(FM)' rating share was tied for fifth amongst stations in the Columbus, GA metro. See Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 11145, 11150 (1999). The following radio mergers that included settlements with the DOJ attest to the Department's recognition that an HHI over 1,800 may not necessarily imply adverse competitive consequences
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-75A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-75A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-75A1.txt
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, the Application for Review filed by JPJ Electronic Communications, Inc. on March 8, 2001, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Request for License Modification filed by JPJ Electronic Communication, Inc. on March 28, 2001, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary JPJ Electronic Communications, Inc. Application for Review, filed March 8, 2001 (Application for Review); JPJ Electronic Communications, Inc. Informal Request for License Modification, filed March 28, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-136A1.txt
  • $0.987 $0.624 † Standard errors for 2002 averages are also representative of those for the 2000 and 2001 averages. ATTACHMENT 5 Noncompetitive Group, by Strata Element Very Large Large Medium Small Very Small July 2002 BST $11.89 $11.38 $15.05 $20.20 $22.02 Standard error † 0.33 0.28 0.70 1.13 1.53 CPST $25.55 $25.48 $21.75 $15.59 $9.19 Standard error 0.43 0.46 0.78 1.41 2.07 Programming total $37.44 $36.86 $36.80 $35.79 $31.21 Standard error 0.37 0.43 0.28 0.62 1.15 Equipment $4.45 $4.34 $3.46 $2.46 $0.65 Standard error 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.29 0.26 Programming & equipment $41.89 $41.20 $40.26 $38.25 $31.86 Standard error 0.40 0.45 0.35 0.76 1.24 Channels 68.9 65.9 63.29 53.0 38.1 Standard error 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.6 3.2 Rate per channel $0.613
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-153A1.txt
  • a civil action on behalf of its residents to enjoin a person or entity engaged in a pattern of telephone calls or other transmissions in violation of the TCPA. 47 U.S.C. § 227(f)(1). Additionally, a consumer may request that the Commission take enforcement actions regarding violations of the TCPA and the regulations adopted to enforce it. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 on informal requests for Commission action and 47 C.F.R. § 1.716 on the Commission's process for complaints filed against common carriers. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2). 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1)-(4). 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1)(A). 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3). See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-154A1.txt
  • forth in Part 25 of this Chapter, the application must be filed electronically through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). Applications for other earth station applications are permitted but not required to be filed electronically. Any party choosing to file an earth station application electronically must file in accordance with the pleading limitations, periods and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter; * * * * * 6. Amend § 25.117 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), and removing paragraph (e), to read as follows: §25.117 Modification of station license. (a) Except as provided for in § 25.118 (Modifications not requiring prior authorization), no modification of a radio station governed by this part which affects the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-154A1_Erratum.doc
  • forth in Part 25 of this Chapter, the application must be filed electronically through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). Applications for other earth station applications are permitted but not required to be filed electronically. Any party choosing to file an earth station application electronically must file in accordance with the pleading limitations, periods and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter; * * * * * 6. Amend § 25.117 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), and removing paragraph (e), to read as follows: §25.117 Modification of station license. (a) Except as provided for in § 25.118 (Modifications not requiring prior authorization), no modification of a radio station governed by this part which affects the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-182A1.txt
  • forma transfer of control of its cellular license for the Sioux RSA until April 3, 2001. See supra note 10. Sagir filed an Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration on May 22, 2001 (``May 22nd Opposition''). See supra note 10. Id. Finally, if these avenues for relief had not been available, NECC would have always been free to file a Section 1.41 informal request for Commission action. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. As we indicated above, see supra para. 9, even if Sagir's basic qualifications and compliance with the Commission's transfer rules are of the sort alleged by NECC, the proper remedy would not be to permit NECC to contest Sagir's right to serve its CGSA as modified by the grant of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-207A1.txt
  • amended, and, therefore, the proper procedure for opposing such applications is to file an informal objection. However, there is no provision in Part 5 of the Rules that expressly addresses this point. To codify this requirement, we are adding new Section 5.95, which will provide for the filing of informal objections that comply with the requirements set forth in Sections 1.41-1.52 of the Rules. We continue to prefer the use of informal procedures in the context of Part 5, which ``contemplate[s] that experimental licensees will cooperate in good faith with [regular] service licensees to prevent harmful interference to the affected services, to investigate any complaints of interference, and to take appropriate measures to mitigate interference'' and require that ``in the event
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-213A1.txt
  • 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(d)(1). This was why MRA was entitled to notice of the Commission's decision. The question of MRA's standing to file a petition to deny was irrelevant, the Division further explained, because MRA's filing was an informal objection, not a petition to deny. Order on Further Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd at 11135-36 ¶ 5 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.939; Landlinx Communications, Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 24932, 24933 ¶ 4 (2000); Applications of WINV, Inc., Assignor, and WGUL-FM, Inc., Assignee, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2032 ¶ 2 (1998); Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, DA 02-876 ¶ 16 (rel. Apr. 16, 2002)). In fact, MRA could not have filed a petition to deny
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-239A1.txt
  • editing that is unique to WXRK.'' The staff also found that it could not consider some of the material due to the terms of a settlement agreement between the Commission and Sagittarius' parent company. See Sagittarius Broadcasting Corp., 10 FCC Rcd 12245 (1995). Shareholders of CBS Corp., 16 FCC Rcd 16072, 16073 (2001). See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3587 and 1.41. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3580(d). 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1) (non-party cannot seek reconsideration absent a showing ``with particularity the manner in which the person's interests are adversely affected by the actions taken,'' and of a good reason why it was not possible for him to participate earlier as a party). See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3584(a). 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-241A1.txt
  • are listed in Appendix A 2. See section 1.44(e) of the rules, which gives the Commission the discretion to grant temporary relief. See also generally section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1936, 47 U.S.C. § 4(i), which authorizes the Commission to issue orders necessary to execute its functions. We note that petitions specifically requesting a stay, pursuant to sections 1.41 and 1.43 of the rules, as well as other relief, were filed on behalf of rural carriers by a rural association in its representational capacity and by individual counsel. To the extent that the Stay provided by this Order grants the relief provided in the Non-Nationwide Carriers Order, requests for relief made pursuant to any other pending petitions are also
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-241A1_Erratum.doc
  • are listed in Appendix A 2. See section 1.44(e) of the rules, which gives the Commission the discretion to grant temporary relief. See also generally section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1936, 47 U.S.C. § 4(i), which authorizes the Commission to issue orders necessary to execute its functions. We note that petitions specifically requesting a stay, pursuant to sections 1.41 and 1.43 of the rules, as well as other relief, were filed on behalf of rural carriers by a rural association in its representational capacity and by individual counsel. To the extent that the Stay provided by this Order grants the relief provided in the Non-Nationwide Carriers Order, requests for relief made pursuant to any other pending petitions are also
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-257A1.txt
  • Order. In its application for review, ASI contends that the PG&E filing was an untimely petition for reconsideration that should not have been considered, and that the time limitations of Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.113 of the Commission's Rules preclude the modification action taken by the Division. Further, ASI asserts that the Division lacks authority under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules to take informal action in this case. Discussion. We agree with the Division that it has authority to modify ASI's license under Section 316 of the Act and Sections 1.41 and 1.87 of the Commission's Rules. Section 316 is subject neither to the ``changed circumstances'' limitation of Section 312 of the Act that pertains to license
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-288A1.txt
  • to receive this discount. Accordingly, we create ``safe harbor'' categories of functionally equivalent services based on the advertised speed and nature of the service. For purposes of the rural health care support mechanism only, we establish the following advertised speed categories as functionally equivalent: low - 144-256 kbps; medium - 257-768 kbps; high - 769-1400 kbps (1.4 mbps); T-1 - 1.41-8 mbps; T-3 - 8.1-50 mbps. We will also consider whether a service is symmetrical or asymmetrical when determining functional equivalencies. Telecommunications services will be considered functionally similar when operated at advertised speeds within the same category (low, medium, high, T-1, or T-3) and when the nature of the service is the same (symmetrical or asymmetrical). For example, a symmetrical fractional
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-193A1.txt
  • approval. Id. 4C Reply at 17. 4C indicates that it is prepared to undertake a prompt review of Vidi and that, if the Commission approves Vidi, and since MPAA has expressed its basic support for the technology, 4C sees no reason why Vidi would not be promptly approved based on currently available information. Id. at 17-18. >. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See supra, ¶¶ 10, 16, 27, 38. The applicable intellectual property can include, inter alia, patents, copyrights, and know-how. See e.g., Hi-MD Device Hardware Adopter Agreement at Art. II. Genesis Opposition to Sony at 2-5. Genesis raised similar arguments in comments filed in the Digital Broadcast Content Protection (MB Docket No. 02-230) and Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-213A1.txt
  • Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 155(c), and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Wireless Telecommunications, Inc., Debtor-in-Possession, on July 28, 2003 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the Informal Objection filed by Wireless Telecommunications, Inc., Debtor-in-Possession on July 28, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Application for Review (filed Feb. 22, 2000) (AFR). Mester Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 28, 1993) (1993 Petition). Letter from Charles E. Dziedzic, Assistant Chief, Video Services Division, Mass
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-255A1.txt
  • the squares of the market shares of each firm participating in the market. The HHI can range from nearly zero in an atomistic market to 10,000 in the case of monopoly. Since the HHI is based on squared market shares, it gives proportionally greater weight to carrier with large market shares. See DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines § 1.5. See id. § 1.41. WorldCom-MCI Order, 13 FCC Rcd. at 18100-01, 18050. We note that the mobile telephony market is a growing and dynamic industry, and therefore HHIs and changes in HHIs may be less predictive as to whether the merger could result in anticompetitive behavior in a particular geographic market than they would if the market were stable. As discussed in section V.A.3.d,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-92A1.txt
  • 312EZ to the extent that form is available. If Form 312EZ is not available, such earth station license applicants must file on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B, and include the information specified in Section 25.130. (3) Applications for earth station authorizations must be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, periods and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter, except that such earth station applications must be filed electronically through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) in accordance with the applicable provisions of Part 1, Subpart Y of this Chapter; 6. Amend § 25.116 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 25.116 Amendments to applications. * * * * * (e) Any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-61A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-61A1.txt
  • Service Company Motion to Accept Unauthorized Pleading filed by Nextel on May 28, 2004. The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license. See, e.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp., 3 FCC Rcd 3155 (1988); KDSK, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 893 (1983). The Commission, however, has treated such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of the SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act-Competitive Bidding, First Report and Order, Eighth Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-63A1.txt
  • (c) Except for opposition to petitions to deny an application filed pursuant to § 25.220 of this chapter, oppositions to petitions to deny an application or responses to comments and informal objections regarding an application may be filed within 10 days after the petition, comment, or objection is filed and must be in accordance with other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter, except that such oppositions must be filed electronically through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) in accordance with the applicable provisions of Part 1, Subpart Y of this Chapter. (d) Except for opposition to petitions to deny an application filed pursuant to § 25.220 of this chapter, reply comments by the party that filed the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-63A1_Erratum.doc
  • (c) Except for opposition to petitions to deny an application filed pursuant to § 25.220 of this chapter, oppositions to petitions to deny an application or responses to comments and informal objections regarding an application may be filed within 10 days after the petition, comment, or objection is filed and must be in accordance with other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter, except that such oppositions must be filed electronically through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) in accordance with the applicable provisions of Part 1, Subpart Y of this Chapter. (d) Except for opposition to petitions to deny an application filed pursuant to § 25.220 of this chapter, reply comments by the party that filed the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.txt
  • rather than as petitions to deny. As an initial matter, we agree that the pleadings filed by CWA/IBEW and TAC fail to meet the requirements of section 309(d)(1) because neither group attached a sworn statement as required by statute. Thus, we conclude that CWA/IBEW and TAC are appropriately treated as informal objectors in the instant proceeding pursuant to Commission Rule 1.41. Nonetheless, we address fully the issues raised by these parties in the applicable sections of this order. However, the pleadings filed by Free Press and NHMC are accompanied by affidavits of persons with personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the petitions, which assert that grant of the Applications would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest. Thus, we
• 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
  • No. ITC-T/C-20060405-00234 IB File No. ITC-ASG-20060404-00181 WC Docket No. 06-96 PETITION TO ADOPT CONDITIONS TO AUTHORIZATIONS AND LICENSES The United States Department of Justice (``DOJ''), including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (``FBI''), together with the United States Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') (collectively, the ``Agencies''), respectfully submit this Petition to Adopt Conditions to Authorizations and Licenses (``Petition''), pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Federal Communications Commission's (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') rules. Through this Petition, the Agencies advise the Commission that they have no objection to the Commission granting its consent in the above-referenced proceeding, provided that the Commission conditions the grant on DoCoMo Guam Holdings, Inc., (``DoCoMo'') abiding by the commitments and undertakings contained in their Security Agreement (the ``Agreement'') attached hereto
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-185A1.txt
  • at 2. Even if MTA Wireless lacks standing, however, we have discretion to consider the Petition as an informal objection. See, e.g., Sprint-Nextel Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14021 n.335 (citing Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7028, 7033 (WTB 2002) (noting ``there is no standing requirement to file an informal objection pursuant to [47 C.F.R. § 1.41].'')); Application of Tabback Broadcasting Company for Renewal of License of Station KAZM(AM), Sedona, Arizona, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11899, 11900 (2000) (denying standing but treating petition to deny as informal objection). Accordingly, in the interest of having a full and complete record on which to evaluate the proposed transaction, we consider the merits of MTA Wireless's arguments
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-185A1_Erratum.doc
  • at 2. Even if MTA Wireless lacks standing, however, we have discretion to consider the Petition as an informal objection. See, e.g., Sprint-Nextel Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14021 n.335 (citing Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7028, 7033 (WTB 2002) (noting ``there is no standing requirement to file an informal objection pursuant to [47 C.F.R. § 1.41].'')); Application of Tabback Broadcasting Company for Renewal of License of Station KAZM(AM), Sedona, Arizona, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11899, 11900 (2000) (denying standing but treating petition to deny as informal objection). Accordingly, in the interest of having a full and complete record on which to evaluate the proposed transaction, we consider the merits of MTA Wireless's arguments
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-85A1.txt
  • 57; SES-T/C-2005 1004-01371 PETITION TO ADOPT CONDITIONS TO AUTHORIZATIONS AND LICENSES The United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), including the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), together with the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and the United States Department of Defense (collectively, the "Agencies"), respectfully submit this Petition to Adopt Conditions to Authorizations and Licenses ("Petition"), pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") rules.' Through this Petition, the Agencies advise the Commission that they have no objection to the Commission granting the applications filed in the above-referenced ' 47 C.F.R. 9 1.41. proceeding, provided that the Commission conditions the grant of the applications on Intelsat Holdings, Ltd. ("Intelsat") abiding by the commitments and undertakings contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-115A1.txt
  • Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. § 309; (ii) petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 405 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 405; (iii) applications for review filed pursuant to Section 5(c)(4) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(4); (iv) informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41; (v) petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; and (vi) comments or oppositions to open video system certification made pursuant to Section 76.1502(e)(1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1502(e)(1). Interim Procedures Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 21483 ¶ 2. The Interim Procedures Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-178A1.txt
  • File Nos: ITC-T/C-20070130-00044, ITC-214-19990128-00050, ITC-214-20000113-00025, SAT-ASG-20070130-00025, SES-ASG-20070130-00166, SES-T/C-20070130-00167, SES-T/C-20070130-00168, SES-T/C-20070130-00169, SES-T/C-20070130-00170 IB Docket No. 07-44 PETITION TO ADOPT CONDITIONS TO AUTHORIZATIONS AND LICENSES The Department of Homeland Security (``DHS''), with the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (``FBI'') (collectively, the ``Agencies''), respectfully submit this Petition to Adopt Conditions to Authorizations and Licenses (``Petition''), pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') rules. Through this Petition, the Agencies advise the Commission that they have no objection to the Commission granting its consent in the above-referenced proceeding, provided that the Commission conditions the grant on 4363205 Canada Inc. (Holdco), 4363213 Canada Inc. (Acquireco) and Skynet Satellite Corporation (collectively, ``Holdco''), abiding by the commitments and undertakings
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-34A1.txt
  • the volume of outside options has a strong influence on market prices. TABLE 7 TRANSPONDER LEASE RATES AND EXCESS SUPPLY OF TRANSPONDERS Region 2003/2004 Average Revenue/Transponder in Millions of $ Excess Supply/Total Supply (2005) Western Europe 3.02 30.7 % Asia Pacific 1.51 46.4 % North America 1.49 47.1 % Sub Saharan Africa 1.37 53.5 % Middle East and North Africa 1.41 28.3 % Latin America 1.36 38.8 % Central Europe 1.40 52.0 % Russia and Central Asia 1.31 52.6 % Southern Asia 0.87 55.7 % Source: Euroconsult 2006 Report. Retail Markets For retail markets with many customers, short term financial arrangements, and high customer mobility, substantial investments in advertising and programming are required to create and support a brand image and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.txt
  • América Móvil ) __________________________________________) To: The Commission PETITION TO ADOPT CONDITIONS TO AUTHORIZATIONS AND LICENSES The United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), including the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), on behalf of itself and the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") (collectively, the "Agencies"), respectfully submit this Petition to Adopt Conditions to Authorizations and Licenses ("Petition"), pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. Through this Petition, the Agencies advise the Commission that they have no objection to the Commission granting its consent in the above-referenced proceeding, provided that the Commission conditions such authorization on América Móvil, S.A. de C.V. ("America Movil"), and 1 Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc. ("TELPRI"), abiding by the commitments and undertakings
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-178A1.txt
  • 3. Id. at 4. Applicants also argue that USE lacks standing because it did not file a petition to deny the merger application in a timely manner. Consolidated Opposition at 1. To the extent USE failed to timely file a petition to deny, we will treat USE's comments as an informal objection and address them here. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41; Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 22761, 22765-66 n.47 (2003); see also Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7028, 7033 ¶ 16 (2002) (noting that there is no standing requirement to file an informal objection). See, e.g., Sirius Mar. 4, 2008 Response to Information Request at SIRIUS-FCC-SUPP.000217-00018, SIRIUS-FCC-SUPP.000513-000559; SIRIUS-FCC-SUPP.000631-000700; XM Mar.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-236A1.txt
  • the point he filed his comments with the Commission. Ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 214, 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 214, 309, 310(d), section 2 of the Cable Landing License Act, 47 U.S.C. § 35, Executive Order No. 10530, and sections 1.4, 1.41, 1.44(e), and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.4, 1.41, 1.44(e), 1.106, that the ``Petition for Reconsideration'' filed January 26, 2007 by Michael Lovern, Sr. IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corporation Application for Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 06-74, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5662 (2007) (AT&T/BellSouth
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-258A1.txt
  • Id. at 3. We note, however, that IBEW's filing does not meet the requirements of a petition to deny set forth in Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, because it is not supported by an affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of the specific allegations of fact. 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1). However, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, we will treat the IBEW's submission as an informal request for Commission action and consider arguments raised therein. 47 C.F.R. §1.41. See Joint Opposition at 82. See id.; see also EMR Network v. Federal Communications Commission, 391 F.3d 269 (D.C. Cir. 2004), cert. denied 545 U.S. 1116 (2005). See Joint Opposition at 83. See id. Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-46A1.txt
  • SunCom Wireless Holdings, Inc., Transferor, and T-Mobile USA, Inc. Transferee for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WT Docket No. 07-237 PETITION TO ADOPT CONDITIONS TO AUTHORIZATIONS AND LICENSES Pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Federal Communications Commission's (``FCC'' or ``Commission'') rules, the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS''), with the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (``FBI'') (collectively, the ``Agencies''), respectfully submit this Petition to Adopt Conditions to Authorizations and Licenses (``Petition''). Through this Petition, the Agencies advise the Commission that they have no objection to the Commission granting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-58A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-58A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-58A1.txt
  • that the petition for reconsideration filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc., on January 30, 2007 and supplemented on February 2 and February 25, 2007, when treated as an application for review, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), 155(c), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, that the informal petition to dismiss or deny filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc., on March 5, 2007 IS DENIED, and application 0002906356 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary See Mobile Relay Associates, Order,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-60A1.txt
  • the Commission: introDuction We have before us an application for review filed by Warren C. Havens (``Havens'') on May 4, 2006. Havens seeks review of an April 4, 2006 Order on Further Reconsideration of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``Bureau''). The Bureau denied Havens's March 24, 2005 petition for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for relief pursuant to Sections 1.2 or 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, which sought reconsideration of a February 22, 2005 action by the Bureau's Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division (``PSCID''). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the application for review. background Havens filed the above-captioned Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) applications in February 2000. Under former Section 80.475(a) of the Commission's Rules as then in effect,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-116A1.txt
  • announcing the Bureau's consent to the assignment applications, but concluded that it was untimely because the Order was the action for which reconsideration was sought. See id. at 18650 n.14. See id. at 18650-51 ¶ 6 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1)). The Division dismissed the Petitioners' alternative request that their petition be treated as an informal request pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, concluding that ``a party cannot evade the procedural requirements of Section 1.106 by concurrently requesting the same relief under Section 1.41.'' Id. at 18651 ¶ 7 (citing Paging Systems, Inc., Order, 21 FCC Rcd 7225, 7227 ¶ 8 (WTB PSCID 2006) (citing Jason Bennett, Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 17193, 17194 & n.14
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-116A1_Rcd.pdf
  • announcing the Bureau's consent to the assignment applications, but concluded that it was untimely because the Order was the action for which reconsideration was sought. See id. at 18650 n.14. 8See id. at 18650-51 ¶ 6 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1)). The Division dismissed the Petitioners' alternative request that their petition be treated as an informal request pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, concluding that "a party cannot evade the procedural requirements of Section 1.106 by concurrently requesting the same relief under Section 1.41." Id.at 18651 ¶ 7 (citing Paging Systems, Inc., Order, 21 FCC Rcd 7225, 7227 ¶ 8 (WTB PSCID 2006) (citing Jason Bennett, Letter, 20 FCC Rcd 17193, 17194 & n.14 (MB
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-17A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-17A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-17A1.txt
  • certification, a PSAP has not provided the certification and the PSAP has not made an affirmative finding that TracFone does not provide its customers with access to 911 and E911 service within the PSAP's service area. To the extent an entity disagrees with TracFone's self-certification, it may file a request asking the Commission to examine the issue pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Ordering CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 214(e) and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 214 and 254, the petition for modification filed by TracFone Wireless, Inc. IS GRANTED as discussed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.txt
  • See 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15365, para. 206; 47 C.F.R. § 27.16(b). See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Exclusivity Arrangements Between Commercial Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers, RM-11497, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 14873 (2008). -2. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). Id. at § 403. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 (authorizing the filing of informal complaints). Adelphia/Time Warner/Comcast Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8203, 8298, para. 220 (2006). Comcast Network Management Practices Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 13032-33, paras. 10-11. 47 C.F.R. § 1.711 et seq. 47 C.F.R. § 76.7; see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.1003 (program access complaints). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.200 et seq. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2). 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-197A1.txt
  • all aspects of the problem and take whatever action is deemed appropriate. § 5.95 Informal objections. A person or entity desiring to object to or to oppose an Experimental Radio application for a station license or authorization may file an informal objection against that application. The informal objection and any responsive pleadings shall comply with the requirements set forth in §§1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter. Subpart C-Technical Standards and Operating Requirements § 5.101 Frequency stability. h an input voltage variation of 85% to 115% of rated input voltage, unless justification is presented to demonstrate otherwise. § 5.103 Types of emission. Stations in the Experimental Radio Service may be authorized to use any of the classifications of emissions covered in part
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.txt
  • end users and edge providers with a simple and cost-effective option for calling attention to open Internet rule violations. We agree that end users, edge providers, and others should have an efficient vehicle to bring potential open Internet violations to the Commission, and indeed, such a vehicle is already available. Parties may submit complaints to the Commission pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. Unlike formal complaints, no filing fee is required. We recommend that end users and edge providers submit any complaints through the Commission's website, at http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau will also make available resources explaining these rules and facilitating the filing of informal complaints. Although individual informal complaints will not typically result in written
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf
  • that equip end users and edge providers with a simple and cost-effective option for calling attention to open Internet rule violations.480We agree that end users, edge providers, and others should have an efficient vehicle to bring potential open Internet violations to the Commission, and indeed, such a vehicle is already available. Partiesmay submit complaints to the Commission pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules.481Unlike formal complaints, no filing fee is required. We recommend that end users and edge providers submit any complaints through the Commission's website, at http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau will also make available resources explaining these 475This history likewise refutes the assertion that prior Commission decisions "engendered serious reliance interests" that would be unsettled by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-21A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-21A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-21A1.txt
  • bands and/or in the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz bands; and (ii) The earth station will meet all the applicable technical specifications set forth in part 25 of this chapter. (iii) The earth station is not an ESV. (3) Applications for earth station authorizations must be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, periods and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter, except that such earth station applications must be filed electronically through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) in accordance with the applicable provisions of part 1, subpart Y of this chapter; * * * * * 8. In § 25.116, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows: §25.116 Amendments to applications. * * * *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-21A1_Rcd.pdf
  • GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz bands; and (ii) The earth station will meet all the applicable technical specifications set forth in part 25 1558 Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-21 of this chapter. (iii) The earth station is not an ESV. (3) Applications for earthstation authorizations must be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, periods and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter, except that such earth station applications must be filed electronically through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) in accordance with the applicable provisions of part 1, subpart Y of this chapter; * * * * * 8. In § 25.116, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows: §25.116 Amendments to applications. * * * *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-39A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-39A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-39A1.txt
  • the motion and dismiss the opposition. Because we are dismissing the opposition, we also dismiss the reply, Reply to Opposition to Application for Review (filed Mar. 22, 2004). See, e.g., Jen-Shenn Song, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 3503, 3505 ¶ 5 (WTB CWD PRB 2002). Petition for Reconsideration of Order on Reconsideration Based Upon New Facts And In the Alternative Section 1.41 Request to Consider New Facts (filed Feb. 22, 2007) (Great Lakes PFR). MC/LM filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (filed Mar. 7, 2007). THL filed a reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (filed Mar. 19, 2007). File Nos. 0001370847, 0001370848, 0001370850, 0001768691, 0002197542. The Great Lakes AFR and Great Lakes PFR seek review and reconsideration of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-39A1_Rcd.pdf
  • deny the motion and dismiss the opposition. Because we are dismissing the opposition, we also dismiss the reply, Reply to Opposition to Application for Review (filed Mar. 22, 2004). See, e.g., Jen-Shenn Song, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 3503, 3505 ¶ 5 (WTB CWD PRB 2002). 2Petition for Reconsideration of Order on Reconsideration Based Upon NewFacts And In the Alternative Section 1.41 Request to Consider New Facts (filed Feb. 22, 2007) (Great Lakes PFR). MC/LM filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (filed Mar. 7, 2007). THL filed a reply. Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (filedMar. 19, 2007). 3390 Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-39 applications to renew and assign the licenses for AMTS stations along the Great Lakes and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-54A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-54A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-54A1.txt
  • Payment Date''). Mobex Request for Declaratory Ruling at 1. Mobex Motion to Dismiss at 1. Mobex Motion to Stay Upfront Payment Date at 1. Mobex Motion to Stay Auction at 1. Telesaurus VPC LLC, AMTS Consortium, and Warren Havens (the ``Responders'') filed pleadings in opposition, and Mobex replied. The Responders' pleadings in opposition included: (1) Opposition to the Mobex § 1.41 Request to Dismiss the Applications of Telesaurus VPC LLC and AMTS Consortium LLC to Participate in Auction 57, dated September 8, 2004; (2) Opposition to Request for Declaratory Ruling, AMTS Auction 57, dated September 7, 2004; and (3) Opposition to the Two Motions for Stay, AMTS Auction 57, dated September 7, 2004. In reply, Mobex filed: (1) Reply to Opposition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-54A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Motion to Stay Upfront Payment Date"). 13MobexRequest for Declaratory Ruling at 1. 14MobexMotion to Dismiss at 1. 15MobexMotion to Stay Upfront Payment Date at 1. 16Mobex Motion to StayAuction at 1. Telesaurus VPC LLC, AMTS Consortium, and Warren Havens (the "Responders") filed pleadings in opposition, and Mobex replied. The Responders' pleadings in opposition included: (1) Opposition to the Mobex § 1.41 Request to Dismiss the Applications of Telesaurus VPC LLC and AMTS Consortium LLC to Participate in Auction 57, dated September 8, 2004; (2) Opposition to Request for Declaratory Ruling, AMTS Auction 57, dated September 7, 2004; and (3) Opposition to the Two Motions for Stay, AMTS Auction 57, dated September 7, 2004. In reply, Mobex filed: (1) Reply to Opposition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-5A1.txt
  • filed a petition to deny the application. The Bureau's Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division (PSCID) denied the petition to deny, and granted the ACL/NUSCO request for confidential treatment. PSCID concluded that PSI lacked standing to file the petition to deny, but it granted PSI's alternative request that the petition be deemed an informal request for relief pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. On the merits, PSCID found that the redacted Agreement satisfied the Commission's rules. It also concluded that confidential treatment was appropriate because ``the redacted information could be of interest and benefit to their competitors to the detriment of ACL and NUSCO.'' PSI filed a petition for reconsideration, arguing that (1) it had standing; (2) the redacted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-5A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Commission FCC 10-5 4.PSI7filed a petition to deny the application. The Bureau's Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division (PSCID) denied the petitionto deny, and granted the ACL/NUSCO request for confidentialtreatment. PSCID concluded that PSI lacked standing to file the petition to deny,8but it granted PSI's alternative request that the petition be deemed an informal request for relief pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules.9 5.On the merits, PSCID found that the redacted Agreement satisfied the Commission's rules.10It also concluded that confidential treatment was appropriate because "the redacted information could be of interest and benefit to their competitors to the detriment of ACL and NUSCO."11PSI filed a petition for reconsideration, arguing that (1) it had standing; (2) the redacted portions of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.txt
  • 1.80 2.16 1.58 2.48 Telecom Rate - Urbanized (5 attachers) 6.92 3.26 8.21 7.44 2.72 3.26 2.39 3.75 Telecom Rate - Non-Urbanized (3 attachers) 10.43 4.92 12.39 11.22 4.11 4.92 3.60 5.65 No Capital Costs Telecom Rate - Urbanized (5 attachers) 1.71 0.49 2.47 2.03 0.51 0.94 0.82 0.66 Telecom Rate - Non-Urbanized (3 attachers) 2.58 0.74 3.72 3.06 0.77 1.41 1.24 0.99 Utility Pole Attachment Rates, Based on FERC Data ($ per attachment per year) APPENDIX B Proposed Rules Part 1, Subpart J of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations would be amended as follows: The heading of Part 1, Subpart J would be amended as follows: Subpart J-Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures Section 1.1402 would be amended to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-135A1.txt
  • pursued its interests on review of the Bureau Decision. In any event, we would deny PMCM's request to dismiss Nave's informal objection because the Commission's rules do not provide formal procedures applicable to Section 331 notifications, and Nave's informal objection is therefore permissible under the Commission's rule permitting the filing of informal requests for Commission action. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 (``Except where formal procedures are required under the provisions of this chapter, requests for action may be submitted informally.'') See Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 996-97 (2005) (``the Commission has the discretion to fill the . . . statutory gap'' created by ambiguity); Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • 0.191 -0.230* -0.454 (-0.52) (0.66) (0.35) (-0.01) (0.52) (-0.40) (-0.05) (-0.80) (-0.36) (1 .02) (-2.38) (-1.11) Land_Area_nu 0.163*** 0.138*** 0.218** 0.215* 0.0835 0.143** 0.220** 0.0 544 0.117* 0.171** 0.186*** 0.222 (6.11) (3.57) (2.60) (2.42) (1.74) (2.86) (2.91) (0.68) (2.30) (3.05) ( 4.33) (1.69) Land_Area_uc 0.00647 0.0223 -0.0051 -0.0614 -0.216 -0.0178 0.0292 0.145 -0.0146 -0.109 -0.104 -0.297 (0.10) (0.21) (-0.02) (-0.22) (-1.41) (-0.12) (0.15) (0.72) (-0.13) (-0 .86) (-0.71) (-0.98) Land_Area_ua -0.101 0.137 0.596 0.265 -0.0041 -0.289* 0.0983 0.219 0.169 0.482 -0.384** -0.467 (-1.49) (0.72) (1.19) (0.48) (-0.02) (-2.33) (0.24) (0.68) (1.36) (1.86 ) (-2.59) (-0.95) Percent_Water 0.866*** -0.0712 -0.434 -1.103 0.299 -0.244 0.808 1.731* 0.577 -0.821 - 0.246 -0.0843 (3.31) (-0.19) (-0.36) (-0.91) (0.38) (-0.54) (0.86) (2.53) (1.03) (-1. 37) (-0.31)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-172A1.txt
  • AMTS stations; and that PSI's actions with respect to its AMTS stations demonstrate that PSI has not disclosed the real party in interest regarding those licenses. Warren C. Havens, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Environmentel LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC Petition for Reconsideration Based on New Facts, And in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Feb. 3, 2010) (Auction 59 PFR). PSI filed an opposition on February 18, 2010. Paging Systems, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 450, 453-54 ¶ 8 (2010) (Auction 59 MO&O). Pursuant to a reorganization effective September 25, 2006, certain duties of PSCID were assumed by the Division. See Establishment of the Public Safety and Homeland Security
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-172A1_Rcd.pdf
  • previous page) stations; and that PSI's actions with respect to its AMTS stations demonstrate that PSI has not disclosed the real party in interest regarding those licenses. 3Warren C. Havens, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Environmentel LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC Petition for Reconsideration Based on NewFacts, And in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Feb. 3, 2010) (Auction 59 PFR). PSI filed an opposition on February 18, 2010. 4Paging Systems, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 450, 453-54 ¶ 8 (2010) (Auction 59 MO&O). 5Pursuant to a reorganization effective September 25, 2006, certain duties of PSCID were assumed by the Division. See Establishment of the Public Safety and Homeland Security
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-173A1.txt
  • it would be subject to dismissal as repetitious, because it seeks reconsideration of the denial of a previous petition for reconsideration and does not raise any new facts or issues of decisional significance. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 5, 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 155, 303(r), and Sections 1.41 and 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41 and 1.115, the application for review filed by Environmentel LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, V2G LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Warren C. Havens on April 4, 2011 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary MariTEL, Inc. and Mobex Network
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-173A1_Rcd.pdf
  • has traditionally afforded AMTS site-based and geographic licensees the same flexibility and stating that any imbalance that Petitioners perceived with respect to these licensees' construction and coverage requirements was not 1MariTEL, Inc. and Mobex Network Services, LLC, Order on Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 04-257, 26 FCC Rcd 2491 (2011) (Order on Reconsideration). 2Application for Review or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed April 4, 2011, errata version filed April 5, 2011) (AFR). The AFR was filed by Havens, Environmentel LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC (ITM), Verde Systems LLC, V2G LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC and Paging Systems, Inc. filed oppositions. Petitioners filed a reply. 3MariTEL, Inc. and Mobex Network Services,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-174A1.txt
  • for reconsideration. We therefore dismiss the instant petitions for reconsideration as repetitious. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration Based on New Facts, And in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request filed February 3, 2010 by Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration Based on New Facts and Law, or in the alternative Section 1.41 Request filed May 26, 2010 by Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Intelligent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-174A1_Rcd.pdf
  • reconsideration in another proceeding. Because the two petitions raise similar issues, we will address them together. As set forth below, we conclude that Petitioners have not presented any evidence or arguments that the dismissals of the prior petitions for reconsiderationwere improper. We therefore dismiss the instant petitions for reconsideration. 1Petition for Reconsideration Based on NewFacts, And in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Feb. 3, 2010) (Motorola Petition). 2Motorola, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 455 (2010) (Motorola MO&O). 3Petition for Reconsideration Based on NewFacts and Law, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed May 26, 2010) (Public Coast Petition). THL is not a party to the Public Coast Petition. We will refer herein to Environmentel, Verde, THL,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-23A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-23A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-23A1.txt
  • § 1.429, the petition for reconsideration filed by Environmentel LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Warren C. Havens on February 12, 2010 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Petition for Partial Reconsideration in Part Based on New Facts, And in the Alternative, Request Under Section 1.41 (filed Feb. 12, 2010) (Petition). The Petition was filed by Havens, Environmentel LLC (Environmentel), Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC (ITM), Verde Systems LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC filed an opposition. MariTEL, Inc. and Mobex Network Services, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 04-257, 25 FCC Rcd 533 (2010) (MO&O).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-23A1_Rcd.pdf
  • for reconsideration of that decision, stating, As the Report and Order, noted, the Commission has always afforded AMTS site-based licensees the same flexibility as [geographic] licensees, including the flexibility to serve units on land. Any imbalance that Havens perceives with respect to their construction 1Petition for Partial Reconsideration in Part Based on NewFacts, And in the Alternative, Request Under Section 1.41 (filed Feb. 12, 2010) (Petition). The Petition was filed by Havens, Environmentel LLC (Environmentel), Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC (ITM), Verde Systems LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC filed an opposition. 2MariTEL, Inc. and Mobex Network Services, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 04-257, 25 FCC Rcd 533 (2010) (MO&O).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-63A1.txt
  • the same kinds of activities described in Skybridge's earlier pleadings, and already were considered by the Commission. They do not alter the commercial purpose analysis and do not cure the defect in Skybridge's petitions noted above. In addition to asking for reconsideration, Skybridge asks us to treat its pleadings as either informal requests for Commission action (under 47 C.F.R. § 1.41) or petitions for declaratory ruling (under 47 C.F.R. § 1.2). See First PFR at 2; Second PFR at 2. Skybridge's pleadings are in substance petitions for reconsideration, and we will treat them solely as such. Adequacy of search. Skybridge submits an additional basis for seeking reconsideration of FCC 11-152. In that order, the Commission supplemented WTB's response to Skybridge's request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-66A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-66A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-66A1.txt
  • failed to fully address their issues. Also on May 10, 2006, Auction 65 bidding began, with both Havens Parties participating. The auction closed on June 2, 2006, with two winning bidders, AC BidCo LLC (``BidCo'') and LiveTV, LLC (``LiveTV''). On August 7, 2006, the Havens Parties filed a ``Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Sections 1.939, 1.2108, and 1.41'' (``Auction 65 Applications Petition'') in which they reiterated their request for clarification of the rules as applied to Auction 65, ``including with regard to the long forms of the parties who won Auction 65 licenses[,]'' i.e., BidCo and LiveTV. The Havens Parties attached and incorporated by reference their prior petitions and supplement in this proceeding. BidCo and LiveTV filed oppositions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-9A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-9A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-9A1.txt
  • to paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection, if the requirements of this section are met, as determined by the Commission.'' Should an entity seek to use an ``alternate means'' to comply with the IP closed captioning requirements, that entity may either (i) request a Commission determination that the proposed alternate means satisfies the statutory requirements through a request pursuant to Section 1.41 of our rules; or (ii) claim in defense to a complaint or enforcement action that the Commission should determine that the party's actions were permissible alternate means of compliance. Rather than specify what may constitute a permissible ``alternate means,'' we conclude that the best means of implementing this provision is to address any specific requests from parties subject to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-367A1.txt
  • at www.dishnetwork.com/profile/press/press/press212.htm. See ADEC Request at 4, and Opposition of EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Filed August 27, 1999, at 2 (``EchoStar Opposition''). DBS Public Interest Obligations Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 23285 (1998) (``[T]he public interest programming provided for in this order must be made available to all of a DBS provider's subscribers without additional charge.''). ADEC Request at 9. Section 1.41 of our rules allows for informal requests for agency action where the form for requesting relief is not otherwise provided in the rules. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. List of Commenters attached as Appendix A. See Response of EchoStar Satellite Corporation to Request for Information, filed October 7, 1999 (``EchoStar Response''). EchoStar submitted this information subject to a request for confidentiality
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.wp
  • to the MVPDs.62 With this commitment comes an incentive by manufacturers and service providers to ensure that equipment does not harm the network. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-116 63BSA Comments at 4; GI Comments at 72; SA Comments at 29; TW Comments at 62; Uniden Comments at 3. 64GI Comments at 73. 65See BSA Comments at 4. 6647 C.F.R. § 1.41. The Carterfone proceeding was initiated by a formal complaint challenging AT&T's prohibition against attaching the Carterfone to its facilities. Carterfone, 13 FCC 2d at 422. Commission rules allow any interested party to request Commission action. The request should contain the facts relied upon, the relief sought, and the statutory and/or regulatory provisions pursuant to which the request is filed and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.txt
  • certify, prior to acquiring additional systems, the percentage change in ownership resulting from such acquisition. Consumers Union argues that the former Section 76.503 required that the horizontal certification be made at the same time that applications for transfers of licenses are filed with the Commission. Second, Consumers Union filed a request with the Commission (``Consumers Union Forfeiture Request'') under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules requesting that the Commission initiate a forfeiture proceeding based on allegations that AT&T has made material misrepresentations to, and failed to be candid with, the Commission regarding AT&T's filing practices under Section 76.503(c), that AT&T has filed its certifications late, and that AT&T has failed to report in its certifications sufficient information for the Commission to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98225.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98225.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98225.wp
  • short term no matter what measure is used, we do not discuss these other measures. By choosing not to discuss these measures, however, we do not find them irrelevant. Indeed, the 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines suggest that adequate measures of market concentration include dollar sales, unit sales, or physical capacity. 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 57 Fed. Reg. at 41557, § 1.41. Nevertheless, we note that these HHIs are not specific to either of the product markets that we define, and therefore represent at best rough approximations. Several of these measures, including the use of interexchange carrier revenues, combine revenues from both the mass and larger business markets. Because we base our analysis of competitive effects on the case of most concern,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00290.pdf
  • $1.2 million for data- specific modifications.241 However, this analyst also predicts a slight reduction and leveling of capital expenditures between 2001 and 2005 at approximately $2.5 billion annually.242 189. Industry analysts estimated an average of 1.42 million cable modem subscribers in the U.S. at the end of 1999243; this represents a penetration rate of 3%. Our Broadband Survey Data reported 1.41 million cable modem lines in service. Industry analysts estimate that, as of June 2000, the number of cable Internet subscribers in the United States has increased to 2.3 million, with reports of 7,500 new installations per day.244 By year-end 2000, industry analysts estimate cable modem subscriptions will more than double, to 3.2 million subscribers. 245 Many analysts expect that over
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981336.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981336.wp
  • the worksheet can be punished by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1001." 23 See Letter to Magalie Roman Salas from Integrated Systems & Internet Solutions, Inc., dated May 14, 1998. See also Broadband Networks, Inc., Objection to Application, CC Docket No. 96-45 (dated April 24, 1998). 24 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 25 Report to Congress ¶ 14. 26 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115. 5 undertake.20 The Commission will levy a forfeiture for a violation of the Act under section 503(b)(1)(B) and (2)(C) of the Act.21 Furthermore, persons found willfully to have made false statements to the Commission may be subject to criminal penalties under Title 18 of the United States Code.22
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2001/fcc01329.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2001/fcc01329.txt
  • Syracuse NY Citadel Communications Corporation 1946 Apr-00 500 0 1.1 B WNTQ FM CHR Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Citadel Communications Corporation 1956 Apr-00 4600 8.7 1.6 B WYYY FM AC Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1946 Jan-99 4250 6.3 1.76 B WBBS FM Country Syracuse, NY 78 Fulton NY Clear Channel Communications 1961 Jul-99 5800 10.2 1.41 B WHEN AM Sports Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1941 Jul-99 800 2.5 0.72 B WSYR AM Talk Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1922 Jul-99 3400 8.1 1.03 B WWHT FM CHR Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1958 Jul-99 2000 7.6 0.81 B WPHR FM Urban Syracuse, NY 78 Auburn NY
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/News_Releases/2001/nrmd0106.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/News_Releases/2001/nrmd0106.txt
  • delivery service, or by hand delivery: - petitions to deny filed pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act); - petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 405 of the Act; applications for review filed pursuant to Section 5(c)(4) of the Act; - informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules; - petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; - and, filings made pursuant to section 76.1502 (e)(1) of the Commission's rules. This filing requirement does not apply to requests for review of decisions issued by the Universal Service Administrative Company filed pursuant to sections 54.719-54.725 of the Commission's rules,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01345.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01345.txt
  • service, or by hand delivery: (i) petitions to deny filed pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act);2 (ii) petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 405 of the Act;3 (iii) applications for review filed pursuant to Section 5(c)(4) of the Act;4 (iv) informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules;5 (v) petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; and, (vi) comments or oppositions to open video system certification made pursuant to section 76.1502 (e)(1) of the Commission's rules.6 The types of pleadings described in (i) through (vi) are referred to in this document as "Covered Pleadings." The filing requirement
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210024-1.pdf
  • 4 2i4 57 1,122 3.3 I I 10.60 1 -.- -53 I 541 LEE 106.91 ..w iWVNCFMli.t lS,Z I 34.39 I KmlAc 39m N 30.79 -- ~~ WUGH i WAcOMB 3524 1.964 s.eo5l a 293 867!I 632 1,967 2 722 _ 21341 3 ..I.._ 566 2 -we-- 1,672! 647 1,914l 2 . _ II 138 , 291 1.240 339 -266 1.41 1,111 I, I.27 1 571a - 581WoHENRV:-1 18394ll 762 - 1 1,738l 3.3661 9,9soi 144I 59 1 UcLEAN !!!aE!zI129,180 1601 MACON AlxAnal I 117,206 4 7.679 1?8 452 676 249,238 1,037 2,364 -4.579, 63 MARION SAL04 41,561 173 394 763 -a-. - IAaN -lizasL-- 531 122 - 2361 4 16,269 681 lS4 2! 14.752 611 140 2711 I63 PSI 083
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • * ..................... (b) * * * 3060-xxxx.. FCC 601........................................ x/xx/xx Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-25 B-2 3060-xxxx.. FCC 602........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 603........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 604........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 605........................................ x/xx/xx * * * Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-25 C-1 APPENDIX C PROPOSED RULES - PART 1 CURRENT SUBJECT PROPOSED NEW OR RULE (proposed change) REVISED RULE NUMBER NUMBER 1.41 Informal Requests for Commission action (change to 1.41 allow electronic filing of informal requests via ULS). 1.45 Pleadings; filing periods (change to allow electronic 1.45 filing of pleadings and other documents via ULS; eliminate microfiche requirement). 1.49 Specifications as to pleadings and documents (change to 1.49 allow electronic filing of pleadings and other documents via ULS and to delete microfiche
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98015.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98015.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98015.wp
  • Letter of June 2, 1997. 11 We accept these late-filed letters for consideration, and find that their consideration will not delay the proceeding and ensure that all relevant issues are considered. Nevada DOT ex parte Letter of May 29, 1997; Parsons Letter of May 28, 1997. 12 Public Notice, Report No. 2196, released May 15, 1997. 13 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 14 Letter to W. Kennard, General Counsel, from Infinite Telesis, Inc. (formerly LDH International, Inc.), Celltel Communications Corporation, and CT Communications Corporation, dated Aug. 1, 1997. 15 The court proceeding initiated by LDH and other affected applicants for review of the Order dismissing the 971 waiver applications remains pending. See note 1, supra. 16 Public Notice, FCC Announces Upcoming Spectrum
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00090.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00090.txt
  • Manager for violating the Communications Act or the Commission's regulations or policies. When there is a dispute between a Guard Band Manager, or its spectrum user, and a non-contracting party, and the Guard Band Manager is unable or unwilling to resolve such dispute in a timely fashion, the non-contracting party may file a complaint with the Commission pursuant to § 1.41 of this chapter. § 27.607 Performance requirements and annual reporting requirement. Guard Band Managers are subject to the performance requirements specified in § 27.14(a) of this part. Guard Band Managers are required to file an annual report providing the Commission with information about the manner in which their spectrum is being utilized. Such reports shall be filed with the Commission
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Reports/fcc98091.pdf
  • 3.51 7.83 37 164.57 33 7.83 37 Radiofone 2.19 5.15 7.34 38 106.34 43 7.34 38 McLeod, Inc. 7.09 7.09 39 70.92 47 7.09 39 Puerto Rico Telephone 3.52 3.52 7.04 40 123.27 41 3.52 50 Chase Telecom (PK) 6.54 6.54 41 196.17 31 6.54 40 Atlantic Cellular Company 1.00 5.03 6.03 42 75.29 45 6.03 41 Dobson Comm. (SEC) 1.41 4.20 5.61 43 77.22 44 5.61 42 Southern New Eng. 5.53 5.53 44 138.13 36 5.53 43 Pricellular Corporation 5.10 5.10 45 127.38 39 5.10 44 ACC-PCS (PK) 5.04 5.04 46 50.42 49 5.04 45 Poka Lambro (PK) 0.06 1.34 3.29 4.69 47 74.67 46 4.69 46 DCC PCS (PK) 4.49 4.49 48 44.85 50 4.49 47 US Unwired 1.29
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • Service > 24 Hours MR-5-01 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-118 B-4 DISAGGREGATED METRICS Metric Metric September October November December January Notes Number Name VZ CLEC VZ CLEC VZ CLEC VZ CLEC VZ CLEC OSS & BILLING (Pre-Ordering) - POTS/Special Services PRE-ORDERING PO-1 - Response Time OSS Pre-Ordering Interface PO-1-01-6020 Customer Service Record ­ EDI 1.41 3.06 1.31 2.89 1.33 2.97 1.32 2.8 1.42 3.16 PO-1-01-6030 Customer Service Record ­ CORBA 1.41 0.81 1.31 0.75 1.33 1.05 1.32 0.68 1.42 2.52 c,d PO-1-01-6050 Customer Service Record -Web GUI 1.41 3.37 1.31 3.01 1.33 2.93 1.32 2.71 1.42 2.98 PO-1-02-6020 Due Date Availability ­ EDI 0.09 NA 0.07 NA 0.07 NA 0.06 NA 0.06 NA PO-1-02-6030 Due
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1945A1.html
  • we do not find any other type of sanction to be necessary or justified at this time. 32. Finally, Lincoln asserts that we should sanction Minority for filing frivolous pleadings that have abused the Commission's processes. We decline to do so. Minority's pleadings filed relative to our underwriting investigation were not unauthorized from a procedural standpoint. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.41 and 1.45. From a substantive standpoint, while we do not accept most of Minority's contentions, we do not find that the licensee has presented facts or legal arguments in a manner lacking good-faith or inconsistent with its right to advocate its views. IV. Ordering Clauses 33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-168A1.html
  • appropriate use of the Commission's enforcement and prosecutorial discretion. We note in this regard that the Bureau resolved numerous similar situations through similar consent decrees or through admonishments.3 ORDERING CLAUSE 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), 5(c)(4), and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 155(c)(4) and 503(b), and Sections 1.41, 1.43 and 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.41, 1.43, 1.115, that the ``Petition for Special Relief, or in the Alternative, Application for Review'' filed by the Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ, Inc. on February 15, 2002, IS DENIED, and that the ``Request for Stay'' filed by the Office of Communications of the United Church
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-469A1.html
  • foregoing, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's May 17, 2001 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to The KBOO Foundation, licensee of noncommercial Station KBOO-FM, is hereby RESCINDED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, the informal request, filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.41, by Sarah Jones on October 2, 2002, IS HEREBY DISMISSED AS MOOT. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER And FORFEITURE ORDER shall be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested to John Crigler, Esq., Counsel for The KBOO Foundation, Garvey, Schubert & Barer, 1000 Potomac Street, N.W., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2843A1.html
  • Matter of: ) ) Freewave Technologies, Inc. ) File No. EB-02-TS-581 ) Grantee of Equipment ) Authorizations, FCC ID#s KNY-DGR-115, ) KNY-205-108213, KNY-1931852313419 ) and KNY-21161341911919 ) ORDER Adopted: August 31, 2004 Released: September 2, 2004 By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division: I. Introduction 1. In this Order, we address an informal request for Commission action filed pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'')1 by Microwave Data Systems, Inc. (``MDS''), which requests revocation of the above-captioned equipment authorizations for Part 15 spread spectrum transmitters held by Freewave Technologies, Inc. (``Freewave''). For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss in part and deny in part MDS's request. II. Background 2. On July 31, 1996, an equipment certification for a Part 15
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-396A1.html
  • and that Saga take steps to prevent its employee from further insulting Western's radio personality does not constitute an attempt to control the ``basic operating policies of the station,'' as Saga maintains.40 13. The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license,41 but rather treats such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules.42 Saga claims that Western's actions ``evidence[] a lack of fitness to be a Commission licensee'' and therefore the Commission should initiate a proceeding requiring Western to show cause why its license for WRNX(FM) should not be revoked.43 Because we reject Saga's claims, Saga's request to initiate a revocation proceeding is dismissed as moot. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-656A1.html
  • June 14, 2002, by Nextel against Fresno (``Nextel/Fresno Motion''). 2 The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license. See, e.g., In the Matter of MCI Telecommunications Corp., 3 FCC Rcd 3155 (1988); KDSK, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 893 (1983). The Commission, however, has treated such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.41. 3 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of the SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications ActCompetitive Bidding, First Report and Order, Eighth Report
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-61A1.html
  • Service Company Motion to Accept Unauthorized Pleading filed by Nextel on May 28, 2004. 4The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license. See, e.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp., 3 FCC Rcd 3155 (1988); KDSK, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 893 (1983). The Commission, however, has treated such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.41. 5Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of the SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications ActCompetitive Bidding, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00314.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00314.txt
  • or a summary thereof published in the Federal Register. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license. See, e.g., Danbury Cellular Telephone Company, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 4186, 4188 n.2 (CCB 1991). The Commission, however, has treated such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR §1.41. In this case, the Petition was treated as an informal complaint. An investigation was initiated to investigate the allegations made in the Petition. This Order is based, not upon the Petition, but upon the results of the Bureau's investigation and, unless otherwise noted, the facts described in this Order were developed in the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.pdf
  • approve the Omnibus Settlement Agreement and dismiss all of the pleadings, comments, replies, and supplements filed by Willsyr in connection with the grant of the construction permit and license for Station WOXL-FM to Liberty and the assignment of license for Station WOXL-FM from Liberty to Saga. In conjunction with this proceeding, we also have before us a Withdrawal of Section 1.41 Request for Commission Action filed on August 27, 2007, by the Estate of David T. Murray. As further discussed below, we grant the withdrawal request and dismiss this pleading. Background. Willsyr was among thirteen original applicants seeking an FM construction permit for Channel 243A at Biltmore Forest. After comparative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ'') issued an Initial Decision disqualifying
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/enbanc022703_docs/Owen.pdf
  • would be re- 9 markable indeed for the Commission to adopt an ownership concentration metric that im- plies, as a social ideal, that all ideas should be equally popular. Moreover, unlike economic markets, the usage of particular media, technologies or chan- nels has no incentive effect on media owners when it comes to possible suppression of ideas. The Guidelines (at §1.41 and n. 15) specifically contemplate the possibility that, in circumstances where current revenue market shares are misleading indicators of competi- tive significance, equal shares should be imputed to each competitor. There are few politically or socially significant ideas that can be expressed only through a particular medium. While the effectiveness of each medium may vary from one idea to another,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/napoli-stmt.pdf
  • Households -.001 .001 -.23 Avg. Household Income -.00004.00 -.06 Percent Minority .002 .02 .01 Competitive Conditions Public TV Stations -.17 .31 -.06 Cable Penetration .03 .04 .07 Commercial TV Stations .52** .16 .51 Station Characteristics Station Revenues (000) .00001.00 .14 VHF/UHF (0 = U; 1 = V) .82 .79 .11 Big Four Affiliate (0 = No; 1 = Yes) 3.1* 1.41 .35 Other Net Affiliate (0 = No; 1 = Yes) -.19 1.20 -.02 Local Owner (0 = No; 1 = Yes) 1.59* .79 .20 National Audience Reach (000) .00001.00 .04 Constant -3.67 4.51 Adjusted R2 = .24 (p < .01). * p < .05. ** p < .01. 17 Localism Policy Priorities When we assess these results within the context
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/antenna/index.htm?job=uls_transaction&page=daily
  • 0.16 KB [283]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [284]Fri (07-14-12) 0.95 KB [285]Sat (07-15-12) 0.16 KB License Records [286]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [287]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [288]Tue (07-11-12) 0.16 KB [289]Wed (07-12-12) 0.16 KB [290]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [291]Fri (07-14-12) 1.51 KB [292]Sat (07-15-12) 1.79 KB Ship Radio Service - 47 CFR Part 80 Application Records [293]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [294]Mon (07-10-12) 1.41 KB [295]Tue (07-11-12) 6.25 KB [296]Wed (07-12-12) 7.64 KB [297]Thu (07-13-12) 4.28 KB [298]Fri (07-14-12) 5.42 KB [299]Sat (07-15-12) 6.18 KB License Records [300]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [301]Mon (07-10-12) 8.32 KB [302]Tue (07-11-12) 4.77 KB [303]Wed (07-12-12) 5.68 KB [304]Thu (07-13-12) 2.94 KB [305]Fri (07-14-12) 5.15 KB [306]Sat (07-15-12) 18.96 KB Spectrum Leasing Form 603-T Application Records [307]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/01/releases/da011143.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/01/releases/da011143.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/01/releases/da011143.txt
  • to a timely filing. Rather, the Weblink Request for a retroactive bidding credit is analogous to the facts of Community Teleplay in which the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``Bureau'') rejected Community Teleplay's request for a retroactive bidding credit because the filing was untimely. Like Weblink, Community Teleplay, which won licenses in the 218-219 MHz auction, filed a belated request under Section 1.41 of our rules and relied on Graceba to argue that its filing was not untimely. In addition, like Weblink, Community Teleplay's request was not filed as a supplement to a timely filed petition for reconsideration. Community Teleplay and Weblink both participated in auctions that preceded the Adarand decision. Community Teleplay's petition was found to be untimely because it was filed
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/02/releases/da981008.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/02/releases/da981008.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/02/releases/da981008.wp
  • similar to those 25 adopted in the IVDS rules. See, e.g., Telephone Electronics Corp. v. FCC, No. 95-1015 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 15, 1995) (order staying the broadband Personal Communications Services C block auction). 4 was a "properly presented constitutional claim." In contrast, Petitioners' belated constitutional claim, in the 22 form of an informal request for Commission action submitted under Section 1.41, would be considered untimely even under the Graceba opinion. 6. Petitioners also could have timely objected to the payment conditions attendant to their license grants in January or February 1995. In that regard, Petitioners' challenge to the payment terms -- a condition of the license grant -- is similarly barred by Section 1.110 of the Commission's rules, "which indicates that
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/03/releases/da021574.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/03/releases/da021574.txt
  • the Commission granted a post-auction bidding credit to eligible small businesses in the 218-219 MHz service.17 Lastly, Instapage argues that because the Commission granted a post-auction bidding credit to eligible small business in the 218-219 MHz service, it should do the same here in order "to eliminate the effects of past discrimination."18 2. Discussion Instapage filed its Request under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, which provides that a request for Commission action may be submitted informally "except where formal procedures are required."19 Informal requests have no set filing deadline, unlike petitions for reconsideration of Commission rulemakings, which have mandatory filing deadlines. By statute, Congress limited the Commission's jurisdiction to review petitions for reconsideration to those filed within a specific time.20
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/04/releases/frao3253.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/04/releases/frao3253.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/04/releases/frao3253.wp
  • (including petitions for other forms of relief) and responsive pleadings for Commission consideration must comply with § 1.2108 and must: (1) Identify the application or applications (including applicant's name, station location, Commission file numbers and radio service involved) with which it is concerned; (2) Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, filing periods, and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 except where otherwise provided in § 1.2108; (3) Contain specific allegations of fact which, except for facts of which official notice may be taken, shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal 138 knowledge thereof, and which shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner (or respondent) is a party in interest and that
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/bip_def.pdf
  • other forms of relief) and responsive pleadings for Commission consideration must comply with § 1.2108 of this Chapter and must: (1) Identify the application or applications (including applicant's name, station location, Commission file numbers and radio service involved) with which it is concerned; (2) Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, filing periods, and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this Chapter except where otherwise provided in § 1.2108 of this Chapter; 131 (3) Contain specific allegations of fact which, except objections filed, or other matters which may be officially for facts of which official notice may be taken, shall be noticed, the Commission finds that: supported by affidavit of a person or persons with (1) The
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/deforder.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/deforder.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/deforder.wp
  • measure of market share in business (coal mining) where most sales were made pursuant to long-term contracts that had absorbed most of the total capacity of the business). See also Section on Antitrust Law, ABA, ANTITRUST LAW DEVELOPMENTS (THIRD), Vol. I at 300 & nn.139-41 (citing cases where capacity is used as the measure of market shares); DOJ/FTC Guidelines, § 1.41. Cincinnati Bell, 69 F.3d at 763. 287 45 preliminary test of permissible and impermissible horizontal concentration. We find the HHI to 284 be useful in the present situation because we lack empirical data about the actual performance of a market that includes both cellular service and fully deployed broadband PCS, which is under construction in almost all markets. An HHI
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/14/releases/fo9750.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/14/releases/fo9750.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/14/releases/fo9750.wp
  • to deny (including petitions for other forms of relief) and responsive pleadings for Commission consideration must comply with section 27.207 and must: (1)Identify the application or applications (including applicant's name, station location, Commission file numbers and radio service involved) with which it is concerned; (2)Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, filing periods, and other applicable provisions of sections 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter except where otherwise provided in section 27.207; (3)Contain specific allegations of fact which, except for facts of which official notice may be taken, shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, and which shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner (or respondent) is a party in interest and
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/14/releases/wcsbip.pdf
  • numbers and radio service involved) with which it is officially notice, the Commission finds that the grant will concerned; serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. See (2) Be filed in accordance with the pleading also section 1.2108 of this chapter. limitations, filing periods, and other applicable provisions (b) The grant shall be without a formal hearing if, of sections 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter except upon consideration of the application, any pleadings or where otherwise provided in section 27.207; objections filed, or other matters which may be officially (3) Contain specific allegations of fact noticed, the Commission finds that: which, except for facts of which official notice may be (1) The application is acceptable for filing, taken, shall be
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/19/releases/fc950319.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/19/releases/fc950319.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/19/releases/fc950319.wp
  • other forms of relief) and responsive pleadings for Commission consideration must comply with § 1.2108 of this chapter and must: (1) Identify the application or applications (including applicant's name, station location, Commission file numbers and radio service involved) with which it is concerned; (2) Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, filing periods, and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter except where otherwise provided in § 1.2108 of this chapter; (3) Contain specific allegations of fact which, except for facts of which official notice may be taken, shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, and which shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner (or respondent) is a
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/22/releases/pcsbipg.pdf
  • other forms of relief) and responsive pleadings for Commission consideration must comply with § 1.2108 of this Chapter and must: (1) Identify the application or applications (including applicant's name, station location, Commission file numbers and radio service involved) with which it is concerned; (2) Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, filing periods, and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this Chapter except where otherwise provided in § 1.2108 of this Chapter; (3) Contain specific allegations of fact which, except for facts of which official notice may be taken, shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, and which shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner (or respondent) is a
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/23/charts/23press2.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Summary Measures by Round FCC Local Multipoint Distribution Service Re-Auction ** Final ** RoundNew Bids New High Gross Bids Net Bids Eligible BiddersEligibility Ratio Stage Stage Trans. % 24 37 30 $56,500,000.00 $40,261,800.00 52 1.52 1 15.64 25 33 31 $57,642,000.00 $40,739,500.00 50 1.48 1 17.52 26 28 27 $58,697,000.00 $41,353,000.00 47 1.41 1 13.20 27 15 15 $59,604,000.00 $41,253,050.00 45 1.40 1 7.44 28 8 8 $59,982,000.00 $41,588,550.00 45 1.39 1 3.44 29 19 19 $60,146,000.00 $40,974,100.00 43 1.35 1 14.11 30 17 17 $60,624,000.00 $42,081,250.00 43 1.23 2 7.10 31 18 18 $61,782,000.00 $42,504,850.00 41 1.19 2 8.40 32 13 13 $62,489,000.00 $43,727,700.00 41 1.17 2 5.41 33 9 9 $62,960,000.00
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/31/releases/fc000224.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/31/releases/fc000224.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/31/releases/fc000224.txt
  • were filed by Adaptive, APCO, ArrayComm, ALTV, FLEWUG, MSTV, NAB, Nelson Repeater Services, Northcoast Communications, Rand McNally, TRW, GPS Industry Council, and US WEST. The full names of petitioners and a list of parties filing oppositions and replies are listed in Appendix A. The late-filed petition for reconsideration submitted by FLEWUG is considered as an informal comment pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 476 (2000) (700 MHz First Report and Order). Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd at 19870 (para. 7). See Pub. Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/33/releases/fc000090.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/33/releases/fc000090.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/33/releases/fc000090.txt
  • Manager for violating the Communications Act or the Commission's regulations or policies. When there is a dispute between a Guard Band Manager, or its spectrum user, and a non-contracting party, and the Guard Band Manager is unable or unwilling to resolve such dispute in a timely fashion, the non-contracting party may file a complaint with the Commission pursuant to § 1.41 of this chapter. § 27.607 Performance requirements and annual reporting requirement. Guard Band Managers are subject to the performance requirements specified in § 27.14(a) of this part. Guard Band Managers are required to file an annual report providing the Commission with information about the manner in which their spectrum is being utilized. Such reports shall be filed with the Commission
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/43/releases/da012836.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/43/releases/da012836.txt
  • following types of pleadings: (i) petitions to deny filed pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"); (ii) petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 405 of the Act; (iii) applications for review filed pursuant to Section 5(c)(4) of the Act; (iv) informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules; (v) petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; and, (vi) comments or oppositions to open video system certification made pursuant to section 76.1502 (e)(1) of the Commission's rules. Id., ¶ 2. 3 The Bureau makes this temporary procedural change pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 0.131(c). See also 5 U.S.C.
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/61/comments/54564_1.pdf
  • that basis alone, should be disregarded. The filing date was a date certain, not a date that required any calculation to assess. No request for leave to file out of time was submitted with the Reply Comments. - 2 - I. MOTION TO ACCEPT RESPONSE TO REPLY COMMENTS 1. Pursuant to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") Rule Section 1.41, PSI requests that the Bureau accept this Response to Reply Comments. The Reply Comments were irrelevant, as not limited to matters raised in PSI's Comments which went to the viability of Auction No. 61, 3 unsupported or insupportable by fact or by law or scandalous pursuant to Section 1.52 of the Rules. 2. Grant of this motion is necessary in
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2000/releases/98540193.pdf
  • on the 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 redefine "revenue" as the ratio of revenue actually collected divided by the sum of the competitive prices for the participating agents. Table 4.2.1a Normalized (Mean, Median) Revenue: Additive Environment Treatments Nonflexible Flexible Equal 1.41, 1.31 1.45, 1.45 Unequal 1.39, 1.39 1.31, 1.29 It is easy to see from table 4.2.1a that revenue is significantly above the competitive equilibrium predictions. We will discuss this over-bidding phenomenon in section 4.3 below. As we did with efficiency we estimate the ANOVA model using the normalized revenues generated from the observed auction outcomes. 24 Table 4.2.1b ANOVA Normalized
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2001/papers/vsmith.pdf
  • 2 (n=25) Table 9: Linear Model Parameter Estimates for Efficiency: Superadditive Environment Variable Estimate p-value Intercept 68.7 0.0 Flexible 6.29 0.002 Unequal 2.69 0.16 Level of Synergy (Medium) -3.04 0.25 Level of Synergy (High) -0.88 0.51 Number of Bidders -1.69 0.48 Overlap 3.31 0.05 CE Exists -3.25 0.11 Table 10: Normalized (Mean, Median) Revenue: Additive Environment Treatments Nonflexible Flexible Equal 1.41, 1.31 1.45, 1.45 Unequal 1.39, 1.39 1.31, 1.29 Table 11: Linear Model Parameter Estimates for Normalized Revenue: Additive Environment Variable Estimate p-value Intercept 1.46 0.0 Flexible -0.01 0.84 Unequal 0.04 0.21 Environment Pairing -0.01 0.91 Number of Bidders -0.03 0.44 Table 12: Normalized Revenue (Mean, Median): Superadditive Environment Treatments Nonflexible Flexible Equal 0.92, 0.89 0.98, 0.91 Unequal 0.72, 0.78 0.84,
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/papersAndStudies/fcc98091.pdf
  • 3.51 7.83 37 164.57 33 7.83 37 Radiofone 2.19 5.15 7.34 38 106.34 43 7.34 38 McLeod, Inc. 7.09 7.09 39 70.92 47 7.09 39 Puerto Rico Telephone 3.52 3.52 7.04 40 123.27 41 3.52 50 Chase Telecom (PK) 6.54 6.54 41 196.17 31 6.54 40 Atlantic Cellular Company 1.00 5.03 6.03 42 75.29 45 6.03 41 Dobson Comm. (SEC) 1.41 4.20 5.61 43 77.22 44 5.61 42 Southern New Eng. 5.53 5.53 44 138.13 36 5.53 43 Pricellular Corporation 5.10 5.10 45 127.38 39 5.10 44 ACC-PCS (PK) 5.04 5.04 46 50.42 49 5.04 45 Poka Lambro (PK) 0.06 1.34 3.29 4.69 47 74.67 46 4.69 46 DCC PCS (PK) 4.49 4.49 48 44.85 50 4.49 47 US Unwired 1.29
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/element3.doc
  • loss) coaxial cable has 7 dB of reflected power when the input is 5 watts. What is the output of the transmission line? A. 1 watt. B. 1.25 watts. C. 2.5 watts. D. 5 watts. 3-66J5 Referred to the fundamental frequency, a shorted stub line attached to the transmission line to absorb even harmonics could have a wavelength of: A. 1.41 wavelength. B. 1/2 wavelength. C. 1/4 wavelength. D. 1/6 wavelength. 3-66J6 If a transmission line has a power loss of 6 dB per 100 feet, what is the power at the feed point to the antenna at the end of a 200 foot transmission line fed by a 100 watt transmitter? A. 70 watts. B. 50 watts. C. 25 watts.
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?&job=transaction&page=daily
  • 0.16 KB [306]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [307]Fri (07-14-12) 0.95 KB [308]Sat (07-15-12) 0.16 KB License Records [309]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [310]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [311]Tue (07-11-12) 0.16 KB [312]Wed (07-12-12) 0.16 KB [313]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [314]Fri (07-14-12) 1.51 KB [315]Sat (07-15-12) 1.79 KB Ship Radio Service - 47 CFR Part 80 Application Records [316]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [317]Mon (07-10-12) 1.41 KB [318]Tue (07-11-12) 6.25 KB [319]Wed (07-12-12) 7.64 KB [320]Thu (07-13-12) 4.28 KB [321]Fri (07-14-12) 5.42 KB [322]Sat (07-15-12) 6.18 KB License Records [323]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [324]Mon (07-10-12) 8.32 KB [325]Tue (07-11-12) 4.77 KB [326]Wed (07-12-12) 5.68 KB [327]Thu (07-13-12) 2.94 KB [328]Fri (07-14-12) 5.15 KB [329]Sat (07-15-12) 18.96 KB Spectrum Leasing Form 603-T Application Records [330]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=transaction&page=daily
  • 0.16 KB [306]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [307]Fri (07-14-12) 0.95 KB [308]Sat (07-15-12) 0.16 KB License Records [309]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [310]Mon (07-10-12) 0.16 KB [311]Tue (07-11-12) 0.16 KB [312]Wed (07-12-12) 0.16 KB [313]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [314]Fri (07-14-12) 1.51 KB [315]Sat (07-15-12) 1.79 KB Ship Radio Service - 47 CFR Part 80 Application Records [316]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [317]Mon (07-10-12) 1.41 KB [318]Tue (07-11-12) 6.25 KB [319]Wed (07-12-12) 7.64 KB [320]Thu (07-13-12) 4.28 KB [321]Fri (07-14-12) 5.42 KB [322]Sat (07-15-12) 6.18 KB License Records [323]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [324]Mon (07-10-12) 8.32 KB [325]Tue (07-11-12) 4.77 KB [326]Wed (07-12-12) 5.68 KB [327]Thu (07-13-12) 2.94 KB [328]Fri (07-14-12) 5.15 KB [329]Sat (07-15-12) 18.96 KB Spectrum Leasing Form 603-T Application Records [330]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/weeklypn.htm?job=transaction&page=daily
  • 0.16 KB [306]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [307]Fri (07-14-12) 0.95 KB [308]Sat (07-15-12) 0.16 KB License Records [309]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [310]Mon (07-17-12) 0.16 KB [311]Tue (07-11-12) 0.16 KB [312]Wed (07-12-12) 0.16 KB [313]Thu (07-13-12) 0.16 KB [314]Fri (07-14-12) 1.51 KB [315]Sat (07-15-12) 1.79 KB Ship Radio Service - 47 CFR Part 80 Application Records [316]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [317]Mon (07-10-12) 1.41 KB [318]Tue (07-11-12) 6.25 KB [319]Wed (07-12-12) 7.64 KB [320]Thu (07-13-12) 4.28 KB [321]Fri (07-14-12) 5.42 KB [322]Sat (07-15-12) 6.18 KB License Records [323]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16 KB [324]Mon (07-17-12) 8.66 KB [325]Tue (07-11-12) 4.77 KB [326]Wed (07-12-12) 5.68 KB [327]Thu (07-13-12) 2.94 KB [328]Fri (07-14-12) 5.15 KB [329]Sat (07-15-12) 18.96 KB Spectrum Leasing Form 603-T Application Records [330]Sun (07-16-12) 0.16
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98116.wp
  • to the MVPDs.62 With this commitment comes an incentive by manufacturers and service providers to ensure that equipment does not harm the network. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-116 63BSA Comments at 4; GI Comments at 72; SA Comments at 29; TW Comments at 62; Uniden Comments at 3. 64GI Comments at 73. 65See BSA Comments at 4. 6647 C.F.R. § 1.41. The Carterfone proceeding was initiated by a formal complaint challenging AT&T's prohibition against attaching the Carterfone to its facilities. Carterfone, 13 FCC 2d at 422. Commission rules allow any interested party to request Commission action. The request should contain the facts relied upon, the relief sought, and the statutory and/or regulatory provisions pursuant to which the request is filed and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.txt
  • certify, prior to acquiring additional systems, the percentage change in ownership resulting from such acquisition. Consumers Union argues that the former Section 76.503 required that the horizontal certification be made at the same time that applications for transfers of licenses are filed with the Commission. Second, Consumers Union filed a request with the Commission (``Consumers Union Forfeiture Request'') under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules requesting that the Commission initiate a forfeiture proceeding based on allegations that AT&T has made material misrepresentations to, and failed to be candid with, the Commission regarding AT&T's filing practices under Section 76.503(c), that AT&T has filed its certifications late, and that AT&T has failed to report in its certifications sufficient information for the Commission to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98225.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98225.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98225.wp
  • short term no matter what measure is used, we do not discuss these other measures. By choosing not to discuss these measures, however, we do not find them irrelevant. Indeed, the 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines suggest that adequate measures of market concentration include dollar sales, unit sales, or physical capacity. 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 57 Fed. Reg. at 41557, § 1.41. Nevertheless, we note that these HHIs are not specific to either of the product markets that we define, and therefore represent at best rough approximations. Several of these measures, including the use of interexchange carrier revenues, combine revenues from both the mass and larger business markets. Because we base our analysis of competitive effects on the case of most concern,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00118.doc
  • Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8801-03, paras. 46-51. Comments in response to the petitions by PCIA and Metrocall were due on October 13, 1998. See 63 Fed. Reg. 51576 (1998). Although USTA's comments were filed on October 19, 1998, we will deem them informal requests for Commission action and consider them in this proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41; Pacific Telesis Group, 12 FCC Rcd 2624, 2630, para. 10 (1997) (late-filed comments may be treated as an informal request for Commission action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules). For the purpose of simplicity, this exhibit assumes an industry composed of ten carriers and constant total universal service program costs of $100. We recognize that total program costs
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00290.pdf
  • $1.2 million for data- specific modifications.241 However, this analyst also predicts a slight reduction and leveling of capital expenditures between 2001 and 2005 at approximately $2.5 billion annually.242 189. Industry analysts estimated an average of 1.42 million cable modem subscribers in the U.S. at the end of 1999243; this represents a penetration rate of 3%. Our Broadband Survey Data reported 1.41 million cable modem lines in service. Industry analysts estimate that, as of June 2000, the number of cable Internet subscribers in the United States has increased to 2.3 million, with reports of 7,500 new installations per day.244 By year-end 2000, industry analysts estimate cable modem subscriptions will more than double, to 3.2 million subscribers. 245 Many analysts expect that over
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981336.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981336.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/1998/da981336.wp
  • the worksheet can be punished by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1001." 23 See Letter to Magalie Roman Salas from Integrated Systems & Internet Solutions, Inc., dated May 14, 1998. See also Broadband Networks, Inc., Objection to Application, CC Docket No. 96-45 (dated April 24, 1998). 24 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 25 Report to Congress ¶ 14. 26 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115. 5 undertake.20 The Commission will levy a forfeiture for a violation of the Act under section 503(b)(1)(B) and (2)(C) of the Act.21 Furthermore, persons found willfully to have made false statements to the Commission may be subject to criminal penalties under Title 18 of the United States Code.22
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ldrpt101.pdf
  • 1.43 1982 0.34 0.59 1948 0.19 1.29 1983 0.35 0.58 1949 0.19 1.32 1984 0.32 0.52 1950 0.19 1.33 1985 0.31 0.48 1951 0.20 1.29 1986 0.28 0.43 1952 0.20 1.27 1987 0.25 0.36 1953 0.21 1.30 1988 0.23 0.33 1954 0.22 1.38 1989 0.22 0.29 1955 0.23 1.43 1990 0.20 0.26 1956 0.23 1.43 1991 0.20 0.24 1957 0.24 1.41 1992 0.19 0.23 $1.04 $0.15 1958 0.24 1.38 1993 0.19 0.22 1.03 0.15 1959 0.24 1.38 1994 0.18 0.20 0.96 0.14 1960 0.24 1.36 1995 0.17 0.19 0.92 0.13 1961 0.25 1.39 1996 0.16 0.17 0.78 0.12 1962 0.25 1.40 1997 0.15 0.15 0.71 0.11 1963 0.25 1.35 1998 0.14 0.15 0.68 0.11 1964 0.25 1.34 1999 0.14 0.14 0.56
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref02.pdf
  • Call AT &T WorldCom Sprint AT&T WorldCom Sprint AT&T WorldCom Sprint AT &T WorldCom Sprint AT&T WorldCom Sprint AT &T WorldCom Sprint AT&T WorldCom Sprint AT &T WorldCom Sprint AT &T WorldCom Sprint 1980 $0.65 $0.91 $1.52 $2.04 $0.71 $0.92 $2.30 $0.77 $1.00 $2.43 $0.84 $1.08 $2.45 $0.97 $1.16 $2.58 $1.08 $1.28 $2.71 $1.15 $1.32 1981 0.73 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 1982 1.05 $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 1983 1.05 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref03.pdf
  • 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 20023.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 90-Mile Call AT&TWorldComSprintAT&TWorldComSprintAT&TWorldComSprintAT&TWorldComSprintAT&TWorldComSprintAT&TWorldComSprintAT&TWorldComSprintAT&TWorldComSprintAT&TWorldComSprint 1980$0.65 $0.91 $1.52 $2.04 $0.71 $0.92 $2.30 $0.77 $1.00 $2.43 $0.84 $1.08 $2.45 $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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref04.pdf
  • with Flat-Rate Service 95 - Monthly Charge for Measured/Message Service 1 $7.53 $7.88 Federal and State Subscriber Line Charges 5.78 6.00 Taxes, 911 and Other Charges 3.39 3.06 Total Monthly Charge for Measured/Message Service $16.70 $16.94 Cost of a 5-Minute Daytime Call 0.10 0.08 Number of Sample Cities with Message/Measured Service 95 - Basic Connection Charge 1 $39.35 $40.00 Taxes 1.41 2.81 Total Connection Charge $40.76 $42.81 Additional Charge if Drop Line and Connection Block Needed 5.85 0.00 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan $3.64 $3.95 1 Rate includes additional monthly charges for touch-tone service. 2 Where a rate exists for fewer than 95 cities, the median represents the midpoint rate for those cities which have the service offering. 1986 1987 1988
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf
  • 8.48 8.52 8.94 9.32 9.63 9.61 9.82 Federal and state SLCs n.a. 2.69 2.67 3.53 3.55 3.56 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.51 Taxes and 911 charges n.a. 1.25 1.21 1.37 1.50 1.60 1.67 1.82 1.86 1.93 Total for rotary service n.a.12.5112.3513.3813.57 14.1014.5415.0015.0215.25 51st five-minute call n.a.0.0920.0900.0900.090 0.0880.0880.0890.0880.088 Lowest cost inside wiring maintenance plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25 1.31 1.41 1.52 Monthly charge for optional extended area service n.a. n.a. 0.96 0.98 1.01 1.02 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.97 Basic connection charge 45.6344.0442.9442.7143.06 42.0041.5241.3841.2640.91 Taxes 2.28 2.20 2.11 2.24 2.32 2.19 2.18 2.21 2.27 2.42 Total for rotary service 47.9146.2445.0544.9545.38 44.1943.7043.5943.5343.33 Additional connection charge for touch-tone 1.34 1.31 1.55 1.47 1.77 1.27 1.23 1.23 0.85 0.26 service (including taxes) Additional charge
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • 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 2.71 1.66 June 28, 1981 1.130.730.45 1.631.050.65 2.771.801.10 3.672.381.46 4.072.64 1.62 4.362.83 1.74 4.392.851.75 4.60 2.98 1.84 4.80 3.11 1.92 April 2, 1982 1.761.050.70 2.381.420.95 3.001.801.20 3.902.331.56 4.092.45 1.63 4.372.62 1.74 4.492.691.79 4.60 2.76 1.84 5.15 3.09
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • 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 2.71 1.66 June 28, 1981 1.130.730.45 1.631.050.65 2.771.801.10 3.672.381.46 4.072.64 1.62 4.362.83 1.74 4.392.851.75 4.60 2.98 1.84 4.80 3.11 1.92 April 2, 1982 1.761.050.70 2.381.420.95 3.001.801.20 3.902.331.56 4.092.45 1.63 4.372.62 1.74 4.492.691.79 4.60 2.76 1.84 5.15 3.09
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ror96.pdf
  • 8.44 175.72 22.29 11.04 53CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY - MINNESOTA 13.72 12.43 18.31 15.26 (1,403.35) 19.76 14.74 54CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY - NEVADA 12.69 12.43 18.41 12.87 154.81 10.72 12.51 55CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY - NORTH CAROLINA 12.11 12.44 4.71 12.56 22.48 14.24 13.09 56CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 11.23 11.89 9.10 10.70 (0.91) 14.42 11.68 57CITIZENS TELEPHONE COMPANY OF HIGGINSVILLE 5.74 6.39 23.95 (1.41) - 20.70 3.31 58CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE CO. OF ARKANSAS 17.67 12.42 27.93 32.10 (91.33) 29.52 31.00 59CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE CO. OF CA-ARIZONA 12.89 12.42 6.65 12.13 206.99 17.82 15.74 60CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE CO. OF CA-CALIFORNIA 13.29 12.42 8.17 7.04 (47.04) 29.31 16.25 61CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE CO. OF CA-NEVADA 14.76 12.42 3.43 14.54 805.53 30.14 22.13 62CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE CO. OF ILLINOIS 12.46 12.42 4.82 11.64
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-95.pdf
  • 1.43 DELAWARE 301 200 501 0.25 DC 513 409 922 0.46 FLORIDA 5,214 6,635 11,849 5.95 GEORGIA 2,709 3,087 5,796 2.91 HAWAII 373 432 805 0.40 IDAHO 437 363 800 0.40 ILLINOIS 3,507 4,668 8,175 4.11 INDIANA 1,550 2,353 3,903 1.96 IOWA 827 1,089 1,917 0.96 KANSAS 821 1,036 1,857 0.93 KENTUCKY 1,188 1,540 2,729 1.37 LOUISIANA 1,129 1,680 2,809 1.41 MAINE 424 461 886 0.45 MARYLAND 1,779 2,091 3,869 1.94 MASSACHUSETTS 2,457 2,670 5,127 2.58 MICHIGAN 2,265 4,320 6,586 3.31 MINNESOTA 1,373 1,769 3,142 1.58 MISSISSIPPI 727 918 1,645 0.83 MISSOURI 1,684 2,110 3,794 1.91 MONTANA 307 338 646 0.32 NEBRASKA 553 785 1,338 0.67 NEVADA 2,075 1,151 3,226 1.62 NEW HAMPSHIRE 580 425 1,005 0.51 NEW JERSEY 3,618 3,541
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-96.pdf
  • GUAM 38 51 89 0.04 N. MARIANA ISL. 5 14 19 0.01 PUERTO RICO 555 940 1,495 0.67 VIRGIN ISLANDS 52 45 97 0.04 GRAND TOTAL $94,407 $127,849 $222,256 100.00 FIGURES MAY NOT ADD UP DUE TO ROUNDING. 21 Table 11 Retail Revenue for 1996 Interstate Intrastate Interstate + Intrastate Percent Of Total (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) ALABAMA $978 $1,694 $2,672 1.41 ALASKA 192 265 458 0.24 ARIZONA 1,403 1,454 2,857 1.51 ARKANSAS 589 921 1,510 0.80 CALIFORNIA 6,946 15,562 22,508 11.90 COLORADO 1,386 1,716 3,101 1.64 CONNECTICUT 1,145 1,542 2,687 1.42 DELAWARE 280 234 513 0.27 DIST. OF COLUMBIA 410 447 857 0.45 FLORIDA 4,657 6,727 11,384 6.02 GEORGIA 2,361 3,417 5,778 3.05 HAWAII 297 459 757 0.40 IDAHO 365 390
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-97.pdf
  • Interstate access includes switched access, special access and local private line. 23 Table 9 Industry Telephone Revenue: 1997 Interstate Intrastate Intrastate+InterstatePercent Of Total (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) ALABAMA $1,346 $1,859 $3,205 1.39 ALASKA 256 306 561 0.24 ARIZONA 1,890 1,777 3,667 1.59 ARKANSAS 818 1,067 1,885 0.82 CALIFORNIA 9,208 18,028 27,236 11.78 COLORADO 1,964 2,043 4,006 1.73 CONNECTICUT 1,596 1,669 3,266 1.41 DELAWARE 357 270 627 0.27 DIST. OF COLUMBIA 575 473 1,049 0.45 FLORIDA 6,353 7,807 14,161 6.13 GEORGIA 3,148 3,701 6,849 2.96 HAWAII 427 504 930 0.40 IDAHO 517 450 967 0.42 ILLINOIS 4,010 6,059 10,069 4.36 INDIANA 1,796 2,740 4,536 1.96 IOWA 945 1,218 2,163 0.94 KANSAS 943 1,223 2,165 0.94 KENTUCKY 1,225 1,636 2,861 1.24 LOUISIANA 1,292 1,900
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/strev-99.pdf
  • 3,817 6,134 9,952 3.71 Oklahoma 882 1,358 2,241 325 161 486 1,207 1,520 2,727 1.02 Oregon 1,046 1,422 2,468 408 248 656 1,453 1,670 3,123 1.16 Pennsylvania 3,328 5,248 8,577 1,178 1,015 2,193 4,506 6,264 10,770 4.01 Rhode Island 355 419 774 123 48 172 479 467 946 0.35 South Carolina 1,158 1,912 3,070 429 291 720 1,587 2,204 3,790 1.41 South Dakota 247 316 562 99 55 154 345 371 716 0.27 Tennessee 1,550 2,494 4,044 572 312 884 2,122 2,806 4,928 1.84 Texas 5,056 9,881 14,937 2,029 2,067 4,095 7,084 11,948 19,032 7.09 Utah 619 827 1,447 227 116 344 847 944 1,790 0.67 Vermont 227 318 544 90 50 140 316 368 684 0.25 Virginia 2,407 3,169 5,577
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend100.pdf
  • Aliant (AllTel) 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.35 3.58 248 512 764 Cincinnati Bell 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.17 1.85 1,077 2,031 3,110 Citizens 2.41 0.68 1.64 0.89 8.45 1,267 1,357 2,626 Frontier 1.01 0.00 1.10 0.48 4.32 757 1,723 2,483 GTE 1.75 0.35 0.87 0.24 4.50 19,333 32,376 51,982 Sprint Local 0.73 0.07 1.01 0.22 3.38 8,444 13,871 22,420 Independent Price Caps 1.41 0.26 0.94 0.26 4.23 31,126 51,869 83,385 All Price Caps 0.27 0.04 0.78 0.29 2.54 182,905 311,049 499,064 NECA**** 1.00 1.33 3.66 0.17 10.31 12,885 14,715 14,782 All Price Caps And NECA 0.32 0.10 0.86 0.31 2.85 195,790 325,764 513,846 Source: Access tariff filings. * Rates are average rates (weighted by minutes of use) for all local exchange carriers (LECs)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend199.pdf
  • TOTAL CARRIER USER TOTAL TOTAL 1995-1997 ALABAMA $2,668 $2,946 $558 $2,647 $3,205 1.39% 20.1% ALASKA 464 518 109 452 561 0.24 21.0 ARIZONA 2,842 3,249 719 2,948 3,667 1.59 29.0 ARKANSAS 1,534 1,719 347 1,538 1,885 0.82 22.9 CALIFORNIA 22,379 25,100 4,887 22,349 27,236 11.78 21.7 COLORADO 3,128 3,526 785 3,222 4,006 1.73 28.1 CONNECTICUT 2,765 2,943 561 2,705 3,266 1.41 18.1 DELAWARE 492 567 101 527 627 0.27 27.5 DIST. OF COLUMBIA 886 955 218 831 1,049 0.45 18.3 FLORIDA 11,582 12,972 2,831 11,330 14,161 6.13 22.3 GEORGIA 5,335 6,004 1,250 5,598 6,849 2.96 28.4 HAWAII 775 841 185 746 930 0.40 20.1 IDAHO 791 908 219 748 967 0.42 22.2 ILLINOIS 7,916 8,920 1,622 8,446 10,069 4.36 27.2 INDIANA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend200.pdf
  • 0.00¢ 0.97¢ 0.46¢ 2.93¢ 246 561 815 BellSouth 0.02 0.00 0.38 0.26 1.33 28,738 52,997 81,100 Cincinnati Bell 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.19 1.47 1,059 2,191 3,251 Citizens 1.28 0.00 0.92 1.14 5.56 1,550 1,486 3,015 Global Crossing 0.64 0.00 0.72 0.42 3.02 774 1,826 2,604 Iowa Telecom 1.66 0.00 0.84 0.22 3.96 252 516 770 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.19 1.41 21,588 40,107 62,239 SBC 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.21 1.46 63,313 86,767 152,856 Sprint 0.30 0.00 0.70 0.18 2.12 9,467 14,759 24,349 Verizon 0.35 0.00 0.48 0.21 1.79 61,426 127,515 190,453 All Price Caps 0.16 0.00 0.49 0.22 1.63 188,412 328,724 521,451 NECA 1.00 1.39 1.59 1.43 8.62 14,074 16,181 15,903 All Price Caps and NECA 0.23¢ 0.07¢ 0.52¢ 0.26¢ 1.91¢
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend298.pdf
  • Minutes of Use (Millions) Common Common Traffic Non-Traffic Line 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend299.pdf
  • Total Carrier User Total Total 1995-1997 Alabama $2,668 $2,946 $558 $2,647 $3,205 1.39% 20.1% Alaska 464 518 109 452 561 0.24 21.0 Arizona 2,842 3,249 719 2,948 3,667 1.59 29.0 Arkansas 1,534 1,719 347 1,538 1,885 0.82 22.9 California 22,379 25,100 4,887 22,349 27,236 11.78 21.7 Colorado 3,128 3,526 785 3,222 4,006 1.73 28.1 Connecticut 2,765 2,943 561 2,705 3,266 1.41 18.1 Delaware 492 567 101 527 627 0.27 27.5 Dist. of Columbia 886 955 218 831 1,049 0.45 18.3 Florida 11,582 12,972 2,831 11,330 14,161 6.13 22.3 Georgia 5,335 6,004 1,250 5,598 6,849 2.96 28.4 Hawaii 775 841 185 746 930 0.40 20.1 Idaho 791 908 219 748 967 0.42 22.2 Illinois 7,916 8,920 1,622 8,446 10,069 4.36 27.2 Indiana
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf
  • 7.00 9.20 0.00 0.00 4.31 0.59 99 5 19 Qwest 4.97 6.53 7.87 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.18 10,031 1,864 4,763 SBC 4.75 4.84 5.21 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.04 30,776 6,991 18,550 Sprint 4.91 6.38 7.95 0.00 0.00 2.37 0.44 5,281 828 1,850 Verizon 4.99 6.39 7.37 0.00 0.00 2.19 0.56 33,959 7,059 16,595 Price Caps 4.91 5.93 6.69 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.22 97,927 19,652 49,416 NECA 5.00 NA 9.20 NA NA 0.00 NA 9,642 NA 2,163 Price Caps and NECA $4.92 $5.93 $6.79 $0.00 $0.00 $1.35 $0.22 107,569 19,652 51,579 NA - Not available. Source: Access tariff filings. 1/ This table shows average rates (weighted by access lines) for all local exchange carriers (LECs) that file access tariffs subject to price-cap
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend504.pdf
  • 1,881 3,106 1.06 Oregon 996 1,645 2,641 453 277 730 1,449 1,922 3,371 1.15 Pennsylvania 3,273 6,314 9,587 1,429 1,236 2,666 4,703 7,550 12,253 4.19 Puerto Rico 462 1,421 1,883 246 219 465 708 1,640 2,349 0.80 Rhode Island 292 500 792 112 67 179 404 567 971 0.33 South Carolina 1,086 2,239 3,326 451 344 795 1,537 2,583 4,120 1.41 South Dakota 194 335 529 92 67 159 286 402 688 0.24 Tennessee 1,441 2,975 4,415 589 376 965 2,030 3,351 5,381 1.84 Texas 4,969 11,944 16,913 2,397 2,093 4,490 7,366 14,037 21,403 7.32 Utah 571 1,016 1,587 262 153 415 833 1,169 2,001 0.68 Vermont 210 293 503 96 45 141 306 338 643 0.22 Virgin Islands 61 60
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
  • Telecom 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.61 3.60 274 429 704 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
  • 7.00 9.20 0.00 0.00 4.31 0.59 99 5 19 Qwest 4.97 6.53 7.87 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.18 10,031 1,864 4,763 SBC 4.75 4.84 5.21 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.04 30,776 6,991 18,550 Sprint 4.91 6.38 7.95 0.00 0.00 2.37 0.44 5,281 828 1,850 Verizon 4.99 6.39 7.37 0.00 0.00 2.19 0.56 33,959 7,059 16,595 Price Caps 4.91 5.93 6.69 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.22 97,927 19,652 49,416 NECA 3.50 NA 5.97 NA NA 0.00 NA 9,642 NA 2,163 Price Caps and NECA $4.78 $5.93 $6.66 $0.00 $0.00 $1.35 $0.22 107,569 19,652 51,579 NA - Not Available. Source: Access tariff filings. 1/ This table shows average rates (weighted by access lines) for all local exchange carriers (LECs) that file access tariffs subject to price-cap
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend803.pdf
  • Originating Access CCL CCL Local Minute OriginatingTerminating Switching Aliant 0.00¢ 0.00¢ 0.73¢ 0.37¢ 2.24¢ 257 643 913 BellSouth 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.20 1.13 27,108 55,240 76,617 Cincinnati Bell 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.26 1.60 992 2,133 3,134 Citizens 0.12 0.00 0.71 0.54 2.69 2,035 4,506 6,560 Iowa Telecomm 0.03 0.00 0.86 0.27 2.36 413 326 739 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.15 1.41 20,509 37,988 58,539 SBC 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.17 1.25 71,493 76,858 149,482 Sprint 0.02 0.00 0.60 0.13 1.52 6,978 18,896 26,128 Valor 0.54 0.11 0.78 0.34 2.98 358 916 1,274 Verizon 0.02 0.00 0.42 0.23 1.35 53,826 128,385 182,882 Price Caps 0.01 0.00 0.44 0.20 1.33 183,968 325,891 506,268 NECA 0.20 0.20 1.45 0.83 5.08 11,755 21,652 18,521 All Price
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itltrd98.pdf
  • 2/ 20 $63 $30 $33 12 $20 $3.11 $1.50 $1.62 $1.63 $1.62 1965 2/ 26 78 37 41 15 25 3.07 1.46 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 2/ 32 100 48 53 19 30 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 2/ 40 114 55 60 23 32 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46 127 62 65 28 40 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 65 172 83 89 38 52 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81 197 99 98 51 60 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 101 237 121 117 68 75 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 127 292 148 144 92 99 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159 365 184 180 112 120 2.29 1.16 1.13
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itltrd99.pdf
  • 2/ 20 $63 $30 $33 12 $20 $3.11 $1.50 $1.62 $1.63 $1.62 1965 2/ 26 78 37 41 15 25 3.07 1.46 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 2/ 32 100 48 53 19 30 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 2/ 40 114 55 60 23 32 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46 127 62 65 28 40 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 65 172 83 89 38 52 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81 197 99 98 51 60 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 101 237 121 117 68 75 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 127 292 148 144 92 99 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159 365 184 180 112 120 2.29 1.16 1.13
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd00.pdf
  • 4/ Foreign Minutes 1964 20.2 $62.9 $30.3 $32.6 12.0 $19.6 $3.11 $1.50 $1.62 $1.63 $1.62 1965 25.5 78.2 37.2 41.1 15.4 24.7 3.07 1.46 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/itrnd01.pdf
  • and Foreign Minutes 1964 20.2 $62.9 $30.3 $32.6 12.0 $19.6 $3.11 $1.50 $1.62 $1.63 $1.62 1965 25.5 78.2 37.2 41.1 15.4 24.7 3.07 1.46 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-11.pdf
  • (0.04) Verizon - Virginia VA (44,609) (43,277) (1,331) 2.98 Verizon - South - Virginia VA 3,513 3,516 (2) (0.06) Sprint - UTC - Southeast - Virginia VA (83) (63) (21) 25.30 CenturyTel - Washington WA 96 96 0 0.00 Verizon - NW - Contel - Washington WA (1,732) (1,727) (6) 0.35 Verizon - NW - Washington WA (11,350) (11,190) (160) 1.41 Sprint - United Tel. Co. of the NW - Washington WA 297 225 72 24.24 Qwest - Washington WA NA NA NA NA Verizon - West Virginia WV 9,906 10,082 (177) (1.79) Verizon - North - Wisconsin WI (4,224) (4,198) (26) 0.62 SBC - Ameritech - Wisconsin Bell WI 67,132 67,232 (100) (0.15) Qwest - Wyoming WY NA NA NA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-2.pdf
  • 5.57 Arizona 1.53 2.03 0.02 0.10 0.06 3.73 Arkansas 0.61 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.69 California 12.51 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.11 13.41 Colorado 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.11 Connecticut 2.23 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.28 Delaware 0.38 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.41 District of Columbia 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 Florida 1.34 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.37 Georgia 1.41 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 1.43 Guam 4.32 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.02 4.67 Hawaii 1.70 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 1.89 Idaho 3.94 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 4.02 Illinois 0.96 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.01 1.09 Indiana 0.94 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 1.08 Iowa 0.90 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • 2.63 Colorado 1.06 -1.88 2.99 7.93 Connecticut 0.83 -5.72 6.94 0.00 Delaware 2.68 -1.49 4.23 0.00 District Of Columbia -0.22 -0.54 0.32 0.00 Florida 4.59 -1.46 6.14 10.47 Georgia 6.39 -2.60 9.23 -2.49 Guam -9.34 0.00 -9.34 0.00 Hawaii 10.84 -0.31 11.19 217.38 Idaho 2.95 -0.88 3.87 3.72 Illinois -1.64 -2.42 0.80 24.24 Indiana 0.20 2.54 -2.28 8.39 Iowa 1.25 -1.41 2.70 33.47 Kansas 0.95 -3.83 4.96 14.79 Kentucky 2.14 -0.84 3.00 -2.35 Louisiana 4.89 -1.44 6.42 0.06 Maine 8.09 1.12 6.89 -5.41 Maryland 2.28 0.21 2.06 -1.49 Massachusetts 10.32 -2.67 13.34 -26.18 Michigan 0.18 -5.08 5.54 -9.16 Minnesota 2.96 -2.08 5.15 6.50 Mississippi 9.19 -0.70 9.96 54.13 Missouri 10.18 -1.78 12.18 9.37 Montana 0.83 -1.08 1.93 -3.45 Nebraska 2.88 -5.82
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-7.pdf
  • Access CCL CCL Local Minute Originating Terminating Switching Aliant 0.00¢ 0.00¢ 0.73¢ 0.37¢ 2.24 257 643 913 BellSouth 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.20 1.13 27,108 55,240 76,617 Cincinnati Bell 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.26 1.60 992 2,133 3,134 Citizens 0.12 0.00 0.71 0.54 2.69 2,035 4,506 6,560 Iowa Telecomm 0.03 0.00 0.86 0.27 2.36 413 326 739 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.15 1.41 20,509 37,988 58,539 SBC 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.17 1.25 71,493 76,858 149,482 Sprint 0.02 0.00 0.60 0.13 1.52 6,978 18,896 26,128 Valor 0.54 0.11 0.78 0.34 2.98 358 916 1,274 Verizon 0.02 0.00 0.42 0.23 1.35 53,826 128,385 182,882 Price Caps 0.01 0.00 0.44 0.20 1.33 183,968 325,891 506,268 NECA 0.20 0.20 1.45 0.83 5.08 11,755 21,652 18,521 All Price
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-1.pdf
  • 128 27 136 28 N. Mariana Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio 4,903,121 3.47 2,181 461 2,329 486 Oklahoma 1,501,859 1.06 668 141 713 149 Oregon 1,632,184 1.15 726 154 775 162 Pennsylvania 5,600,739 3.96 2,491 527 2,661 555 Puerto Rico 1,311,508 0.93 583 123 623 130 Rhode Island 520,429 0.37 231 49 247 52 South Carolina 1,992,150 1.41 886 187 946 197 South Dakota 324,206 0.23 144 30 154 32 Tennessee 2,889,687 2.04 1,285 272 1,373 286 Texas 10,748,849 7.60 4,780 1,011 5,106 1,065 Utah 1,076,507 0.76 479 101 511 107 Vermont 182,269 0.13 81 17 87 18 Virginia 3,819,951 2.70 1,699 359 1,815 379 Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA Washington 3,038,828 2.15 1,351 286
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-11.pdf
  • 0 0 0 0.00 Qwest - Iowa IA 3,536 3,716 (201) (5.68) SBC - Southwestern Bell - Kansas KS (8,632) (8,553) (78) 0.90 Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company - Kentucky KY (67) (51) (25) 37.31 BellSouth - Kentucky KY (15,297) (15,384) 88 (0.58) BellSouth - Louisiana LA (16,485) (16,821) 336 (2.04) Verizon - New England - Maine ME (14,967) (14,755) (211) 1.41 Verizon - Maryland MD 28,531 29,411 (881) (3.09) Verizon - New England - Massachusetts MA 41,198 42,327 (1,129) (2.74) Verizon - North - Michigan MI (19,470) (19,448) (22) 0.11 SBC - Ameritech - Michigan MI 24,113 24,332 (219) (0.91) Qwest - Minnesota MN 14,323 14,668 (361) (2.52) BellSouth - Mississippi MS (26,747) (26,844) 97 (0.36) SBC - Southwestern Bell -
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
  • 0.89 0.32 2.91 Pennsylvania 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.07 0.59 Puerto Rico 0.21 0.00 0.00 6.25 0.10 0.00 0.00 6.55 Rhode Island 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 South Carolina 1.08 0.02 0.00 0.42 0.74 0.54 0.30 3.09 South Dakota 3.90 0.01 0.00 1.38 2.47 0.03 2.63 10.44 Tennessee 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.20 0.23 0.22 1.41 Texas 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.10 0.27 0.13 1.36 Utah 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.42 0.18 0.43 1.69 Vermont 1.09 0.00 1.99 0.50 0.77 0.39 0.96 5.69 Virgin Islands 17.28 0.00 0.00 9.20 9.79 0.00 0.00 36.27 Virginia 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 1.07 0.11 1.39 Washington 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.11 0.58 0.18 1.92 West Virginia 1.83 0.00 2.61
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-7.pdf
  • 43.06 42.00 41.50 41.38 41.28 40.91 41.11 41.04 41.24 41.26 41.45 40.02 39.83 39.35 Additional Connection Charge for Touch-Tone Service 1.34 1.31 1.55 1.76 1.77 1.27 1.22 1.23 0.85 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 **** **** Taxes, 911, and Other Charges 2.28 2.20 2.11 2.44 2.32 2.30 2.29 2.30 2.33 2.44 2.36 2.46 2.38 2.57 2.53 2.81 1.33 1.41 Total Connection Charge 49.25 47.55 46.60 47.26 47.15 45.57 45.01 44.92 44.46 43.58 43.70 43.67 43.74 43.95 44.10 42.95 41.16 40.76 Additional Charge If Drop Line and Connection Block Needed n.a. n.a. 6.04 6.07 6.89 6.89 6.50 7.29 6.74 5.90 5.74 5.65 5.64 5.86 5.84 5.84 5.85 5.85 Lowest-Cost Inside Wiring Maintenance Plan 0.58 0.85 0.89 1.07 1.07 1.20 1.25
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-7.pdf
  • Minutes of Use (Millions) Common Common Traffic Non-Traffic Line 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-9.pdf
  • 38.6 216.0 468.1 362.7 226.5 For Unscheduled Events Over 2 Minutes 92.2 23.5 202.1 304.9 29.1 177.0 413.3 351.6 198.2 For Unscheduled Downtime More than 2 Minutes Number of Occurrences or Events 50 27 111 101 15 67 138 328 124 Events per Hundred Switches 3.5 1.9 6.7 7.8 1.8 4.5 8.3 7.5 7.5 Events per Million Access Lines 2.73 1.41 5.50 6.33 0.85 4.86 9.64 20.05 18.88 Average Outage Duration in Minutes 43.5 20.4 50.2 65.0 26.5 65.7 83.4 78.3 43.8 Average Lines Affected per Event in Thousands 17.5 27.0 10.4 13.4 12.6 8.5 5.4 5.0 5.8 Outage Line-Minutes per Event in Thousands 2,027.4 543.3 194.4 694.8 360.4 240.8 419.2 169.4 190.7 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 5,524.8 765.3
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrd99-9.pdf
  • 218.7 171.4 219.8 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 916.4 1,111.7 1,990.4 731.8 93.5 4,694.3 1,817.4 2,837.9 3,696.5 For Scheduled Downtime More than 2 Minutes Number of Occurrences or Events 186 44 52 25 44 141 256 16 15 Events per Hundred Switches 13.2 3.1 3.2 2.0 5.3 16.2 16.8 0.4 0.9 Events per Million Access Lines 9.51 2.14 2.36 1.41 2.15 10.00 16.62 0.92 2.16 Average Outage Duration in Minutes 2.7 3.0 4.3 9.4 2.8 2.9 3.8 20.2 11.3 Avg. Lines Affected per Event in Thousands 19.4 29.4 28.0 49.7 58.3 14.7 6.3 6.9 10.8 Outage Line-Minutes per Event in Thousands 53.3 94.7 102.9 299.6 182.5 58.5 21.1 78.7 44.4 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 507.3 202.5 243.0 422.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs00-0.pdf
  • 0.00¢ 0.97¢ 0.46¢ 2.93¢ 246 561 815 BellSouth 0.02 0.00 0.38 0.26 1.33 28,738 52,997 81,100 Cincinnati Bell 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.19 1.47 1,059 2,191 3,251 Citizens 1.28 0.00 0.92 1.14 5.56 1,550 1,486 3,015 Global Crossing 0.64 0.00 0.72 0.42 3.02 774 1,826 2,604 Iowa Telecom 1.66 0.00 0.84 0.22 3.96 252 516 770 Qwest 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.19 1.41 21,588 40,107 62,239 SBC 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.21 1.46 63,313 86,767 152,856 Sprint 0.30 0.00 0.70 0.18 2.12 9,467 14,759 24,349 Verizon 0.35 0.00 0.48 0.21 1.79 61,426 127,515 190,453 All Price Caps 0.16 0.00 0.49 0.22 1.63 188,412 328,724 521,451 NECA 1.00 1.39 1.59 1.43 8.62 14,074 16,181 15,903 All Price Caps And NECA 0.23¢ 0.07¢ 0.52¢ 0.26¢ 1.91¢
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs01-0.pdf
  • C LESLIE COUNTY TEL. CO., INC. -2.86 3.13 -5.81 -13.83 260412 A LEWISPORT TEL. CO., INC. 1.79 6.60 -4.52 0.00 260413 A LOGAN TEL. COOP., INC. -0.29 2.39 -2.61 -100.00 260414 A MOUNTAIN RURAL TEL. COOP. CORP., INC. 5.77 4.46 1.26 0.00 260415 A PEOPLES RURAL TEL. COOP. CORP. 6.43 5.88 0.52 0.00 260417 A SALEM TEL. CO. 1.85 0.44 1.41 0.00 260418 A SOUTH CENTRAL RURAL TEL. COOP. CORP., INC. 2.43 4.18 -1.68 0.00 260419 A THACKER/GRIGSBY TEL. CO., INC. -3.67 3.07 -6.55 -100.00 260421 A WEST KY. RURAL TEL. COOP. CORP., INC. 5.88 4.41 1.41 1.51 265061 C CINCINNATI BELL-KY 0.44 1.40 -0.95 0.00 265182 C SOUTH CENTRAL BELL-KY 2.92 2.62 0.29 -100.00 TOTAL: LOUISIANA 1.92 2.23 -0.30 0.21
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • 5 0.06 0 5 South Carolina 115 1.36 0 111 South Dakota 32 0.37 0 30 Tennessee 44 0.52 0 43 Texas 768 9.08 0 740 Utah 38 0.45 0 37 Vermont 15 0.18 0 15 Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA Virginia 321 3.80 0 309 Washington 254 3.00 0 244 West Virginia 56 0.66 0 54 Wisconsin 120 1.41 0 115 Wyoming 8 0.09 0 7 Total 1/ $8,461 100.00% $0 $8,171 NA - Not Applicable. Note: Figures may not add due to rounding. 1/ Totals in the last two columns include revenues for locations not estimated. (Dollars in Millions) Revenues 1 2 for Allocation 3 1 - 54 Table 1.24 Information for Allocating LECs' Intrastate Toll: 2000 (Dollars
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/QualSvc/qual98.pdf
  • 218.7 171.4 219.8 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 916.4 1,111.7 1,990.4 731.8 93.5 4,694.3 1,817.4 2,837.9 3,696.5 For Scheduled Downtime More than 2 Minutes Number of Occurrences or Events 186 44 52 25 44 141 256 16 15 Events per Hundred Switches 13.2 3.1 3.2 2.0 5.3 16.2 16.8 0.4 0.9 Events per Million Access Lines 9.51 2.14 2.36 1.41 2.15 10.00 16.62 0.92 2.16 Average Outage Duration in Minutes 2.7 3.0 4.3 9.4 2.8 2.9 3.8 20.2 11.3 Avg. Lines Affected per Event in Thousands 19.4 29.4 28.0 49.7 58.3 14.7 6.3 6.9 10.8 Outage Line-Minutes per Event in Thousands 53.3 94.7 102.9 299.6 182.5 58.5 21.1 78.7 44.4 Outage Line-Minutes per 1,000 Access Lines 507.3 202.5 243.0 422.2
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/00socc.pdf
  • 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.70 0.46 El Salvador 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.48 0.38 France 10/ 1.58 1.71 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 Germany 1.58 1.71 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 Greece 2.15 2.32 2.19 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 0.26 0.25 Guatemala 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.51 0.38 Haiti 1.45 1.45 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.92 0.92 Hong Kong 2.35 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 0.14 0.13 0.12 India 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.42
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/01socc.pdf
  • 1.70 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/02socc.pdf
  • 1.40 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/03socc.pdf
  • Data Revenues $2,445 $869 $14,288 $40,843 $26,197 Costs and Expenses 1,887 1,151 14,542 34,374 25,336 Interest Expense 417 36 1,757 1,241 1,374 Other Income and Adjustments1 114 18 3,004 6,207 2,984 Income Taxes 67 0 (519) 2,930 1,256 Net Income (Loss) 188 (300) 1,512 8,505 1,215 Earnings per Share 0.67 (1.07) 0.87 2.56 2.09 Dividends per Share 0 0 0 1.41 0.50 Average Shares Outstanding (millions) 282 280 1,739 3,318 901 Property, Plant and Equipment - Net 3,526 1,008 18,149 52,128 27,276 Total Assets 7,689 1,631 26,216 100,166 42,850 Long-Term Debt 4,196 717 15,639 16,060 16,841 Shareholders' Equity 1,415 522 (1,016) 38,248 13,224 Operating Data Customer Lines (thousands) 2 2,387 - 16,200 54,683 7,900 Number of Employees 6,708 3,100 47,000 168,950
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/95socc.pdf
  • (0.01) (0.10) (0.44) 6.0 LA MAINE 23.0 3.4 19.5 15.1 4.4 0.20 (0.06) 0.00 0.15 4.3 ME MARYLAND 290.0 220.5 69.6 44.6 24.9 4.77 2.00 2.30 9.07 15.8 MD MASSACHUSETTS 205.6 43.4 162.2 129.5 32.7 3.47 1.05 1.10 5.62 27.1 MA MICHIGAN 233.5 115.6 117.8 97.8 20.0 (0.95) 0.10 0.28 (0.57) 20.6 MI MINNESOTA 26.2 33.6 (7.4) (7.1) (0.4) (3.00) (1.41) (1.37) (5.79) 5.4 MN MISSISSIPPI 55.2 19.4 35.8 31.2 4.6 (0.33) 0.02 (0.03) (0.34) 4.9 MS MISSOURI 181.3 132.9 48.5 36.8 11.6 (0.34) (0.62) 0.04 (0.92) 12.6 MO MONTANA (4.4) 4.8 (9.2) (7.0) (2.2) (1.77) (1.47) (0.84) (4.08) 1.8 MT NEBRASKA 138.1 31.9 106.2 80.0 26.2 8.07 6.45 6.93 21.45 4.8 NE NEVADA 98.0 57.4 40.6 31.6 9.0 (0.06) (0.26)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/96socc.pdf
  • 0.00 (0.17) (1.32) 5.3 LA MAINE 31.3 4.1 27.2 22.8 4.3 0.50 (0.08) 0.04 0.46 3.9 ME MARYLAND 324.8 239.1 85.7 60.0 25.7 5.25 2.31 2.82 10.38 15.3 MD MASSACHUSETTS 292.1 54.6 237.5 205.7 31.8 2.86 2.73 1.97 7.56 24.3 MA MICHIGAN 253.6 177.8 75.8 60.9 14.9 (2.34) 0.07 0.28 (1.99) 16.9 MI MINNESOTA 30.5 35.4 (4.9) (7.7) 2.8 (2.97) (1.41) (1.25) (5.64) 8.5 MN MISSISSIPPI 52.3 23.4 28.9 25.4 3.5 (0.66) 0.01 (0.34) (0.99) 4.5 MS MISSOURI 205.3 147.2 58.2 44.5 13.6 0.66 (0.18) 0.18 0.67 13.0 MO MONTANA (4.2) 5.1 (9.3) (7.7) (1.6) (1.74) (0.97) (0.70) (3.41) 1.8 MT NEBRASKA 128.8 33.2 95.6 72.2 23.3 7.22 5.24 6.32 18.78 4.6 NE NEVADA 90.9 50.4 40.5 31.8 8.7 0.09 (0.16)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • RES. BUS. RES. BUS. 1-10 $0.29 $0.20 $0.17 $0.20 $0.29 $0.20 $0.17 $0.20 11-22 0.29 0.26 0.20 0.26 0.29 0.26 0.20 0.26 23-55 0.36 0.48 0.29 0.48 0.36 0.48 0.29 0.48 56-124 0.46 0.56 0.34 0.56 0.46 0.56 0.34 0.56 125-292 0.51 0.79 0.40 0.79 0.51 0.79 0.40 0.79 293-430 0.51 1.04 0.40 1.04 0.51 1.04 0.40 1.04 431-925 0.51 1.41 0.40 1.41 0.51 1.41 0.40 1.41 926-3000 0.51 1.49 0.40 1.49 0.51 1.49 0.40 1.49 RES. = RESIDENTIAL USAGE BUS. = COMMERCIAL USAGE SERVICE CHARGE PER CALL* CLASS OF SERVICE AT&T LEC COMMERCIAL CARD CARD CREDIT CARD CUSTOMER DIALED CALLING CARD STATION: CUSTOMER DIALED/AUTOMATED $2.00 $2.50 $3.50 CUSTOMER DIALED AND OPERATOR ASSISTED 2.50 3.00 4.00 CUSTOMER DIALED AND OPERATOR MUST
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/98SOCC.PDF
  • MD MASSACHUSETTS 867.7 0.11 867.6 56.7 810.9 379.0 282.3 149.6 810.9 MA MICHIGAN 1,071.6 (1.00) 1,072.6 309.0 763.6 420.6 170.1 172.4 763.1 0.472 MI MINNESOTA 479.5 0.87 478.7 129.2 349.5 164.0 83.9 101.5 349.5 MN MISSISSIPPI 246.2 12.78 233.4 25.2 208.3 108.5 57.9 41.4 207.8 0.491 MS MISSOURI 763.8 2.25 761.6 235.0 526.5 259.0 130.5 137.0 526.5 MO MONTANA 86.9 1.41 85.4 21.0 64.4 28.8 19.6 16.0 64.4 MT NEBRASKA 223.8 (1.91) 225.7 71.4 154.2 63.8 47.4 43.1 154.2 NE NEVADA 184.9 (0.09) 185.0 18.5 166.4 79.3 52.6 34.5 166.4 NV NEW HAMPSHIRE 190.4 0.88 189.5 16.6 172.8 69.4 70.3 33.1 172.8 NH NEW JERSEY 1,227.5 2.59 1,224.9 281.7 943.2 513.3 186.7 241.2 941.3 1.888 NJ NEW MEXICO 224.6 3.82 220.7
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/99socc.pdf
  • 1.10 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.38 0.38 Egypt 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.10 0.90 El Salvador 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.10 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.60 France 1.71 1.43 0.96 0.97 0.62 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.20 Germany 1.71 1.43 1.10 0.83 0.51 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 Greece 2.32 2.19 1.66 1.55 1.41 1.26 1.01 0.86 0.55 0.30 0.29 Guatemala 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.18 1.00 0.90 0.77 0.64 0.58 Hong Kong 2.20 1.90 1.60 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.79 0.72 0.14 0.13 India 2.25 2.25 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.80 1.60 1.42 1.28 1.08 1.08 Israel 2.40 2.40 2.28 2.16 2.16 1.90 1.18 0.70 0.59 0.30 0.30 Italy 2.14 2.04 1.65 1.51
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/prelim02socc.pdf
  • 1.40 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/scard95.pdf
  • 12,099,627,000 (1) 0.15 Omega Telecommunications 92 Omega Telephone Company 47 One-2-One Communications 65 One Call Communications, Inc. 240 100,000,000 (3) 2.40 Operator Assistance Network 582 100,000,000 (6) 5.82 Operator Communications, Inc. (OCI) 933 111,000,000 (2) 8.41 dba Oncor Communications Pacific Telesis Group 1,426 9,042,000,000 (1) 0.16 Pantel Communications 31 Peoples Telephone Company, Inc. 25 Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. 141 100,000,000 (3) 1.41 Communications Revenues 22 COMMON CARRIER SCORECARD REPORT APPENDIX A Companies Served with 20 or More Complaints in 1995 Companies Served with 20 or More Complaints in 1995 Communications Revenues (Notes) Complaints Company Complaints per Million $ in Revenues Polar Communications Corporation 50 Private Line Services 21 QCC, Inc. 41 Sonic Communications 1,159 100,000,000 (8) 11.59 Southern New England Telecommunications Corp.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1999/fcc99367.doc
  • at www.dishnetwork.com/profile/press/press/press212.htm. See ADEC Request at 4, and Opposition of EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Filed August 27, 1999, at 2 (``EchoStar Opposition''). DBS Public Interest Obligations Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 23285 (1998) (``[T]he public interest programming provided for in this order must be made available to all of a DBS provider's subscribers without additional charge.''). ADEC Request at 9. Section 1.41 of our rules allows for informal requests for agency action where the form for requesting relief is not otherwise provided in the rules. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. List of Commenters attached as Appendix A. See Response of EchoStar Satellite Corporation to Request for Information, filed October 7, 1999 (``EchoStar Response''). EchoStar submitted this information subject to a request for confidentiality
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2001/fcc01329.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2001/fcc01329.txt
  • Syracuse NY Citadel Communications Corporation 1946 Apr-00 500 0 1.1 B WNTQ FM CHR Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Citadel Communications Corporation 1956 Apr-00 4600 8.7 1.6 B WYYY FM AC Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1946 Jan-99 4250 6.3 1.76 B WBBS FM Country Syracuse, NY 78 Fulton NY Clear Channel Communications 1961 Jul-99 5800 10.2 1.41 B WHEN AM Sports Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1941 Jul-99 800 2.5 0.72 B WSYR AM Talk Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1922 Jul-99 3400 8.1 1.03 B WWHT FM CHR Syracuse, NY 78 Syracuse NY Clear Channel Communications 1958 Jul-99 2000 7.6 0.81 B WPHR FM Urban Syracuse, NY 78 Auburn NY
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00149.doc
  • we believe that the public interest considerations reflected in this order are relevant and may be given weight in conjunction with the handling of the television translator applications. Attached to the Motion are letters from Members of Congress and numerous citizens supporting Shenandoah's opposition to the grant of a construction permit for channel 19. Pursuant to Sections 0.251(c) and (h), 1.41, and 1.47(g) of the Rules, Shenandoah requests that the citizens' letters be placed in the record. No party to this adjudicatory proceeding will be harmed by entry of the attached letters into the record in MM Docket No. 86-440. With one exception, each of the letters was mailed to the parties in this proceeding at the time of their submission
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00155.doc
  • the American Cable Association (``ACA''), the National Black Media Coalition (``NBMC''), the WEYS Television Corporation (``WEYS''), and a group of petitioners objecting to certain broadcasts made by Howard Stern (``the Stern Petitioners''). In addition, the A.H. Belo Corporation (``Belo'') filed a letter opposing the applications after the petition to deny period had expired. We will exercise our discretion pursuant to §1.41 and treat the letter as an informal objection. For the reasons stated below, we deny the petitions and informal objection and grant the applications subject to conditions to ensure compliance with our multiple ownership and cross-ownership rules. Introduction On November 16, 1999, CBS and Viacom filed applications seeking Commission consent to the transfer of control of CBS and its subsidiary
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Orders/1997/fcc97050.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Orders/1997/fcc97050.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Orders/1997/fcc97050.wp
  • to deny (including petitions for other forms of relief) and responsive pleadings for Commission consideration must comply with section 27.207 and must: (1)Identify the application or applications (including applicant's name, station location, Commission file numbers and radio service involved) with which it is concerned; (2)Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, filing periods, and other applicable provisions of sections 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter except where otherwise provided in section 27.207; (3)Contain specific allegations of fact which, except for facts of which official notice may be taken, shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, and which shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner (or respondent) is a party in interest and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/News_Releases/2001/nrmd0106.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/News_Releases/2001/nrmd0106.txt
  • delivery service, or by hand delivery: - petitions to deny filed pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act); - petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 405 of the Act; applications for review filed pursuant to Section 5(c)(4) of the Act; - informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules; - petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; - and, filings made pursuant to section 76.1502 (e)(1) of the Commission's rules. This filing requirement does not apply to requests for review of decisions issued by the Universal Service Administrative Company filed pursuant to sections 54.719-54.725 of the Commission's rules,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01345.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Orders/fcc01345.txt
  • service, or by hand delivery: (i) petitions to deny filed pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act);2 (ii) petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 405 of the Act;3 (iii) applications for review filed pursuant to Section 5(c)(4) of the Act;4 (iv) informal requests for Commission action involving pending applications filed pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules;5 (v) petitions to amend the TV and FM Broadcast Table of Allotments and responsive pleadings; and, (vi) comments or oppositions to open video system certification made pursuant to section 76.1502 (e)(1) of the Commission's rules.6 The types of pleadings described in (i) through (vi) are referred to in this document as "Covered Pleadings." The filing requirement
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210024-1.pdf
  • 4 2i4 57 1,122 3.3 I I 10.60 1 -.- -53 I 541 LEE 106.91 ..w iWVNCFMli.t lS,Z I 34.39 I KmlAc 39m N 30.79 -- ~~ WUGH i WAcOMB 3524 1.964 s.eo5l a 293 867!I 632 1,967 2 722 _ 21341 3 ..I.._ 566 2 -we-- 1,672! 647 1,914l 2 . _ II 138 , 291 1.240 339 -266 1.41 1,111 I, I.27 1 571a - 581WoHENRV:-1 18394ll 762 - 1 1,738l 3.3661 9,9soi 144I 59 1 UcLEAN !!!aE!zI129,180 1601 MACON AlxAnal I 117,206 4 7.679 1?8 452 676 249,238 1,037 2,364 -4.579, 63 MARION SAL04 41,561 173 394 763 -a-. - IAaN -lizasL-- 531 122 - 2361 4 16,269 681 lS4 2! 14.752 611 140 2711 I63 PSI 083
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • * ..................... (b) * * * 3060-xxxx.. FCC 601........................................ x/xx/xx Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-25 B-2 3060-xxxx.. FCC 602........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 603........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 604........................................ x/xx/xx 3060-xxxx.. FCC 605........................................ x/xx/xx * * * Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-25 C-1 APPENDIX C PROPOSED RULES - PART 1 CURRENT SUBJECT PROPOSED NEW OR RULE (proposed change) REVISED RULE NUMBER NUMBER 1.41 Informal Requests for Commission action (change to 1.41 allow electronic filing of informal requests via ULS). 1.45 Pleadings; filing periods (change to allow electronic 1.45 filing of pleadings and other documents via ULS; eliminate microfiche requirement). 1.49 Specifications as to pleadings and documents (change to 1.49 allow electronic filing of pleadings and other documents via ULS and to delete microfiche
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98015.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98015.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98015.wp
  • Letter of June 2, 1997. 11 We accept these late-filed letters for consideration, and find that their consideration will not delay the proceeding and ensure that all relevant issues are considered. Nevada DOT ex parte Letter of May 29, 1997; Parsons Letter of May 28, 1997. 12 Public Notice, Report No. 2196, released May 15, 1997. 13 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 14 Letter to W. Kennard, General Counsel, from Infinite Telesis, Inc. (formerly LDH International, Inc.), Celltel Communications Corporation, and CT Communications Corporation, dated Aug. 1, 1997. 15 The court proceeding initiated by LDH and other affected applicants for review of the Order dismissing the 971 waiver applications remains pending. See note 1, supra. 16 Public Notice, FCC Announces Upcoming Spectrum
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992504.doc
  • that the coordination by ITA of Tosco's application appears to be an act of retribution for Henry's withdrawal of several applications from ITA in October, 1997. Discussion. Initially, we note that there are no rules that permit a formal petition to deny in this radio service. Therefore, Henry's petition is treated as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. The Commission's ex parte rules require that a communication directed to the merits or outcome of a proceeding be served on the parties to the proceeding. Because the record does not indicate that Henry served its Petition or its reply to ITA upon Tosco, we will not address the merits of Tosco's application in this Order.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992823.doc
  • of our Rules, and the application had not been submitted through a frequency coordinator. James A. Kay, Jr., Petition to Dismiss or Deny (filed January 16, 1997) (Kay Dismissal Petition). Because the Commission's Rules do not provide for the filing of petitions to deny in the Private Wireless Services, we will treat Kay's filing as an informal objection under Section 1.41 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See, e.g., In re Michael McDermott d/b/a McDermott Communications Co., 11 FCC Rcd 5750, 5752 ¶ 7 (1996). Kay Dismissal Petition at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 90.157. The Branch also asked Athens to supply certain antenna site data that it had failed to provide on its application. The renewal application was assigned File
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000474.doc
  • 2-5. 47 C.F.R. § 1.727. We note that in its Opposition to Emergency Motion for Disqualification, Mercury argued that High Plains' Petition to Deny did not comply with all of the procedural requisites of section 1.727. However, even if the Emergency Motion were procedurally defective, Bureau could have entertained it as an informal request for Commission action pursuant to section 1.41. 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. Western PCS BTA I Corp., 13 FCC Rcd. 8305, 8319-20 ¶ 37; US West Communications, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd. 8286, 8299-300 ¶ 37. See, e.g., Western PCS BTA I Corp., 13 FCC Rcd. 8305, 8319-20 ¶ 37; US West Communications, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd. 8286, 8299-300 ¶ 37. High Plains Petition to Deny at 5-7. 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000713.doc
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action of Application FCC File No. 9600002 filed on October 1, 1999, by Paul R. Likins IS DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000714.doc
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action filed on October 27, 1999, by AA&T Wireless Services IS DENIED. 9. These actions are taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000715.doc
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action filed on October 27, 1999, by Wireless Telco IS DENIED. 9. These actions are taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000716.doc
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action for File Number 9600013 filed on October 1, 1999, by Paul R. Likins IS DENIED. 9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000717.doc
  • . . to update the regulatory structure of the 39 GHz band in light of contemporary market conditions.'' Further, we believe that the Bureau addressed this matter in its November 23, 1999, decision. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.106, the Request for Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Stay of Processing Action filed September 30, 1999, by Linda Chester IS DENIED. 9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001609.doc
  • does not demonstrate any impediment to its shared use of spectrum that would conflict with the Commission's Part 90 Rules. Pursuant to Section 90.187(e), however, the grant will be limited to ten channels. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, application FCC File No. A034945, filed by Cumulous Communications on March 12, 1999, IS REFERRED to the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch for further processing consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 10. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority granted under the provisions of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da002158.doc
  • Rcd at 13648, 13654. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. 570 (rel. Jun. 28, 2000). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.4. 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(g). Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 2; Petition to Deny WinStar at 2. Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 3; Petition to Deny WinStar at 3. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See 47 U.S.C. § 402(h); Applications of Cambridge Partners, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-322, ¶ 6 (rel. Sept. 15, 2000); Qualcomm Incorporated, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Giving Effect to the Mandate of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Order, FCC 00-219, ¶ 11 (rel. June 8, 2000). Application of Pinelands, Inc. (Transferor) and BHC Communications, Inc.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da002169.doc
  • 2. Petition to Deny Adelphia at 3; Petition to Deny AT&T Wireless at 3; Petition to Deny Atlantis at 3; Petition to Deny Bachow at 3; Petition to Deny DCT at 3; Petition to Deny Milkyway at 3; Petition to Deny Nextband at 3; Petition to Deny PTPMS at 3; Petition to Deny Zephyr at 3. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. See 47 U.S.C. § 402(h); Applications of Cambridge Partners, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-322, ¶ 6 (rel. Sept. 15, 2000); Qualcomm Incorporated, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Giving Effect to the Mandate of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Order, FCC 00-219, ¶ 11 (rel. June 8, 2000). Application of Pinelands, Inc. (Transferor) and BHC Communications, Inc.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da002243.doc
  • involving the petitioners' applications, the Commission must carry out the judgement of the court. Thus, we conclude that no further action regarding the petitioners' claims is required or warranted in the instant matter. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309 and 402(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, 402(h), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the petition to condition authorization of File No. 0000138811, filed by Broadband WirelessAccess Services, Stevan A. Birnbaum, Cambridge Partners, Inc., HiCap Networks, Inc., William R. Lonergan, PIW Development Corporation, Paul R. Likins, Cornelius T. Ryan, Southfield Communications LLC, SMC Associates, Video Communications Corporation, and Wireless Telco on September 25, 2000 IS DISMISSED.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da002391.doc
  • provides that MAS stations must be placed in operation within eighteen months from the initial date of grant. Further, if the licensee fails to place the stations in operation in a timely manner, the authorization cancels automatically. On October 9, 1998, CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet) petitioned the Commission to revoke the MAS licenses issued to Wincomm, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, on the basis that Wincomm no longer exists, did not construct the stations and has not operated the stations as required. On November 22, 1999, the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) of the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division) mailed a certified letter to Wincomm, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00051.doc
  • (requires that the applicable frequency coordinator recommend the most appropriate frequency for requests between 25 and 470 MHz). See generally 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(b), 309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.901-1.981; see also In the Matter of Michael McDermott, FCC 96-16, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 5750, ¶ 6 (1996) (Michael McDermott). 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(j), 309(a); 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 47 U.S.C. § 309. See Michael McDermott, 11 FCC Rcd. at 5753 ¶ 9. Typically, in order for the Commission to deny an application for authorization, the petitioner must make allegations of fact sufficient to show that the grant of the application is, prima facie, inconsistent with the public interest. 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1); In re Applications of Missouri RSA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00090.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00090.txt
  • Manager for violating the Communications Act or the Commission's regulations or policies. When there is a dispute between a Guard Band Manager, or its spectrum user, and a non-contracting party, and the Guard Band Manager is unable or unwilling to resolve such dispute in a timely fashion, the non-contracting party may file a complaint with the Commission pursuant to § 1.41 of this chapter. § 27.607 Performance requirements and annual reporting requirement. Guard Band Managers are subject to the performance requirements specified in § 27.14(a) of this part. Guard Band Managers are required to file an annual report providing the Commission with information about the manner in which their spectrum is being utilized. Such reports shall be filed with the Commission
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00224.doc
  • were filed by Adaptive, APCO, ArrayComm, ALTV, FLEWUG, MSTV, NAB, Nelson Repeater Services, Northcoast Communications, Rand McNally, TRW, GPS Industry Council, and US WEST. The full names of petitioners and a list of parties filing oppositions and replies are listed in Appendix A. The late-filed petition for reconsideration submitted by FLEWUG is considered as an informal comment pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 476 (2000) (700 MHz First Report and Order). Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd at 19870 (para. 7). See Pub. Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Reports/fcc98091.pdf
  • 3.51 7.83 37 164.57 33 7.83 37 Radiofone 2.19 5.15 7.34 38 106.34 43 7.34 38 McLeod, Inc. 7.09 7.09 39 70.92 47 7.09 39 Puerto Rico Telephone 3.52 3.52 7.04 40 123.27 41 3.52 50 Chase Telecom (PK) 6.54 6.54 41 196.17 31 6.54 40 Atlantic Cellular Company 1.00 5.03 6.03 42 75.29 45 6.03 41 Dobson Comm. (SEC) 1.41 4.20 5.61 43 77.22 44 5.61 42 Southern New Eng. 5.53 5.53 44 138.13 36 5.53 43 Pricellular Corporation 5.10 5.10 45 127.38 39 5.10 44 ACC-PCS (PK) 5.04 5.04 46 50.42 49 5.04 45 Poka Lambro (PK) 0.06 1.34 3.29 4.69 47 74.67 46 4.69 46 DCC PCS (PK) 4.49 4.49 48 44.85 50 4.49 47 US Unwired 1.29
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireline_Competition/Orders/2002/fcc02118.pdf
  • Service > 24 Hours MR-5-01 % Repeat Reports within 30 Days Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-118 B-4 DISAGGREGATED METRICS Metric Metric September October November December January Notes Number Name VZ CLEC VZ CLEC VZ CLEC VZ CLEC VZ CLEC OSS & BILLING (Pre-Ordering) - POTS/Special Services PRE-ORDERING PO-1 - Response Time OSS Pre-Ordering Interface PO-1-01-6020 Customer Service Record ­ EDI 1.41 3.06 1.31 2.89 1.33 2.97 1.32 2.8 1.42 3.16 PO-1-01-6030 Customer Service Record ­ CORBA 1.41 0.81 1.31 0.75 1.33 1.05 1.32 0.68 1.42 2.52 c,d PO-1-01-6050 Customer Service Record -Web GUI 1.41 3.37 1.31 3.01 1.33 2.93 1.32 2.71 1.42 2.98 PO-1-02-6020 Due Date Availability ­ EDI 0.09 NA 0.07 NA 0.07 NA 0.06 NA 0.06 NA PO-1-02-6030 Due
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2006/dd061101.html
  • COLLEGE DISTRICT. Granted the application for modification of facilities of Station KSDS(FM), San Diego, CA, with conditions. Action by: Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by LETTER. (DA No. 06-2253). MB [70]DA-06-2253A1.doc [71]DA-06-2253A1.pdf [72]DA-06-2253A1.txt AUCTION 65 PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING LONG FORM/FCC FORM 601 APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED FOR FILING. Dismissed the Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Section 1.939, 1.2108, and 1.41 of Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC and AMTS Consortium LLC, filed on August 7, 2006. Action by: Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted: 10/30/2006 by ORDER. (DA No. 06-2249). WTB [73]DA-06-2249A1.doc [74]DA-06-2249A1.pdf [75]DA-06-2249A1.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268284A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268284A1.txt 3. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268283A1.pdf 4. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268283A1.txt 5. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268281A1.pdf 6. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268281A1.txt 7. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268260A2.txt 8. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268260A1.pdf 9. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268259A2.txt 10. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268259A1.pdf 11. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268277A1.pdf 12. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268277A1.txt
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2007/dd070207.html
  • renewal. By NALF. Action by: Chief, Media Bureau. Adopted: 01/31/2007 by MO&O. (DA No. 07-561). MB [82]DA-07-561A1.doc [83]DA-07-561A1.pdf [84]DA-07-561A1.txt CITY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS AND SPRINT NEXTEL. Dismissed Petition for Reconsideration and Denied Request for Stay in the City of Boston and Sprint Nextel case (Mediation No. TAM-1115). Addressed issues raised in Petition as informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the FCC's rules. (Dkt No. 02-55). Action by: Associate Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. Adopted: 02/06/2007 by ORDER. (DA No. 07-583). PSHSB [85]DA-07-583A1.doc [86]DA-07-583A1.pdf [87]DA-07-583A1.txt ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED FEBRUARY 6, 2007, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 24: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Released: 02/06/2007. NEBRASKA STATE INTEROPERABILITY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO HOLD FIRST MEETING.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-256582A1.html
  • dismissed to avoid duplicative proceedings.35 In their Response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Complainants argue that the pleadings are not duplicative and that the Bureau should order Visionary to reduce power, cease operations, or at ``the very least'' give Visionary ``a substantial fine.''36 19. We will consider the Complainants' Complaint as an informal request for action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules.37 The investigation that culminated in this NAL began prior to the filing of the Complaint. However, at least one of the remedies requested by the Complainants, that of a substantial fine, is being proposed against Visionary. This remedy is consistent with our proceedings under the RFR Rules.38 In addition, we are requiring Visionary to file a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-1945A1.html
  • we do not find any other type of sanction to be necessary or justified at this time. 32. Finally, Lincoln asserts that we should sanction Minority for filing frivolous pleadings that have abused the Commission's processes. We decline to do so. Minority's pleadings filed relative to our underwriting investigation were not unauthorized from a procedural standpoint. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. 1.41 and 1.45. From a substantive standpoint, while we do not accept most of Minority's contentions, we do not find that the licensee has presented facts or legal arguments in a manner lacking good-faith or inconsistent with its right to advocate its views. IV. Ordering Clauses 33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-168A1.html
  • appropriate use of the Commission's enforcement and prosecutorial discretion. We note in this regard that the Bureau resolved numerous similar situations through similar consent decrees or through admonishments.3 ORDERING CLAUSE 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), 5(c)(4), and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 155(c)(4) and 503(b), and Sections 1.41, 1.43 and 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.41, 1.43, 1.115, that the ``Petition for Special Relief, or in the Alternative, Application for Review'' filed by the Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ, Inc. on February 15, 2002, IS DENIED, and that the ``Request for Stay'' filed by the Office of Communications of the United Church
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-469A1.html
  • foregoing, pursuant to Sections 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.111(a)(7), 0.311 and 1.80(f)(3), IT IS ORDERED THAT the Bureau's May 17, 2001 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to The KBOO Foundation, licensee of noncommercial Station KBOO-FM, is hereby RESCINDED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, the informal request, filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.41, by Sarah Jones on October 2, 2002, IS HEREBY DISMISSED AS MOOT. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER And FORFEITURE ORDER shall be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested to John Crigler, Esq., Counsel for The KBOO Foundation, Garvey, Schubert & Barer, 1000 Potomac Street, N.W., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-2843A1.html
  • Matter of: ) ) Freewave Technologies, Inc. ) File No. EB-02-TS-581 ) Grantee of Equipment ) Authorizations, FCC ID#s KNY-DGR-115, ) KNY-205-108213, KNY-1931852313419 ) and KNY-21161341911919 ) ORDER Adopted: August 31, 2004 Released: September 2, 2004 By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division: I. Introduction 1. In this Order, we address an informal request for Commission action filed pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'')1 by Microwave Data Systems, Inc. (``MDS''), which requests revocation of the above-captioned equipment authorizations for Part 15 spread spectrum transmitters held by Freewave Technologies, Inc. (``Freewave''). For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss in part and deny in part MDS's request. II. Background 2. On July 31, 1996, an equipment certification for a Part 15
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-396A1.html
  • and that Saga take steps to prevent its employee from further insulting Western's radio personality does not constitute an attempt to control the ``basic operating policies of the station,'' as Saga maintains.40 13. The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license,41 but rather treats such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules.42 Saga claims that Western's actions ``evidence[] a lack of fitness to be a Commission licensee'' and therefore the Commission should initiate a proceeding requiring Western to show cause why its license for WRNX(FM) should not be revoked.43 Because we reject Saga's claims, Saga's request to initiate a revocation proceeding is dismissed as moot. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-656A1.html
  • June 14, 2002, by Nextel against Fresno (``Nextel/Fresno Motion''). 2 The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license. See, e.g., In the Matter of MCI Telecommunications Corp., 3 FCC Rcd 3155 (1988); KDSK, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 893 (1983). The Commission, however, has treated such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.41. 3 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of the SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications ActCompetitive Bidding, First Report and Order, Eighth Report
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-61A1.html
  • Service Company Motion to Accept Unauthorized Pleading filed by Nextel on May 28, 2004. 4The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license. See, e.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp., 3 FCC Rcd 3155 (1988); KDSK, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 893 (1983). The Commission, however, has treated such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.41. 5Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of the SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications ActCompetitive Bidding, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00314.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00314.txt
  • or a summary thereof published in the Federal Register. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek revocation of a license. See, e.g., Danbury Cellular Telephone Company, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 4186, 4188 n.2 (CCB 1991). The Commission, however, has treated such requests as informal requests for action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR §1.41. In this case, the Petition was treated as an informal complaint. An investigation was initiated to investigate the allegations made in the Petition. This Order is based, not upon the Petition, but upon the results of the Bureau's investigation and, unless otherwise noted, the facts described in this Order were developed in the
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-1945A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-02-1945A1.pdf
  • do not find any other type of sanction to be necessary or justified at this time. 32. Finally, Lincoln asserts that we should sanction Minority for filing frivolous pleadings that have abused the Commission's processes. We decline to do so. Minority's pleadings filed relative to our underwriting investigation were not unauthorized from a procedural standpoint. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 and § 1.45. From a substantive standpoint, while we do not accept most of Minority's contentions, we do not find that the licensee has presented facts or legal arguments in a manner lacking good-faith or inconsistent with its right to advocate its views. IV. Ordering Clauses 33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.pdf
  • approve the Omnibus Settlement Agreement and dismiss all of the pleadings, comments, replies, and supplements filed by Willsyr in connection with the grant of the construction permit and license for Station WOXL-FM to Liberty and the assignment of license for Station WOXL-FM from Liberty to Saga. In conjunction with this proceeding, we also have before us a Withdrawal of Section 1.41 Request for Commission Action filed on August 27, 2007, by the Estate of David T. Murray. As further discussed below, we grant the withdrawal request and dismiss this pleading. Background. Willsyr was among thirteen original applicants seeking an FM construction permit for Channel 243A at Biltmore Forest. After comparative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ'') issued an Initial Decision disqualifying
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1372A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1372A1.pdf
  • File No. BNPH-20070423AAS. Coosa Valley News, Inc. and Mr. Howard C. Toole, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 18600 (MB 2007), petition for recon. pending (``Toole Decision''). Objection at 2. Id. Id. Opposition at 3-4. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15464 (1996) (``Greater Muskegon Broadcasters''). Id. at 15472 (emphasis added). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 309(d); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.17, 1.41 - 1.77, 73.3584, 73.3587, 73.5006, 73.7004. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.52, 73.3584(b). Coleman Objection, first unnumbered page. Id., second unnumbered page. Id., second-third unnumbered pages. See 47 U.S.C. § 310(d); Dorothy J. Owens, Debtor-in-Possession, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6615 (1990). Cf. Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2392A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2392A1.pdf
  • lacks standing to bring the Objection. However, since standing is not a perquisite to the filing of an informal objection, Potomac's contention that Birach does not have standing is misplaced. See Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7028, 7033 (WTB 2002) (noting ``there is no standing requirement to file an informal objection pursuant to [47 C.F.R. § 1.41].'')); see also 47 C.F.R. § 73.3587. Id. at 4. Id. at 5. For example, Potomac notes that DRRTS has also been represented by David W. Brown, Esq., of the law firm of Knopf & Brown. See Opposition, Exhibit A. Indeed, Mr. Brown submitted a pre-hearing statement in the very zoning hearing with which Birach takes issue. See id. Potomac also
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-763A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-763A1.pdf
  • procedural challenge. It claims that the First Bexley Letter is a petition for reconsideration, and as such, is unreviewable because it was filed on November 13, 2009, more than thirty days after the August 7, 2008, public notice of the Reissuance. We treat the First Bexley Letter and Second Bexley Letter as informal requests for Commission action, pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Rules, which does not limit the time period within which such requests must be filed. We therefore are not persuaded by Simply Living's argument that we should deny the First Bexley Letter as an untimely petition for reconsideration. Accordingly, we will address the merits of both the First Bexley Letter and the Second Bexley Letter. Turning now to
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-787A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-787A1.pdf
  • No. BPH-20030107AAQ. File No. BPH-20061005ADV. File No. BPH-20080805ABD. File No. BPH-20091207ABH. We will deny the Susquehanna Motion to Strike. Unlike the cases cited by Susquehanna , the Commission has not established a specific pleading cycle for requests to delete construction permit conditions. In this situation, parties may at any time file informal requests for Commission action. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. In any event, Susquehanna mischaracterizes the 2009 Letter as a ``supplement.'' In fact, this filing seeks relief fundamentally different than that requested in the Petition. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd. 17525, 17540 n.55 (1999) (subsequent history omitted) (the ``Streamlining Order''). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.207,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-463A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-12-463A1.pdf
  • the License Expiration Letter. Rather, more than eight months later, September 12, 2011, CWH filed the STA Request, seeking authorization to operate the Station temporarily with an emergency ``long-wire'' antenna until necessary repairs could be made and storm-damaged equipment replaced. Subsequently, on September 20, 2011, it filed the Reinstatement Request as an ``informal request for Commission action'' pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. In the Reinstatement Request, CWH states that the License Expiration Letter was issued in error, because the Station's license had not expired pursuant to Section 312(g) of the Act. It acknowledges that WHYN has experienced ``multiple hardships beyond its control, resulting in several unavoidable service interruptions;'' but indicates that it returned the Station to the air
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/circuit.pdf
  • 1995 1997 Growth 1997 1996 1995 IMTS P.L. Other Active Idle IMTS/PL IMTS/PL IMTS/PL IMTS P.L. Active Idle rank rank rank Reg. Total Total Serv. Total Total Split Split Split Total Total Total Total # # # Code Country Ckts Ckts Ckts Ckts Ckts Ratio Ratio Ratio Ckts Ckts Ckts Ckts 1 1 1 5Canada 50,501 71,449 4,531126,481 1,374 0.71 1.41 7.99 21% 140% 68% 36% 2 2 2 5Mexico 37,030 23,525 0 60,555 1,181 1.57 2.09 13.96 33% 77% 47% -17% 3 3 3 1United Kingdom 18,197 23,208 334 41,739 22,514 0.78 0.69 1.32 38% 22% 29% 104% 4 4 4 7Japan 6,582 10,097 657 17,336 17,311 0.65 0.73 2.15 17% 31% 24% -3% 5 5 5 1Germany 5,120 8,028
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/csreport.pdf
  • IMTS/PL IMTS/PL Reg 1999 1998 1997 1996 Total Total Total Total Total + Other) Split Split Split CodeRank Rank Rank Rank Country Ckts Ckts Ckts Ckts Ckts Split * Ratio Ratio Ratio 1 1 2 3 3United Kingdom 54,780 205,954 15,601 276,335 57,258 0.25 0.34 0.78 0.69 5 2 1 1 1Canada 77,827 112,021 10,542 200,390 152,901 0.63 1.03 1.25 1.41 5 3 3 2 2Mexico 84,536 42,083 0 126,619 10,593 2.01 1.38 1.57 2.09 7 4 4 4 4Japan 8,681 35,134 1,677 45,492 29,283 0.24 0.57 0.65 0.73 1 5 5 5 5Germany 9,261 21,484 541 31,286 13,521 0.42 0.76 0.64 0.83 1 6 8 13 8Netherlands 1,831 20,687 30 22,548 17,721 0.09 0.34 0.58 0.56 8 7 7 6
• http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/mniab/traffic/files/ITRND01.pdf
  • and Foreign Minutes 1964 20.2 $62.9 $30.3 $32.6 12.0 $19.6 $3.11 $1.50 $1.62 $1.63 $1.62 1965 25.5 78.2 37.2 41.1 15.4 24.7 3.07 1.46 1.61 1.60 1.61 1966 32.3 100.1 47.6 52.5 18.9 30.1 3.10 1.47 1.63 1.59 1.61 1967 39.7 114.2 54.6 59.6 23.4 31.8 2.88 1.38 1.50 1.36 1.45 1968 46.4 126.9 61.5 65.4 28.2 40.0 2.73 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.41 1969 64.6 172.0 82.7 89.4 38.3 51.6 2.66 1.28 1.38 1.35 1.37 1970 81.1 196.6 98.9 97.7 51.0 59.8 2.43 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.19 1971 100.9 237.4 120.7 116.6 68.4 75.1 2.35 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.13 1972 126.5 291.8 148.2 143.6 91.7 98.6 2.31 1.17 1.14 1.08 1.11 1973 159.3 364.9 184.4 180.5 111.5 120.2 2.29 1.16 1.13
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/605.html
  • impedance which correctly matches the internal impedance of the cable system as viewed from the subscriber terminal, shall not be less than 1 millivolt across an internal impedance of 75 ohms (0 dBmV). Additionally, as measured at the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is connected to the subscriber tap, it shall not be less than 1.41 millivolts across an internal impedance of 75 ohms (+3 dBmV). (At other impedance values, the minimum visual signal level, as viewed from the subscriber terminal, shall be the square root of 0.0133 (Z) millivolts and, as measured at the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is connected to the subscriber tap, shall be 2 times the
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/605print.html
  • impedance which correctly matches the internal impedance of the cable system as viewed from the subscriber terminal, shall not be less than 1 millivolt across an internal impedance of 75 ohms (0 dBmV). Additionally, as measured at the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is connected to the subscriber tap, it shall not be less than 1.41 millivolts across an internal impedance of 75 ohms (+3 dBmV). (At other impedance values, the minimum visual signal level, as viewed from the subscriber terminal, shall be the square root of 0.0133 (Z) millivolts and, as measured at the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is connected to the subscriber tap, shall be 2 times the
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • impedance which correctly matches the internal impedance of the cable system as viewed from the subscriber terminal, shall not be less than 1 millivolt across an internal impedance of 75 ohms (0 dBmV). Additionally, as measured at the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is connected to the subscriber tap, it shall not be less than 1.41 millivolts across an internal impedance of 75 ohms (+3 dBmV). (At other impedance values, the minimum visual signal level, as viewed from the subscriber terminal, shall be the square root of 0.0133 (Z) millivolts and, as measured at the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is connected to the subscriber tap, shall be 2 times the
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • impedance which correctly matches the internal impedance of the cable system as viewed from the subscriber terminal, shall not be less than 1 millivolt across an internal impedance of 75 ohms (0 dBmV). Additionally, as measured at the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is connected to the subscriber tap, it shall not be less than 1.41 millivolts across an internal impedance of 75 ohms (+3 dBmV). (At other impedance values, the minimum visual signal level, as viewed from the subscriber terminal, shall be the square root of 0.0133 (Z) millivolts and, as measured at the end of a 30 meter (100 foot) cable drop that is connected to the subscriber tap, shall be 2 times the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/97-9141.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/97-9141.html
  • RF interference problems. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.318(d) (1998). In the first year of any new or upgraded transmitter's operation, the transmitting station must satisfy all complaints of blanketing interference with most common devices at no cost to the complainant. See id. § 73.318(b). In addition, the Homeowners may file informal requests for action with the FCC. See id. § 1.41. They may also ask the FCC to deny renewal of WIZN's license on the ground that the interference is so severe that it violates the public interest. See 47 U.S.C. § 307(c)(1); Broyde, 13 F.3d at 998. Judicial review of FCC decisions and orders is available in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/02-1060-022404.pdf
  • the FCC or initiate any proceeding in that agency before resorting to this court. As the FCC points out in its brief, there are several avenues by which Tennant could have filed, and may still be able to file, a petition with the Commission. FCC Br. at 30 n.108 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.2 (motion for declaratory ruling); id. § 1.41 (informal request for FCC action); id. § 1.401 (petition for rulemaking); id. § 1.1307(c) (petition alleging that action otherwise categorically excluded from environ- mental review will have significant environmental effect)). The closest thing in the record to a request for FCC action is Tennant's December 1998 letter to the ACHP, a copy of which was sent to the chairman of
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/03-3388-062404.pdf
  • encourage the emergence of a larger number of competitive broadcast networks to join 211 the existing seven."). The Merger Guidelines, which the Commission looked to in setting its local license caps, contemplate the possibility that in instances where current revenue market shares are misleading indicators of competitive performance, equal shares can be imputed to each competitor. DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines § 1.41 n.15 ("Where all firms have, on a forward-looking basis, an equal likelihood of securing sales, the Agency will assign firms equal shares."). Moreover, the majority discounts the Commission's assertion that local limits contribute to the Agency's diversity goals. "Ensuring that several competitors remain within each of the radio and television services, we also ensure that a number of independent outlets
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/enbanc022703_docs/Owen.pdf
  • would be re- 9 markable indeed for the Commission to adopt an ownership concentration metric that im- plies, as a social ideal, that all ideas should be equally popular. Moreover, unlike economic markets, the usage of particular media, technologies or chan- nels has no incentive effect on media owners when it comes to possible suppression of ideas. The Guidelines (at §1.41 and n. 15) specifically contemplate the possibility that, in circumstances where current revenue market shares are misleading indicators of competi- tive significance, equal shares should be imputed to each competitor. There are few politically or socially significant ideas that can be expressed only through a particular medium. While the effectiveness of each medium may vary from one idea to another,
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/roundtable_docs/napoli-stmt.pdf
  • Households -.001 .001 -.23 Avg. Household Income -.00004.00 -.06 Percent Minority .002 .02 .01 Competitive Conditions Public TV Stations -.17 .31 -.06 Cable Penetration .03 .04 .07 Commercial TV Stations .52** .16 .51 Station Characteristics Station Revenues (000) .00001.00 .14 VHF/UHF (0 = U; 1 = V) .82 .79 .11 Big Four Affiliate (0 = No; 1 = Yes) 3.1* 1.41 .35 Other Net Affiliate (0 = No; 1 = Yes) -.19 1.20 -.02 Local Owner (0 = No; 1 = Yes) 1.59* .79 .20 National Audience Reach (000) .00001.00 .04 Constant -3.67 4.51 Adjusted R2 = .24 (p < .01). * p < .05. ** p < .01. 17 Localism Policy Priorities When we assess these results within the context
• http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/summary_data_minority_ownership_2006-2007.pdf
  • MO 64114 F 1.22 Not Hisp. or Latino Black or Afr. Amer. EWELL .W. FINLEY, INDIVIDUAL AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF CARTER FAMILY TRUST, P.O. BOX 2943, 35 TOWER RIDGE RD., OAK BLUFFS, MA 02557 M 0.56 Not Hisp. or Latino W DONALD H. LOUDON, SR, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF CARTER FAMILY TRUST, 1008 WEST 67TH STREET, KANSAS CITY, MO 64113 M 1.41 Not Hisp. or Latino Black or Afr. Amer. CHRISTOPHER RODERICK CARTER WILLIAMS, 8220 EAST OXFORD CIRCLE, #7206, WICHITA, KS 67226 M 1.06 Not Hisp. or Latino Black or Afr. Amer. DAVID O. CARTER, 5333 NE HOLIDAY DRIVE, LEE'S SUMMIT, MO 64064 M 37.68 Not Hisp. or Latino Black or Afr. Amer. MICHAEL L. CARTER, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE FOR MILDRED M. CARTER
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/documents/fcc9728.pdf
  • was due. We believe that these amounts of time were sufficient to prepare a filing. Accordingly, we deny CPI's Motion to Accept Late-Filed Comments and do not accept its filings into the record in this proceeding. However, in light of CPI's interest in promoting competition, we will treat its late-filed Comments as an informal request for Commission action under Section 1.41 of our Rules,38 and will address its concerns briefly below. III. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Sections 310(d) of the Communications Act and 7 and 11 of the Clayton Act 11. Section 310(d) of the Communications Act requires that we determine whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by the transfer of control of a company holding radio licenses.39
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/nextel-motorola/da010947.doc
  • MHz of this spectrum is currently being used to provide land-based trunked dispatch, and therefore, only a portion of this spectrum should be included in a market concentration analysis. The Revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines suggest using the variable that best indicates firms' future competitive significance, which may include sales, shipments, production, capacity, or reserves. Revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines at § 1.41. Both the Applicants and Southern use spectrum as the underlying variable for their market concentration analyses. Spectrum is an input in the provision of telecommunication services and a measure of capacity. For the trunked dispatch market, measures of output are unavailable. The choice of spectrum may be a reasonable alternative, but when, as here, extensive build-out has occurred, spectrum is
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/lowincome.html
  • are not fully developed in the record. [83]Word [84]PDF * TracFone Wireless, Inc. Order: 8/2/2011, In this order, we dismiss without prejudice a request filed by the Adams County E-911 Emergency Telephone Service Authority, the Arapahoe County E-911 Emergency Communication Service Authority, and the Jefferson County Emergency Communications Authority (collectively, the Colorado 911 Authorities) seeking Commission action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commissions rules. The Colorado 911 Authorities request that the Commission reject TracFone Wireless Inc.s (TracFone) self-certification that it is in compliance with basic 911 and enhanced 911 (E911) requirements in the state of Colorado and compel TracFone to comply with Colorado law relating to 911 funding. [85]Word [86]PDF * American Broadband and Telecommunications Public Notice: 7/26/2011, The Wireline
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/welcome.html
  • Wildflower Telecommunications, LLC (Wildflower) (collectively, the petitioners). [527]Word [528]PDF 8/2/2011 TracFone Wireless, Inc.'s Self-Certification Order: In this order, we dismiss without prejudice a request filed by the Adams County E-911 Emergency Telephone Service Authority, the Arapahoe County E-911 Emergency Communication Service Authority, and the Jefferson County Emergency Communications Authority (collectively, the Colorado 911 Authorities) seeking Commission action pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commissions rules. The Colorado 911 Authorities request that the Commission reject TracFone Wireless Inc.s (TracFone) self-certification that it is in compliance with basic 911 and enhanced 911 (E911) requirements in the state of Colorado and compel TracFone to comply with Colorado law relating to 911 funding. [529]Word [530]PDF July 2011 7/27/2011 Loving Municipal Schools Order: In this order,